Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DegP scope revisited

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The semantic literature takes degree operators like the comparative, but also measure phrases, the equative, the superlative and so on, to be quantifiers over degrees. This is well motivated by their semantic contribution, but leads one to expect far more scope interaction than is actually observed. This paper proposes an alternative-semantic analysis of certain degree constructions, in particular constructions with little and other negative antonyms. Restrictions on scope can then be explained as intervention effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch, Dorit. 2002. Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presupposition. In Proceedings of SALT 12, ed. B. Jackson, 1–19. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid: 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. PhD diss., Universität Tübingen. http://www2.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/Alumni/Dissertationen/beck.pdf.

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2007. The grammar of focus evaluation. In ‘Interfaces + Recursion = Language’? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland, and Hans-Martin Gärtner. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2010. Quantifiers in than-clauses. Semantics and Pragmatics 3: 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2011. Comparison constructions. In Handbook of semantics, ed. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 1341–1389. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2012. Lucinda driving too fast again—the scalar properties of ambiguous than-clauses. Journal of Semantics doi:10.1093/jos/ffr011.

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 165–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 289–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Hotze Rullmann. 1999. A flexible approach to exhaustivity in questions. Natural Language Semantics 7: 249–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Shravan Vasishth. 2009. Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics 26: 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh, and Shoichi Takahashi. To appear. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

  • Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. M. Bierwisch, and E. Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Breakstone, Micha Y., Alexandre Cremers, Danny Fox, and Martin Hackl. 2011. Processing degree operator movement: Implications for semantics of differentials. Paper presented at SALT 2011, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • Büring, Daniel. 2007. When less is more (and when it isn’t). Paper presented at the Chicago Linguistic Society Meeting, Chicago.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G., D. Fox, and B. Spector. To appear. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Handbook of semantics, ed. C. Maienborn, P. Portner, and K. von Heusinger. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Elena, Guerzoni. 2006. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 359–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fintel, Kai von, and Sabine Iatridou. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2): 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 2006. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Ms., MIT.

  • Frey, Werner. 1989. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die Interpretation. PhD diss., Universität Stuttgart.

  • Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take ‘five’: The meaning and use of a number word. In Non-definiteness and plurality, ed. Svetlana Vogeleer, and Liliane Tasmowski. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Caroline Féry, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 2006. Remarks on comparative clauses as generalized quantifiers. Manuscript, MIT. http://www.semanticsarchive.net.

  • Heim, Irene. 2007. Little. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. M. Gibson, and J. Howell. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 2008. Decomposing antonyms? In Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 2007, ed. A. Gronn, 212–225. Oslo: ILOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhle, T. 1991. On reconstruction and coordination. In Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar, ed. H. Haider, and K. Netter, 139–198. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, Sabine, and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. Modals, negation and polarity. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 15, Saarbrücken.

  • Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, Joachim. 1989. Skopus und Kohärenz. Manuscript, Universität Wuppertal.

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. PhD diss., UC Santa Cruz.

  • Krasikova, Svetlana. 2010. Modals in comparatives. PhD diss., Universität Tübingen.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, vol. 1, ed. K. Turner, 257–291. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Ladusaw, W.A. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin.

  • Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic haloes. Language 75: 522–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Linebarger, Marcia. 1987. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oda, Toshiko. 2008. Degree constructions in Japanese. PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

  • Pafel, Jürgen. 1991. Zum relativen Quantorenskopus im Deutschen. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 5, Universität Tübingen.

  • Penka, Doris. 2010. Negative indefinites. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics No. 32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rett, Jessica. 2008. Evaluativity and antonymy. Proceedings of SALT 17, 210–227. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Sauerland, Uli, and Fabian Heck. 2003. LF intervention effects in pied-piping. Proceedings of NELS 2002, 347–366. Amherst: GLSA.

  • Schwarzschild, Roger, and Karina Wilkinson. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Yael, and Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 453–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M. 2002. Like: The discourse particle and semantics. Journal of Semantics 19: 35–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stateva, Penka. 2000. In defense of the movement theory of superlatives. In Proceedings of ESCOL 1999, ed. Rebecca Daly, and Anastasia Riehl, 215–226. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stateva, Penka. 2002. How different are different degree constructions? PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

  • Stechow, Arnim von. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stechow, Arnim von. 2005. Different approaches to the semantics of comparison. Ms., University of Tübingen.

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In MIT working papers in linguistics, ed. Naoki Fukui, Tova R. Rapoport, and Elisabeth Sagey, 245–265. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiemann, Sonja, Vera Hohaus, and Sigrid Beck. To appear. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison: Evidence from child language acquisition. Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2010, Tübingen.

  • Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule order in syntax. PhD diss., MIT.

  • Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Englisches Seminar, Universität Tübingen, Wilhelmstr. 50, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Sigrid Beck

Authors
  1. Sigrid Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrid Beck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beck, S. DegP scope revisited. Nat Lang Semantics 20, 227–272 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9081-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation