  STRATEGIES FOR SCOPE TAKING   Anna Szabolcsi Department of Linguistics UCLA  OVERVIEW Standard theories of scope are semantically blind They employ a single logico syntactic rule of scope assignment quantifying in Quantier Raising storage or type change etc which roughly speaking prexes an expression   to a domain D and thereby assigns scope to it over D irrespective of what   means and irrespective of what operator  may occur in D

 The semantically blind rule of scope assignment

 D            scopes over  There are two basic ways in which  turns out to be incorrect the result ing interpretation may be incoherent or the resulting interpretation may be coherent but not available for the string it is assigned to Szabolcsi and Zwarts  focus on the rst case Take a version of  that is assumed to operate in surface syntax whfronting In a sizable class of cases called weak island violations this rule yields unacceptable results For instance

 a Who do you think that I mentioned this rumor to b Who do you regret that I mentioned this rumor to c Who didnt you mention this rumor to  a How do you think that I solved this problem  This paper has been presented in talks and in class in Budapest at MIT at UCLA at CSSP  and at the Tenth Amsterdam Colloquium I thank the audiences of these presenta tions for comments I am grateful to Michael Brody Diana Cresti Carmen DobrovieSorin Donka Farkas Irene Heim Laszlo Kalman Yoad Winter and most of all Dorit BenShalom for discussion This research was partially supported by NSF grant SBR 

      Chapter  b  How do you regret that I solved this problem c  How didnt you solve this problem  a Who do you think that I got the ring I am wearing from b  Who do you regret that I got the ring I am wearing from c  Who didnt you get the ring that you are wearing from Szabolcsi and Zwarts submit that the violation is semantic in nature How in b c and who in b c ought to scope over domains D that they are unable to The reason is that manners and collectives are elements of proper join semilattices Szabolcsi and Zwarts argue that the computation of the denotation of a factive context requires taking meets and that of the negative context complements Since these operations are not dened in join semi lattices manners and collectives cannot scope over such contexts For the moment let it suce that the     scope relation pace  is not semantically unconstrained To illustrate the second case which the present paper is concerned with consider the fact that quantiers in English often scope over operators that are higher in the surface syntactic hierarchy These cases are attributed to the covert operation of  This account predicts that all quantiers   interact uniformly with all operators  But they do not Eg some but not all direct objects can scope over the subject  and some but not all direct objects can scope over negation     a Three referees read every abstract every N  three N b Three referees read few abstracts few N  three N  a John didnt read many abstracts many N  not b John didnt read few abstracts few N  not It turns out that these contrasts have to do with semantics too however they pertain to the syntaxsemantics interface rather than pure semantics That is the starred examples are not incoherent simply the given form cannot carry  The scope interpretation that matches surface hierarchy often outshines the one that does not Y Winter pc suggests that in checking whether the latter inverse reading is possible it is useful to test examples where the primary reading is pragmatically dispreferred This procedure lets real inverse readings shine without creating the false impression that all inverse readings are possible some examples will just end up nonsensical Strategies for Scope Taking     the intended meaning Proof is that the same  s are able to scope over the same s in English when they are originally higher in syntactic structure  or when they acquire such a higher position via overt fronting 

 a Few referees read three abstracts few N  three N b Few women didnt like John few N  not  Few men did no oneevery womantwo women like few N  no N every N two N Examples comparable to  are in fact standard in Hungarian a language that disambiguates scope in surface structure see below It does not seem desirable to develop a theory that maintains the omnivo rous rule  and supplements it with a variety of lters on its overt or covert application Such a strategy would simply not be explanatory Instead I argue for an approach that is as constructive as possible This constructive method ology is in the same spirit as the combinatory categorial approach to syntax in Szabolcsi  and references cited therein although the results to be discussed in this chapter are entirely independent of categorial grammar The assumption is that quantication involves a variety of distinct se mantically conditioned processes Each kind of expression participates in those processes that suit its particular semantic properties Thus the heuristic prin ciple is this

 What range of quantiers actually participates in a given process is suggestive of exactly what that process consists in Based on data in Liu   proposals how to devise semantically con ditioned specialized scopal mechanisms were rst made in BenShalom  and Beghelli  A both empirically and theoretically more fully developed version of the latter is Beghelli and Stowell   and Beghelli  In this paper I rst summarize those features of BenShaloms semantic proposal that will be important in the core discussion I proceed to review ing certain aspects of Beghelli and Stowells syntactic theory and suggest that data from Hungarian a language that wears its LF on its sleeve provide specic empirical support for them Then I propose that Beghelli and Stowells LF especially in the light of some of the Hungarian data can be quite di rectly mapped onto somewhat modied Kamp and Reyle  style Discourse Representations The main concrete modication to be proposed pertains to Potentially other dynamic theories could be used too Kamp and Reyles is special in that it happens to include signicant work on plurals as opposed to Heims   File    Chapter  widening the class of discourse referents Finally the Hungarian data will be shown to provide evidence that the denotational semantics of the noun phrase delimits but does not determine whether it introduces a discourse referent  CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACHES TO DIFFERENTIAL SCOPE TAKING  BenShalom  BenShalom restricts her attention to a representative subset of the data in Liu  that do not involve partitives Some features of her proposal that are directly relevant to the present paper are as follows Consider  and  

 Three referees read every abstract   Three referees read fewer than ve abstracts The standard way to calculate the object wide scope O  S reading of  is to form the set of things read by three referees and check whether every abstract is in that set But if the formation of this set which is not the denotation of a surface syntactic constituent of the sentence is a freely available option then it can be used in calculating an O  S reading for   too This is the standard assumption in the literature However   does not readily admit an O  S reading This suggests that the O  S reading of  is not calculated in the above mentioned way either Rather it must be calculated in some alternative way that is available when the intended wide scope quantier is say every abstract but not when it is say fewer than ve abstracts BenShalom proposes that inverse scope is eected by a specic binary quantier O  S   If S and O are generalized quantiers and R is the relation denoted by a transitive verb the binary quantier O  S is dened to operate as follows

For every a  A SRa where A is some set determined by O Change semantics The intuition my analysis is based on relies on the representational character of DRT it remains to be seen whether DPLstyle reincarnations of DRT would be equally suited to this purpose Lius generalizations are reviewed in Section  of Beghelli BenShalom and Szabolcsi

 Strategies for Scope Taking    xSRx is the property denoted by the subjectverb segment of the sen tence in the examples at hand it is the property of being read by three referees Informally  says Grab a set A determined by the quantier denoted by the object and check for every element a of this set whether it has the prop erty that three referees read it The fact that BenShalom formulates her proposal using a binary quantier is immaterial for our present concerns so it will not be dwelt on Let us underline the procedural dierence between the standard calculation of scope and the one encoded by O  S  The dierence is twofold On the standard account we construct the set denoted by xSRx and let O operate on it Using O  S  this set does not need to be constructed and O is not a predicate operator Instead O contributes a domain of entities each of which is checked for the property xSRx  The binary quantier O  S works most straightforwardly when O is a principal lter because a principal lter determines a unique set called its generator within its restrictor The unique set every man

determines is the set of men the unique set John and Bill

determines is the set fjohn billg etc When O is just monotone increasing it determines several suitable sets in a big enough model called its witnesses so the operation of O  S is less simple but still perfectly viable But when O is monotone decreasing or non monotonic it does not determine any suitable set on its own As is explained in detail in Chapter  the truth conditions of Fewer than six men walk or Exactly six men walk cannot be specied as There is a set A consisting of fewer thanexactly six men such that each a  A walks Hence O  S is inapplicable to nonincreasing quantiers According to BenShalom O  S captures the empirical facts correctly because the best inverse scope takers in English are indeed principal lters In the discussion below I will consider a wider range of quantiers in a wider range of contexts and propose a somewhat similar account of them exploiting the fact that the strategy Grab a witness set and check its elements for property P generalizes exactly to the increasing quantiers The discussion of Beghelli and Stowells proposal will make clear that how ever insightful BenShaloms proposal is the overall picture of scope interaction is more complex than Lius pioneering work suggested Two important factors are i the need to factor out the contribution of distributivity and ii the fact that the possibility of inverse scope depends not only on the choice of the wide It might be objected that checking whether an entity has property  xS R x involves checking whether it is in the corresponding set but this is not really so To use a mathematical example we may not be able to construct the set of prime numbers but we may well be able to determine whether a given number is a prime by examining what its divisors are This example also reveals that the checking procedure may be intensional andor invoke inferential processes I thank Ed Keenan for discussion on this issue    Chapter  scope taker but sometimes also on the choice of the narrow scope taker Thus the account requires a more complex set of assumptions  Beghelli and Stowell    Like BenShalom Beghelli and Stowell dispense with Quantier Raising an omnivorous movement rule without a specic landing site and propose that Logical Form in English includes among others the following hierarchy of functional projections Abbreviations RefP Referential Phrase AgrSP Subject Agreement Phrase DistP Distributive Phrase ShareP Distributed Share Phrase NegP Negative Phrase AgrIOP Indirect Object Agreement Phrase AgrOP Direct Object Agreement Phrase VP Verb Phrase  RefP Spec AgrSP Spec DistP Spec ShareP Spec NegP Spec AgrIOP Spec AgrOP Spec VP Each type of quantier acquires its scope by moving into the specier of that functional projection which suits its semantic andor morphological properties When the sentence contains more than one quantier that needs to land in a particular specier that position is lled multiply and its content undergoes absorption Some important options are as follows Denites the two men move to the specier of RefP and distributive uni versals every man to the specier of DistP The head of DistP a distributive operator selects for a ShareP complement which can accommodate either an indenite two of the men or an existential quantier over events Indenites may alternatively move to the specier of RefP See Stabler  for a reformulation of Beghelli and Stowells syntax in computationally preferable terms Strategies for Scope Taking    Modied numerals more than six men fewer than six men exactly six men and indenites whose noun is destressed do not move to either RefP DistP or ShareP They just move to the appropriate agreement specier positions to receive Case The fact that modied numeral subjects easily take widest scope follows from the fact that AgrSP in English happens to be higher than DistP and ShareP On the other hand indirect and direct object modied numerals happen to have their agreement positions quite low in the structure and they scope accordingly Scope relations arise in two ways They may simply follow from the hierar chy specied in  For instance an indenite direct object may scope above a universal subject by moving into RefP which happens to be above DistP

