Scope Rigidity

In some languages, such as English, multiple quantifiers in a clause cause scope ambiguity (May 1977), whereas in others, such as Korean, Japanese and Chinese, scope is determined by the structural position of quantifiers. There have been several approaches to account for why such cross-linguistic differences arise in scope-taking, most of which appeals to parametric differences within Universal Grammar. In this paper, I review and challenge the previous accounts, and propose an alternative analysis, based on Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) cyclic linearization account. Following Fox and Pesetsky (2005, in prep.), I assume either vP or VP could be the first spell-out domain and this choice is parameterized. I also follow the assumption that Quantifier Raising obeys the economy constraint (Chomsky 1993, Fox 1995). With the parameterized VP spell-out domain and scope economy constraint, the alternative analysis accounts for why scope is rigid in Korean and scope ambiguity arises in English. I argue that inverse scope is unavailable in Korean, due to a violation of scope economy. The violation necessarily arises by our hypothesis that both vP and VP are spell-out domains in Korean.