Ditransitive Verbs and Quantifier Scope Ambiguity: what does sentence processing tell us about the nature of alternating verbs?

MÁSTER UNIVERSITARIO EN ESTUDIOS LINGÜÍSTICOS, LITERARIOS Y CULTURALES (título del Máster) TÍTULO: DITRANSITIVE VERBS AND QUANTIFIER SCOPE AMBIGUITY: (del trabajo) WHAT DOES SENTENCE PROCESSING TELL US ABOUT THE NATURE OF ALTERNATING VERBS? DECLARACIÓN DE ORIGINALIDAD (NRTFE: Art. 8.1): El/la estudiante D./Dña. Ekaterina Mazalova con DNI 755488204 DECLARA (1) que el presente Trabajo de Fin de Máster es original e inédito y está libre de plagios; (2) que ha citado adecuadamente los textos y ejemplos tomados de otros autores; (3) que es consciente de las consecuencias académicas y/o disciplinarias derivadas del incumplimiento de las declaraciones (1) y (2), en aplicación de las normas vigentes de la Universidad de Sevilla. Firmado: (solicitante) DECLARACIÓN DE CONFORMIDAD: El profesor/a D./Dña. Ángel Luis Jiménez-Fernández , tutor/a del estudiante autor/a de este TFM, EXPRESA su conformidad con el contenido y la forma del presente Trabajo de Fin de Máster y autoriza los trámites administrativos para su depósito. EXPRESA no ser consciente ni responsable de posibles plagios ni del uso indebido de textos o ideas de otros autores. Firmado: ____________________________________ (tutor /a) FACULTAD DE FILOLOGÍA. Universidad de Sevilla. C/ Palos de la Frontera s/n 41004 REGISTRO DE ENTRADA 2 ABSTRACT Ditransitive alternating verbs are a class of verbs which can take two objects as their arguments and cause an alternation of the two syntactic frames (e.g., He sprayed paint onto the wall/He sprayed the wall with paint). These constructions pose challenges with respect to their analysis: whether the two patterns involved in the alternation are derived from the same underlying structure or not. The main objective of this research is to shed light upon the structural composition of locative alternation through the phenomenon of quantifier scope ambiguity. To achieve this aim, we analyse the principles that account for the disambiguation of scopally ambiguous sentences and surface processing of scopally frozen sentences. While seeking to provide empirical evidence, we conduct an experimental study, in which we test the way L1 English speakers and L1 Russian speakers process both ambiguous and unambiguous sentences. The results obtained in the course of the experiment showed that English and Russian native speakers give preference to both surface and inverse readings for ambiguous sentences and surface reading only for unambiguous sentences. Moreover, a more thorough analysis of the obtained data indicated that for ambiguous sentences the mean score for the surface interpretation preference was higher when compared to inverse interpretation in both Russian and English. These findings led us to conclude that in both English and Russian the two alternating frames in locative alternation should be analysed derivationally and perceived as sharing the same underlying structure. Yet, certain deviating results and the limitations involved in the study urge us to suggest the necessity for future research, involving a broader range of tested verbs, a higher number of informants and expanding the study to other languages. Keywords: double object constructions, quantifier scope ambiguity, scope-freezing, Locative alternation 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Ángel Luis Jiménez-Fernández. Thank you for introducing me to the beautiful and complex phenomenon of quantifier scope ambiguity and for guiding me throughout my research. I am grateful for your patience, kindness and your time. It was a privilege to work together with you and broaden my academic and personal knowledge. I also wish to thank my dear friends for encouraging me and staying by my side. To Leo and Giulia – thank you for being my veritable intellectual comrades and true kindred spirits. My eternal gratitude goes to Yurii and Sonia for not letting me doubt the rightness of my choice and encouraging me to pursue this master’s degree despite all the fears and doubts. Finally, I want to thank my mother, Tatiana, for giving me unconditional love and support even while being thousands of miles away from me. Thank you for making my dream come true and teaching me with your own example how hard work and perseverance can make miracles happen. 4 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 5 2. Ditransitives and Scope: State of the Art ........................................................................... 7 2.1. The Treatment of Double Object Constructions: Derivational or Non-derivational Analysis? ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2. Quantifier Scope: Theoretical Approaches and Research Challenges ..................... 11 2.3. Quantifier Scope Ambiguities in Double Object Constructions in English............... 16 2.4. Quantifier Scope Ambiguities in Double Object Constructions in Russian .............. 18 2.5. Quantifier Scope Ambiguity Resolution Principles ................................................... 20 3. Exploring Quantifier Scope Ambiguity Resolution in Locative Double Object Constructions in English and Russian .................................................................................. 