SlidesQR Semantics1 2023

Quantifier Raising
Benjamin Spector
benjamin.spector@ens.fr
April 21, 2023
1 / 26
Reminder: pronominal binding by Quantifiers
Adam loves his mother

St
Adame VP< e, t >
V<e,<e,t>> NPe
loves Pronoune N<e,e>
his1 mother
Meaning: Adam loves g (1)’s mother
2 / 26
Reminder: pronominal binding by Quantifiers
Adam loves his mother

St
Adame S<e,t>
1 St
t1 VP< e, t >
V<e,<e,t>> NPe
loves Pronoune N<e,e>
his1 mother
Meaning: Adam loves his own mother 3 / 26
The type-mismatch problem for object quantifiers
Joane VP
V<e,<e,t>> DP<<e,t>,t>
likes everybody
4 / 26
Solving the type-mismatch problem by movement:
Quantifier Raising
St
DP<<e,t>,t> < e, t >
Everybody
1 St
Joane VP
V<e,<e,t>> DPe
likes t1
5 / 26
Computing truth conditions after QR
QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]
[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx. [[likes]] M,g[x/1] ([[t1 ]] M,g[x/1] )(j)
=λx.likes(g [x/1](1))(j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)
[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

= [[Everybody]]M,g ([[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g )
= [[Everybody]]M,g (λx.likes(x)(j))
= [λP.∀y (Human(y ) → P(y )]([λx.likes(x)(j)])
= ∀y (Human(y ) → [λx.likes(x)(j)](y ))
= ∀y (Human(y ) → likes(y )(j))
6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26

= λx. [[likes t1 ]] M,g[x/1] (j)
= λx.likes(x)(j)

6 / 26
Inverse Scope
(1) A doctor examined every patient

a. There is a doctor who examined every patient.
b. For every patient x, there is a doctor who examined x.
• Exercise: translate these two sentences into Predicate
Logic.
7 / 26
Translation Exercise
(2) There is a doctorwho examined every patient?
∃x(doctor(x) ∧ (∀y (patient(y ) → (x examined y ))))
(3) For every patient, there is a doctor who examined them.
∀y (patient(y ) → ∃x(doctor(x) ∧ (x examined y )))
8 / 26
Structure before QR (with simple, in fact simplistic syntax)
NP VP
A doctor
examined NP
every patient
9 / 26
Moving the object to resolve the type-mismatch gives us
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP
a doctor examined t1
[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ every patient]]M,g (λx.[[a doctor examined t1 )]]M, g[x/1] ) =
[ every patient]]M,g ([λx. [ a doctor]]M,g[x/1] ([[examined t1 ] M,g[x/1 )])=
[ every patient]]M,g ([λx. [ a doctor]]M,g[x/1] (examined(g [x/1](1))])=
[ every patient]]M,g ([λx. [ a doctor]]M,g[x/1] (examined(x))])=
[λP<e,t> .∀b(patient(b) → P(b))]([λx.[λQ<e,t> .∃y (doctor(y ) ∧ Q(y ))](examined(x))])=
[λP<e,t> .∀b(patient(b) → P(b))]([λx.∃y (doctor(y ) ∧ examined(x)(y ))])=
∀b(patient(b) → [λx.∃y (doctor(y ) ∧ examined(x)(y ))](b))=
∀b(patient(b) → ∃y (doctor(y ) ∧ examined(b)(y )))
10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
inverse scope
S”
NP S’
every patient
1 S
NP VP

10 / 26
LF for surface scope
NP
A doctor 2
NP
1 S
every patient
t2 examined t1
[ every patient [1[t2 examined t1 ]]]]M,g = ∀b(patient(b) → examined(b)(g (2)))

[ 2[every patient [1[t2 examined t1 ]]]]]M,g = λx. [ every patient [1[t2 examined t1 ]]]]M,g[x/2] =
λx.(patient(b) → examined(b)(g [x/2](2))) = λx.(patient(b) → examined(b)(x))
(‘λx.x examined every patient b’).
11 / 26
Locality Constraints (’islands’) on overt Movement
(4) I wonder who1 you saw t1

