(1)
All the men didn’t go.
[quantifier-negation configuration]
a.
surface-scope (all>not): For every man, that man did not go.
b.
inverse-scope (not>all): It is not the case that every man went (possibly,
some men went and some did not).
(2)
A student read every book, [double-quantifier configuration]
a.
surface-scope (a>every): There exists a specific student who read all
the books.
b.
inverse-scope (every>a): For every book, there is a (potentially
different) student who read it.
(1)
All the men didn’t go.
a.
surface-scope (all>not): For every man, that man did not go.
b.
inverse-scope (not>all): It is not the case that every man went (possibly,
some men went and some did not).
(3)
a.
Accent A
“A relative leveling off of the accentable syllable followed by a relatively abrupt drop, either within the accentable syllable (which is prolonged for the purpose) or in the immediately following syllable...? (Bolinger, 1958, p. 142).
b.
Accent B
“The characteristic of this accent is upmotion. It is neither skipped down to nor skipped down from. It may be approached from below and skipped up to, with the following motion continuing level, or rising (the usual thing), or falling slightly (an abrupt drop would create an A)...? (Bolinger, 1958, p. 142).
(4)
Fred didn’t see John.
(5)
(Which one of them didn’t see John?)
FRED didn’t see John.
Presupposition: λx [x didn’t see John] is well-formed
Assertion: Fred G λx [x didn’t see John]
(6)
FRED didn’t see John. (BILL did)
Presupposition: λx [x saw John] is well-formed
Assertion: Fred g λx [x saw John]
(7)
ALL the men didn’t go.
Presupposition: λQ [Q of the men didn’t go] is well-formed
Assertion: all e λQ [Q of the men didn’t go]
(8)
ALL the men didn’t go.
Presupposition: λQ [Q of the men went] is well-formed
Assertion: all g λQ [Q of the men went]
(9)
Elephantiasis isn’t incurable.
(10)
A: Did you feed the animals?
B: I fed the \cat/.
(11)
A: So you speak Sephardic?
B: Huh?
A: Do you speak Ladino?
B: I speak \Spa/nish.
(12)
George said that everyone had left for the game by five, but I know that all the men didn’t go that early
(13)
All the moms didn’t allow eyeliner.
a.
They were all in agreement.
b.
Only the moms of the older girls let their daughters wear it.
(14)
Some of the girls in the neighborhood decided to throw a party where they
would help each other apply makeup in preparation for the upcoming
dance. The girls anticipated that some of their moms wouldn’t let them
wear eyeliner. It turns out that the moms were all on the same page. All the
moms didn’t allow eyeliner. This didn’t come as a real surprise.
(15)
Several moms were helping their daughters get ready for the upcoming school dance. This is a progressive school, and moms are usually lenient about certain things, so even the younger girls thought their moms would approve of eyeliner. But at the dance only the older girls were wearing it. All the moms didn’t allow eyeliner. Only the moms of the older girls let their daughters wear it.
(2)
A student read every book.
a.
surface-scope (a>every): There exists a specific student who read all
the books.
b.
inverse-scope (every>a): For every book, there is a (potentially
different) student who read it.
(16)
a. A girl stroked every kitten.
b. One girl stroked every kitten.
c. ONE girl stroked every kitten.
(17)
a.
Mindestens ein Student hat jeden Roman gelesen.
at least one-NOM student has every-ACC novel read
“At least one student has read every novel.? (at least one>every)
b.
Mindestens /EIN Student hat \JEDen Roman gelesen.
at least one-NOM student has every-ACC novel read
“At least one student has read every novel.?
(at least one>every; every>at least one)
(18)
a.
Is fall-rise intonation related to availability of inverse scope in English
only in quantifier-negation, or in double-quantifier configurations as well?
b.
Does fall-rise intonation require inverse scope, or only facilitate it?
(19)
a.
All the girls didn’t leave.
[all-neg]
b.
Every girl didn’t leave.
[every-neg]
c.
Each girl didn’t leave.
[each-neg]
d.
A girl trained every seal.
[a-every]
(20)
a.
“SS-matching? context for sentences (19a-c):
Anna, Lily and Jessica went to a party Because it was Friday night, they decided to stay longer at the party and have more drinks. both surface-scope and inverse-scope readings of (19a-c) true.
b.
“IS-matching? context for sentences (19a-c):
Jenny, Diane, Emma and Becky were studying in the library Jenny and Diane had to leave because they had other appointments, while Emma and Becky continued staying in the library surface-scope reading of (19a-c) false, inverse-scope reading true.
(21)
a.
“SS-matching? context for sentence (19d):
Chloe worked in an aquarium. Yesterday, she trained the three seals named Felix, Cody and Nova in the aquarium to balance balls on their noses. both surface-scope and inverse-scope readings of (19d) true.
b.
“IS-matching? context for sentences (19d):
Angelina, Michelle and Isabel were asked to train three seals named Roy, Paco and Orion. Therefore, Angelina trained Roy; Michelle trained Paco; and Isabel trained Orion.surface-scope reading of (19d) false, inverse-scope reading true.
Table 1
Model 1 output: quantifier-negation conditions
Table 2
Model 1 pairwise comparisons
Table 3
Model 2 output: double-quantifier conditions
(18)
a.
Is fall-rise intonation related to availability of inverse scope in English
only in quantifier-negation, or in double-quantifier configurations as well?
b.
Does fall-rise intonation require inverse scope, or only facilitate it?
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
