╨╧рб▒с > ■ < > ■ 7 8 9 : ; ье┬ M °┐ 0 jj bjbjт=т= 4╘ АW АW ▌T Ш l 8 8 8 L к5 к5 к5 к5 ╝ f6 ▄ L xa № N7 Ф т7 т7 т7 т7 т7 ╓ ╕8 D №8 $ п` ▒` ▒` ▒` ▒` ▒` ▒` $ tc Фe Р ╒` ] 8 9 т7 т7 9 9 ╒` `_ 8 8 т7 т7 2a `_ `_ `_ 9 ш 8 т7 8 т7 п` `_ 9 п` `_ Z `_ ║a V ф- 8 8 Л` т7 B7 Аr·╬Аu─L ^/ к5 O Ї єE Л` $ Ha 0 xa G М $f №^ d $f Л` `_ L L 8 8 8 8 ┘ Scope shift: an interface repair strategy Tanya Reinhart This is section 2.7 from Interface strategies: Reference-set computation, to appear in MIT Press. TOC \o "1-3" \h \z HYPERLINK \l "_Toc78883162" 7.1. Minimize Interpretative Options PAGEREF _Toc78883162 \h 1 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc78883163" 7.2. Applying the illicit QR as a repair strategy. PAGEREF _Toc78883163 \h 4 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc78883164" 7.3. Complexity factors - the size of the reference set PAGEREF _Toc78883164 \h 11 [Note: In the previous sections on QR, I argued that it is, in fact, a much more restricted operation than standardly assumed. In the clearest instances of what appears as scope outside of the c-command overt domain, the relevant NP is indefinite (or an existential quantifier). However, these cases are captured, independently of QR, by a choice-function mechanism, proposed in Reinhart (1997), which interprets them in situ, so QR does not apply to generate the apparent scope shift.. Nevertheless, there are cases of genuine scope shift, for which we still need QR. These are the subject of the present section.] 7.1. Minimize Interpretative Options Though QR can be viewed just as a standard instance of a movement operation, it still poses conceptual problems. As I mentioned throughout this chapter, the problems were always there, but they are more acutely noticeable in the framework of the minimalist program. As we saw in chapter 1, the original theoretical goal in that framework was to allow movement (overt or covert) only for formal morphological reasons of checking features. That was captured by the econcomy condition (101) (discussed as (1) and (47) of chapter 1). 101) "If a derivation D converges without application of some operation, then that application is disallowed" (Chomsky 1992, p. 47) Although it is possible, of course, to introduce some arbitrary feature that justifies QR, this goes against the spirit of the program, since there is no morphological evidence for such features. In the case of quantifier scope, this movement is motivated only by interpretation needs, and it is only witnessed at the inference interface. As I mentioned in section 3 of chapter 1, it is not obvious that the strong restriction in (101) can be maintained for overt movement, because there is growing evidence that optional overt movement, not required for any morphological reasons is available across languages. Nevertheless, the basics of the minimalist program enable us to state the problem with free covert movement. Recall (from the introduction), that the elementary requirement of the computational system is to enable the interface, what has always been stated as relating sound to meaning. The final outputs of the system can be viewed as pairs
of a phonological representation and an interpretation representation. This relation is mediated by syntactic derivations. We may either assume that the relevant properties of these derivations are encoded in the phonological representations, as assumed in the theory of phonological phrases, or that in generating the
pairs, the computational system is operating on
inputs, of a phonological representation and a derivation, yielding
outputs. I will return to these questions in chapter 3. We may note now, that the more interpretations that can be associated with a given phonological representation, the more complex is the computation at the context interface - the computational system must generate more
pairs for each derivation, which is not necessarily problematic, but at the interface, only one such pair needs to be selected in the given context. The more there is to select from, the harder is adaptation to context. There are several views regarding what economy considerations are (what is СeconomyТ). A prevailing approach, which I examined in chapter 1, is that these considerations minimize computational effort within the computational system itself Ц the Сleast effortТ conditions. However, if we look at the problem from the perspective of the context interface, or more generally Ц of language use (communication) Ц a principle that would be extremely useful is to attempt at minimizing interpretative options associated with a given phonological representation. It may appear that by this reasoning, a perfect computational system should allow no ambiguous phonological representations at all. But this is certainly not a possible conclusion. The crucial requirement is to meet the interface needs to begin with. There is no way to know that a system with no ambiguity would allow all that is needed for the inference and context systems Ц it may just be too poor, hence fail the interface requirement completely. In any case, we do know that the given human computational system allows ambiguity, just as it allows different derivations with the same interpretation. But when it comes to covert movement, special attention is required to the context interface. This is a powerful mechanism that can associate with each single phonological representation several interpretations, obtained by movement not recoverable from the phonological representation itself. (Since QR is not clause bound, the number of possible scope-interpretations increases rapidly when the derivation includes one or more clausal complements.) This is an obvious area where an interface economy requirement to minimize interpretative options would be very useful. The economy requirement (101) is of the type aiming at reducing the number of possible derivations out of a given numeration. In the case of overt movement, this has nothing to do (if it holds) with minimizing interpretative options, because overt movement changes also the phonological representation, so the number of
pairs per derivation does not increase, in principle, with applying as many overt operations as we want. (An accidental increase as an outcome of overt movement is possible, of course.) But if it applies to covert operations only, then it is a restriction on interpretative options, since covert operations of the QR type increase, in principle, the number of interpretations associated with a single phonological representation. Let us, then, restate (101) as (101').
