Chapter 2. Persian quantifiers and their scope
-
Nazila Shafiei
Abstract
This paper investigates quantifiers and their scope in Persian, proposing that Persian is not a scope-rigid language, rather scope rigidity in this language is a construction-specific property controlled by scrambling. In other words, the availability of scrambling translates into lack of ambiguity (for similar arguments, see Hoji 1985, 1986 for Japanese; Ionin 2001 for Russian; Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012 for German). I further propose that in Persian, the nature and the size of scrambling is what dictates the presence or absence of scope ambiguity, whereby the vP-internal scrambling cases induce ambiguity while the vP-external ones do not. Examples from various sentences with two quantifiers show that although Persian exhibits a strong preference for surface scope in general, constructions involving inverse linking, for which only the inverse scope is possible, justify that a Quantifier Raising (QR) operation is available in this language, contradicting Karimi (2005). This paper draws on Bobaljik & Wurmbrand’s (2012) (B&W) constraint-based proposal and the negative correlation between scrambling and scope ambiguity.
Abstract
This paper investigates quantifiers and their scope in Persian, proposing that Persian is not a scope-rigid language, rather scope rigidity in this language is a construction-specific property controlled by scrambling. In other words, the availability of scrambling translates into lack of ambiguity (for similar arguments, see Hoji 1985, 1986 for Japanese; Ionin 2001 for Russian; Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012 for German). I further propose that in Persian, the nature and the size of scrambling is what dictates the presence or absence of scope ambiguity, whereby the vP-internal scrambling cases induce ambiguity while the vP-external ones do not. Examples from various sentences with two quantifiers show that although Persian exhibits a strong preference for surface scope in general, constructions involving inverse linking, for which only the inverse scope is possible, justify that a Quantifier Raising (QR) operation is available in this language, contradicting Karimi (2005). This paper draws on Bobaljik & Wurmbrand’s (2012) (B&W) constraint-based proposal and the negative correlation between scrambling and scope ambiguity.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- Chapter 1. Anaphoric potential of pseudo-incorporated bare objects in Persian 12
- Chapter 2. Persian quantifiers and their scope 44
- Chapter 3. Why-stripping in Persian 81
- Chapter 4. Middle Persian Ezafe 100
- Chapter 5. Ezafe and the article 130
- Chapter 6. Ezafe as a linking feature within DP 154
- Chapter 7. Mood selection in complement clauses in Persian 180
- Chapter 8. Three types of verb stem levelling in Tat 210
- Chapter 9. A null stem analysis of Persian copular verbs 231
- Chapter 10. Semi-anticausatives 263
- Chapter 11. The nature and licensing of hi:tʃ elements in Persian 282
- Language index 307
- Name index 309
- Subject index 313
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Introduction 1
- Chapter 1. Anaphoric potential of pseudo-incorporated bare objects in Persian 12
- Chapter 2. Persian quantifiers and their scope 44
- Chapter 3. Why-stripping in Persian 81
- Chapter 4. Middle Persian Ezafe 100
- Chapter 5. Ezafe and the article 130
- Chapter 6. Ezafe as a linking feature within DP 154
- Chapter 7. Mood selection in complement clauses in Persian 180
- Chapter 8. Three types of verb stem levelling in Tat 210
- Chapter 9. A null stem analysis of Persian copular verbs 231
- Chapter 10. Semi-anticausatives 263
- Chapter 11. The nature and licensing of hi:tʃ elements in Persian 282
- Language index 307
- Name index 309
- Subject index 313
