• Publications
  • Influence
Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking
This paper focuses on why certain wh-phrases are poor wide scope takers, and offers an algebraic perspective on scope interaction. Expand
  • 275
  • 19
Ways of Scope Taking
Preface. Introduction. 1. Background Notions in Lattice Theory and Generalized Quantifiers A. Szabolcsi. 2. Variation, Distributivity, and the Illusion of Branching F. Beghelli, et al. 3.Expand
  • 227
  • 15
The semantics of topic-focus articulation
  • 207
  • 14
Strategies for Scope Taking
Standard theories of scope are semantically blind. They employ a single logicosyntactic rule of scope assignment (quantifying in, Quantifier Raising, storage, or type change, etc.) which roughlyExpand
  • 277
  • 12
Positive Polarity – Negative Polarity
Positive polarity items (PPIs) are generally thought to have the boringproperty that they cannot scope below negation. The starting point of the paper is theobservation that their distribution isExpand
  • 214
  • 11
  • PDF
I will argue that NP in Hungarian is S-like in that it has an INFL and a peripheral position. It is a matter of debate these days whether Hungarian is configurational at the S-level, see E. KissExpand
  • 407
  • 11
Quantifiers in Pair-List Readings
In this paper the term pair-list reading will be applied to both types (1) and (2) (1) Who did every dog bite? ‘For every dog, who did it bite?’ (2) Who did six dogs bite? Expand
  • 76
  • 8
(2) a. Sentences are composed by putting their constituents together step by step, with no subsequent rearrangement; b. Not only each lexical item but also each rule of composition is assigned anExpand
  • 88
  • 8
  • PDF
Bound variables in syntax (Are there any
  • 125
  • 7
Hungarian Disjunctions and Positive Polarity
The second sentence is ambiguous. It may mean that I suppose we did not close the door or did not close the window, but I am not sure which. This ̀ I am not sure which’ reading is irrelevant to usExpand
  • 62
  • 7
  • PDF