101') If a derivation D converges without application of some covert operation, then that application is disallowed
(101') as well may turn out too strong as formulated. My crucial claim here is that some prohibition against covert operations that increase, in principle, the number of interpretative options associated with a given phonological phrase must hold, if the computational system meets optimally the requirement of economy (efficiency) of the context interface.
(101'), on this view, is just a specific instantiation of the broader economy principle 'minimize interpretative options'. As I mentioned, the prevailing concept of economy has centered around the 'least effort' principle. Given that most arguments for such a principle came from syntax, and they no longer hold in current syntax , as we saw in chapter 1., it is appropriate to doubt whether such a principle is directly active at the interface. An interface instance where it has been previously assumed is the coreference restriction (Rule I), where variable binding was viewed, since Reinhart (1983), as a more efficient way to express anaphora than coreference. The 'least effort' view of this restriction is emphasized in Reuland (2001), who argues that computations applying at the interface (coreference) are always more costly than those applying at the CS (variable binding). However, I argued in Reinhart (2000) that there is a serious empirical problem with the 'least effort' approach to coreference, and suggested instead that the underlying economy principle is something like 'minimize interpretative options'. I turn to the way this works for coreference in chapter 4. Here let me just state a rough approximation of this principle.
(102) Minimize Interpretative Options
Unless required for convergence, do not apply a procedure that increases the number of interpretations associated with a given single PF.
'Least effort 'is, of course, a very broad principle, that does not specify exactly what counts as effort. It is possible, therefore, to view (102) as spelling out an instance of this broad principle. Increasing the number of interpretations associated with a given PF, increases also the effort required from the addressee (hearer) for identifying all interpretative candidates and selecting one in context. So having (102) as a principle that guides the application of interpretative procedures also conforms with 'least effort'.
7.2. Applying the illicit QR as a repair strategy.
By what I said so far, QR is not allowed at all, namely it is an illicit operation, ruled out by (101'). But, the whole point of this chapter was to argue that it is nevertheless needed in a restricted set of cases. On the approach outlined in chapter 1, illicit operations may still be used, in case the outputs of the computational system are insufficient for the interface needs of a given context. Thus, applying an illicit operation is a strategy used to extend the options permitted by the CS, and can be viewed as a repair mechanism. But its application still violates a condition of the CS. (In the case of QR, it increases the set of interpretations associated with the given PF). Therefore, their application comes at the cost of constructing a reference set to determine whether the illicit extension of the CS' limits is indeed justified. We may turn now to the view of QR as a repair strategy. The roots of this approach are in the view of QR as a marked operation.
The markedness approach, stated in semantic terms, was proposed by Keenan and Faltz (1978), who argue that lambda abstraction applies only to capture marked scope. I followed that idea within the LF framework in Reinhart (1983, chapter 9). The approach rests on the well motivated assumption, in the framework of generalized quantifiers, that to interpret quantified NPs, there is no need to ever raise them. The only motivation for movement is to obtain scope wider than their c-command domain at the overt structure. But this scope-shift is the marked case, and it is harder to obtain than the overt c-command scope. It is far from obvious, therefore, that the computational system should be dramatically modified just to capture the marked cases. I proposed, instead, that the standard interpretation of quantified NPs is in-situ, namely their scope is their overt c-command domain. But QR may apply to create alternative scope construals. Scope outside the c-command domain, then, requires a special operation, which does not apply in the case of interpretation in situ. Interpretations derived by this operation then are more costly. This may explain why they are marked and harder to obtain.
As mentioned in section 3 of chapter 1, the concept of markedness was always a bit vague, and the notion of a costly operation was not defined. However, the perspective of reference-set strategies at the interface enables us to give it more specific content. A marked operation is an illicit operation, which violates some principle of the computational system. Applying such operation requires checking that there is good reason to do this, namely that this is indeed the only way for a given derivation to meet the interface needs. Technically, checking this involves constructing and computing a reference-set of pairs