Experimental Support for Inverse Scope Readings of Finite-Clause-Embedded Antecedent-Contained-Deletion Sentences

Unlike its overt counterpart, wh-movement, Quantifier Raising (QR) is typically assumed not to be able to cross a finite clause boundary. Two effects of this clause-boundedness constraint are that (a) a universal quantifier that is embedded in a finite clause is judged to be unable to take scope over an indefinite in subject position, and (b) in sentences in which antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) is embedded in a finite clause, a matrix reading is questionable—and extrawide scope over the indefinite subject even more so. However, counterexamples to this generalization about the QR locality constraint have surfaced over the years, and recent evidence demonstrates that the matrix reading is available, given certain linguistic and contextual manipulations. Cecchetto (2004) argues that if the quantificational phrase in an ACD sentence raises high enough by QR to take scope over the matrix VP, it should be able to take scope over an indefinite subject. Here, I provide experimental evidence that participants can indeed access the supposedly barred inverse scope reading of such ACD sentences and provide justifications that unambiguously signal this reading. These results, paired with those previously reported for the matrix reading, suggest that—at least in the case of ACD—there may be nothing in the grammar that a priori prevents QR out of a finite clause, and that interpretations arising from extrawide scope of a quantifier may be difficult to access for independent reasons.

1 Introduction and Background

In a typical case of verb phrase ellipsis (VPE), as shown in (1), ellipsis is resolved by looking to a salient antecedent for interpretation (Hankamer and Sag 1976, Sag 1976).

1. (1). Anna toured the Met, and Mary did 〈tour the Met〉, too.

Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), as shown in (2), is a special case of VPE in which the site of ellipsis is contained within its antecedent.

1. (2). Anna [toured every museum that Mary did].

As a result, ACD encounters certain well-known problems, highlighted in discussions by Bouton (1970), May (1985), Kennedy (1997), and Fox (2000), among others.

Ordinarily, the VP antecedent and the VPE must share identity at some level (Sag 1976; see Van Craenenbroeck and Merchant 2013 for a review) and meet certain conditions on focus (Heim 1997, Jacobson 2004). However, when the VPE is contained in its antecedent, the two VPs cannot be parallel in form to each other (see Merchant 2000b, Fox 2002). Moreover, any attempt to copy in the antecedent VP results in an infinite regress, because the ellipsis site is copied in as well, as shown in (3).

1. (3). Anna [toured [every museum that Mary did 〈tour every museum that Mary did 〈tour every museum that Mary did… 〉〉]]

One notable solution to this problem is to have the object quantificational phrase (QNP)¹ covertly raise out of the VP in which it is contained through Quantifier Raising (QR), so that the VP can then serve as an antecedent for the VPE (May 1985, Larson and May 1990, Kennedy 1997; see also Fox 2002).² This process is captured in (4).

1. (4).

There is evidence from binding and negative-polarity-item licensing that supports VP as the adjunction site for the QNP, allowing it to remain below the subject position (Fox 1995, Merchant 2000a), although vP (Bruening 2001) and IP (Sag 1976, Williams 1977, May 1985, Fiengo and May 1994) are still viable options. What is clear is that targeting CP is not possible.

There is a direct correlation between the antecedent targeted (and the scope of the QNP) and the interpretations generated, as discussed by Larson and May (1990) and Kennedy (1997). Consider a linguistic context in which ACD is contained within multiple VPs, as in (5). If the QNP is able to raise out of the first VP by QR, one reading can be generated (the embedded reading), and if it can raise higher to adjoin to the matrix VP (in so-called long QR), yet another reading is available (the matrix reading).

1. (5).

   1. a. Anna [_VP wanted to [_VP tour [_QNP every museum that Mary did]]].

   2. b. Embedded reading...