Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-cnfpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T12:38:07.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scope, structure, and expert systems: A reply to Kuno et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joseph Aoun  and
Yen-hui Audrey Li
Joseph Aoun*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Yen-hui Audrey Li*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
*
Dept. of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693 [aoun@usc.edu]
[audreyli@usc.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a reply to Kuno et al. 1999, which claims that a structural approach to scope should be replaced by an expert system. But the alleged theoretical and empirical problems faced by the structural accounts for scope are based on assumptions or interpretations that are not adopted in the structural accounts. Further, there are problems with the characterization and execution of the expert system, causing difficulty in the understanding and application of the system intra- and interlinguistically; the expert system is not empirically adequate and does not accommodate idiolectal variations. Finally, the expert system misses important correlations between scope and other properties in the grammar, such as binding, that follow straightforwardly from a structural approach. A structural approach to scope should not be abandoned in favor of an expert system.

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 133 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1989. Constituency and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141–72.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347–54.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2. 303–51. Also in Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland. 1977.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1974. Quantifiers vs. quantification theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 153–77.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle, WA: University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1984. Logic as grammar: An approach to meaning in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: From GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1995. Logical form. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, 125–75. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1996. Raising quantifiers without quantifier raising. Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, ed. by Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel, Thrainsson, Hoskuldur, and Jan-Wouter Zwart, C., 189–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, Takami, Ken-ichi; and Wu, Yuru. 1999. Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language 75. 63–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–92.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Ning, Chunyan. 1993. The overt syntax of relativization and topicalization in Chinese. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1996. Minimalism, scope and VP structure. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependency. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 265–99.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 135–46.Google Scholar