Issues at the Syntax Semantics Interface
Summative Assessment 2
Due Date: Thursday Week 1 Spring Term. 12.00 noon
The classical approach to the assignment of scope to Quantificational
Phrases (QPs) is via the rule of Quantifier Raising (QR). QR has a special
status in syntactic and semantic theory because of two special characteristics: It operates covertly and it is clause bound. The former means that the
effects of QR are only detectable in interpretations (different meanings for
the same surface structure). The latter means that any given QP can only
take scope within the clause in which it is generated. In other words, QR always targets one position, namely an adjoined position to IP/TP. We have
however discussed examples like the following which challenge the clause
boundedness of QR:
(1) (At least) one/a judge recommended that we free every prisoner
In this example a scope reading as in (2) is possible:
(2) every prisoner > (At least) One/a judge
Meaning that for every prisoner a potentially different judge recommended that they be freed. With this in mind consider the following questions:
1. What is the significance of these sentences for the operation of QR
and its locality constraints? (HINT: consider the fact that there are
other movement processes, such as wh-movement that are indeed unbounded. Think of the mechanisms involved there. What are the
predictions?)
2. Are long distance inverse-scope readings available with all types of
QPs? (Think of the types of QPs that we discussed them).
3. How would the feature-based theory of scope account for such data
within a phase based approach to structure building?
1
Write a 2000 word essay addressing the above questions. An important
aspect of the work will be to choose the right way to structure your essay
and your argument. In other words, you should think very carefully about
the relationship between the different questions above.
You must submit through the usual Departmental e-submission
portal. Submission must be in PDF format only.
2
Sample Solution
between Hamlet’s thoughts and actions but we once again see proof of Eric Levy’s theory of the relation between reason and emotion in the world of this play. When Hamlet proclaims his love for Ophelia was greater than that of “forty thousand brothers,” Claudius quickly points to Hamlet’s madness as a cause for this emotional and dramatic outburst. But, just as before, Hamlet is not mad but rather knows precisely what he is doing. He is, at last, ready to perform his role in the face of his own death. In the final scene of the play, Hamlet’s mind is the clearest is has been and his thoughts are incredibly rational. He is now more metatheatrically aware than he has been at any other point in the entire play and he reveals this in his discourse with Horatio. He tells Horatio exactly what happened on his trip to England and reveals Claudius’ plot to have him murdered. His tale is laced with super-awareness and a very broad sense of his condition when he praises impulsive behavior because “there’s a divinity that shape’s our ends, rough-hew them how we will” (Shakespeare V.ii.11-12). He recognizes the inevitability of his fate and the futility of deep reflection about life to try to change its outcome. He understands that the only way to incite change is through action and no matter how you try to paint life in your mind, it will not change. Throughout the following dialogue, Hamlet mixes in many more theatrical metaphors to describe his situation. He alludes to the fact that he has finally begun his performance after the very detailed research he performed throughout the rest of the play. The play ends with Hamlet’s death and possibly the clearest thought we’ve seen from him since the beginning of the play. Hamlet instructs Horatio to tell his story and to crown the invading Fortinbras king of Denmark. Hamlet is ready to take his fin