 a Every man read two of the books b RefP two of the books DistP every man   

Or the inverse reading of Two of the men read every book comes about by moving every book to DistP and two of the men to ShareP Inverse scope may also be due to reconstruction a phrase can be lowered into the positions of its trace typically into its VPinternal position The simplest assumption is that any kind of lowering is restricted to undoing se mantically insignicant movement ie an expression can be lowered from its Case position but not from RefP DistP or ShareP For instance  a More than three men read every book b  AgrSP more than three men   DistP every book        VP       t         The converse is not possible Every man read more than three books does not receive an inverse scope interpretation Every man cannot undo its presence in DistP and reconstruct into a VPinternal position below AgrOP

 a Every man read more than three books b AgrSP t  DistP every man  ShareP  e AgrOP   books VP    t      There is a slight dierence between  and More than three men read more than six books Denites universals and bare indenites also pass through their own agreement positions for Case reasons Since DistP and ShareP are lower than AgrSP subjects must undergo some kind of lowering when targeting these positions Various ways to execute this are discussed in Beghelli  I base this part of the overview on Beghelli  who considers the modied numerals data in greater detail than Beghelli and Stowell    Chapter   a More than three men read more than six books b  AgrSP   men   AgrOP   books        VP       t         Here inverse scope is very dicult but in contrast to  can be forced by context Since more than three men as a subject can in general reconstruct into its VPinternal position this is predicted The marginality of reconstruction when the object is also a modied numeral calls for an independent account Denites and bare indenites do not move to DistP even when they are interpreted distributively instead their distributive interpretation is due to a silent operator comparable to oated each Beghelli and Stowell call this pseudodistributivity Silent each can apparently occur below AgrSP ShareP AgrIOP and AgrOP but not below RefP This captures the fact that even when direct object three books moves to RefP and is therefore referentially independent of subject two of the men it cannot make the latter referentially dependent since there is no distributive operator between the two positions   a Two of the men read three books b RefP three books AgrSP two of the men  ShareP t    

On the other hand in the structure below the property of having read three of the books can be distributed over two men because the latter has a trace in AgrSP associated with silent each

 a Two men read three of the books b RefP two men  AgrSP t  each ShareP three of the books   

Similarly the direct object in RefP can distribute over a subject that recon structs into VP because it has a trace in AgrOP and AgrOP may have silent each associated with it In sum the distributivity of universals is due to a separate distributive operator Dist and similarly the distributivity of denites and bare indenites is due to a separate distributive operator silent each Once the distributive key and the distributive operator are separated they can move separately This possibility is made crucial use of Every man and the two men are allowed to move upward unboundedly to a higher RefP but the corresponding distributive operators being heads or adverbs stay put Thus it is predicted that  has a de re reading where every woman or two particular women have the property of there being more than six men who think that the women will fall in love with them but the men cannot vary with the women as this property does not distribute

 More than six men imagine that every womantwo women will fall in love with them Strategies for Scope Taking    The fact that Dist and each do not move up together with the fact that the QPs landing site in the higher clause RefP is itself not associated with a distributive operator underlies the traditional observation that QR is clause bounded  CLAIMS TO BE MADE Below I will examine Hungarian data in the light of Beghelli and Stowell and make the following main claims

 Hungarian distinguishes scope positions in its surface syntax that are highly reminiscent of those postulated by Beghelli and Stowell for Logical Form in English  Some noun phrases can occur in only one of the above scope positions but others can occur in more than one and their interpretations vary accordingly  It is known that the presuppositional versus existential interpretation of noun phrases may be a function of their position Hungarian is shown to exhibit similar positional distinctions in a new dimension distributivity  Scope taking mechanisms fall into two broad categories In the one case the noun phrase introduces a logical subject of predication not identical to a grammatical subject ie a nominative In the other it performs a counting operation on an independently dened predicate denotation  The above distinction is not a purely denotational one instead it is representationalprocedural It is reminiscent of the basic insight of DRT Introducing a logical subject of predication can be assimilated to introducing a discourse referent Anaphora facts will motivate a revision of what items introduce discourse referents and the distinction of two kinds of referents individuals atomic or plural and sets  In general the logical forms Beghelli and Stowell derive for English sentences can be seen as direct instructions for constructing DRSs    Chapter 

SCOPE POSITIONS IN HUNGARIAN

 Hungarian surface structure disambiguates scope Hungarian has come to be known as a language that wears its LF on its sleeve A substantial body of work by Hunyadi Kenesei !E Kiss Szabolcsi and others since the early eighties has established that surface order and into nation disambiguate scope For instance the following sentences are unam biguous the scopal order of quantiers matches their lefttoright order  a Sok ember mindenkit felh!"vott many man everyoneacc upcalled #Many men phoned everyone many men  everyone b Mindenkit sok ember felh!"vott everyoneacc many man upcalled #Many men phoned everyone everyone  many men  a Hatn!al t$obb ember h!"vott fel mindenkit sixthan more man called up everyoneacc #More than six men phoned everyone more than  men  everyone b Mindenkit hatn!al t$obb ember h!"vott fel everyoneacc sixthan more man called up #More than six men phoned everyone everyone  more than  men More precisely it is their occurrence in specic syntactic positions that denes the quantiers scope Simple syntactic tests distinguish the positions in  which I label with the pretheoretical names that have by now become more or less traditional I coined the speaking name Predicate Operator for one subtype of what is traditionally called Focus As usual the  indicates that the given position may be lled multiply   The Appendix will show that there are in fact signicant exceptions in the postverbal eld But this does not aect the argument in the bulk of the paper which pertains to preverbal DPs For simplicitys sake in this paper I will only consider cases in which the postverbal universal is unstressed It is agreed following E Kiss  that the alternative heavy stressed option involves stylistic postposing in Phonetic Form   Topics are atly intoned and not contrastive contrastive topics paraphrasable by as for     have a scooped intonation must be followed by some operator and are analyzed by E Kiss  as instances of Left Dislocation In this paper I am not concerned with Left Dislocation so even the position is omitted from the diagram Strategies for Scope Taking   

 Topic Quantier  

Negation Focus Predicate Operator  Negation Verb Postverbal The fact that lefttoright order determines scopal order follows from  For recent discussions see !E Kiss    In Hungarian operators ccommand their scope at Sstructure where ccommand is dened in terms of rst branching node Typically a Hungarian sentence with n scopebearing DPs will have n or n in the preverbal eld so that their scopes are indeed disambiguated by surface order The postverbal eld is assumed to have a at structure It is rare but possible to have more than one scopebearing DP postverbally what their relative interpretation is is an interesting question which I will return to in the Appendix Some of the diagnostics of which position a DP occupies in the preverbal eld are as follows

 a Topics but not other preverbal items can be followed by sentential adverbials like tegnap #yesterday b When a Topic or Quantier precedes a nonnegated nite verb that has a prex the prex is in proclitic position c When a Focus or Predicate Operator precedes a nonnegated nite verb that has a prex the prex occurs postverbally   d A sequence of Quantiers cannot be broken by a nonQuantier e A DP in Focus receives an exclusionbyidentication interpreta tion a DP in Predicate Operator does not

