Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only∗
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE — Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract. The ability of English VP-even but not VP-only to associate with a leftward subject(Jackendoff, 1972) has been a long-standing puzzle for the theory of focus association, and runs
counter to the generalization that focus-sensitive operators associate with a focused constituent
in their scope. Here I argue that such backwards association is illusory. In cases of apparent
leftward subject association, even is associating with the subject’s predicate-internal lower copyof movement, which is within the scope of even. The same conﬁguration with only yields anuninterpretable structure, due to independent differences in the semantic contribution of even andonly. I then show that this pattern of association extends to other cases of movement as well: ingeneral, even but not only is able to associate with material which has moved out of the operator’s
scope. Patterns of leftward focus association present a new argument against the scope theory ofeven.
Keywords: Association with Focus, subject association, Copy Theory of movement, only, even(scale reversal, lexical ambiguity theory, scope theory)
1. Introduction
Operators such as only and even are called focus-sensitive as the semantic contribution that they
make is dependent upon a focused associate constituent in the structure. An important goal forthe study of such focus-sensitive expressions has been to provide a compositional semantics forthe effect of focus. The widely-adopted proposal in Rooth (1985, 1992) has the effect of limiting
association to be with material in the operator’s arguments; in particular, in the case of in-situ focus
association, the associate must be in the operator’s scope. An important apparent counterexample
to this generalization is observed by Jackendoff (1972):(1)

VP-even can associate with leftward subject, but not VP-only:1
a. ? A [professor]F is even at the party.
b. * A [professor]F is only at the party.

I propose that even in such cases is actually associating with the subject’s predicate-internal lower
copy of movement, within the scope of even. I adopt the Copy Theory of movement and assume
that the “trace” position includes an unpronounced copy of the moved material. There is therefore∗

I thank Irene Heim, David Pesetsky, Maziar Toosarvandani, Hadas Kotek, Martin Hackl, Sabine Iatridou, Kai vonFintel, Danny Fox, Noam Chomsky, Chris Tancredi, Rick Nouwen, Isaac Gould, and audiences at Sinn und Bedeutung
18, the GLOW 35 workshop on Association with Focus, the 2014 meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, andMIT for helpful discussion. Errors are mine.
1
Here I adopt the common labels “VP-only” and “VP-even” descriptively. I will assume in derivations later thatthese operators adjoin to vP, a projection with propositional type.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

128

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

an instance of the focus-marked constituent “professor” within the scope of even, even though it
is part of the copy of the subject which is unpronounced. Even in (1a’) is associating with thismaterial in the lower copy of movement.
(1a’)

?

A [professor]F is even [ a [professor]F at the party].

The same conﬁguration (1b’) with only yields an uninterpretable structure, due to independent
differences in the semantic contributions of even and only. The crucial difference will be thateven’s semantic contribution is a projective inference that does not modify the assertion, whereas
only’s semantic contribution modiﬁes the assertion.
(1b’)* A [professor]F is only [ a [professor]F at the party].

This proposal provides a principled solution to the puzzle of leftward subject association with evenbut not only (1), while preserving the generalization that focus-sensitive operators associate withmaterial in their scope.2
I begin in the next section by reviewing the compositional semantics for focus pioneered by Rooth(1985, 1992) and discussing the subject association puzzle in more detail in section 3. I thenpresent my proposal in section 4. This leads to a new argument for the lexical ambiguity theoryof the scale-reversal of even in downward-entailing contexts, and against the scope theory of even,which I present in section 5.
Finally, in section 6, I show that this same logic extends to other movement conﬁgurations as well.
Even but not only is able to associate with certain kinds of material which has moved out of theoperator’s scope, as schematized in (2). This difference can be seen in simple minimal pairs such as
the topicalization examples in (3). Previous work on association in this conﬁguration has focused
primarily on the behavior of only, and therefore incorrectly concluded that such association is in
general not possible (Tancredi, 1990; Aoun and Li, 1993; Beaver and Clark, 2008).
(2)

Even can associate with material moved out of its scope, but not only:... ]](with α interpreted as the associate of the operator)
αF ... [ *only/?even [ ...

(3)

a.
b.

?

[Mary]F , John even saw* [Mary]F , John only saw

at the party.
at the party.

2
See Krifka (1998) for discussion of related facts regarding also. As Krifka notes there, additive particles are able
to associate with the (contrastive) topic of a sentence, in lieu of a focus in their scope. As the mechanisms and basic
distribution of association are quite different with additive particles in this way, they will not be discussed here.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

129

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

2. Background: the semantics of focus
In this section I present a brief introduction to the compositional semantics of focus. I follow
Jackendoff (1972) and much subsequent work in modeling the effects of focus by the addition of
a formal “F” feature to focused constituents in the narrow syntax. This abstract F-marking can bethought of as a syntactic annotation which mediates between the observed prosodic realization andits semantic consequences.
The semantic effect of focus is to introduce alternatives to the focused constituent into the semantic computation. F-marking of “Bill” in example (4) below thus conjures up other potential
alternatives to Bill, based on the current discourse context. Each of these local alternatives thencorresponds to alternative propositions, as shown in (4). The meaning of the proposition without
the contribution of focus-sensitive operators is called the prejacent.
(4)John met [Bill]F .
Prejacent proposition: John met Bill
Focused constituent: Bill
Alternatives to “Bill”: Mary, Sue...
Alternative propositions: John met Mary, John met Sue...

Different focus-sensitive operators then quantify over these alternatives in different ways. Horn
(1969) analyzes only as presupposing the prejacent proposition and asserting the negation of eachother alternative, as exempliﬁed in (5). In contrast, even projects a non-assertive inference that theprejacent proposition is unlikely compared to its alternatives, and asserts its prejacent, as illustrated
in (6).3,4(5)

John only met [Bill]F .
Presupposition: John met Bill.
Assertion: ¬ (John met Mary) ∧ ¬ (John met Sue) ∧...

(6)

John even met [Bill]F .
? inference: ((John met Bill) <likely (John met Mary)) ∧((John met Bill) <likely (John met Sue)) ∧...
Assertion: John met Bill.

The fact that even does not affect the assertive component of an utterance’s meaning—in contrast to
only which uses focus alternatives to construct its assertion—will play a crucial role in explaining
the difference between even and only later.
3

In this section I take the entire proposition, including its proper name subject, to be within the scope of the focussensitive operators VP-only and VP-even. This is for demonstration purposes only. The status of subjects will be
discussed in detail in the following section.
4
The status of the scalar inference of even has been debated, often described in previous literature as an implicature
or a presupposition. Here I will adopt the neutral term “inference” and use the arrow ? to indicate this.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

130

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

Here I adopt Alternative Semantics, a common approach to focus semantics put forward by Rooth(1985, 1992). In this approach, focused constituents are interpreted in-situ at LF via a processof alternative computation. Just as every syntactic node has an ordinary semantic value, we cansimilarly compute a node’s focus semantic value, which is a set of alternative denotations for thenode which we can derive by swapping out any F-marked constituents with their contextuallydetermined alternatives.5 Here I represent the focus semantic value of node α as Alternatives(α).
This set of alternatives will always include the prejacent, which I will identify with a box.

(7)



 John saw Bill , John saw Mary,John saw Sue

Alternatives(vP) =? Johne ?
John(Box marks prejacent) λye .y saw Bill , 
λy .y saw Mary, e
λye .y saw Sue

saw?e,?e,t??
?

λxe .λye . y saw x[Bille ]F?

?

Bill , Mary, Sue?

A clause-adjoined focus-sensitive operator considers the focus-alternatives of the complement of
the operator, thus F-marked constituents outside of that operator’s scope naturally would not contribute to the evaluation of the operator. This principle seems true given the potential F-markings
which can be associated with a VP-only:(8)

VP-only must c-command its associate:a. * [John]F only gave his daughter a new bicycle.
b.
John only [gave]F his daughter a new bicycle.
c.
John only gave [his]F daughter a new bicycle.
d.
John only gave his [daughter]F a new bicycle.
e.
John only gave his daughter a [new]F bicycle.
f.
John only gave his daughter a new [bicycle]F .

(Jackendoff, 1972, pp. 248–250)

However, as Jackendoff (1972) notes, these facts are slightly different with VP-even, in that evenis able to associate leftward with a subject as in case (a). We now consider the puzzle of leftward
subject association in detail.
5

See Rooth (1985, 1992) for a formal deﬁnition of the focus semantic value denotation function. The model of
Alternative Semantics sketched here differs from Rooth’s in that it eschews the ∼ focus interpretation operator. Here
we are only looking at vP-level focus-sensitive operators, where we may take Rooth’s ∼ focus interpretation operator
to have adjoined unambiguously to the complement of the focus-sensitive operator.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman131

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

3. The subject association puzzle
We now consider in detail the ability of English VP-even but not VP-only to associate with aleftward subject. Jackendoff (1972) originally observed this contrast with the examples in (9). An
auxiliary is added in (10) to show that the even in question is indeed a VP-even and not simply a
post-nominal constituent even.
(9)

(10)

VP-even but not VP-only can associate with a leftward subject:a. * [John]F only gave his daughter a new bicycle.
(Jackendoff, 1972, p. 250)?
b.
[John]F even gave his daughter a new bicycle.
(Ibid, p. 248)?

[John]F will even give his daughter a new bicycle.

