Intervention tracks scope-rigidity in JapaneseMichael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore
mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Hadas Kotek
New York University
hadas.kotek@nyu.edu

Linguistic Society of America, January 20181

1

Introduction(1)

Hanako-ga nani-oyon-da-no?
Hanako-nom what-acc read-past-q‘What did Hanako read?’ Wh-in-situ is sensitive to intervention effects.

(2)

a.

* Dare-mo nani-oyoma-nak-atta-no?
who-mo what-acc read-neg-past-qb.

X Nani-odare-moyoma-nak-atta-no?

what-acc who-mo
read-neg-past-q‘What did no one read?’(Tomioka, 2007, 1571–1572)
Intervention effects affect regions of Rooth-Hamblin alternative computation but not (overt or covert) movement (Beck, 2006; Beck and Kim, 2006; Kotek,
2014, 2016; Kotek and Erlewine, 2016)(3)

Beck (2006) intervention schema:
a.

X[

b.

* [CP C ...

c.

X[

CP C

...

wh ]

intervener ... wh ]CP C ... wh intervener ...

t ]1For comments and questions on this work, we thank participants of the NYU seminar on
wh-constructions—in particular Lucas Champollion, Chris Collins, Paloma Jeretic, Haoze Li,
Anna Szabolsci—and the NUS syntax/semantics reading group, as well as audiences at LENLS
2017 at Tsukuba University, the 2017 Amsterdam Colloquium, Stony Brook University, and at
the University of Pennsylvania. For discussion of judgments, we thank Daisuke Bekki, Minako
Erlewine, Hiroki Nomoto, Yohei Oseki, and Yosuke Sato. Errors are each other’s.

1 Two related questions:– What counts as an intervener?
(4)

Subete ‘all’ is not an intervener (cf 2a):X [Subete-no gakusei]-ga

nani-oyon-da-no?
all-genstudent-nom what-acc read-past-Q‘What did every student read?’– What causes intervention?
∗ Focus semantics (Beck, 2006; Beck and Kim, 2006)∗ Quantification (Beck, 1996; Mayr, 2014)∗ Anti-topic items (Grohmann, 2006)∗ Prosodic mismatch (Tomioka, 2007)
Today:
 We consider intervener-hood and scope properties of different quantifiers in Japanese and establish the generalization in (5):(5)

Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. DP
quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation —i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.

The problem is not with quantification in regions of alternative computation,
but rather with quantifiers in derived positions:(6)

Kotek (2017) intervention schema:* LF: C ... λ ... wh(7)

Predicate Abstraction (PA):whoi
Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ -binder is introduced below the landing site of movement, abstracting over the trace.

λi

John

saw

ti

PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defined (Rooth, 1985;
Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004).
Movement can’t target a region where focus alternatives are computed.
2

2Intervention tracks scope-rigidity

Quantifiers in Japanese vary in their ability to take scope under negation:
only Q > Neg, or Q > Neg / Neg > Q.
 Shibata (2015a) notes that the scope of different disjunctors correlateswith their status as interveners.
Two disjunctions: ka and naishi2
(8)

(9)

ka-disjunction is scope-rigid; naishi is not:a. [Taro ka Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro or Jiro-nom come-neg-past‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’

Xor > not, *not > orb. [Taro naishi Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro orJiro-nom come-neg-past‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’

Xor > not, Xnot > or(Shibata, 2015a:23)(Shibata, 2015a:96)

ka-disjunction is an intervener; naishi is not:a. ??? [Taro ka Jiro]-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
(Hoji, 1985:264)
Taro or Jiro-nom what-acc read-past-Q
Xb.
[Taro naishi Jiro]-ga nani-oyon-da-no?
Taro orJiro-nom what-acc read-past-Q‘What did [Taro or Jiro] read?’(Shibata, 2015a:98)

 We show that Shibata’s correlation extends to other quantificational
DPs as well, supporting (5), repeated here:(5)

Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. DP
quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation —i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.