 A parallelism with Beghelli and Stowell s LF I argue that the extent to which Hungarian surface structure reveals the syntax of scope is even greater than has been thought In general it demon strates that QPs are not simply lined up in the desired scopal order but occupy   That is to say the nite V moves into a functional head that is higher than the position of the prex   Chapter  specic positions And in particular the traditionally distinguished positions correspond quite closely to the specier positions of the functional categories in Beghelli and Stowells  For the time being I ignore the postverbal eld  Hungarian Topic  Spec RefP Quantier  Spec DistP Focus with indefs  Spec ShareP Predicate Operator  Spec AgrPVP This parallelism is supported by data that pertain to i exactly what noun phrases occur in each position and ii what kind of interpretation they receive there Some restrictions on the occurrence of DPs in these positions are well known Eg a Topic must be specic and universals do not occur in Topic or Focus this latter fact was rst observed in Szabolcsi  p  However no systematic investigation of these matters has been carried out to date In what follows I examine a representative sample The data are summarized in  on the next page Note that many DPs occur in more than one position as we shall see their interpretations vary accordingly Let us see how the distribution of DPs supports the parallelism in  Proper names denites and those indenites that take widest scope in their own clause are placed into Spec RefP in Beghelli and Stowell The Hungarian counterparts when preverbal occur in Topic Distributive universals are placed into Spec DistP in Beghelli and Stowell The Hungarian counterparts when preverbal occur in Quantier position Bare indenites that scope under distributive universals are placed into Spec ShareP in Beghelli and Stowell The Hungarian counterparts can occur in Focus with a comparable scope interpretation Modied numerals which do not readily take inverse scope in English are placed into Spec AgrP or Spec VP in Beghelli and Stowell The same holds for indenites whose N is destressed and whose numeral is interpreted as exactly n The relevant Hungarian counterparts cannot occur higher than the Predicate Operator position   If a constituent of DP is set into contrast the whole DP is pied piped to Focus This option is irrelevant to us and is not indicated in the table Strategies for Scope Taking     Topic Quantier Focus PredOp PostV a legtobb u most of the boys valamely ubizonyos uk some boy s Peter Peter es Maria Peter P and M a uk the boy s hat u six boys %% sok u many boys %% minden u every boy valamennyi u each boy meg Peter is even Peter hat u is evenas many as six boys Peter is Peter too semelyik u neg concord none of the boys legalabb hat u at least six boys tobb mint hat u more than six boys  hatnal tobb u more than six boys  & pontosan hat u exactly six boys & keves u few boys & kevesebb mint hat u & hatnal kevesebb u less than six boys   & legfeljebb hat u at most six boys & uk boy s existential & With the noun destressed Only if PredOpFocus is lled or V is negated In view of the above data as well as in anticipation of the discussion below it seems justied to refer at least to Hungarian Topic as spec of HRefP and Hungarian Quantier as spec of HDistP On the other hand I will retain the labels Focus and PredOp since here it seems the pertinent similarities are   Chapter  functional and the residual dierences are signicant ShareP unlike Focus does not host denites PredOp unlike AgrP is not Caserelated etc Apart from the fact that scopal movement can be visible the crucial respect in which Hungarian diers from English is that Hungarian has no agreement Case positions mixed with the scope positions in the preverbal eld whence scope relations are independent of the argument hierarchy In the Appendix I outline an analysis of Hungarian sentence structure that among other things captures the observations above  OUTLINE OF THE ANALYSIS In what follows I will focus on the positions HRefP HDistP and PredOp and argue that their inhabitants contribute to the interpretation of the sentence as summarized in  through  Focus is omitted because it has an obvious additional semantic function that is irrelevant to the present concerns I for mulate my claims with respect to Hungarian and will argue for them using Hun garian data but recall that I believe that modulo the obvious crosslinguistic dierences these data are supportive of Beghelli and Stowells approach and my claims are intended to hold of their logical forms too In fact some of these claims are incorporated into Beghelli and Stowell     DPs that occur both in HRefP and Focus as well as valamelybizonyos N #some Ns that only occur in HRefP contribute an individual to the interpretation of the sentence ie an atomic or a plural individual the atoms of which corresponds to the elements of a minimal witness set of the DP  This individual serves as a logical subject of predication Predication may be distributive or collective depending on the nature of the predicate  A DP in HDistP contributes a set to the interpretation of the sentence ie a witness set This set serves as a logical subject of predication mediated by a distributive operator  A DP in PredOp does not contribute an entity to the interpretation of the sentence and does not serve as a logical subject of predication It performs a counting operation on the property denoted by the rest of the sentence If that predicate is distributive and thus denotes a set the DP  A legtob u most of the boys and uk boy s existential are not included in my three categories Their analysis goes beyond the scope of this paper  A witness set of a generalized quantier GQ is a set that is i an element of GQ and ii a subset of the smallest set GQ lives on Eg a witness set of two men is a set containing two men and no nonmen See Chapter for discussion Strategies for Scope Taking   counts its elements If that predicate is collective and thus has plural individuals in its denotation the DP counts the atoms The result of counting may even be compared to the cardinality of the common noun set ie the DPs determiner need not be intersective The basic distinction that I wish to make is between DP denotations that contribute an entity as a target of predication and DP denotations that operate on the denotation of the predicate in the manner of generalized quantiers Such a distinction seems straightforward between names denites and bare indenites on the one hand and modied numerals on the other  Distributive quantiers might seem to side naturally with the latter group but I claim they indeed side with the former and end up as one subspecies in the subject of predication category This is what the proposals in  through  attempt to capture It seems to me that a natural framework for expressing these proposals is a version of the Discourse Representation Theory expounded in Kamp and Reyle  The claim that some DPs serve as logical subjects of predication should translate as the claim that they introduce discourse referents Following Kamp and Reyle  p  by introduces a discourse referent I mean that the rule processing the DP introduces a referent either into the universe of the very DRS to which it is applied or into the universe of a superordinate DRS Thanks to such referents these noun phrases support nonmaximal reference anaphora This contrasts with rules that take care of quantiers these place a discourse referent into a newly created subordinate DRS introduce duplex con ditions These latter noun phrases only support maximal reference anaphora constructing an antecedent for a subsequent pronoun involves the abstraction operation that intersects the denotations of the rst and the second arguments of the determiner  Kamp and Reyle stipulate that when a DP introduces a discourse refer ent then at the point of introduction it is associated with all and only the conditions that come from material inside the DP That is even if a referent is introduced into a superordinate DRS it will never be divorced from its DP internal conditions This needs to be stipulated because Kamp and Reyles discourse referents are plain variables ranging over the whole universe and DPinternal conditions are represented as predicated of them In contrast in  and  I assume that a referent is a sorted variable that is ab ovo re stricted to ranging over plural individuals formed from minimal witness sets  The claim that HRefP serves as a logical subject of predication squares entirely with E Kisss     analysis of Hungarian although she makes no comparable claims about the other positions  The distinction between maximal and nonmaximal reference anaphora is illustrated and examined in Problems !   of Chapter    Chapter  of the generalized quantier denoted by the DP Eg the discourse referent introduced by two men is a variable over plural individuals made up of two men Since a witness set by denition is of the right size and contains only entities drawn from the determiners restriction the inseparability of the referent from the information that comes from the DP follows without further stipulation Note that this proposal diers from the usual notion of restricted quanti cation which relies on the smallest set the GQ lives on ie its common noun set rather than a witness Kamp and Reyles stipulation in fact takes care of a problem discussed in Abusch  and Reinhart  The example comes from Heim  If a cat likes a friend of mine I always give it to her On the intended interpre tation a friend of mine is to be construed as having wide scope But if only existential closure is outside the conditional and the predicate friend of mine is in the antecedent the sentence will be incorrectly veried by any model where there is someone who is not a friend of mine Abusch  proposes a specic syntactic mechanism to percolate the predicate up to the quantier Reinhart  invokes choice functions in the interpretation of indenites My own pro posal is highly compatible with Reinharts given that the value of her choice function is exactly my witness set Reinhart  and Winter  show how to obtain those choice functions compositionally their procedure might be adopted by the present theory The behavior of DPs that occur in HRefP and Focus the latter the func tional counterpart of Beghelli and Stowells ShareP is straightforwardly deriv able from the properties Kamp and Reyle attribute to set denoter referents sin gular or plural individuals in present terms What DRT gains from Beghelli and Stowell in turn is a characterization of distributivity that is empirically more precise and less stipulative Recall from  that silent each is claimed to behave much like its overt counterpart whose behavior is governed by well studied principles of syntax Let us assume then in general that the DRS construction algorithm does not take the simple phrase structures used in Kamp and Reyle as input but rather its operation is directly determined by the kind of Logical Form Beghelli and Stowells analysis assigns to the sentence This will have clear advantages in connection with the treatment of inverse scope Kamp and Reyle comment on the fact that not all noun phrases can take inverse scope but eventually they opt for the stipulation that a syntactically lower noun phrase may be processed before a syntactically higher one which is equivalent to assuming an unconstrained QR Beghelli and Stowells theory eliminates QR and replaces it with an articulated syntactic theory of where each type of noun phrase ends up at LF Their LF now species the correct orders in which to process noun phrases Strategies for Scope Taking   But there are reasons for more substantial modications of DRT These have to do with the behavior of DPs in HDistP see  in comparison with those in PredOp see  I will argue that the inhabitants of HDistP universals among them are construed as targets of obligatorily distributive predication This claim will be supported by showing that i they support only distributive readings and ii they introduce discourse referents although not exactly the same kind as inhabitants of HRefP Only the inhabitants of PredOp which are all counters operate on predicate denotations in the manner of generalized quantiers  I believe that the picture that we are led to is a generalization of Ben Shaloms  insight Recall from  that restricting her attention to the calculation of inverse scope BenShalom argued that there is a procedural dif ference in the evaluation of sentences involving names denites specic inde nites and universals on the one hand and those involving modied numerals on the other In the former case she proposes to start out with a set determined by the quantier and check its members for some property In the latter case she proposes to directly tackle the predicates denotation In present terms the dierence is precisely that the former act as subjects of predication and the latter as predicate operators Pursuing the DRT analogy these observations amount to adding a procedu ral avor to DRT in the following sense DPs that introduce discourse referents do not only dier from others in how they support anaphora which is largely a matter of logical syntax They also dier at the interface between DRSs and the model theory because the verication of the truth of sentences containing them is carried out using dierent procedures This procedural intuition may be reminiscent of Brentano and Martys dis tinction between categorical versus thetic judgments revived in Kuroda  Sasse  and Ladusaw  At present I am not in a position to judge how far a deeper parallelism might go but this issue certainly merits further investigation since it may tie together formal and informal lines of research One obvious dierence is that the present proposal is concerned strictly with the contribution of particular DPs not with whole sentencesjudgments Like wise the subject of predication and the predicate operator types of ver ication procedures may be relevant in connection with the construction of mental models in a sense similar to Webber  and Crain and Hamburger  To avoid misunderstanding notice that I am using the notion of a generalized quantier in two dierent senses in this paper in a denotational sense and in a representationalprocedural sense From a denotational perspective all noun phrases denote generalized quantiers sets of predicate denotations This remains true whatever further considerations are invoked hence I am free to appeal to notions like witness sets and monotonicity From a representa tionalprocedural perspective only a subset of the noun phrases operate directly on predicate denotations those that do not introduce a referent logical subject of predication   Chapter   Finally the two modes of operation recall the lookup versus com pute distinction in Szabolcsi and Zwarts  But developing a broader procedural theory that subsumes these goes beyond the scope of this paper In concrete terms I will be arguing that the Beghelli and Stowellstyle logical forms in  and  correspond to discourse representations as in  and  respectively   is much like in Kamp and Reyle The dierences are i that X is now understood as a variable over plural individuals not sets and ii X is a restricted sorted variable I will use the following notational convention X  DP is a variable ranging over plural individuals whose atoms are the elements of some minimal witness set of DP

 I represent few books simply in terms of a duplex condition Note that the cardinal and the proportional readings behave alike from the present perspective Each is Beghelli and Stowells silent each  RefP Two boys  AgrSP t  each read AgrOP few books VP t  t t

 atomX x x y booky ready x each x fewy X   two boys  involves every boy that according to my proposal introduces a set referent Notation X  DP is a variable ranging over witness sets of DP

 and  is the distributive operator Dist  AgrSP t  read DistP every boy  Dist AgrOP few books VP t  t t

 x   X x X   every  boy  y booky ready x x fewy  The explanation of why referents in HRefP are based on minimal witnesses while those in HDistP are plain witnesses is given in Section  Strategies for Scope Taking   This replaces a tripartite structure in Kamp and Reyle  With these general considerations in mind let us turn to the justication of  through  with reference to Hungarian DISTRIBUTIVE AND COLLECTIVE READINGS  Distributivity in HDistP The reason why the Hungarian Quantier position deserves the label HDistP is that all DPs occurring there are strictly distributive Although we get distributive readings elsewhere too as will be discussed below Some DPs occur only in HDistP and not in the other three distinguished positions Universals minden 	u #every boy and valamennyi 	u #each boy are the paradigmatic cases But all is #also even phrases are like universals in that they are barred from HRefP Focus and PredOp For their distributivity consider

 Kati is felemelte az asztalt Kati also uplifted the tableacc #Kati lifted up the table too This sentence cannot mean that along with others Kati was a member of a collective that lifted up the table It can only mean that Kati lifted the table on her own and someone else did too  Hat !u is felemelte az asztalt six boy even uplifted the tableacc #As many as six boys lifted up the table Here the contribution of is #even is essentially scalar hat    is means that six is considered many Nevertheless while the same sentence without is may well have a collective reading  may only mean that there were as many as six individual table liftings   boyx x y booky ready x every x fewy  It may be interesting to mention that Hunyadi  explains the identical surface distri bution of is also even phrases and universals with reference to the fact that the morpheme is derives from the conjunction es and universals semantically reduce to conjunction Similar relations have been in the focus of much recent work directed at Japanese and Korean   Chapter  But the most interesting new facts involve the observation that some noun phrases may occur in more than one position and their interpretation varies accordingly Consider rst telic predicates that can be either distributive or collective  shows that names denites and bare indenites the DPs that occur both in HRefP and in Focus support either reading DPs in HDistP do not support a collective reading at all Finally DPs in PredOp support an unmarked dis tributive reading of the sentence as well as a marked collective one which has the avor It took as manyfew as n boys to VP In the examples below the rst DP is one that occurs only in the given position and the second is one that occurs in dierent positions with varying interpretations  a Kati !es Mari K!et !u felemelte az asztalt HRefP #Kati and Mari #Two boys lifted up the table ok lifting collective b Minden !u T$obb mint hat !u felemelte az asztalt HDistP #Every boy #More than six boys lifted up the table  lifting collective c Kevesebb mint hat !u T$obb mint hat !u emelte fel az asztalt PredOp #Less than six boys #More than six boys lifted up the table ok lifting it took ncollective Similar results are obtained with purely nondistributive telic predicates

once only predicates Notice that here the distributive interpretation is out no matter what the subject is the same sand castle cannot be destroyed more than once I mark this with & See Szabolcsi and Zwarts  Section  for some discussion  a Kati !es Mari lerombolta a homokv!arat HRefP #Kati and Mari tore down the sand castle ok destruction collective & destruction distributive Strategies for Scope Taking  

b Minden !u T$obb mint hat !u lerombolta a homokv!arat HDistP #Every boy #More than six boys tore down the sand castle  destruction collective & destruction distributive c Kevesebb mint hat !u T$obb mint hat !u rombolta le a homokv!arat PredOp #Less than six boys #More than six boys tore down the sand castle ok destruction it took ncollective & destruction distributive On the other hand there are other nondistributive predicates like surround where even the it took n avor is absent and modied numerals in PredOp support an unmarked collective interpretation of the sentence I suspect that this dierence which otherwise plays no role in my analysis and will not be investigated further is due to the stativity of the predicate As for the choice of the verb note that surround diers from gather for instance in that i if a plurality of entities surround something in one layer then no subset of them surrounds it but ii a single entity may surround something by forming a full circle on its own  a Az X birtok !es az Y birtok k$or$ul$oleli a kast!elyt HRefP #Estate X and estate Y surround the castle ok surrounding collective ok surrounding concentric circles b Minden birtok T$obb mint hat birtok Sok birtok k$or$ul$oleli a kast!elyt HDistP #Every estate #More than six estates #Many estates surround the castle  surrounding collective ok surrounding concentric circles   Chapter  c Kevesebb mint hat birtok T$obb mint hat birtok Sok birtok $oleli k$or$ul a kast!elyt PredOp #Less than six estates #More than six estates #Many estates surround the castle ok surrounding collective ok surrounding concentric circles The behavior of DPs in Quantier position fully supports the idea that this position is analogous to Spec DistP  Not only do the Hungarian counterparts of every boy and each boy occur in this position but a variety of further DPs do too And while the latter can support collective readings elsewhere in this position they only support distributive readings  However the following question presents itself Do the collective or dis tributive readings arise in the same manner in all three positions  Two types of collective readings HRefP and PredOp In the foregoing discussion I was careful to use a wording according to which a DP supports a collectivedistributive reading of the sentence The reason is that I wished to remain entirely neutral as to what role this DP specically plays in the formation of such a reading I argue that in every one of the three positions that we are considering the DPs play a somewhat dierent role First consider the contrast between collective interpretations supported by DPs in HRefP versus DPs in PredOp

 a Ez a hat !u felemelte az asztalt HRefP #These six boys lifted up the table together b Ez a hat birtok k$or$ul$oleli a kast!elyt #These six estates surround the castle together  a T$obbkevesebb mint hat !u emelte fel az asztalt PredOp #It took moreless than six boys to lift up the table together b T$obbkevesebb mint hat birtok $oleli k$or$ul a kast!elyt #MoreLess than six estates surround the castle together Following Kamp and Reyle  I propose that in  the subject intro duces a plural individual referent and #lifted up the table is predicated of it  These data are clear counterexamples to Gils  p   Universal  If a quantier is distributivekey it is also universal Strategies for Scope Taking    collectively More precisely Kamp and Reyle treat bare indenites as set de noters although they note that these sets are in onetoone correspondence to plural individuals and the plural individual view is intuitively preferable I am switching to plural individuals on the technical level too reserving the option of having set referents for another kind of DP In Kamp and Reyles theory collective predication is the only way to obtain a collective interpretation for the sentence and in fact they do not discuss convincing examples that would force one to think otherwise But the examples in  are such The subjects do not introduce a discourse referent either in a technical sense see the anaphora facts below or in an intuitive sense The sentences in  are in no way about some boys or estates Thus I claim that these sentences receive their collective interpretation in a dierent way Namely it is the predicate that denotes a group as opposed to a set of individuals and what the DP does is to count the atoms of this group Eg  #The collective that surrounds the castle and consists of estates has moreless than six atoms Thus the sentences in  have a collective interpretation but their subject DPs are not interpreted collectively So in line with Kamp and Reyle I assume that DPs in HRefPFocus denote plural individuals that can be subjects of collective or distributive predication while DPs in PredOp are counters In distinction to Kamp and Reyle however I assume that the latter can count either the elements of a set or the atoms of a group whichever the predicate they operate on denotes This takes care of  versus   TWO TYPES OF DISCOURSE REFERENTS In this section I discuss various aspects of  ie the claim that DPs in HDistP introduce a set referent In English some of the counting quantiers have a variant that introduces a plural indi vidual This is claimed in Groenendijk and Stokhof   and corroborated by S Spellmire

pc Thus we have Some morefewer than six men lifted the table collectively The suspicion might arise that the English counterparts of the Hungarian examples only work with these variants with the determiner some possibly suppressed Notice however that Few estates surround this castle clearly diers in meaning fromA	Some few estates surround this castle and yet is impeccable Thus the phenomenon cannot be reduced to the subject introducing a plural referent I should add that corresponding Hungarian DPs in PredOp do not allow for the plural construal at all   Chapter   No plural individual referent in HDistP Let us turn to anaphora facts that establish whether a DP introduces a plural individual referent In Kamp and Reyle the most important mark of DPs that introduce a plural referent is that they can antecede a collective subject pronoun even when the latter is inside their own distributive predicate see ' below Here is why this is the test case In crosssentential anaphora likeMany boys came They were curious the pronoun constructs an antecedent for itself using the restrictor #boy and the predicate #came But a pronoun located inside a predicate cannot use that same predicate in constructing an antecedent for itself It can only corefer with a previously introduced discourse referent And since we want a collective interpretation for the pronoun the discourse referent it corefers with must be a plural individual too It turns out that the Hungarian data are even easier to judge than the En glish In Hungarian DPs that contain a numeral are themselves in the singular and alongside with conjunctions of singulars trigger singular agreement on the predicate

 John !es Bill K!et $ugyv!ed Sok $ugyv!ed Hatn!al t$obb $ugyv!ed titk!arn(ot vett felvett fel titk!arn(ot #John and Bill two lawyer many lawyer more than six lawyer secretaryacc hiredfsgg In crosssentential anaphora all these DPs antecede plural pronouns When however they ccommand a possibly nonovert pronoun a singular pronoun receives a bound individual variable reading while a plural pronoun receives a coreferential reading Given this morphological distinction all that needs to be judged in Hungarian is whether a DP can be linked to a plural pronoun in Kamp and Reyles diagnostic context For transparency I replicate the Hungarian pronouns in the translations