Given the compositional semantics for focus introduced in the previous section, the ability of
VP-even to associate with material outside of its c-command domain as in (9b,10) is surprising.
Assuming that vP-adjoining focus operators compute their semantic contribution using the alternatives in their complement, only the choice of F-marking within the operator’s complement should
contribute to the operator’s semantics.
I propose that even in such cases is associating with the subject’s predicate-internal lower copy of
movement, assuming the vP-internal subject hypothesis. This proposal will be presented in detailin the following section. The importance of the movement chain and its “trace” position for thispattern of association is demonstrated through the following contrast between subjects of raisingand control verbs:(11)

Subject association across raising vs control:a. ? A [professor]F seems to even [ be at the party].
b.

* A [professor]F wants to even [PRO be at the party].

In (11a) the DP containing F-marking, “a professor”, has raised out of the nonﬁnite embedding,where it originally was below the surface position of even. In (11b) “a professor” is base-generated
in the matrix subject position as the embedding verb is a control verb, “want”. The ability of even toassociate with a leftward subject, then, depends on the intended focus associate originating within
the scope of even.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

132

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

Having established that the focus associate originating within the scope of even is crucial for thispattern of association, we might imagine that even associates with a leftward subject by forcing
the subject to reconstruct. That is, even though the associate of even is not c-commanded by evenat PF, the relevant DP is interpreted under reconstruction within the scope of even at LF.6
(12)

One possible approach: reconstruction
a. PF: [DP ... αF ... ] ... [ even [ ...
... ]]
b. LF: ... [ even [ ... [DP ... αF ... ] ... ]]However, I argue that this reconstruction approach is untenable. Consider the sentence in (13).
Here we are able to interpret this sentence with even associating with the predicate “student” inthe leftward subject. Crucially, (13) is compatible both with surface scope and inverse scope
between the universal subject and negation. The two scopes in (13) show that the possibility ofeven associating with “student” in the subject is independent of the scope of the quantiﬁcational
subject, and therefore that the association of even with material in the leftward subject does notforce reconstruction of the subject into its base position.
(13)

Subject association with even is compatible with different scopes for the subject:
Every [student]F didn’t even come to the party.
a. ?∀ > Neg: ⇒ No student came.
b. ?Neg > ∀: ⇒ Not every student came, but some may have.

The reconstruction-based account also suffers from additional complications. For example, negative quantiﬁers in derived subject positions do not reconstruct in their A-chain (Iatridou and Sichel,
2011, and citations therein). Under the reconstruction view, then, we would predict leftward subject association to be ungrammatical with subjects headed by negative quantiﬁers, as the subject
will be unable to reconstruct into the scope of even. However, association in such cases is possible:7(14)?

No [student]F will even come to the party.

Therefore in cases of leftward subject association, even must be associating with material in the“trace” position of movement in some way, without forcing reconstruction. In the next section,
I present my proposal which uses the Copy Theory of movement and show why this pattern ofassociation is possible with even but not only.
6
7

Such an approach is suggested as a possibility in Kayne (1998, fn. 75).
See section 5 below for discussion of the interpretation of even in downward-entailing contexts such as in (14).

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

133

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

4. Proposal
4.1. Background: the Copy Theory of movement
I will begin by giving some background on the Copy Theory of movement which I adopt. Under the
Copy Theory of movement, movement does not replace its target with a new object, a “trace”, butinstead simply merges another “copy” of the targeted object elsewhere in the structure (Chomsky,1993). At PF one copy in each movement chain is chosen for pronunciation: in cases of overt
movement, the head of the chain is pronounced while in cases of covert movement, a lower copy
is chosen for pronunciation. See Chomsky (1993); Fox (1999); Sauerland (1998) for syntactic
arguments for the Copy Theory of movement.
This Copy Theory approach to movement must be reconciled with our understanding of the semantic consequences of movement. Having multiple (coindexed) instances of objects at LF does notcompositionally yield the expected truth conditions. Trace positions are crucial in the interpretation of movement, in particular as a variable bound by the predicate abstraction step of movement(Heim and Kratzer, 1998). A solution that has been proposed is to tweak the lower copy at LF inorder to interpret these copy-based movement chains. The lower copy is converted into a deﬁnite
description with the restriction that it be equal to the variable in question through a process ofTrace Conversion (Rullmann and Beck, 1998; Fox, 2002).
Consider example (15), which has a quantiﬁer in object position. I assume that the quantiﬁcational
DP undergoes Quantiﬁer Raising through copying, resulting in a narrow syntax output with achain of coindexed “every book” DPs.8 At LF the lower copy of “every book” will undergo Trace
Conversion, resulting in the deﬁnite description “the book x”—formally ιy.(y is a book and y = x).
(15)

An example of interpreting copies:“John read every book.”a. Quantiﬁer Raising as copying: [every book]i John read [every book]ib. LF after Trace Conversion: [every book] λx John read [the book x]

With this background on the Copy Theory of movement and the interpretation of copy-chains, we
now turn to the cases of apparent leftward subject association, beginning with the grammaticalcases with VP-even.
8

I assume that quantiﬁers (type ??e, t?, t?) in non-subject position must covertly move (Quantiﬁer-Raise) to a position of (extensional) propositional type t, in order to resolve a type mismatch. Predicate Abstraction will turn thelanding site into the necessary type ?e, t? expression (see Heim and Kratzer, 1998).

