Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka and Hadas Kotek, 2017.
“Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese.”
Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 245–254.
Certain quantiﬁcational elements (‘ìnterveners’’) have long been known to disrupt the interpretation of wh-in-situ (Hoji 1985 and many others), but the correct description of the set of interveners and the nature of intervention eﬀects have been the subject of continued debate. In Erlewine and Kotek (2017), we oﬀer a new generalization concerning the nature of intervener-hood in Japanese: A quantiﬁer acts as an intervener if and only if it is scope-rigid. We argue that this generalization is explained by — and in turn supports Kotek’s (2017) account of intervention eﬀects as reﬂecting a logical incompatibility between Predicate Abstraction and the computation of Rooth-Hamblin alternatives. In this paper we provide additional evidence in support of the above generalization, and test several of its predictions.
Superseded by the full paper