 John !es Bill K!et $ugyv!ed olyan titk!arn(ot vett fel akivel el(obb elbesz!elgetettfsgg elbesz!elgettekfplg #John and Bill two lawyers hired a secretary that he had interviewed they had interviewed If fsgg interview distributive if fplg interview can must be collective Strategies for Scope Taking    Minden Sok $ugyv!ed olyan titk!arn(ot vett fel akivel el(obb elbesz!elgetettfsgg  elbesz!elgettekfplg #Every lawyer many lawyers hired a secretary that he had interviewed  they had interviewed If fsgg interview distributive if fplg example   Hatnal kevesebb Sok ugyved vett fel olyan titkarnot akivel elbeszelget	ettfsgg

elbeszelget	tekfplg Less than six lawyers many lawyers hired a secretary that he had interviewed

they had interviewed If fsgg interview distributive if fplg example

We see that the demarcation line lies exactly where Kamp and Reyle place it in English on the basis of judging the available interpretations Only in the case of DPs that occur in HRefPFocus can the plural pronoun be linked to the DP itself cf  In ' with DPs that occur in HDistP and PredOp respectively the plural pronoun may at best pick up DPs smallest liveon set or be interpreted deictically  Essential quantiers and distributivity The fact that DPs in HDistP are never linked to a plural pronoun in this context might suggest that they are interpreted in essentially the same way as those in PredOp namely as generalized quantiers The dierence would consist in the rst type having distributivity built into their denition This correlation is interesting because Partee  p  conjectures ex tending a claim in Gil   that all essentially quanticational DPs are distributive To make Partees point perhaps even stronger let me reinterpret essentially quanticational as those DPs whose determiner is not purely in tersective and which cannot be taken to denote atomic or plural individuals either Every N and proportionals are essentially quanticational Further more nonindividual denoting DPs whose restrictor is presupposed not to be empty are essentially quanticational The reason is that a presupposition that pertains to only one argument of the determiner prevents the determiner from being symmetrical and hence intersective In fact Hungarian oers further subtle conrmation of Partees hypothe sis Consider the PredOp data discussed in  If t obbkevesebb mint hat N is replaced by az Nek k oz ul t obbkevesebb mint hat #morefewer than six among the Ns the closest we can get to a partitive in Hungarian the collective readings disappear   Chapter   a T$obbkevesebb mint hat !u emelte fel az asztalt ok #It took moreless than six boys to lift up the table together b A !uk k$oz$ul t$obbkevesebb mint hat emelte fel az asztalt #Morefewer than six among the boys lifted up the table indi vidually Similarly if we have sok #many or kev	es #few in PredOp and they are inter preted proportionally the collective readings disappear We may say that both changes result in essentially quanticational DPs Now it is possible to maintain that all DPs in HDistP are essentially quan ticational in this slightly modied sense Recall what we have here every N many N at leastmore than n N and also even phrases Crucially it is not counterintuitive to say that when t obb mint hat 	u #more than ve boys oc curs in HDistP we presuppose that there are boys Maybe we are even thinking of boys drawn from a known superset of individuals that is the phrase may be specic in En)cs  sense If all DPs in HDistP have semantic properties that make them essentially quanticational then the fact that they are invariably distributive may simply follow from Partees generalization  Set referents in HDistP It seems now that both the anaphora facts and the distributivity facts con cerning HDistP correlate with the inhabitant DPs being essentially quanti cational If essentially quanticational DPs are automatically to be analyzed as having a tripartite structure then such an analysis seems very well mo tivated I submit however that there are other facts that receive a natural explanation if we assume that these DPs introduce a discourse referent of some sort and the same facts remain mysterious on the tripartite analysis The Hungarian data are critical in developing this argument The reason is that the diagnostics of introducing a discourse referent have to do with non maximal reference anaphora and referential variation According to Beghelli and Stowell in English only universals reside in DistP But a universal has a unique witness that is identical to its restrictor  smallest liveon set There fore maximal reference anaphora computed by intersecting the restrictor and the predicate sets and nonmaximal anaphora to some witness set come out the same Likewise universals will not exhibit referential variation however they may be entered in the DRS Therefore the behavior of universals is compatible with more than one analysis To see what properties the syntactic position per se has we would need to test nonmaximal anaphora on a DP with witnesses distinct from the restrictor and referential variation on a DP with more than one witness In Hungarian DPs like #many men and #more than ve men oc Strategies for Scope Taking   cur in the same HDistP position as #every man thus the relevant tests can be performed Furthermore since the same DPs occur in PredOp too minimal pairs can be formed to isolate the properties present only in HDistP It should be clear that my factual claims below concern the behavior of Hungarian DPs and it is for students of English to decide whether many men and more than ve men exhibit similar behavior Now two questions arise Is it possible at all for me not to predict that these English DPs behave analogously It is because I show in Section  that denotational semantics delimits but does not determine a DPs actual modes of operation Hence the fact that a Hungarian DP is denotationally equivalent to some English DP does not entail that they operate identically But what is the crosslinguistic signicance of the Hungarian facts then Since I have argued for a global analogy between HDistP and English DistP on the one hand and PredOp and English AgrP on the other the Hungarian data may oer an insight into the way DPs in these positions operate even if the items that occur in those positions are not exactly the same Consider rst the following contrast in the behavior of t obb mint hat di	akunk #more than six students of ours in HDistP versus PredOp with respect to a variant of the others test cf Problems ' in Chapter  Imagine two teachers in the process of correcting the exams of a large class When they are done with some of the exams the exchange in a is felicitous while the one in b is not  a T$obb mint hat di!akunk f!elre!ertette a k!erd!est Lehet hogy m!eg m!asokat is tal!alsz #More than six of our students HDistP misunderstood the question Maybe you will nd others too b T$obb mint hat di!akunk !ertette f!elre a k!erd!est   Lehet hogy m!eg m!asokat is tal!alsz #More than six of our students PredOp misunderstood the question  Maybe you will nd others too When #more than six of our students is in HDistP as in a the dialog is perfectly coherent The rst teachers remark is unambiguously about a par ticular set of more than six students The second teachers remark means that there may be students outside this set who also misunderstood the question In contrast when #more than six of our students is in PredOp the rst teachers remark can only mean that the number of students who misunderstood the question is greater than six This cannot be followed by a remark about the others To begin with this interpretation does not present a set of individu als in comparison with whom certain individuals may be others Moreover   Chapter  however the exams yet to be corrected will turn out they will not change the fact that the overall number of those who misunderstood the question is greater than six I conclude that the DP in HDistP introduces a set that is salient enough for anaphora to build on This set is a witness of the generalized quantier denoted by the DP But a DP in PredOp crucially does not support this kind of anaphora because it does not talk about individuals at all The details of the interpretations of the complement subjects below point to the same conclusion quite unambiguously

 a Legal!abb k!et elemz(o !ugy gondolja hogy t$obb mint hat hazug igazat mond #At least two analysts think that more than six liars HDistP are truthful b Legal!abb k!et elemz(o !ugy gondolja hogy t$obb mint hat hazug mond igazat #At least two analysts think that more than six liars PredOp are truthful Farkas  argues that the descriptive content DC of any noun phrase may be evaluated with respect to the worlds introduced by superordinate clauses in the present case this entails that whatever determiner the complement subject might have the entities referred to may be liars in the speakers world not in the analysts worlds This in fact does not follow from the present proposal and thus if correct the mechanism Farkas proposes needs to be incorporated On the other hand there is a dierence between the possible interpretations of ab that goes beyond what the evaluation of the DC explains Namely a can mean that there is a xed set of more than six liars such that a xed set of at least two analysts think that they are truthful That is on this reading the liars and the analysts are chosen independently In contradistinction to this in b it may at best be a coincidence if the liars the analysts think to be truthful are identical there is no reading that guarantees it This dierence between a and b follows straightforwardly if we assume that the DP in HDistP introduces a referent corresponding to a witness a set of more than six liars but the DP in PredOp merely counts how many liars each analyst thinks are truthful The fact that the liars can be chosen independently of the analysts in a follows from the assumptions concerning discourse referents they may be introduced into either the current DRS box or into any superordinate box And the fact that the analysts nevertheless do not become dependent follows from the fact that the distributive operator invariably gets stuck in its base position These square with other proposals that Farkas makes No mechanism with a comparable eect is available to DPs that do not introduce a referent cf b Strategies for Scope Taking   With these I take it to be established that DPs in HDistP in distinction to PredOp introduce discourse referents We are now faced with the residual question of why then these DPs fail to support anaphora in  We may stipulate that coreference in the strict sense involves a relation between a pronoun and an expression denoting an individual atomic or plural Then one natural dierence between bare indenites like hat 	u #six boys and inhabitants of HDistP is that the referent that the former introduces is an individual but the referent that the latter introduces is a set As was noted above such a distinction can be accommodated in Kamp and Reyles framework with a minimal modication This stipulation may be benecial in explaining why according to Beghelli and Stowell bare indenites never move to Spec DistP and thus need to receive their distributive interpretation in a dierent way We may correlate the feature that is checked in DistP with introducing a set not an individual referent How should universals in DistP and HDistP be analyzed then Recall that because they denote principal lters they conform happily to both the referent and the tripartite analyses By default we want to treat them in the same way as the other more discriminating inhabitants of the same syntactic position ie using discourse referents It turns out that this analysis is the only one compatible with Stowell and Beghellis independent claims In general they argue that distributivity is a separate factor even in the case of universals what remains then is a set More specically they discuss the following two types of data

