Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:14:37.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clitic left dislocation and inverse scope: Plain indefinites versus numerals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2022

DESPINA OIKONOMOU Open the ORCID record for DESPINA OIKONOMOU [Opens in a new window] ,
FELIX GOLCHER Open the ORCID record for FELIX GOLCHER [Opens in a new window]  and
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU Open the ORCID record for ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU [Opens in a new window]
DESPINA OIKONOMOU
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany [email protected]; [email protected]
FELIX GOLCHER
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany [email protected]
ARTEMIS ALEXIADOU
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany and ZAS Berlin [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The syntax of Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) has been widely debated due to its mixed properties, which in some cases indicate movement (e.g. island sensitivity, certain connectivity effects) and in other cases base generation of the CLLD-ed phrase (wide scope, lack of weak crossover). In this paper we discuss scope facts with CLLD in Greek, revealing a contrast depending on the type of quantifier. We present experimental evidence that whereas CLLD-ed plain indefinites take wide scope, CLLD-ed numerals can get a low scope interpretation. We argue that the inverse scope interpretation with CLLD-ed numerals is only apparent, presenting, in fact, an instance of split scope between the degree quantifier and the existential operator. This analysis presents evidence in favor of a movement analysis for CLLD, thus patterning with the observation that binding reconstruction is possible. At the same time, the non-availability of scope reconstruction with CLLD is attributed to stricter locality constraints which have been discussed for quantifier raising as opposed to other types of movement and dependencies.

Keywords

clitic left dislocationdegree quantifiersGreekindefinitesnumeralsquantifier scopesplit scope
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , November 2022 , pp. 847 - 886
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

First, we are grateful to our reviewers and editor for their constructive feedback which has greatly improved the present paper. We would also like to thank Stephanie Solt and Lisa Bylinina for their valuable feedback and constructive comments. In addition, this work has been greatly benefited from the feedback we received at various venues, especially from the reviewers and the audience at the 8th Biennial Experimental Pragmatics conference (XPRAG) at the University of Edinburgh in 2019 and the workshop ‘The meaning of numerals’ at ZAS. This work would not have been possible without our participants in Greece who took part in our study. For their technical knowledge and help we would also like to thank Jörg Dreyer, who kindly provided us with more than just the necessary equipment at the Phonetics Laboratory of ZAS for our recordings, and Marilena Tsopanidi for offering multiple times to record the target sentences. Also many thanks to Kiriaki Balamoti for assisting us with testing at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. Of course, all errors are our own responsibility. This work was been funded by AL 554/8-1 (DFG Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Preis 2014 to Artemis Alexiadou).

