Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T03:05:36.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion Note: Response to Aoun and Li

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Susumu Kuno ,
Ken-ichi Takami  and
Yuru Wu
Susumu Kuno*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Ken-ichi Takami
Affiliation:
Tokyo Metropolitan University
*
Kuno, Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 [kuno@husc4.harvard.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kuno, Takami, and Wu (1999) showed that Aoun and Li's (1993) syntactic analysis of quantifier scope interpretation in English, Chinese, and Japanese makes incorrect predictions about the grammaticality and ambiguity of certain types of sentences. They proposed instead an expert system based on the interaction of syntactic and other principles that ranks the relative strengths of the potential scope interpretations of a given sentence. Aoun and Li (2000) replied to Kuno et al. with a number of criticisms, which are refuted here.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 134 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph. 2000. Scope, structure, and expert systems: A reply to Kuno et al. Language 76. 133–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo, and Stowell, Tim. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. Ways of scope taking, ed. by Szabolcsi, Anna, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1991. Remarks on quantifier scope. Current English linguistics in Japan, ed. by Nakajima, Heizo, 261–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1997. Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 553–76.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Wu, Yuru. 1999. Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language 75. 63–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988a. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988b. Light predicate raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MS.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi, Kuno, Susumu, and Naito, Seiji. 1999. Quantifier scope in Japanese. Tokyo, Cambridge, MA and Middletown, CT: Tokyo Metropolitan University, Harvard University and Wesleyan University, MS.Google Scholar