2Many speakers, including the first author, do not have clear judgments for naishi or feelthat naishi simply patterns together with ka in (8–9). The judgments in (8–9) are those reported
by Shibata. We have also found one speaker, Daisuke Bekki (p.c.), who allows the ‘not > or’reading of ka in (8) and for whom ka is not an intervener in (9). Despite this speaker variationin these disjunctions in Japanese, what is important here is that there is a correlation between
scope-rigidity and intervener-hood.

3

Two universal quantifiers: wh-mo3 and subete(10) wh-mo universal quantifier is scope-rigid; subete is not:a. Da’re-o-mo tsukamae-nak-atta.
who-acc-mo catch-neg-past
Xevery > not, *not > every‘pro did not catch anyone.’b. [Subete-no mondai]-o toka-nak-atta.
(Mogi, 2000:59)
all-genproblem-acc solve-neg-past
X‘pro did not solve every problem.’every > not, Xnot > every(11) wh-mo is an intervener; subete is not:a.

?? Da’re-mo-ga nani-ob.

X [Subete-no gakusei]-ga

kai-mashi-ta-ka?
who-mo-nom what-acc buy-polite-past-Q
Intended: ‘What did everyone buy?’(Hoji, 1985:270)

dono-mondai-o
toi-ta-no?
all-genstudent-nom which-problem-acc solve-past-Q‘Which problem(s) did every student solve?’

Focus particles: -mo ‘also’ and -sae ‘even’(12) Focus particles are scope-rigid:(Shibata, 2015b:235)

Taro-mo/sae
ko-nak-atta.
Taro-also/even come-neg-past‘{Even} Taro {also} didn’t come.’(13) -mo ‘also’ is an intervener:

Xeven/also > not, *not > even/also(Hasegawa, 1995:119)* Hanako-mo nani-oka-tta-no?
Hanako-also what-acc buy-past-Q
Int.: ‘What did HanakoF also buy?’ (in addition to other people)(14) -sae ‘even’ is an intervener:(Yanagida, 1996:30)? * John-wa Mary-ni-sae

nani-ooku-tta-no?
John-top Mary-to-even what-acc send-past-Q
Intended: ‘What did John send even to Mary?’

3Wh-mo in Japanese forms universal quantifiers and NPIs/n-words. These forms are distinguishable as (a) universal wh-mo but not the NPI series preserve original pitch accents on the
wh-word and (b) universal wh-mo but not the NPI series allow case markers; see e.g. Aoyagi and
Ishii (1994). On both counts, the form here is clearly a universal wh-mo.

4Polarity items: -shika and wh-mo
We follow Kataoka (2006) in taking the negative-polarity-dependent ‘only’-shika to be a quantifier which obligatorily takes scope over a local negation.
(15)-shika NPI ‘only’ is an intervener:(Takahashi, 1990, 134)

? * John-shika

nani-otabe-nak-atta-no?
John-onlyNPI what-acc eat-neg-past-Q
Intended: ‘What did only John eat?’

Similarly, Shimoyama (2011) shows that negative-polarity-dependent wh-mo
is a wide scope universal quantifier. As predicted, it is an intervener; see (2).
Indefinites and numerals:(16)

Indefinite wh-ka is scope-rigid:(Mogi, 2000:59)[Ikutsu-ka-no
mondai]-o toka-nak-atta
how.many-ka-gen problem-acc solve-neg-past(17)‘pro did not solve some problems.’

Xsome > not, *not > some

Indefinite wh-ka is an intervener:(Hoji, 1985, 269)

* Dare-ka-ga nani-o
nomi-masi-ta-ka
who-ka-nom what-acc drink-polite-past-Q‘What did someone drink?’(18)(Shibata, 2015b:66)

Modified numerals are not scope-rigid:[Go-nin-ĳyoo-no gakusei]-ga ko-nak-atta
5-cl-or.more-gen student-nom come-neg-past‘Five or more students didn’t come.’(19)

X( ≥ 5) > not, Xnot > ( ≥ 5)

Modified numerals are not interveners:
X [Go-nin-ĳyoo-no

gakusei]-ga dono-hon-oyon-da-no?
five-cl-or.more-gen student-nom which-book-acc read-past-Q‘Which book(s) did five or more students read?’5

Two positions for -dake ‘only’ with postpositions:
Novel supporting data comes from the position of ‘only’ -dake. -dake can occur
outside or inside a postposition: DP-P-dake or DP-dake-P.
(20) -P-dake is scope-rigid; -dake-P is not:4
a. Taro-wa Hanako-to-dake hanashi-tei-nai.
Taro-top Hanako-with-only talk-perf-neg
Xonly > not, *not > only

lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked only with H.’

b. Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to hanashi-tei-nai.
Taro-top Hanako-only-with talk-perf-neg
Xonly > not, Xnot > only

lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked with only H.’(21) -P-dake is an intervener; -dake-P is not:a. ??? Taro-wa Hanako-to-dake nani-otabe-ta-no?
Taro-top Hanako-with-only what-acc eat-past-Qb.

X Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to

nani-otabe-ta-no?
Taro-top Hanako-only-with what-acc eat-past-Q‘What did Taro eat (only) with (only) Hanako?’

Summary:

scope-rigid?
intervener?

scope-rigid?
intervener?

disjunctionkanaishi(8a) × (8b)(9a) × (9b)
NPI only-shika*(15)

universal
wh-mo
subete(10a) × (10b)(11a) × (11b)indefinite
wh-ka
(16)
(17)

modifiednumerals× (18)× (19)

also
-mo
(12)
(13)

even
-sae
(12)
(14)

NPI
wh-mo
*
(2b)

only
-P-dake-dake-P(20a) × (20b)(21a) × (21b)* See Kataoka (2006) and Shimoyama (2011) on the rigid wide scope of
so-called NPIs.
4Futagi (2004) shows this difference with respect to modals.

6

3

Analysis1

All arguments evacuate vP in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b), moving out
of NegP (if present). We adopt the vP-internal subject hypothesis forJapanese (see e.g. Fukui, 1986; Kitagawa, 1986; Kuroda, 1988).

2

Some (but not all) quantifiers can reconstruct into base positions.

3Intervention reflects the uninterpretability of (6) at LF:(6)

Kotek (2017) intervention schema (repeated)* LF: C ... λ ... wh

The logical problem caused by (6) has been discussed by Rooth (1985);
Poesio (1996); Novel and Romero (2009); Shan (2004). Kotek (2017)
proposes that this is the source of intervention effects.
A quantifier moved above wh could lead to (6), but quantifiers that canreconstruct into vP can avoid (6) at LF.
(22)

Scope-rigidity in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b):
a. All arguments move out of vP:[CP ... DP ... [vP ... t ... V ] ]b. Interpretation in surface position ⇒ wide scope over Neg:
DP > Neg
LF: [CP ... DP λx ... [NegP [vP ... x ... V ] Neg ] ]c. Some (not all) quants. reconstruct into vP ⇒ narrow scope:
LF: [CP...
[NegP [vP ... DP ... V ] Neg ] ]Neg > DP(23)

Deriving the generalization (5):a.
Potential intervener (DP) above wh:[CP C ... DP ... wh ... [vP ... t ... V ] ]b.
c.

LF interpretation in surface position lead to intervention!
* LF: [CP C ... DP λx ... wh ... [vP ... x ... V ] ]Reconstruction avoids the intervention configuration:...
C
wh ... [vP ... DP ... V ] ]X LF: [CPd.

Scrambling wh above also avoids intervention:
C ... wh λ y ... DP λx ... y ... [vP ... x ... V ] ]X LF: [CP

This analysis makes a number of predictions...
7

3.1

Non-intervention through reconstruction

 A “non-intervening” quantifier is interpreted as reconstructed in vP.
(24)

Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to nani-otabe-nai-no?
Taro-top Hanako-only-with what-acc eat-neg-Qa.
b.

* ‘What does Taro only not eat with HanakoF ?’only > notAnswer: Squid ink pasta (because he gets embarrassed)? ‘What does Taro not eat with only Hanako ?’not > onlyF
Answer: Dimsum (because it’s better with more people)

Consider also the collective vs distributive event interpretation of subjects:(25)[Gakusei zen’in]-ga LGB-o ka-tta.
student all-nom LGB-acc buy-pasta. ‘All the students together bought a copy of LGB.’b. ‘All the students each bought a copy of LGB.’(26)[Gakusei zen’in]-ga dono hon-oka-tta-no?
student all-nom which book-acc buy-past-Q
a.
b.

3.2

collective
distributive

X ‘Which book(s) did the students all buy together?’collective* ‘Which book(s) did the students all individually buy?’(and they each bought other books too)
distributive

Non-intervention by scoping out

 A “non-intervening” quantifier could “scope out” of the question.
(27) Sensei-wa [[gakusei zen’in]-ga dono hon-oteacher-top student all-nom

ka-tta-ka] shiri-tai.
which book-acc buy-past-Q know-want

a. X ‘The teacher wants to know [which book(s) the students all bought
together].’collectiveb.

* ‘The teacher wants to know [which book(s) the students all bought
individually].’
distributive
X
c.
‘The teacher wants to know [for each studenti , which book(s) theyibought].’pair-list

The pair-list reading can be derived by scoping the universal quantifier outof the question (see e.g. Karttunen and Peters, 1980; Comorovski, 1989, 1996).
8

3.3

Base-generated quantifiers are not interveners

What we have seen so far is compatible with the interpretation of wh-in-situ
being interrupted by (a) any quantification or (b) λ-binders of quantifiers inderived positions.
 Quantifiers that are base-generated high and can be interpreted in theirbase positions are not interveners.
(28)

Temporal adjuncts base-generated high do not cause intervention:
X Taro-wa kayoubi-ni-dake nani-otabe-ru-no?
Taro-top Tuesday-on-only what-acc eat-nonpast-Q‘What does Taro eat only on Tuesdays?’

Recall that -P-dake was an intervener above (21). -dake in (28) is on a temporalmodifier which is base-generated high and can be interpreted in-situ.
Hagstrom (1998, p. 54) similarly shows that ka-disjunction of locative adjuncts
do not interene, even for speakers for whom ka-disjunction of arguments
cause intervention.
(29)

Locative adjuncts base-generated high do not cause intervention:
X John-ga[ronbun ka kougi]-de dare-ohihan-shi-tano?
John-nom article or lecture-in who-acc criticize-do-past Q‘Who did John criticize either in an article or a lecture?’

4

Conclusion
1

(5)

2

Intervention effects track the ability of quantifiers to reconstruct:
Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. DP
quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation —i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.
Intervention reflects the LF configuration in (6):(6)

* LF: C ... λ ... wh

Scope-rigid interveners in a derived position above the wh necessarily
lead to the LF configuration in (6).
93(6) can be avoided by...
– scrambling the wh above the quantifier;– reconstructing the quantifier below wh; or– scoping the quantifier out of the question. . . for items that allow reconstruction/quantifying-in.
Together with Shibata’s proposal for DP scope in Japanese, this derives
the generalization in (5).

4The idea that an LF configuration like (6) causes intervention is an
important aspect of proposals such as Beck (2006).
However, we have seen that the LF configuration (6) leads to intervention with any quantifier in a derived position (Kotek, 2017).
Problematic for all previous accounts of intervention effects, whichassume that interveners are a proper subset of quantifiers.

References
Aoyagi, Hiroshi, and Toru Ishii. 1994. On agreement-inducing vs. nonagreement-inducing NPIs. In Proceedings of NELS 24, 1–15.
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural
Language Semantics 4:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative
questions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 9:165–208.
Charlow, Simon. 2017. The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands.
Manuscript, Rutgers University.
Ciardelli, Ivano, Floris Roelofsen, and Nadine Theiler. 2017. Composing
alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 40:1–36.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent
questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its application.
Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10Futagi, Yoko. 2004. Japanese focus particles at the syntax-semantics interface.
Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2006.
Top issues in questions: Topics—
topicalization—topicalizability. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Lisa LaiShen Cheng and Norbert Corver. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1995. Wh-gimonbun, hitei-taikyoku-hyogen-no shika, toalso no mo [wh-questions, NPI shika, and ‘also’ mo]. In Proceedings of the Third
International Nanzan University Symposium on Japanese Language Education
and Japanese Linguistics, 107–128.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structuresin Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1980. Interrogative quantifiers. In Time,tense, and quantifiers, ed. Christian Rohrer, 181–205. Niemeyer.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. Neg-sensitive elements, neg-c-command, and scrambling in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 221–233.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kotek, Hadas. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Glossa 1.
Kotek, Hadas. 2017. Intervention effects arise from scope-taking over alternatives. In Proceedings of NELS 47, ed. Andrew Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff,
volume 2, 153–166. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Kotek, Hadas, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2016. Covert pied-piping in
English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47:669–693.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns:
the view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, 1–25.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax ofEnglish and Japanese. Linguisticæ Investigations 12:1–47.
Mayr, Clemens. 2014. Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics
11

31:513–554.
Mogi, Toshinobu. 2000. Toritate-shi-no kaisosei-ni tsuite [on the layerednessof focus particles]. In Proceedings of the Fall 2000 meeting of the Society forJapanese Linguistics, 54–61.
Novel, Marc, and Maribel Romero. 2009. Movement, variables, and Hamblin
alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14.
Poesio, Massimo. 1996. Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In
Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, ed. Kees van Deemter and StanleyPeters, chapter 8, 159–201. Chicago, IL.: CSLI Publications.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shan, Chung-chieh. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls forvariable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 16.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015a. Exploring syntax from the interfaces. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015b. Negative structure and object movement inJapanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24:217–269.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Japanese indeterminate negative polarity items andtheir scope. Journal of Semantics 28:413–450.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP.
English Linguistics 7:129–146.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese andKorean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39:1570–1590.
Yanagida, Yuko. 1996. Syntactic QR in wh-in-situ languages. Lingua 99:21–36.
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 2009. The distribution of quantificational suffixes inJapanese. Natural Language Semantics 17:141–173.

12Appendix: The problem with abstraction over alternatives
Adding Roothian alternatives to a Heim and Kratzer (1998) system:(30) A recursive definition for computing focus-semantic values:
Terminal nodes( (TN):)(Jα τ Koif α not F-markedfJα τ K a subset of Dτ if α F-marked
Pronouns and traces rule:(( g ( i )o ) if α not F-marked
Jα i K f 
Jα i Kif α F-marked
Functional application (FA):t|f ( ()ατ
b ( g ) | b ∈ JβK f , g ∈ JγK f
a contextual subset of Dτ
β hσ,τi γσif α not F-marked
if α F-marked

How should we define Predicate Abstraction? Let’s start with simple PA:(The discussion below based on Novel and Romero (2009).)(31) a. Alice saw nobody(32) a. Jt i KM,g = g(i)b. Nobody λ i Alice saw t ib. JsawKM,g = λx. λy. y saw x
λx. JβKM,g

x/i

λi

c. JAliceKM,g = Alice:: he, τid. JAlice saw t i KM, g = 1 iff A saw g(i)JβKM,g :: τe. Jλ i Alice saw t i KM,g = λx. A saw gx/i (i)= λx. A saw x
M,gf. JA saw nobodyK= 1 iff ¬∃x [A saw x]