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

134

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

4.2. Even can associate with the lower copy of movement
The core idea of this proposal is that, when a constituent containing F-marking is moved via the
Copy Theory, both copies retain their F-marking. In cases where an operator seemingly associateswith F-marked material which has moved out of its scope, I propose that the operator is in factassociating with the F-marked predicate in the lower copy of the movement chain, within theoperator’s scope. In this section I will demonstrate how this yields a grammatical result when theoperator is even.
I will demonstrate this approach using example (16), which is interpreted with even associatingwith the predicate “professor” in the subject. Because “a professor” was generated in Spec,vP
position and then moved to the surface Spec,TP position, there is a lower copy of the subject
within the scope of even. After the lower copy undergoes Trace Conversion (TC), we yield the LF
representation in (16b). Even associates with the F-marked “professor” in the lower copy.
(16)?

A [professor]F even came to the party.
a. Narrow syntax: [A [professor]F ]i even [a [professor]F ]i came to the party

b. LF after TC: [A [professor]F ] λx even [vP [the [professor]F x] came to the party]
The scalar inference introduced by even will be computed based on the ordinary and focus-semantic
value of its complement, vP. In a context where the F-marked predicate “professor” contrasts withthe predicate “student”, we yield the following alternatives at vP:(17)

Alternatives(vP) =?

the professor x came to the party ,the student x came to the party?

We are now ready to evaluate the semantic contribution of even. We note, however, that the propositions in (17) include the free variables x, because the λ-binder for x is not within the scope ofeven’s evaluation. I propose that these alternative propositions with free variables undergo existential closure. This yields the expected scalar inference of (16), which is satisﬁed in a context where
it is more likely for a student than a professor to come to the party:9(18)

Scalar inference of (16):? (∃x. the professor x came to the party) <likely (∃x. the student x came to the party)

9

Here the original quantiﬁer was also existential, but the interpretation of even in such cases with different quantiﬁers will be discussed in the following section.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

135

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

As is assumed, the scalar inference of even projects without composing with additional material
above it. The ordinary semantic value of vP will be unchanged by even and will continue to compose with material above it, including the higher copy of the quantiﬁcational subject “a professor”.
This yields the following assertion for the clause:(19)?(16)? = ∃x. (x professor ∧ (λx.the professor x came to the party) (x))= ∃x. (x professor ∧ x came to the party)

Notice that even uses the focus-alternatives only for the computation of its projective scalar inference and does not affect the truth-conditions of its assertion at all. The importance of this propertyof even will be made clear when compared to only.

4.3. The associate of only cannot move out
As noted by Jackendoff (1972), VP-even has the ability to associate with F-marking in a leftward
subject, but not VP-only. In the previous section I proposed that even associates with the lower
copy of movement in such cases. In this section I show how this same conﬁguration with only
yields an uninterpretable structure.
I will illustrate this using example (20). As with the previous case with even, copying the subject
will yield two instances of the F-marked predicate “professor”, with one being in the scope of only
(20a). Following Trace Conversion, we will have the LF in (20b). In order to evaluate only, we
compute the ordinary and focus-semantic denotations of the complement of only, vP (20c). Here I
again assume that the focus-semantic value of the F-marked “professor” is {professor, student}.
(20)* A [professor]F only came to the party.
a. Narrow syntax: [A [professor]F ]i only [a [professor]F ]i came to the party
b. LF after TC: [A [professor]F ] λx only [vP [the [professor]F x] came to the party]?
?
the professor x came to the party ,c. Alternatives(vP) =the student x came to the party

Following Horn (1969), the assertion of [only vP] is the conjunction of the negations of the nonprejacent alternatives. Here there is only one such alternative, “the student x came to the party”:(21)?only vP? = ¬(the student x came to the party)

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman136

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not onlyThis step is the crucial difference between even and only. Whereas even uses the alternatives in its
complement only for the computation of its projective scalar inference, only uses these alternatives
in the computation of its assertive content, which will then compose with material above it. In thiscase, x will be bound by the moved quantiﬁer, “a professor”:(22)?(20)? = ∃x. (x professor ∧ ¬(the student x came to the party))

This utterance introduces contradictory requirements on the variable x. Speciﬁcally, the explicit
restriction of the quantiﬁer “a professor” requires that x be a professor, but the lower deﬁnite description, introduced by Trace Conversion, requires that x be a student. The predicates “professor”
and “student” are disjoint, and therefore these two requirements on x cannot be satisﬁed at thesame time. I propose that (22) is therefore uninterpretable, making (20) ungrammatical with theintended choice of focus association.
One crucial assumption in the discussion above is that the alternatives, student and professor in
the example above, are disjoint. While the traditional Roothian conception is for alternatives to becontextually salient entities of the same semantic type (in this case, predicates), recent literature
has shown that this characterization is too inclusive. Wagner (2005, et seq) proposes that alternatives must form a partition and therefore must be pairwise disjoint. Evidence for this comes from
Wagner’s “convertibles” sentences. Wagner notes that the sentence with only in (23) does not assert that Mary does not like high-end convertibles, “unless the context is such that it made salienta partition of convertibles into red ones and high-end ones” (Wagner, 2005, p. 249).10(23)

Context: Mary’s uncle, who produces high-end convertibles, is coming to her wedding.
“Mary only likes RED convertibles.”?⇒ Mary does not like high-end convertibles.
⇒ Mary does not like blue convertibles, etc.

The issue observed in the semantic interpretation of (20) will therefore occur generally in any
example of attempted leftward subject association with only. This proposal derives the difference
between VP-even and VP-only in the (in)ability to associate with a leftward subject, ﬁrst observedin Jackendoff (1972), from independent differences in the semantic contribution of even and only.11
10

See Katzir (2013) for further discussion of Wagner’s approach and an alternative.
Note that the possibility of reconstructing the subject into its predicate-internal position, as in (i), does not feed“backwards” subject association with only (ii). See Erlewine (in preparation) for discussion.
11

(i)

?
come to the party].
∀ >Neg, ? Neg> ∀Every professor didn’t [Neg> ∀ LF: Neg [every professor came to the party] (every professor reconstructed into vP-internal position)(ii)* Every [professor]F will only [come to the party].
Intended LF: only [every [professor]F come to the party]

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

137

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

5. Scale reversal of even and an argument for the lexical ambiguity theory
In the previous section I presented my analysis for cases of apparent backwards association ofeven with a leftward subject. In this section I will extend this approach to clauses which include
downward-entailing operators. I will show that the interpretation of even in such cases can beeasily explained by adopting the lexical ambiguity theory of even (Rooth, 1985; von Stechow,
1991; Rullmann, 1997; Giannakidou, 2007, a.o.; also called the polarity theory), and then present
a new argument against the scope theory of even (Karttunen and Peters, 1979; Wilkinson, 1996;
Nakanishi, 2012, a.o.).
Karttunen and Peters (1979) observed that the scalar inference introduced by even is different indownward-entailing (DE) contexts. Speciﬁcally, the direction of the scalar inference seems to bereversed. This is observed with the pair of sentences in (24): even in (24a) reﬂects how relatively
unlikely it is for Bill to read Syntactic Structures, whereas even in (24b) reﬂects how likely it is forBill to read Syntactic Structures. (DE operators are bolded here.)(24)

The scalar inference of even is reversed in a downward-entailing environment:
a. Bill even read [Syntactic Structures]F .
? (Bill read Syntactic Structures) <likely (Bill read <...alternatives...>)
b. Bill didn’t even read [Syntactic Structures]F .
? (Bill read Syntactic Structures) >likely (Bill read <...alternatives...>)The lexical ambiguity theory of even, ﬁrst laid out in Rooth (1985), proposes that there are twovariants of English even, whose distribution depends on their environment. The standard evenwhich introduces an inference of the relative unlikeliness of the prejacent is a positive polarity item(here evenPPI ) and there is also a reverse scale even (here evenNPI ) which introduces an inferenceof the relative likeliness of the prejacent and is a negative polarity item.12 English VP-even is theninterpreted in its pronounced position.
I will now show how the lexical theory can account for the behavior of even associating withmaterial which has moved outside of its scope, in a downward-entailing context. Let us consider
example (25), which involves a raising embedding, in a context where “student” contrasts with“professor”. The sentence is grammatical with the intended association of “student” with even,with a scalar inference that it is considered more likely for a student to be to the party than for aprofessor to be there.
(25)?

No [student]F seems to even be at the party.

(cf 11a, 14)12
The existence of these two types of evens is additionally supported by the fact that some languages lexicalize these
two items differently. See König (1991); von Stechow (1991); Rullmann (1997) and others for German, Giannakidou(2007) for Greek, Lahiri (2008) for Spanish, etc.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

138

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

Under my proposal, even associates with F-marking in the subject’s lower copy of movement. As
the lower copy of movement undergoes Trace Conversion—illustrated in (26b)—its quantiﬁcational part is overwritten. Even will then associate with the F-marked “student” in “the student x”
in the complement of even. Because even is within the scope of a downward-entailing operator“no”, it will be interpreted as evenNPI . This results in the correct inference in (26c).13(26)Interpreting (25) using the lexical ambiguity theory of even:a. Narrow syntax: [No [student]F ]i seems to even [no [student]F ]i be at the party
b. LF after TC: [No [student]F ] λx seems to even [vP [the [student]F x] be at the party]c. evenNPI : ? (∃x. the student x is at the party) >likely (∃x. the professor x is at the party)