 John didnt read every book  What did every boy read The notable property of  is that on normal intonation it only allows a reading where not takes scope over every book The notable property of  is that it has a pairlist reading Beghelli and Stowell  and Beghelli  analyze both cases by assuming that the universal acts as a variable bound by some operator the negation or the question operator Details aside this would make no sense on the usual interpretation of universals but it makes good sense if the universal introduces a set referent since that is a bindable variable in DRT terms  Incidentally the result that universals may be bound is not unique to this analysis dynamic semantics can produce the same as observed by Groenendijk and Stokhof    Chapter   THE SUBJECT OF PREDICATION MODE OF OPERATION  Grab a witness and predicate distributively Let us now see what the proposed analysis really is There is a sharp intuitive dierence between Hungarian sentences that have HDistP or PredOp lled even when there is no truth conditional dierence DPs that occur in both positions are especially instructive in this regard  Tegnap sok di!akunk megbetegedett yesterday many studentpl pfxsickened #There is a set of many students of ours such that each fell ill yesterday HDistP  Tegnap sok di!akunk betegedett meg yesterday many studentpl sickened pfx #The students of ours who fell ill yesterday were many PredOp The examples are chosen in such a way that due to the possessive construction they are both presuppositional and the #many phrases are interpretable as proportional in both cases If this is so then there is no standardly known reason for the sentences in  and  to be perceived as not meaning the same But that is the perception no native speaker would be tempted to say otherwise even though they might not be able to explicate the dierence This is something to account for My account is that in  we take a set of students and claim that each of them fell ill In  we take those who fell ill and count our students among them The semantic analysis of HDistP that I am advocating is a generalization of BenShaloms  proposal for inverse scope and Chierchias  proposal for pairlist readings which is based on Groenendijk and Stokhofs  As was reviewed above BenShalom assumes that inverse scope is eected by a binary quantier whose working can be illustrated as follows

 a Three referees read everytwo abstracts b for every x  A three referees read x where A is a witness set of the quantier everytwo abstracts Chierchia assumes that pairlist readings are eected by a binary quantier whose working can for present purposes be simplied as follows  In Szabolcsi a I argue against using  as the general representation of pairlist readings because it does not t the full range of quantiers that support pairlist but here I appeal to  for an insight to be applied to a crucially restricted set of examples See specically Sections  and  in Szabolcsi a Strategies for Scope Taking  

 a What did everytwo boys read b for every x  A what did x read where A is a witness set of the quantier everytwo boys That is in both cases the quantier that takes inverse scope or induces a pairlist reading is said to contribute a set to the interpretation of the sentence associated with a separate distributive operation every x  A These authors assume that this behavior of the quantier is unusual it obtains specically in the inverse scope or pairlist context My proposal diers from theirs in that I am assuming that oering up a witness to distributive predication is how quantiers in HDistP always operate To illustrate with an English example I am assuming that Every referee read three abstracts on its direct S  O reading is also calculated in the manner of b rather than c whether b is thought to involve a binary quantier is immaterial

 a Every referee read three abstracts b for every x  A x read three abstracts where A is a the witness set of the quantier every referee c everyrefereeread three abstracts It is worth emphasizing that the word every in b stands for the dis tributive operator and in c for the actual determiner Thus the following Hungarian example makes the contrast more transparent perhaps

 a T$obb mint hat !u elment more than six boy awaywent HDistP b for every x  A x left where A is a witness of #more than six boys c morethansixboyleft  The increasingness constraint At this point it is crucial to go back to the data in  and observe a peculiar fact about the distribution of DPs 

 Both HRefP and HDistP accommodate only increasing quantiers All decreasing and nonmonotonic quantiers are conned to PredOp HDistP accommodates semelyik u none of the boys and Peter sem Peter either which seem to contradict the increasingness claim But Szabolcsi  argued that semelyik u is just the negative concord form of minden u every boy similar claims have been made about negative concord in Italian by Haegeman and Zanuttini  Similarly Peter sem is the negative concord form of Peter is Peter also So these are not counterexamples All genuinely decreasing quantiers as well as the nonmonotonic ones occur in PredOp   Chapter  This fact calls for an explanation What kind of an explanation shall it be Re call the heuristic formulated in  and used in various chapters of this book

 What range of quantiers actually participates in a given process is suggestive of exactly what that process consists in In the light of   suggests that DPs in both HRefP and HDistP are interpreted in a way that is only available to increasing quantiers My analysis above has exactly this property DPs in both HRefP and HDistP have been argued to put up a witness as a logical subject of predication and this is possible only when the DP is increasing Consider the following fact see Section  as well as Chapter    If Det is increasing but not if it is decreasing or nonmonotonic detNP  A A a witness of detN x  A Px The left hand side is the standard generalized quantier theoretic or tripar tite	 specication of the truth conditions The right hand side is the analysis I am proposing  says that the proposed analysis yields the correct truth conditions if and only if the quantier is increasing In the spirit of  the analysis predicts the increasingness constraint On the other hand the standard GQ theoretic or tripartite analysis of the inhabitants of HDistP would yield logically correct results for all quantiers Hence the assumption that DPs in HDistP operate in that manner would not be able to explain the constraint It would predict that the inhabitants of HDistP are as heterogeneous as those of PredOp  Witnesses and minimal witnesses Recall from  and  that referents in HRefP are claimed to be based on minimal witnesses but referents in HDistP on plain not necessarily mini mal witnesses This choice has to do with two factors collective readings and anaphora Consider rst a #Two boys lifted up the table A witness set of two boys

is any set that contains two boys and no nonboys It may therefore be a set that contains say four boys But if the table was lifted up by a collective Logically speaking Det also needs to be conservative and have extension but all natural language determiners are thought to have these properties so they will not discriminate between potential empirical cases It may be possible to give a pragmatic account of the facts behind   as is suggested in Kadmon  I believe however that such an account would involve developing a major theory that shifts the borderline between semantics and pragmatics in a fundamental way As no one to my knowledge has laid out such a theory for the time being its benets cannot be taken for granted I thank Y Winter for discussion on these matters Strategies for Scope Taking    of four boys then a is not true Similarly if the example contained a disjunction #John or Bill lifted up the table a witness set of John or Bill

would be fj bg*but the sentence would be false in a situation where the collective comprising both John and Bill did the lifting Thus for collective readings we need plural individuals based on minimal witnesses just two boys in the rst case just John or just Bill in the second When the same DPs participate in distributive readings the choice between minimal and nonminimal witnesses does not make a truthconditional dier ence because the quantiers in HRefP are all monotonically increasing #there is a set of just two boys each of whom is tall allows for there being a larger set with four tall boys and is therefore the same as #there is a set of at least two boys each of whom is tall But anaphora facts conrm that the referent introduced by two boys is one with just two boys  Two boys came in They were tired While the rst sentence is compatible with four boys coming in the pronoun in the second appears to refer to just those two boys that we singled out In sum it is justied to assume that referents introduced in HRefP are plural individuals based on minimal witnesses of the quantier irrespective of whether they are subjects of distributive or collective predication The situation is dierent in HDistP Here the anaphora facts alone are decisive Quantiers in HDistP are always subjects of distributive predication and they are all monotonically increasing Hence it makes no truthconditional dierence whether we operate with minimal or nonminimal witnesses But consider anaphora The critical example is a a T$obb mint hat di!akunk f!elre!ertette a k!erd!est Lehet hogy m!eg m!asokat is tal!alsz #More than six of our students HDistP misunderstood the question Maybe you will nd others too Recall that here m	asok #others was claimed to refer to students who fall outside a particular set Now a minimal witness of more than six students

has exactly seven students The question is are we forced to construe the rst sentence to be about exactly seven students No This discourse is just as ne if the actual number of the students talked about is eight or nine But then the referent introduced in HDistP must be any witness not a minimal witness of the quantier  Essential quantication again In Section  I pointed out that the obligatorily distributive interpretation of DPs in HDistP falls under a slightly modied version of Partees  gen eralization Namely all inhabitants of HDistP are essentially quanticational   Chapter  in the sense that they do not denote singular or plural individuals and their determiners are nonintersective universal or proportional or at least pre suppositional Partee conjectures that all essentially quanticational DPs are distributive On the present account inhabitants of HDistP introduce a set referent and are associated with a distributive operator the head of the functional projection This account is weaker than one based on Partees generalization might be since distributivity is not linked to any other semantic property of the noun phrase On the other hand Partees generalization is a descriptive not a theoretical one for the time being it is not known why the entailment might hold Note also that even if essential quantiers are all distributive not all distributive quantiers are essentially quanticational Not only do we have distributive readings for sentences with hat 	u #six boys that denotes a plural individual but distributive readings with purely cardinal sok 	u #many boys and hatn	al t obb 	u #more than six boys in PredOp are also impeccable Furthermore a legt obb 	u #most of the boys is an inherently proportional and in my judgment invariably distributive quantier in Hungarian but it resides in HRefP and not in HDistP That is to say distributive readings plainly cut across the positions HRefP HDistP and PredOp My conclusion is that the correlation between distributivity and certain semantic properties is an open question for the time being it is to be hoped that its explanation will shed more light on the nature of HDistP as well What remains to be accounted for on my analysis is the observation made in Section  that DPs in HRefP and HDistP are presuppositional in some sense As BenShalom pc points out this may follow from the fact that if there is no nonempty witness to serve as the subject of predication predication will not be just false but will not even take place In fact this reasoning prompts us to modify the usual assumption concern ing exactly what is presupposed in presuppositional DPs The usual assumption is that the determiners restrictor is presupposed to be nonempty But while this assumption may be sucient to explain the absence of presuppositional DPs from existential contexts it does not seem sucient to do justice to the felicity conditions of the pertinent sentences Consider the following in the context In the history of the Vatican   