References

REFERENCES

Agouraki, Y. 1992. Clitic-left-dislocation and clitic doubling: A unification. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 45–70.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 1999. On the properties of some Greek word order patterns. In Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G. C., & Stavrou, M. (eds), Studies in Greek syntax, 45–65. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2006. Left dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 668–699. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2014. Multiple determiners and the structure of DPs, vol. 211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16.3, 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Folli, R.. 2019. Topic-strategies and the internal structure of nominal arguments in Greek and Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 50.3, 439–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Kolliakou, D.. 2002. On linkhood, topicalization and clitic left dislocation. Journal of Linguistics 38.2, 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1994. Clitic dependencies in Modern Greek. Ph.D. thesis, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H. & Zwarts, F. (eds.), Materials on left dislocation, 151–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K. 2004. The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity. Ph.D. thesis, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Angelopoulos, N. & Sportiche, D.. 2021. Clitic dislocations and clitics in French and Greek: From interpretation to structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39, 959–1022. doi:10.1007/s11049-020-09500-z.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2003. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. In Kaiser, E. & Arunachalam, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, vol. 9, 31–44. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, A. & Baltazani, M.. 2000. Greek ToBI: A system for the annotation of Greek speech corpora. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation II, 555–562.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, A. & Baltazani, M.. 2005. Intonational analysis and prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora. In Jun, S. A. (ed.), Prosodic typology and transcription: A unified approach, 84–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltazani, M. 2002. Quantifier scope and the role of intonation in Greek. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Baltazani, M. & Jun, S. A.. 1999. Focus and topic intonation in Greek. In Ohala, J. J., Hasegawa, Y., Ohala, M., Granville, D. & Bailey, A. C. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 2, 1305–1308. San Fransisco: University of California.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S.. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67.1, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14.1, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. 2012. DegP scope revisited. Natural Language Semantics 20.3, 227–272.Google Scholar
Blok, D. 2019. Scope oddity: On the semantic and pragmatic interactions of modified numerals, negative indefinites, focus operators, and modals. Ph.D. thesis, LOT.Google Scholar
Blok, D., Bylinina, L. & Nouwen, R.. 2017. Splitting Germanic negative indefinites. In Cremers, A., van Gessel, T. & Roelofsen, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, 125–134. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D.. 2016. Praat, v. 6.0.2.1. http://www.praat.org (accessed 29 March 2022).Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Some notes on the syntax of quantity. In Kempchinsky, P. & Slabakova, R. (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 41–68. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. 2003. On d-trees, beans, and b-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26.5, 511–545.Google Scholar
Bylinina, L. 2019. Remarks on numerals and polarity. Presented at ‘The meaning of numerals: Cognitive, experimental, and semantic perspectives’ workshop, Leibniz Centre for General Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bylinina, L. & Nouwen, R.. 2020. Numeral semantics. Language and Linguistics Compass 14.8, art. e12390. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12.1, 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2001. Syntactic or semantic reconstruction? Evidence from pseudoclefts and clitic left dislocation. In Cecchetto, C., Chierchia, G. & Guasti, M. T. (eds.), Semantic Interfaces, 90–144. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural Language Semantics 12.4, 345–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. & Chierchia, G.. 1999. Reconstruction in dislocation constructions and the syntax/semantics interface. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17, 132–146.Google Scholar
Champollion, L. 2017. Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, C. & Petrosino, R.. 2017. Greek root-allomorphy without spans. In Bennett, W. G., Hracs, L. & Storoshenko, D. R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 151–160. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2, 397–412.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. & Beaver, D.. 2007. On the logic of verbal modification. In Aloni, P. D. Maria & Roelofsen, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 3–9. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2012. English rise-fall-rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Linguistics and Philosophy 35.5, 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constant, N. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachussetts.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition, vol. 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3.3, 283–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. 1998. Economy and semantic interpretation: A study of scope and variable binding. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation, vol. 35. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency, vol. 23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gryllia, S. 2009. On the nature of preverbal focus in Greek: A theoretical and experimental approach. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Hackl, M. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Hara, Y. 2003. Scope inversion in Japanese: Contrastive topics require scalar implicatures. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13, 245–256.Google Scholar
Harrell, F. E. & Dupont, C.. 2019. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous, r package version 4.2-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc (accessed 29 March 2022).Google Scholar
Heim, I. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Jackson, B. & Matthews, T. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 10, 40–64. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A.. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2007. Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (Linguistics Today 101), 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, S. 1995. Clitics and island effects. In Izvorski, R. & Tredinnick, V. (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 2, 11–31. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2000. How far will quantifiers go? In Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 187–210. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Alexopoulou, T.. 2001. Phonology competes with syntax: Experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of information structure. Cognition 79.3, 301–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. 2015. A ‘de-fregean’ semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 8, art. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupula, M. 2014. Clitic left dislocation as agreement: The movement approach revisited. In Kimmelman, V., Korotkova, N. & Yanovich, I. (eds.), Proceedings of MOSS 2: Moscow Syntax and Semantics 2011 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), vol. 75, 1–18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landman, F. 1996. Plurality. In Lappin, S. (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, 425–457. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lascaratou, C. 1998. Basic characteristics of Modern Greek word order. In Siewierska, A. (ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe: Empirical approaches to language typology, vol. 20, 151–172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, W. 2018. A calculus for reconstruction and anti-reconstruction. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M. (eds.), Reconstruction effects in relative clauses (Studia grammatica 75), 113–144. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. 2020. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means, r package version 1.4.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed 29 March 2022).Google Scholar
López, L. 2014. A derivational syntax for information structure, vol. 23. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mavrogiorgos, M. 2010. Clitics in Greek: A minimalist account of proclisis and enclisis, vol. 160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Mayr, C. & Spector, B.. 2010. Not too strong! Generalizing the scope economy condition. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 14, 305–321.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Optionality. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 354–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2017. Agreement Beyond Phi, vol. 75. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nouwen, R. 2010. Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3, art. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oikonomou, D., Golcher, F. & Alexiadou, A.. 2020. Quantifier scope and information structure in Greek. Glossa 5, art. 81. doi:10.5334/gjgl.1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternak, R. & Graf, T.. 2021. Cyclic scope and processing difficulty in a minimalist parser. Glossa 6.1, art. 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revithiadou, A., Markopoulos, G. & Spyropoulos, V.. 2019. Changing shape according to strength: Evidence from root allomorphy in Greek. The Linguistic Review 36.3, 553–574.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Eschman, A. & Zuccolotto, A.. 2002. E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E. & Mai, K.. 2017. Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa 2.1, art. 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C.-Y. E., Mai, K. & Polinsky, M.. 2014. Chinese scope: An experimental investigation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, 396–414.Google Scholar
Solt, S. D. 2006. Why a few? and why not *a many? Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, 333–346.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, V. 1999. Agreement relations in Greek. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, V. & Stamatogiannis, N.. 2011. Subextraction from subjects in Greek: Things that you can think and you can say. Talk presented at Islands in Contemporary Linguistic Theory, University of the Basque Country, 16–18 November.Google Scholar
Stateva, P. 2004. Beck effects in the comparative. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 8, 283–300.Google Scholar
Stavrou, M. & Terzi, A.. 2008. Types of numerical nouns. In Chang, B. C. & Haynie, J. H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), 429–437. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2010. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Zimmermann, M. & Féry, C. (eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, 115–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. 1990. The clause structure and word order of Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 226–255.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. 1995. Focusing in Modern Greek. In Kiss, K. (ed.), Discourse configurational languages, 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. 2012. Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics and Pragmatics 5, art. 8. doi:10.3765/sp.5.8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2018. The cost of raising quantifiers. Glossa 3.1, art. 19. doi:10.5334/gjgl.329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar