Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Iranian Linguistics II
Edited by Simin Karimi, Narges Nematollahi, Roya Kabiri and Jian Gang Ngui
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 361] 2023
► pp. 44–80

Chapter 2
Persian quantifiers and their scope

| Stony Brook University
This paper investigates quantifiers and their scope in Persian, proposing that Persian is not a scope-rigid language, rather scope rigidity in this language is a construction-specific property controlled by scrambling. In other words, the availability of scrambling translates into lack of ambiguity (for similar arguments, see Hoji 1985, 1986 for Japanese; Ionin 2001 for Russian; Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012 for German). I further propose that in Persian, the nature and the size of scrambling is what dictates the presence or absence of scope ambiguity, whereby the vP-internal scrambling cases induce ambiguity while the vP-external ones do not. Examples from various sentences with two quantifiers show that although Persian exhibits a strong preference for surface scope in general, constructions involving inverse linking, for which only the inverse scope is possible, justify that a Quantifier Raising (QR) operation is available in this language, contradicting Karimi (2005). This paper draws on Bobaljik & Wurmbrand’s (2012) (B&W) constraint-based proposal and the negative correlation between scrambling and scope ambiguity.
Keywords: quantifier scope, Persian, scope-rigid, scope-fluid
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Quantifier types
    • 2.1Universal quantifiers
    • 2.2Existential quantifiers
  • 3.Doubly-Quantified sentences
    • 3.1Transitive sentences
    • 3.2Ditransitive sentences
    • 3.3Spray-Load sentences
    • 3.4Passive sentences
    • 3.5Scrambled sentences
  • 4.Diagnosing QR
    • 4.1Inverse linking
    • 4.2ACD
  • 5.The ¾ signature of Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2012)
  • 6.The ambiguity puzzle
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 14 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.361.02sha
References (48)
References
Antonyuk, Svitlana. 2015. Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian. Stony Brook, NY: State University of New York dissertation.
Aoun, Joseph, & Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2). 141–172Google Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo, & Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope taking, 71–107. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berjisiyan, Rasoul & Fakhri Maleki. 2011. اقسام قضایای حملی و شرطی. کتاب معلم منطق. Iran: Ministry of Education. Types of categorical and conditional theorems. Logic-instructor’s manual.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Susi Wurmbrand. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the ¾ signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3). 371–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 233–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Richard Kayne, Raffaella Zanuttini, and Thomas Leu (eds.), An annotated syntax reader: lasting insights and questions, 482–496. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose and Annahita Farudi. 2007. Alternatives for Persian indefinites. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts manuscript.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1). 63–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and philosophy 24(6). 659–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A typological study of indefinite pronouns. Berlin: Freie Universitätt dissertation
Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16(4). 547–593.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation.
. 1986. Scope interpretation in Japanese and its theoretical implications. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5. 87–101.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2005. Airport ’86 revisited: Toward a unified indefinite any. In Gregory Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Partee Effect, 179–205. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1994. An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 25(3). 455–480.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Ionin, Tania. 2001. The One Girl who was Kissed by Every Boy: Scope, Scrambling and Discourse Function in Russian, in Marjo van Koppen, Joanna Sio, and Mark de Vos (eds.), Proceedings of Console X. Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe. Leiden University. Leiden, The Netherlands, 79–94Google Scholar
Jasbi, Masoud. 2015. Semantics of differential object marking in Persian. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
. 2016. Three types of indefinites in Persian: Simple, complex, and antidefinite. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26. 244–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Lan. 2008. The ditransitive construction in Korean. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University dissertation.
Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21(4). 589–632.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. and Vida Samiian. 2018. Ezafe, PP and the Nature of Nominalization. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 54. [insert page numbers].Google Scholar
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop K. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
May, Robert Carlen. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. On universal free choice items. Natural Language Semantics 18(1). 33–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modarresi, Fereshteh. 2014. Bare nouns in Persian: Interpretation, grammar, and prosody. Ottawa: University of Ottawa dissertation.
Mosaheb, Gholamhossein. 1969. آنالیز ریاضی: تئوری اعداد حقیقی. Mathematical analysis: The theory of natural numbers. Tehran: Amirkabir Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rasekhi, Vahideh & Nazila Shafiei. 2018. Object ellipsis in Persian. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America (LSA).
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 335–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safavi, Kourosh. 2000. معرفی اجمالی معنی شناسی منطقی. متن پژوهی ادبی. A brief introduction to logical semantics. Literary text research 4 (9.10), 143–181. Tehran: Allame Tabatab’i University Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement. In Mark Baltin & Anthony Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–201. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Samiian, Vida. 1994. The Ezafe Construction: Some implications for the theory of X-bar Syntax. In Persian Studies in North America: Studies in Honor of Mohammed Ali Jazayery, edited by Mehdi Marashi, pp. 17–41. Iranbook, Bethesda, Md.Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke & Simin Karimi. 2016. Subject-object asymmetries in Persian argument ellipsis and the anti-agreement theory. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 1(1). 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1988. Double Objects and Small Clauses. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California manuscriptGoogle Scholar
Shafiei, Nazila. 2016. Persian complex predicates: evidence for verb movement from ellipsis and negation. Calgary: University of Calgary MA thesis.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2009. Ellipsis in Farsi complex predicates. Syntax 12. 60–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar & Hayedeh Nasser. 2017. Quantification in Persian. In Denis Paperno & Edward L. Keenan (eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language, vol. 2, 665–696. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1962. Each and every, any and all. Mind 71(282). 145–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 101–139.Google Scholar
Wu, Hongchen, Richard Larson, Yaobin Liu, Lei Liu & Gary Mar. 2017. Rethinking quantifier scope in Mandarin. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 48. 27–29.’Google Scholar