If instead evenPPI is used here, we yield the wrong inference for (25): that it is less likely for a
student to come to the party than for a professor to be there:(27)

Using evenPPI for (25) yields an incorrect inference:? (∃x. the student x is at the party) <likely (∃x. the professor x is at the party)

I now turn to the alternative theory for the scale-reversing nature of even in such environments,
called the scope theory of even, ﬁrst proposed by Karttunen and Peters (1979). Under this view,even covertly moves to a higher position to take scope over the downward-entailing operator. Including the downward-entailing quantiﬁer in propositions used to construct the scalar inference
results in the apparent scale reversal, without the need for multiple homophonous evens. I willshow that the scope theory is able to account for the interpretation of even in (25), but it makes incorrect predictions regarding leftward association with even, which ultimately makes it untenable.
Consider the derivation of (25) under the scope theory, illustrated in (28) below. At LF, evencovertly moves to a position above the downward-entailing operator (28a). Unlike in (26), then,where even does not move and only the lower copy of the subject (converted into a deﬁnite description) was in the scope of even, in (28) the quantiﬁcational material of the subject (no) is in thescope of even.14(28)

Interpreting (25) using the scope theory of even:a. Even moves at LF: even [no [student]F seems to

be at the party]

b. ? (no student seems to be at the party) <likely (no professor seems to be at the party)⇐⇒ (some student seems to be at the party) >likely (some professor seems to be...)13

I thank Irene Heim for bringing such examples with downward-entailing contexts to my attention and also Martin
Hackl for further discussion.
14
For simplicity, I do not illustrate the raising movement of the subject in (28).

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

139

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

The scalar inference introduced by even is then as in (28b), expressing the relative unlikeliness thatno student seems to be at the party. This can be restated, however, by factoring out the negation,
as expressing the relative likeliness that some student seems to be at the party. This reﬂects thescale-reversing behavior due to the presence of the downward-entailing operator. The result in(28b) accords with our intuitions about the felicity of this expression.15
However, the scope theory makes incorrect predictions regarding the distribution of leftward subject association with even. The hypothesized covert movement step of even in (28) leads us topredict the availability of the parallel covert movement in the control embedding counterpart (29)
below. In this LF, the overt F-marked “student” is now within the scope of even, and we therefore
predict even to be able to associate with the predicate “student” in the subject, contrary to fact.
(29)

Scope theory incorrectly predicts similar structures with control to be grammatical:* No [student]F wants to even be at the party.
(cf 11b)
Expected LF: even [no [student]F wants to
be at the party]

Note further that the contrast between (28) and (29) cannot be due to the covert movement step ofeven being possible across a raising embedding but not across a control embedding. Under a scope
theory of even, even would have to move in the exact same conﬁguration as in the expected LF for(29) to explain the scale reversal of even in other, grammatical examples with control embeddings:(30)?

Noone wants to even read the [abstract]F of this terrible paper.
Scope theory LF: even [noone wants toread the [abstract]F of this terrible paper]

The contrast in grammaticality between the raising example (25) and the control example (29)therefore acts as an argument against the scope theory of even, as the scope theory is unable topredict this contrast. This contrast is explained by my proposal together with the lexical theory ofeven. Examples with leftward subject association are uniformly interpreted with even associatingwith F-marking in the subject’s lower copy of movement, within the scope of even. Even is interpreted in its surface position, and the scale reversal of even is due to the polarity-sensitivity ofeven. The example with the control structure in (29) is ungrammatical because there is no lower
copy of the subject within the scope of even.
15

The inference predicted by this view in (28), that it is more likely for a student to seem to be at the party than fora professor to seem to be there, is not identical to what is produced in (26), but they are in the same direction—that is,
the relative likelihood of being at the party is positively correlated with the relative likelihood of seeming to be there.
Judgements regarding these inferences are therefore hard to tease apart.
Note, however, that the scope theory predicts that the scalar inference introduced by “no [student]F seems to evenbe at the party” (25) will be equivalent to the inference introduced by “no [student]F even seems to be at the party”,
as their LFs after movement of even are predicted to be identical. To the extent that speakers can detect a differencein the felicity conditions of these two utterances and in similar pairs, their difference offers an additional argument
for the lexical ambiguity theory, which predicts a difference in the scalar inferences introduced, and against the scope
theory of even.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

140

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

6. A broader pattern of leftward association: only even and not onlyThus far in this paper I have focused on the possibility of association with subjects which haveA-moved out of the scope of a focus operator, explaining the puzzling contrast between even andonly ﬁrst observed in Jackendoff (1972). In this section I show that this contrast between only andeven extends to other forms of movement as well: that is, even can associate with a constituent
which has moved out of its scope, but only cannot.
(31)

Even can associate with material moved out of its scope, but not only: (=2)... ]](with α interpreted as the associate of the operator)
αF ... [ *only/?even [ ...