For which person x, you saw x
(5) I wonder who1 you think (that) I qaw t1
‘For which person x, you think that I saw x?’
• An example of a wh-island: adjuncts.
(6) *I wonder who1 you fell asleep before you met t1 ‘For which
person x, you fell asleep before you met x?’
12 / 26
Locality Constraints (’islands’) on overt Movement
(4) I wonder who1 you saw t1

For which person x, you saw x
(5) I wonder who1 you think (that) I qaw t1
‘For which person x, you think that I saw x?’
• An example of a wh-island: adjuncts.
(6) *I wonder who1 you fell asleep before you met t1 ‘For which
person x, you fell asleep before you met x?’
12 / 26
Locality Constraints (’islands’) on Inverse Scope

Possible: For every patient, a doctor examined them.
(8) A doctor fell asleep before examining every patient
Impossible: for every patient, there is a doctor who slept
before examining them.
• Clause-Boundedness of QR vs. wh-movement
(9) A nurse thought that the doctor had examined every patient
Impossible: For every patient, a (possibly different) nurse
thought that the doctor had examined them.
But:
(10) Who1 did a nurse think that the doctor had examined t1 ?
13 / 26

But:
13 / 26

But:
13 / 26
Antecedent Contained Deletion
(11) Jonh [VP read every book that Mary did [VP . . . ]]
Infinite regress: the elided VP is contained in its antecedent!
• Solving the infinite regress problem through QR

S
NP
1 S
every book that1 Mary read t1 John VP
read t1
• Note: having twice the same index, bound by two distinct

lambda-abstractors, is ok!
14 / 26
Antecedent Contained Deletion
(11) Jonh [VP read every book that Mary did [VP . . . ]]
Infinite regress: the elided VP is contained in its antecedent!
• Solving the infinite regress problem through QR

S
NP
1 S
every book that1 Mary read t1 John VP
read t1
• Note: having twice the same index, bound by two distinct

lambda-abstractors, is ok!
14 / 26
Interaction between Antecedent-Contained Deletion and
Scope
(12) John refused to read every book

a. John refused to do the following: read every book
b. Every book is such that John refused to read it
(13) John refused to read every book that Mary did
a. . . . that Mary did read
b. . . . that Mary did refuse to read
15 / 26
ACD and scope, continued
We have two sources of ambiguity, each reading depending on a)
the scope every book that Mary read, and b) the way ellipsis is
resolved. 4 conceivable readings, but only 3 are attested:
(14) Narrow-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.

John refused to do the following: read every book that
Mary read.
(15) Wide-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.
Every book that Mary read, John refused to read it.
(16) Narrow-scope, wide resolution: impossible.
Mary refused to read.
(17) Wide-scope, wide resolution: possible.
Every book that Mary refused to read, John refused to
read it.
16 / 26

Mary read.
read it.
16 / 26

Mary read.
read it.
16 / 26

Mary read.
read it.
16 / 26

Mary read.
read it.
16 / 26
• This is predicted: for the ellispsis to be interpreted as

refused to read, the QP has to move out of the VP headed
by refused. This entails that the QP will have escaped the
scope of refused to read.
(18) John refused PRO to read everybook that Mary did.
(19) [Every book that1 Mary did refuse to read t1 ] [1 [John [VP
refused PRO to read t1 ] ]
(20) John refused [ [ everybook that1 Mary did read t1 ] [1
[PRO [VP read t1 ] ] ] ]
17 / 26
Negation and subjects
(21) Every child didn’t sleep

a. Surface scope: No child slept.
b. Inverse scope: Not every child slept.
(22) Several children didn’t sleep
a. Surface scope: Several children failed to sleep
b. Inverse scope: It is not the case that several children
slept (not accessible).
18 / 26
(21) Every child didn’t sleep

a. Surface scope: No child slept.
b. Inverse scope: Not every child slept.
(22) Several children didn’t sleep
a. Surface scope: Several children failed to sleep
b. Inverse scope: It is not the case that several children
slept (not accessible).
18 / 26
Inverse scope for (22) more accessible in certain environments
(23) More than two guests didn’t come

