Epistemic containment

Linguistic Inquiry

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 173-198

  Von Fintel, Kai ^a   Iatridou, Sabine ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clause structure; Modality; Quantification; Raising; Reconstruction; Scope ambiguity

Indexed keywords

EID: 2342420013     PISSN: 00243892     EISSN: 00243892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/002438903321663370     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. The syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
2. Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6:197-219.
3. Beck, Sigrid. 1996a. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4: 1-56.
4. Beck, Sigrid. 1996b. Wh-constructions and transparent logical form. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
5. Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking, ed. by Anna Szabolcsi, 71-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
6. Boeckx, Cedric. 2001. Scope reconstruction and A-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 503-548.
7. Brennan, Virginia. 1993. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
8. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys Superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32:233-273.
9. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The Minimalist Program, 219-394. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
10. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
11. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Available at http:// www.sfb441.uni-tuebingen.de/b2/papers/DrubigModality.pdf.
13. Elbourne, Paul, and Uli Sauerland. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33:283-319.
14. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
15. von Fintel, Kai, and Sabine Iatridou. 2002. If and when if-clauses can restrict quantifiers. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Available at http://web.mit.edu/fintel/lpw.mich.pdf.
16. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-196.
17. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
19. Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur vox sapientia: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. by Caroline Fery and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 214-239. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
20. loup, Georgette. 1975. The treatment of quantifier scope in a transformational grammar. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
21. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
22. Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28:662-688.
23. Kratzer, Angelika. 1978. Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie - Modalwörter - Konditionalsätze. Königstein/ Taunus: Scriptor.
24. Kratzer, Angelika. 1986. Conditionals. In CLS 22, vol. 2, ed. by Anne M. Farley, Peter T. Farley, and Karl-Erik McCullough, 1-15. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.
25. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and grammar, ed. by Susan Rothstein, 163-196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
26. Kratzer, Angelika. 1999. Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. Available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ WEwNGUyO/.
27. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, ed. by Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 189-215. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
28. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
29. Lebeaux, David. 1995. Where does the binding theory apply? In Papers in syntax, syntax-semantics interface, and phonology, ed. by Ricardo Echepare and Viola Miglio, 63-88. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 3. College Park: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics.
30. Lebeaux, David. 1998. Where does the binding theory apply? Ms. (second draft), NEC Research Institute.
31. Lechner, Winfried. 1997. Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica 52:276-310.
32. Leech, Geoffrey. 1971. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.
33. Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Edward Keenan, 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Martin, Roger. 1992. On the distribution and content of PRO. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
35. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
36. May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
37. McDowell, Joyce. 1987. Assertion and modality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
38. Musan, Renate. 1997. On the temporal interpretation of noun phrases. New York: Garland.
39. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. by K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes, 221-242. Dordrecht: Reidel.
40. Perlmutter, David. 1970. The two verbs begin. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Roderick Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 107-119. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.
41. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
42. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
43. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English, London: Longman.
44. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997a. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335-397.
45. Reinhart, Tanya. 1997b. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6:29-56.
46. Rodman, Robert. 1976. Scope phenomena, movement "transformations, " and relative clauses. In Montague Grammar, ed. by Barbara Partee, 165-176. New York: Academic Press.
47. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
48. Sauerland, Uli. 1999. Scope reconstruction without reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake, and Eun-Sook Kim, 582-596. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
49. Szabolcsi, Anna, ed. 1997. Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
50. Tsai, Wei-Tien. 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
51. Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8:101-139.
52. Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:399-467.
53. Wurmbrand, Susi, and Jonathan David Bobaljik. 1999. Modals, raising, and A-reconstruction. Handout of a talk given at Leiden University (October 1999) and at the University of Salzburg (December 1999). Available at http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/linguistics/faculty/wurmbrand/research/files/ Leiden-1999.pdf.