We begin with a classic case of A-movement: wh-movement. We see in example (32a) that evenis able to associate with the restrictor of the fronted wh-phrase, “president”. In contrast, the same
conﬁguration with only in (32b) is ungrammatical with the intended pattern of association.16(32)

Even can associate with a moved wh’s restrictor, but not only:
a. ? Which [president]F did you even meet ?
? it is unlikely for you to meet presidents, as opposed to other types of people.
b. * Which [president]F did you only meet ?

Consider next the case of topicalization. The examples in (33) are repeated from (3) above. Heretoo we observe a contrast between even and only, where even is able to associate with the proper
name Mary moved out of its scope, but only cannot. Example (34) from Kayne (1998) also showsthat this pattern of association is possible with even.
(33)

Even can associate with a proper name topicalized out of its scope, but not only: (=3)
a. ? [Mary]F , John even saw
at the party.
at the party.
(based on Tancredi, 1990, ex. 57b)b. * [Mary]F , John only saw
Intended: ≈ speaking of Maryi , John saw only [heri ]F at the party.

(34)[John]F , they even consider

intelligent.

(Kayne, 1998, fn. 75)

16Note, however, that focus association with the entire fronted wh-phrase is not grammatical:?
(i) * [Which president]F did you even meet
Intended: Which president x is such that you met x?
? it is unlikely for you to meet x, as opposed to other people.

(cf 32a)(ii)* [Who]F did you even meet?
Intended: Who x is such that you met x?
? it is unlikely for you to meet x, as opposed to other people.
The generalization is that apparent backwards association by even can only target F-marking in the restrictor of
the moved DP, not an entire F-marked DP. Backwards association with proper names, as in (33) below, is possible
because proper names are deﬁnite descriptions (Elbourne, 2002), as reﬂected by the cross-linguistically common useof deﬁnite determiners with names (Matushansky, 2006, a.o.). See Erlewine (in preparation) for further discussion.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

141

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

Similar interactions can be observed with covert movement, through the effect of focus association
on quantiﬁer scope-taking. I assume that QR, a covert movement operation, is required for the
inverse scope (every boy > someone) interpretation in the following baseline example:17(35)

Someone wants to meet every boy in the room.
LF for ∀ > ∃: [every boy] someone wants [ PRO meet?

∃ > ∀, ? ∀ > ∃]The addition of only associating with “boy” has the effect of blocking the inverse scope reading,
as discussed in Aoun and Li (1993), building on Tancredi (1990). This is explained by only being
unable to associate with “boy” if “every boy” QRs out of only’s scope. However, the scope ofevery boy is not restricted in the same way when “boy” is associated with even:(36)

Only restricts QR height, but not even:a. Someone wants to even meet every [boy]F in the room.
b. Someone wants to only meet every [boy]F in the room.

?

∃ > ∀, ? ∀ > ∃?
∃ > ∀, *∀ > ∃Additional contrasts of this form are presented in detail in Erlewine (in preparation). In all of thecases presented in this section, the pattern of association can be explained with the same logic I
presented for leftward subject association in section 4. Even is able to associate with F-marking in
the lower copy of movement, within the scope of even. The same conﬁguration with only yields
an uninterpretable structure, due to the differing semantics of only.
Previous work looking at focus association with material which has moved out of the operator’s
scope (Tancredi, 1990; Aoun and Li, 1993; Beaver and Clark, 2008) has looked primarily at only
and has therefore come to the conclusion that association in this conﬁguration is always impossible.18 These proposals have the effect of banning all association with the conﬁguration in (31),
not just with only. As we have seen in this section, association in precisely this conﬁguration ispossible with even, though it is indeed impossible with only. Wholesale bans of focus associationin this conﬁguration therefore cannot be maintained.19
17

In particular, note that there is no option for someone to reconstruct into a lower position in order to derive thisinverse scope reading, due to the control embedding.
18
A notable exception is Barbiers (1995), who argues that focus operators can generally associate with trace positions. This is based on movement to the left periphery in Dutch and German, which does allow association in the
conﬁguration (31) with both only and even. However, for the English facts described here, the proposal in Barbiers(1995) fails to distinguish between different operators and incorrectly predicts that only can also associate with material which has moved out of its scope. I discuss these facts and the difference between Germanic and English-type
languages in Erlewine (in preparation).
19
Beaver and Clark (2008, chapter 7) explains Tancredi’s (1990) proposed ban on association in this conﬁguration byappealing to the fact that F-marking affects the phonological realization of its bearer and proposing that trace positions
therefore cannot contain F-marking. The data and proposal here therefore also constitute an argument against such ageneral ban on F-marking on unpronounced material.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

