On greek illusions: a semantic account of Alexopoulou’s generalization

Alexopoulou (2008) argues that Greek provides new evidence for the concept of binding illusions that was hypothesized by Fox and Sauerland (1996). Of special interest from my perspective is Alexopoulou’s argument that binding illusions arise not only with existential and universal quantifiers, but also with negative and interrogative quantifiers. The purpose of this note is to speculate on how to account for these kinds of binding illusions semantically building on Alexopoulou’s argument. In the following I refer to Alexopoulou’s (2008) paper as BIRG (Binding Illusions and Resumption in Greek) and to Clitic Left-Dislocation as CLLD. BIRG’s argument is based on the generalization concerning CLLD in Greek. Generally, a left-dislocated noun phrase cannot bind a pronoun in its clause in Greek

On quantifier raising in German

The status of quantifier raising in German and other languages where scope is fairly rigid is debated. The first part of this paper argues that quantifiers in German can undergo covert extraction out of coordinations, and therefore that quantifier raising is available in German. The second part argues that quantifier raising in German is constrained to never move one DP across another. This result might provide part of an explanation of scope rigidity in German

No 'No' : on the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner 'No'

This paper concerns the semantics of determiners. I point out that the currently dominant generalized quantifiers analysis of determiners has certain deficiencies. I then provide an alternative which seems offer some hope not suffer from the same deficiencies

Intermediate cumulation

In this snippet, I will describe a new case where overt wh-movement leads to additional scope possibilities

Don't interpret focus : why a presuppositional account of focus fails, and how a presuppositional account of givenness works

This paper advances a purely presuppositional analysis of intonation. I first show that a inspiring recent article by Geurts and van der Sandt (Theoretical Linguistics, 2004) that pursues the same goal cannot account for multiple foci. Then, I show that if it is assumed that destressed rather than focussed material is semantically marked, multiple foci are accounted for correctly