 Hat lengyel p!apa T$obb mint $ot lengyel p!apa k$onyvet !"rt six Polish Popes HRefP more than ve Polish Popes HDistP bookacc wrote These examples do not seem more felicitous in  when the restrictor the set of Polish Popes is nonempty than they would have been fty years earlier Strategies for Scope Taking   When the above DPs operate in the subject of predication mode they appear to presuppose that at least six Polish Popes have existed in history who then may or may not have written books That is exactly as the present analysis predicts it seems that the existence of a nonempty witness and not that of a nonempty restrictor is presupposed  THE ROLE OF DENOTATIONAL SEMANTIC PROPERTIES IMPORTANT BUT LIMITED Both classical DRT and my modied version of it propose a nonuniform treat ment of noun phrases some are said to introduce discourse referents and others to operate on predicate denotations An obvious question to ask is to what ex tent the denotational semantic properties of each noun phrase determine in what mode it will operate I argued above that there is at least one crucial respect in which denota tional semantics plays a delimiting role unless an explicit maximality condition is added only monotonically increasing quantiers allow for the paraphrase #There exists a set or plural individual such that Thus only increasing quan tiers can have discourse referents corresponding to them And indeed it was observed that HRefP and HDistP accommodate only increasing quantiers Be low I will point out a somewhat similar constraint in connection with PredOp It would be very interesting then to be able to show that a DPs mode of operation is fully determined by its denotational semantic properties Un fortunately this does not seem possible In fact even at the present stage of the research the Hungarian data seem to indicate quite unambiguously that the enterprise is hopeless In other words parallel to the fact that the dier ence between the proposed modes of operation is not purely denotational the 	It may be observed that Diesing   proposes to account for a somewhat similar intuition concerning the specic versus nonspecic interpretations of bare and modied in denites Apart from the interpretation of presuppositionality some of the crucial respects in which her proposal diers from the one developed here are as follows i She assimi lates specic presuppositional indenites to restricted quantiers and ii she assumes that nonspecic indenites always introduce variables captured by an existential closure operator Many of the observations motivating my analysis can be seen as reasons for rejecting Diesings Ad i treating specic indenites as quanticational prevents her theory from accounting for the data that motivate Kamp and Reyle to assume that these DPs intro duce plural individual discourse referents In fact Diesings only empirical argument for the quanticational analysis comes from antecedent contained deletion However if any bit of Beghelli and Stowells theory of LF is correct then the fact that we observe some LF move ment does not in itself allow us to diagnose that movement as QR and the participating DP as a quantier Ad ii the assumption that all nonspecic indenites are variables captured by existential closure irrespective of whether they are monotonic increasing decreasing or nonmonotonic gives logically incorrect results as was argued above   Chapter  conditions for a DP to operate in a given mode are not purely denotational either This seems like an important and in fact natural conclusion Let us see some of the relevant data First of all we have seen that the same noun phrase may occur in more than one distinguished position in Hungarian and accordingly operate in more than one way For instance DPs like t obb mint hat 	u #more than six boys can occur either in HDistP or in PredOp Or sok 	u #many boys can occur in HRefP or HDistP or PredOp with the same proportional interpretation Thus there can be no onetoone correspondence between denotational semantic properties and modes of operation More strikingly we can point to cases where two denotationally equivalent DPs behave dierently For instance the determiner #more than six has two versions The a version is analytic syntactic comparison the b version is synthetic morphological comparison Now the former occurs either in HDistP or in PredOp but the latter only in PredOp

 a T$obb mint hat !u ment elelment more than six boy went awayawaywent PredOpHDistP b Hatn!al t$obb !u ment elelment sixthan more boy went awayawaywent PredOp I see no independent semantic dierence between the two versions which indi cates that the lack of ambiguity in the synthetic version is idiosyncratic Similarly legal	abb h	et 	u #at least seven boys does not according to my own judgment occur in PredOp although logically equivalent #more than six boys has a variant that does This again seems like an accidental gap In sum an increasing DP that is in principle capable of supporting a dis course referent may or may not actually do so on one or any of its uses Note a crosslingustic consequence If two denotationally equivalent Hun garian DPs do not need to operate identically then a Hungarian DP and its English counterpart do not necessarily do so either it is an empirical ques tion whether they do Let us now turn to the question whether and how occurrence in PredOp is constrained PredOp does not care about monotonicity it hosts increasing decreasing and nonmonotonic quantiers On the other hand it is remarkable that minden 	u #every boy and a legt obb 	u #most of the boys do not occur there the former is conned to HDistP and the latter to HRefP What excludes them The fact that they have nonintersective determiners cannot be the reason for instance  already demonstrated that a quantier in PredOp  At the present stage of research the noun phrases choice among the denotationally speaking available options seems arbitrary It is to be hoped that further research will identify the critical factors whatever they might be Strategies for Scope Taking   may well be partitive or proportional Likewise decreasing kev	es 	u #few boys is invariably in PredOp whether proportional or intersective Furthermore we are faced with another idiosyncracy here According to the textbook analysis most of the boys is equivalent to more than  of the boysor pick whatever larger gure you prefer But as can be expected on the basis of the data reviewed earlier a 	uknak t obb mint  sz	azal	eka #more than + of the boys does occur in PredOp The descriptive generalization I oered in  was that DPs in PredOp perform a specic operation on predicate denotations they count The absence of #every boy is natural then it surely is not a counter The fact that #most of the boys in distinction to #more than + of the boys is excluded indicates that being a counter is in part a representationalprocedural notion too Interestingly Hungarian word order is not the only empirical domain that sets these two DPs apart Consider binominal each and existential sentences with a coda in English two wellstudied constructions whose accounts in the literature are standardly in denotational semantic terms    a  The professors met most of the boys each b The professors met more than fty per cent of the boys each  a  There will be most of the boys in the yard b There will be more than fty per cent of the boys in the yard Sutton  whose work is the source of the rst datum concluded some what desperately that these contrasts eliminate the possibility for a denota tional semantic characterization of what DPs work with binominal each She proposed that what all the good examples have in common is that they are counters a proposal reinforced by The professors met onea boy each While the general theory in the present paper does not immediately explain why specically counters need to be involved in  I hope to have substanti ated that this type of nondenotational conclusion need not be that desperate  APPENDIX ON HUNGARIAN In this Appendix I wish to address two issues pertaining to Hungarian that may be necessary for the reader to make good use of the data presented One concerns the presentation of  the global structure of a Hungarian sentence in current syntactic terms The other with which I start is this

 Comorovski  argues that partitives with a strong determiner may occur in presen tational therecontexts when they are not anaphoric This ner qualication will still not distinguish between most of the and more than n" of the

  Chapter   What positions do postverbal DPs occupy and what are their scope options All literature on Hungarian agrees that postverbal DPs scope under preverbal ones for two exceptions see fns  and  What has never been seriously examined to my knowledge is what scopal options postverbal DPs have within their own domain Given that the postverbal eld is assumed to have a at structure !E Kisss general proposal makes either of the following two predic tions

 a If operators in Hungarian ccommand their scope at Sstructure in terms of rst branching node ccommand then quantiers in the postverbal eld can be interpreted in either order b If operators in Hungarian precede and ccommand their scope at Sstructure then quantiers in the postverbal eld are interpreted in lefttoright order The reason why these predictions have not been scrutinized I believe is that having more than one scopal expression in the postverbal eld is not usual and the judgments are rather dicult Since Hungarian goes out of its way to provide means to disambiguate scope the postverbal eld is not the domain of choice for scope interaction But if we now look at the postverbal eld with the moral of Stowell and Beghellis work on English in mind we can construct critical data that are quite straightforward to judge Such examples involve plural denites universals and modied numerals especially decreasing ones The choice of #a Tuesday for Focus allows us to control for the possibility that a postverbal quantier scopes out of the postverbal eld if the Tuesdays do not vary scope interaction is conned to the postverbal eld which is what we are interested in  a Egy keddi napon harapta meg hatn!al t$obb kutya a Tuesday dayon bit pfx sixthan more dog Katit !es Marit Katiacc and Mariacc #It was on a Tuesday that more than six dogs bit Kati and Mari ok a Tuesday  more than six dogs  Kati and Mari ok a Tuesday  Kati and Mari  more than six dogs b Egy keddi napon harapott meg hatn!al t$obb kutya minden !ut #It was on a Tuesday that more than six dogs bit every boy ok a Tuesday  more than six dogs  every boy ok a Tuesday  every boy  more than six dogs c Egy keddi napon harapott meg hatn!al t$obb kutya kev!es !ut #It was on a Tuesday that more than six dogs bit few boys Strategies for Scope Taking   ok a Tuesday  more than six dogs  few boys  a Tuesday  few boys  more than six dogs d Egy keddi napon harapott meg minden kutya kev!es !ut #It was on a Tuesday that every dog bit few boys ok a Tuesday  every dog  few boys  a Tuesday  few boys  every dog What we nd is essentially the same pattern as in English #Kati and Mari and #every boy easily take inverse scope over a modied numeral With great diculty #few boys can take inverse scope over another modied numeral But it is unthinkable for #few boys to take inverse scope over a universal These facts are inconsistent with both a and b What this means is that scopal order in Hungarian is not fully determined by Sstructure The inverse scopal orders must be due to LF movement by and large in the same way as in English This observation eliminates an alleged idiosyncracy of Hungarian Since the preverbal positions are operator Abar positions it is quite natural for DPs that move there overtly to have their scope determined once for all The same holds for English DPs that undergo overt wh or negative fronting On the other hand DPs in the postverbal eld are thought to occupy argument A positions at Sstructure just like nonfronted DPs do in English Thus postverbal Hungarian DPs can be expected to have their scope interpretation determined in essentially the same way as English DPs in Aposition I am thus led to positing two scopal elds in Hungarian the preverbal one with landing sites for overt operator movement and the postverbal one with comparable landing sites for covert operator movement The global structure that these are embedded in is as follows nb the XPs generated under the Kleene star respect the binary branching constraint they do not form at substructures I chose a subjectobject word order to make the judgments simpler It seems to me that the judgments are contingent merely on linear order however   Chapter   HRefP Spec HDistP Spec FP Spec AgrP Spec TP Spec RefP Spec CaseP Spec DistP Spec VP j j alias preverbal eld j j alias postverbal eld As was argued in the foregoing sections the preverbal eld contains HRefP HDistP Focus and PredOp For the sake of simplicity I take the latter two to be alternative speciers of FP The postverbal eld contains RefP and DistP but no FP I assume that each HDist head has an event quantier as its share albeit I do not posit SharePs all over the place The linearly n th event quantier quanties over subevents of the linearly nth the ultimate event variable resides in the VP In  the two elds are separated by a series of functional projections In line with Brody  I assume that the surface position of the verb is derived by fronting ie by movement into a functional head which is not separated from the specier of FP by any overt material The details of the movement of the verb and of the verbal prex whose surface position serves to diagnose whether a DP is in FP or HDistP are immaterial to our present concerns see Szabolcsi b DPs move out of VP to check their nominative accusative etc features in the appropriate CaseP only pro moves up to AgrP They may stay in CaseP and end up postverbally in surface structure or they may move on to one of the Or there might be two distinct #F functional heads one that hosts Focus and another that hosts PredOp see also the discussion of  This possibility is explicitly allowed in the theory of Horvath  Strategies for Scope Taking  

preverbal operator positions At present we are interested in the postverbal option CasePs are generated in one cluster in a random order This accounts for the facts that the order of postverbal DPs is independent of grammatical function and that the linearly rst can always take scope over the linearly second In addition CasePs are anked by RefP and DistP LF movement into which follows the same mechanics that Beghelli and Stowell propose for English Likewise there is a possibility of reconstruction into VP As in the discussion of Beghelli and Stowell at the outset I assume that only semantically insignicant movement can be undone by reconstruction Thus a DP that has moved to RefP or DistP cannot be reconstructed These assumptions derive the data in  as follows In a the inverse reading is due to the movement of #Kati and Mari into RefP In b and c the inverse readings are due to the reconstruction of #more than six dogs into VP in the latter case the marginality of this reading will need an independent account as in English In d the inverse reading is unquestionably out because #every dog cannot reconstruct into VP The last question to touch on concerns postverbal counting quantiers  the table summarizing the distribution of DPs in the distinguished positions notes a peculiarity