142

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

7. Conclusion
The ability of VP-even but not VP-only to associate with a leftward subject was ﬁrst observed inJackendoff (1972). Under the Alternative Semantics approach to focus semantics (Rooth, 1985,
1992) focus-sensitive operators consider the alternative propositions computed in their complement, and therefore must have an F-marked constituent in their c-command domain. This apparent“backwards” association with a focus associate outside of the scope of the focus operator has
therefore been a long-standing puzzle for theories of focus association.
Following the Copy Theory of movement, I propose that even is able to associate with F-marked
material in the lower copy of a movement chain, inside its scope. Such cases of apparent backwards
association with even are therefore illusory, and do not counterexemplify the principle that focussensitive operators associate with material in their scope. The same conﬁguration with only leads
to an uninterpretable structure. This difference derives from independent semantic differences
between even and only: even uses the alternatives in its complement to introduce a projective
inference, while only modiﬁes the assertion. I presented evidence for this view from contrasts
between raising and control embeddings, and showed that this pattern of association does not rely
on reconstruction.
The facts from leftward subject association also form a new argument for the lexical ambiguity
theory for even’s interpretation in downward-entailing contexts. Under the competing scope theory of even, even has the ability to move covertly and be interpreted with higher scope, and must
do so in order to outscope downward-entailing operators. I showed that the scope theory is unable
to account for differences in leftward association between raising and control embeddings, incorrectly predicting leftward association to be possible with control embeddings. I showed how myproposal—together with the lexical ambiguity theory of even and the assumption that VP-even isinterpreted in its surface position—is able to accurately model the distribution of leftward association, while also accurately modeling the scale reversal behavior of even.
Finally, I discussed the more general question of focus-sensitive operators associating with material
which has moved outside of their scope. Previous work on this question looked primarily at only,and suggested a general ban on focus association in such conﬁgurations (Tancredi, 1990; Aoun andLi, 1993; Beaver and Clark, 2008). I showed instead that focus association in this conﬁguration isindeed impossible with only, but is possible with even. I showed that the proposal put forth in thispaper for the puzzle of leftward subject association also extends to other movement conﬁgurations
and is able to explain the distribution patterns of the data.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

143

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

References
Aoun, J. and Y.-h. A. Li (1993). Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24(2),199–238.
Barbiers, S. (1995). The syntax of interpretation. Ph. D. thesis, Leiden University.
Beaver, D. and B. Clark (2008). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. WileyBlackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic inquiry. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser(Eds.), The view from Building 20, pp. 1–52. MIT Press.
Elbourne, P. (2002). Situations and individuals. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Erlewine, M. Y. (in preparation). How to associate with focus [working title]. Ph. D. thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fox, D. (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2), 157–196.
Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic
Inquiry 33(1), 63–96.
Giannakidou, A. (2007). The landscape of even. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 39–81.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
Horn, L. R. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M.
Green, and J. Morgan (Eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, pp. 98–107. Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Iatridou, S. and I. Sichel (2011). Negative DPs, A-movement, and scope diminishment. Linguistic
Inquiry 42(4), 595–629.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press.
Karttunen, L. and S. Peters (1979). Conventional implicature. In C.-K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen(Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition, pp. 1–56. Academic Press.
Katzir, R. (2013). On the roles of markedness and contradiction in the use of alternatives.
Manuscript, Tel Aviv University.
Kayne, R. (1998). Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1(2), 128–191.
König, E. (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles. Routledge.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

144

M.Y. Erlewine

Explaining leftward focus association with even but not only

Krifka, M. (1998). Additive particles under stress. In D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (Eds.), SALT
VIII, pp. 111–129. Cornell University.
Lahiri, U. (2008). The semantics and pragmatics of some scalar expressions in Spanish. Anuariodel Seminario de Filologı́a Vasca Julio de Urquijo 42(2), 359–389.
Matushansky, O. (2006). Why Rose is the Rose: on the use of deﬁnite articles in proper names.
In O. Bonami and P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, pp.
285–307. Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique à Paris.
Nakanishi, K. (2012). The scope of even and quantiﬁer raising. Natural Language Semantics 20(2),115–136.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.
Rullmann, H. (1997). Even, polarity, and scope. In M. Gibson, G. Wiebe, and G. Libben (Eds.),
Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 4, pp. 40–64. Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Rullmann, H. and S. Beck (1998). Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases. In
G. Katz, S.-S. Kim, and H. Winhart (Eds.), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen
Workshop, Number 127 in Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, pp. 223–256. Universities of Tübingen and Stuttgart.
Sauerland, U. (1998). The meaning of chains. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Tancredi, C. (1990). Not only EVEN, but even ONLY. Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.
von Stechow, A. (1991). Current issues in the theory of focus. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, pp.
804–824. Walter de Gruyter.
Wagner, M. (2005). Prosody and recursion. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wilkinson, K. (1996). The scope of even. Natural Language Semantics 4, 193–215.

Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18
Edited by Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman

145