Introduction

There is a line of analysis of NP-quantification in GQT in which NPs are taken to be of type <<<,e,t>,t>,t>. Scha (1981) and Verkuyl (1981) are among the earliest publications in this tradition, both building further on Bartsch (1973) and Bennett (1975). The main goal of Verkuyl (1981) was to build a sort of bridge between the framework of Montague Grammar and the Chomskian pre- Government-Binding X-bar Syntax. Its descriptive purpose was not to find out what [+sqa] stands for, rather it was focussed on the treatment of numerals and quantifiers. Yet, somewhat to my own surprise, some of its results turn out to bear directly on the issue of quantification in aspect construal, especially as the sort of NP-representations proposed (recall: at the <<<e,t>,t>,t>-level) offer a quite workable point of departure for more sophisticated extensions in the area of temporality. Therefore, a short summary of my 1981 grammar is in order. The present chapter is divided into two sections: section 5.1 gives a description of an X-bar grammar à la Montague, in which syntactically and semantically two structural positions are available for the Standard GQT-determiners, whereas section 5.2 shows that this grammar has certain concrete things to say and solutions to offer about the Russell-Strawson controversy. Apart from the contribution it may have to the solution of the philosophical controversy, it is also relevant for the question of whether or not it is necessary to exclude terminative aspect from occurring in tautological sentences.