 A counter must occur in PredOp unless i there is already another counter in PredOp or ii Focus is lled or iii the verb is negated Why Recall that PredOp is in complementary distribution with Focus before the nite verb stem It diers from Focus in two ways First DPs in Focus receive an exhaustive interpretation while DPs in PredOp do not receive any extra interpretation Second DPs in Focus are negated directly while DPs in PredOp are not

 Mari ment el Mari went away #It is Mary who left Nem Mari ment el not Mari went away #It is not Mari who left  Kev!es !u ment el few boy went away #There are Few boys who left Nem ment el kev!es !u not went away few boys #There arent few boys who left In addition names denites and referential indenites that occur in Focus or in the postverbal RefP must reach the main DRS somehow I remain agnostic on whether this is to have a syntactic reex of some sort Drawing from Kenesei  and van Leusen and Kalman  Szabolcsi   pro poses that this contrast follows from the fact that the appropriate notion of exhaustivity which has come to be called exclusionbyidentication is dened only for singular or plural individuals The inhabitants of Focus denote individuals but those of PredOp do not   Chapter  Given these dierences it was justied in the main text to distinguish between Focus and PredOp This paid o in view of the functional parallelism between Beghelli and Stowells ShareP and Focus with bare indenites on the one hand and Beghelli and Stowells AgrPVP positions and PredOp on the other In this section I am making the simplifying assumption that Focus and PredOp are the alternative speciers of the same functional head with a F feature Now the question is why counters exhibit the peculiar distribution noted in  I adopt a suggestion by M Brody  pc who observes that the behavior of counters resembles that of whphrases in say English they must check their F feature overtly unless another item has checked its F feature overtly Counters that remain postverbal are analogous to whinsitu  a FP Hatn!al t$obb l!any h!"vott fel kev!es !ut sixthan more girl called up few boyacc #The girls who phoned few boys were more than six b  Felh!"vtam kev!es !ut upcalledI few boyacc #I phoned few boys  a Where did you buy what b  You bought what Thus a syntactic condition analogous to the one governing the distribution of whphrases the Whcriterion can be thought to account for the data Finally we must ask why modied numerals are F  A simple perhaps also simplistic answer might be this The DPs that can introduce discourse referents and serve as targets of predication are topics in some generalized sense The DPs that cannot introduce discourse referents are bound to be part of the comment F is perhaps nothing else than is part of the comment	 We may note however at least two relevant dierences between the two domains First whinsitu may be located in a dierent clause than the overtly moved whphrase while insitu counting quantiers must be clausemates to the overt checker of #F Second the postverbal counter does not by any means take scope in PredOp it takes scope in situ This is conrmed by the fact that another quantier may scope between them In the sentence below everyone unambiguously scopes over few jokes MariHatnal t$obb u meselt mindenkinek keves viccet It was Mary  There were more than six boys who told everybody few jokes This view is consonant with the bipartite hgrounding claimi representations in Kalman

  Kalman argues that a #F constituent is part of the claim and the remnant of the grounding I thank J Horvath L Kalman and M Brody for discussions on the feature #F Strategies for Scope Taking    REFERENCES Abusch Dorit  The scope of indenites Natural Language Semantics  ' Beghelli Filippo  A minimalist approach to quantier scope In Amy J Schafer Ed Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society  Volume One ' Amherst GLSA Publications University of Massachussetts Beghelli Filippo  The Phrase Structure of Quantier Scope PhD thesis UCLA Beghelli Filippo  The syntax of distributivity and pairlist questions In this volume Beghelli Filippo Dorit BenShalom and Anna Szabolcsi  Variation distributivity and the illusion of branching In this volume Beghelli Filippo and Tim Stowell  The direction of quantier movement GLOW Newsletter  ' Beghelli Filippo and Tim Stowell  Distributivity and negation In this volume BenShalom Dorit  Object wide scope and semantic trees In Lahiri Ed Proceedings of SALT III Brody Michael  Remarks on the order of elements in the Hungarian focus eld In Istv!an Kenesei Ed Approaches to Hungarian Volume  ' Szeged JATE Chierchia Gennaro  Questions with quantiers Natural Language Se mantics  ' Comorovski Ileana  On quantier strength In Emmon Bach et al Eds Quantication in Natural Languages ' Dordrecht Kluwer Crain Stephen and Henry Hamburger  Semantics knowledge and np modication In Robert D Levine Ed Formal Grammar Theory and Implementation ' Oxford University Press Diesing Molly  Indenites Cambridge MIT Press En)c M$urvet  The semantics of specicity Linguistic Inquiry  ' Farkas Donka  Evaluation indices and scope In this volume   Chapter  Gil David  Scopal quantiers Some universals and eability Unpub lished manuscript Gil David  Universal quantiers and distributivity In Emmon Bach et al Eds Quantication in Natural Languages Volume  ' Dordrecht

Kluwer Groenendijk Jeroen and Martin Stokhof  Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers PhD thesis University of Amsterdam Groenendijk Jeroen and Martin Stokhof  Interrogatives and adverbs of quantication In Katalin Bimb!o and Andr!as M!at!e Eds Proceedings of the th Symposium on Logic and Language ' Budapest Akad!emiai Kiad!o Haegeman Liliane and Raaela Zanuttini  Negative concord in West Flemish Unpublished manuscript Heim Irene  The Semantics of Denite and Indenite Noun Phrases PhD thesis University of Massachussetts Amherst Horvath Julia  Structural focus structural case and the notion of featureassignment In Katalin !E Kiss Ed Discourse Congurational Languages ' New York Oxford University Press Hunyadi L!aszl!o   A nyelvi polarit	as kifejez	ese a magyarban The Expres sion of Linguistic Polarity in Hungarian PhD thesis Hungarian Academy of Sciences Kadmon Nirit  On Unique and nonUnique Reference and Asymmetric Quantication PhD thesis University of Massachussetts Amherst K!alm!an L!aszl!o  Conditionals quantication and bipartite meanings In Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar Volume  Number  Theo retical Linguistics Programme Budapest University and Research Institute for Linguistics Hungarian Academy of Sciences Kamp Hans and Uwe Reyle  From Discourse to Logic Dordrecht

Kluwer Kenesei Istv!an  On the logic of Hungarian word order In Werner Abraham and Sjaak de Meij Eds Topic Focus Congurationality '  Amsterdam John Benjamins !E Kiss Katalin  Congurationality in Hungarian Dordrecht Kluwer Strategies for Scope Taking   !E Kiss Katalin  Logical structure in linguistic structure The case of Hungarian In James Huang and Robert May Eds Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure ' Dordrecht Kluwer !E Kiss Katalin  Whmovement and specicity Natural Language and Linguistic Theory  ' !E Kiss Katalin  Sentence structure and word order In Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin !E Kiss Eds Syntax and Semantics  ' San Diego

Academic Press Kuroda SY  The categorical and the thetic judgment Evidence from Japanese syntax Foundations of Language  '  Ladusaw William  Thetic and categorical stage and individual weak and strong In Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann Eds Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV ' Ithaca Cornell University Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics Publications van Leusen Noor and L!aszl!o K!alm!an  The semantics of free focus University of Amsterdam Liu Fenghsi  Scope Dependency in English and Chinese PhD thesis UCLA Liu Fenghsi  Branching quantication and scope independence In Jaap van der Does and Jan van Eijck Eds Generalized Quantier Theory and Applications ' Chicago CSLIUniversity of Chicago Press Partee Barbara  Quanticational structures and compositionality In Emmon Bach et al Eds Quantication in Natural Languages ' Dordrecht Kluwer Reinhart Tanya  Interface strategies Unpublished manuscript Utrecht University Sasse HansJ$urgen  The theticcategorical distinction revisited Lin guistics   ' Stabler Edward  Computing quantier scope In this volume Sutton Melody  Binomial each Masters thesis UCLA Szabolcsi Anna  Az aktu!alis mondattagol!as szemantik!aj!ahoz On the semantics of functional sentence perspective  Nyelvtudom	anyi K ozlem	enyek '   Chapter  Szabolcsi Anna   The semantics of topicfocus articulation In Jeroen Groenendijk et al Eds Formal Methods in the Study of Language '  Amsterdam Mathematisch Centrum Szabolcsi Anna  Combinatory Grammar and projection from the lexicon In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi Eds Lexical Matters ' Stanford

CSLI Szabolcsi Anna  All quantiers are not equal the case of focus In Proceedings of the th Symposium on Logic and Language Vol ' '  Acta Linguistica Hungarica Szabolcsi Anna a Quantiers in pairlist readings In this volume Szabolcsi Anna b Verb and prex movement in Hungarian Unpublished manuscript UCLA Szabolcsi Anna and Frans Zwarts  Weak islands and an algebraic seman tics of scope taking Natural Language Semantics  ' Reprinted in this volume Webber Bonnie Lynn  A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora New York Garland Winter Yoad  Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indenites Unpublished manuscript OTS Utrecht University