Binding Alongside Hamblin Alternatives Calls for Variable-free Semantics

Abstract

The compositional, bottom-up computation of alternative sets was first introduced by Hamblin (1973) into Montague grammar to treat in-situ wh-questions. In the thirty years since then, alternative sets have found their way into theories of focus (Rooth 1985), indeterminate pronouns (Shimoyama 2001), and free-choice indefinites (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002). These theories often position alternatives as a scope-taking mechanism that operates separately from Quantifier Raising (May 1977), Quantifying In (Montague 1974), or some other scope-taking mechanism for “genuine ” quantifiers like most. On these theories, then, it is not surprising that (say) in-situ who takes scope differently from most, as is empirically observed. In particular, if “genuine ” scope requires syntactic movement but alternative scope does not, then constraints on movement apply only to the former, and we predict— correctly—that the scope of most is more restricted than the scope of in-situ who. (1) Who denied that who left? ‘Which x and y are such that x denied that y left?’ (2) Who denied that most people left?

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.