Now, in a wh-in-situ language, imagine the following:(33) a. Who saw nobody
b. Nobody λ i who saw t i
We want to create an abstraction rule over sets of alternatives.
()(34) a. Jt i KM,g = g(i)b. JsawKM,g =λ i who saw t i :: ???
λic. Jsaw t i KM, g =who saw t i :: ht, ti
who :: he , ti

λx. λy. y saw x

)

(

)

λy. y saw g(i)d. JwhoKM,g( =)Alice, Barbara, Carolsaw t i :: het, ti

saw :: hhet, ti, ti(

e. Jwhosaw t i KM,g =()
A saw g(i), B saw g(i), C saw g(i)t i :: he , ti

13f. Jλ i Alice saw t i KM,g = ???

The simplest solution won’t work: adding a λ-operator outside the abstracted-overexpression.
(35) Whatx/i( we get isn’t what we want:)
λx. JβKM,g :: he, hτ, tii
λx. A saw gx/i (i), B saw gx/i (i), C saw gx/i (i)(36)

JNobodyKM,g =(λQ he , ti . ¬∃xe [Q(x)]

)

λi
JβK
:: hτ, tiThis gives us something of the wrong type to be the argument of nobody. Nobody(36) wants to take as sister a set of he, ti expressions — type hhe, ti, ti. But the above
expression (35) is not of that type. Specifically, we want something like (37):M,g(37) What
we want to get:()λx. Alice saw gx/i (i), λx. Barbara saw gx/i (i), λx. Carol saw gx/i (i)We want a type-shifting rule from type he, hτ, tii into type hhe , τi, ti:(38) A procedure for converting [a function into a set of τ-alternatives] to [a setof functions(into τ-alternatives]: )λQ he, hτ, tii . f he , τi : ∀xe .f (x)∈Q(x)But as Shan (2004) shows, a function into sets carries less information than a set offunctions. If we transpose using (38), we end up with a set that contains both constant he , ti-functions (39) and non-constant he , ti-functions (40). The former describe
properties like “to be seen by Alice/Barbara/Carol,” which we want. The latter haveno meaning in our system and should be excluded.
he,, ti(39) Constant heti-functions (desired): x1 7→ Alice saw x1   x1 7→ Barbara saw x1   x1 7→ Carol saw x1  





  x2 7→ Alice saw x2  ,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2  ,  x2 7→ Carol saw x2  

 













x
→
7
Barbara
saw
x
x
→
7
Carol
saw
x
x
→
7
Alice
saw
x
3  
3   33   3  3he , ti(40) Non-constant he,
ti-functions (undesireable): x1 7→ Alice saw x1
  x1 7→ Alice saw x1
  x1 7→ Carol saw x1    x2 7→ Carol saw x2  ,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2  ,  x2 7→ Barbara saw x2  



 
 
 


x
→
7
Barbara
saw
x
x
→
7
Carol
saw
x
x
→
7
Alice
saw
x
3   3
3
3
  3
 
 3

Hagstrom (1998); Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002) and Yatsushiro (2009) define rules
along the lines of (38) above, and thus over-generate.5 Poesio (1996) and later Noveland Romero (2009) type-lift the entire system, such that each expression is now afunction from an assignment function to its original denotation.6 This last solution
does indeed fix the problem. See Novel and Romero (2009) for details. Shan (2004) uses
this problem to motivate a move to a movement-free, variable-free semantics. Anothersolution, in Ciardelli et al. (2017), based on Inquisitive Semantics, takes propositions
to have the basic type of sets. Through redefining the meanings of the basic elementscomposing up to propositions, the PA problem is avoided. (See also Charlow 2017.)
5Rooth (1985) proposes this too, but doesn’t spell out the details.
6More specifically, Novel and Romero (2009) find a problem with Poesio’s (1996) implementation, and fix it by assuming that wh-phrases are definite descriptions.

14