Hard: ‘No more than two guests came’
(24) If more than two guests had not come, the party would
have been a disaster. Possible: If ino more than two
guests had come, the party would have been a disaster.
19 / 26
VP-internal Subject Hypothesis
.
VP-internal subject hypothesis: subjects are base-generated’ in the
VP, and move (overtly) to the next phrase, TP (tense phrase).
• ‘Surface-Structure’.
TP
DP
1 T’
Several children
T PolP
did not VP
t1 sleep
20 / 26
VP-internal Subject, continued
• LF for Wide-Scope over negation
TP
DP
1 T’
Every child
T PolP
did not VP
t1 sleep
21 / 26
VP-internal Subject and Recontruction
• LF for Narrow-Scope below negation: the subject

‘reconstructs’ at LF in its VP-internal position.
TP
T’
T PolP
did
not VP
DP V
every child sleep
22 / 26
Raising Predicates
Raising Predicates are predicates whose subjects seem to ‘originate’
in a lower subordinate clause - as visible with expletive pronouns.
(25) a. Adam seems to be tired

b. It seems to be raining.
c. There seems to be someone
Form of expletive pronoun depends on the embedded verb. In

some languages, the case marking of the subjet would depend on
the most embedded verb?
(26) a. It did not rain

b. There did not seem to be someone.
c. It must be raining
d. There must be someone.
Discusssion of French ‘avoir l’air’ vs. ‘avoir un air’.

23 / 26
Reconstruction with raising predicates
(27) A student seems to be sick.

a. Wide scope reading: there is a student who seems to
be sick
b. Narrow scope reading: it seems that a student is sick.
(28) Several people must come for the performance to take
place.
Possible reading: it must be the case that several people
come for the performance to take place.
(29) a. Quelqu’un semble avoir marché ici.
b. Someone seems to have walked here. Possible
reading: it seems that someone walked here.
24 / 26

be sick
place.
24 / 26

be sick
place.
24 / 26
Revising subject and object scope interactions
• Surface-Scope: object moves to the top of the VP for type

reasons, Subject is interpreted in its surface position
(30) TP
A doctor2 T’
2 T’
(has) VP
DP VP
every patient1
1 VP
t2 V’
examined t1
25 / 26
Revising subject and object scope interactions
• Inverse-Scope: object moves to the top of the VP for type

reasons, Subject reconstructs to its VP-internal position
(31) TP
T’
(has) VP
DP VP
every patient1
1 VP
a doctor V’
examined t1
26 / 26

SlidesQR Semantics1 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SlidesQR Semantics1 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quantifier Raising

April 21, 2023

Adam loves his mother

Adame VP< e, t >

loves Pronoune N<e,e>

Adam loves his mother

loves Pronoune N<e,e>

DP<<e,t>,t> < e, t >

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

QR ; [Everybody][1 [Joan likes t1 ]

[[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g = λx.[[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g[x/1]

[[[Everybody[1[Joan likes t1 ]]M,g

(1) A doctor examined every patient

(2) There is a doctorwho examined every patient?

∃x(doctor(x) ∧ (∀y (patient(y ) → (x examined y ))))

(3) For every patient, there is a doctor who examined them.

∀y (patient(y ) → ∃x(doctor(x) ∧ (x examined y )))

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ S]]M,g = [ every patient]]M,g ([[1[a doctor examined t1 ] ] M,g ) =

[ every patient [1[t2 examined t1 ]]]]M,g = ∀b(patient(b) → examined(b)(g (2)))

(4) I wonder who1 you saw t1

(4) I wonder who1 you saw t1

(7) A doctor examined every patient

(7) A doctor examined every patient

(7) A doctor examined every patient

Infinite regress: the elided VP is contained in its antecedent!

• Solving the infinite regress problem through QR

every book that1 Mary read t1 John VP

• Note: having twice the same index, bound by two distinct

Infinite regress: the elided VP is contained in its antecedent!

• Solving the infinite regress problem through QR

every book that1 Mary read t1 John VP

• Note: having twice the same index, bound by two distinct

(12) John refused to read every book

(14) Narrow-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.

(14) Narrow-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.

(14) Narrow-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.

(14) Narrow-scope, narrow resolution of ellipsis: possible.