Structure-Building via Merging Economy: The Scope of Indefinites
Norio Suzuki

Kobe Shinwa Women’s University

This paper aims to propose a narrow-syntactic (NS) reanalysis of the two interpretational
phenomena concerning indefinite NPs: (i) wide scope (WS) interpretation (violating an island
constraint; (1a)); & (ii) scope diminishment (SD) reading in negative NPs (negative-split,A-reconstruction; Iatridou & Sichel 2011; (2a)). I derive these interpretational nuances fromsome NS structure-building operations (phase-based; Chomsky 2000, etc.; ‘amount ofTRANSFER’ subject to economy) across all the three prolific domains of Grohmann 2003,including the notion of invasive interface (López 2003) along with that of bi-directional‘on-line’ passage between NS and interfaces (Suzuki 2007), and the principle of Merging
Economy (ME) that states that “An n/N cannot have a larger amount of its uninterpretablefeatures checked/deleted than is needed for the purposes of the current operation of Merge”(Suzuki 2012: 328; Georgi & Müller 2010), along with the concept of economy (Fox 2000).
My architectural case is based on Hinzen’s (2012: 311) observation that “… grammarconstrains the organization of meaning in language.”
The WS (de re) interpretation of an indefinite NP (a philosopher), as in (1a), has
attracted much attention:(1) a. If Bert invites a philosopher, Lud will be angry. (López 2012)b. Choice-function: Ǝf (CH(f) ˄ (Bert invites f(philosopher) → Lud will beangry)) (based on Reinhart 2006; a philosopher = one of the philosophers)c. Existential-closure: If …Ǝy [NC/vP Bert invites a philosopher (y)] …
(based on Diesing 1992; domain of EC being nuclear scope (NC), taken here to bevP; a philosopher = any philosopher)
A philosopher takes scope outside the conditional (a strong island for extraction), on theinterpretation where there is a certain philosopher such that if Bert invites him, Lud will beangry (1b; de re interpretation in terms of a choice function (CH(f))). The existential-closure(EC) interpretation of the indefinite is given in (1c). Let us see then an SD example (Iatridou& Sichel 2011: 605-606), as in (2a):(2) a. No student may leave. (a Neg˃Mod modal)b. Split interpretation: Neg ˃ Modal ˃ Ǝ
It is not allowed that a student leaves.
c. De re interpretation: Neg ˃ Ǝ ˃ Modal
There is no specific student x such that x is allowed to leave.
We focus on the split interpretation in (2b; negative-split), where the “negative” and“indefinite” components of the negative NP (no student) are interpretationally separated fromeach other by the intervening modal. It looks as though the indefinite component of thenegative NP A-reconstructs and scopes under the modal.
Let us see the NS-derivation of (1a) with the interpretation (1b). I follow the nP/NPapproach to nominal phrases (Georgi & Müller 2010, Chomsky 2007). ME (Suzuki 2012)
constrains each step of NS-derivation. Restricting ourselves to the if-conditional, the VP
invites a philosopher is TRANSFERred at vP to the pragmatics-interface (P-interface; López
2003) to be assigned a [+specific]-feature, assumed to be licensed in the C-/discourse-domain.
The indefinite with the [+specific]-feature (a philosopher) ends up covertly raising to C as aresult of Internal Merge via the P-interface (via a bi-directional ‘on-line’ passage; Suzuki2007). The final WS/de re interpretation of a philosopher may depend on some CH(f)application. As for the derivation of (1a) with the EC interpretation (1c), the P-interface‘invades’ NS to assign a [‒specific]-feature to the indefinite in the VP (invites a philosopher)
at vP.
As for the NS-derivations of (2a), let us see its split interpretation (2b). Details about themodal aside, I take the first merger to be between leave and the nP a student (given ‘[no [a[student]]]’ as the complex structure of no student, based on Zeijlstra 2007). At vP, theP-interface invades NS to assign a [‒specific]-feature to the indefinite in the vP (a studentleave). The indefinite then raises to [Spec, T], projecting up to the nP-structure ‘[ no [ astudent]]’ (pronounced as ‘no student’). As for the interpretation of the negative no, I assume
that it depends on discourse factors/the speaker/hearer’s ‘conversational’ circumstances. Theno portion of the subject negative covertly raises up to the C-domain and a negative operatorof some sort (Zeijilstra 2007) identifies no by ‘binding’ it. Overall, we obtain the [‒specific]
interpretation for the a student portion of no student under the modal may, while above may
we get the negative interpretation of its no portion in the C-domain (split interpretation: Neg
˃ Modal ˃ Ǝ). Let us see the de re interpretation (2c) of (2a). The first merger applies
between leave and the n student. Then, the n student raises to [Spec, T], projecting up to ‘[no[a [student]]].’ Both the negative no and the indefinite a covertly raise to the C-domain to belicensed, no ending up as ‘bound’ by a negative operator, and the indefinite receiving a[+specific]-feature from the P-interface (de re interpretation: Neg ˃ Ǝ ˃ Modal).
SelectedReferences
Chomsky 2000 MI./ 2001 DbP./ 2004 BEA./ 2005 OP./ 2007 AUGfB.// Diesing 1992 Indefinites.// Fox 2000
Economy & Semantic Interpretation.// Georgi & Müller 2010 Noun-phrase Structure by Reprojection Syntax.//
Grohmann 2003 Successive Cyclicity under (Anti-)local Considerations Syntax.// Hinzen 2012 Phases &Semantics In Phases.// Iatridou & Sichel 2011 Negative DPs, A-movement, & ScopeDiminishment LI.// López
2003 Steps For a

Well-adjusted Dislocation Stud Ling./ 2012 Indefinite Objects.// Reinhart 2006 InterfaceStrategies.// Suzuki 2007 Reflections On Chomsky’s SMT./ 2012 Modification as Reprojection JELS.// Zeijlstra
2007 On the Lexical Status of Negative Iindefinites in Dutch and German.