On the Identification of Empty Categories

On the syntactic derivation of negative sentence adverbials

“…)pas under the same category of elements as beaucoup. (As mentioned above, Obenauer (1983;1984) comments that QaD structures are regarded by purists as being somewhat loose. Presumably, he would not include QaD structures involving ne .…”

“…Before offering a syntactic account of pas which, in our opinion, is compatible with the spirit of Pollock's NegP hypothesis, but which avoids some of the weaknesses of Pollock's implementation of the basis idea, we ask the reader to bear with us while we consider work by Obenauer (1983;1984) and Battye (1989;. We acknowledge these authors at this point, and shall then take the liberty of not explicitly repeating our indebtedness in the course of the section.…”

“…Consider (17): (17) In the paradigm in (17), made familiar by Obenauer, beaucoup can be said, intuitively, pre-theoretically, to quantify the noun romans, irrespective of the fact that the scope of the quantification might be thought to differ between (i7a/b) on the one hand and (i7c/d) on the other. In (i7a/b), the scope of the quantifier is restricted to the direct object of which it forms a part ([DP beaucoup [ de romans ]]), while in (i7c/d), labelled 'quantification at a distance' (henceforth QaD) by Obenauer (1984), where beaucoup appears in some VP-initial position, the scope of the quantifier extends to the entire predicate. The semantic contrast is therefore reflected in the position of the quantifier.…”

How "many" Maximizes in the Balkan Sprachbund

“…French allows the NP associated with the quantity wh-phrase to be optionally stranded in its base position. The construction in (13a) is ambiguous just like its English counterpart is; (13b), however, only allows for the low-scope reading of the individual quantifier (Obenauer 1984, Rizzi 1990, Dobrovie-Sorin 1992, Heycock 1995. Analyses that attribute existential quantification to the morpheme many (Heycock 1995, Romero 1998, Fox 2000, Hackl 2000 face a challenge from the data in (13b): whenever the NP is pronounced low, the individual quantifier scopes low.…”

A feature-based theory of adverb syntax

“…Laenzlinger (1998: 83-88) distinguishes adverbs that are subject to Checking Theory (qualificational adverbs) from those that are subject to the system of Criteria (quantificational adverbs licensed by means of the Adv-Criterion). The latter adverbs stand for operators in specifier positions, as shown by the relativized minimality effects on combien extraction (Obenauer 1983, Rizzi 1990 In addition, these adverbs, like neg/wh/foc-operators, are "frozen" in their licensing position once they have satisfied the Adv-Criterion. In other words, they cannot be displaced from their base position to a fronted position, as illustrated in (4).…”