31 3.1. Participants ............................................................................................................... 31 3.2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 32 3.3. Materials & Procedure .............................................................................................. 35 3.4. Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................... 35 3.5. Results ........................................................................................................................ 36 3.6. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 43 4. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 46 5. List of References ............................................................................................................... 49 Appendix 1. Questionnaire for native L1 English-speaking respondents ............................... 53 Appendix 2. Questionnaire for native L1 Russian-speaking respondents ............................... 60 5 1. Introduction The present study focuses on the exploration of structural composition of double object constructions with ditransitive locative verbs through the phenomenon of quantifier scope ambiguity. The complexity and cross-linguistic variability of double object constructions involves a great deal of challenges for their analysis. In this research, we will pay specific attention to the two of them: the first one deals with the underlying structure of these constructions and the debate as to whether one of the alternants is derived from a basic construction or not. The second question consists in examining the phenomenon of scopal ambiguity produced by the interaction of quantifiers contained within object NPs and the impact it may have on the analysis of alternating constructions cross-linguistically. Hence, the purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence for the derivational analysis of alternating frames in locative verbal alternation in English and Russian. To achieve this objective, we are going to conduct an empirical study exploring the processing of scopally ambiguous and scopally frozen sentences with quantified object NPs. Besides, this paper seeks to determine the principles that can predict the interpretation preferences by native speakers in scopally ambiguous sentences, and, thus, gain a better understanding of the usage and structural nature of double object constructions. The data that we have used for the analysis of how native speakers process alternating constructions in locative alternation in English and Russian were collected through online surveys distributed among monolingual speakers of English and Russian (L1 speakers of English and L1 speakers of Russian). The established research goals lead us to formulate the following hypotheses: Our first research question deals with exploring the way L1 English and L1 Russian speakers process scopally ambiguous and scopally frozen sentences in both of these languages. Our hypothesis is that for scopally ambiguous sentences the speakers will perceive both the surface and the inverse scope interpretations and therefore exhibit no reading preferences, whereas for unambiguous sentences, only the surface interpretation will be favoured. Therefore, these preferences will support the derivational view of the alternating frames in English and in Russian. Our second research question addresses the issue of whether semantically identical ditransitive verbs belonging to the same verb class will be processed in the same way by L1 English and L1 Russian speakers in either of these languages. Consequently, we hypothesise that for both languages the speakers will display the same processing patterns. 6 Our third research question aims to establish whether the scopal behaviour of existential and universal quantifiers will be similar in both English and Russian locative alternation. Hence, our third hypothesis claims that in the two languages both existential and universal quantifiers will be subjected to the same scopal possibilities and will obey the same quantifier raising constraints. Our fourth and final research question aims to explore what quantifier ambiguity resolution principles can predict the interpretation preferred by native speakers in both Russian and English. Thus, our hypothesis establishes that most of the principles will favour the surface interpretation of a scopally ambiguous sentence, as, on the one hand, being easier to process and, on the other hand, conforming with the majority of the existing ambiguity resolution principles. This paper is organised as follows: in section 2, we discuss the theoretical proposals with regard to double object constructions, taking into account the derivational and non-derivational approaches to analysing the alternating constructions. Moreover, in this section, we deal with the phenomenon of quantifier scope ambiguity in relation to prepositional and double object constructions and the associated constraints in both English and Russian. In the final part of this section, we explore the existing quantifier scope ambiguity resolution principles and discuss the phenomenon of scope freezing. The consideration of all these principles presents important implications for a proper understanding of argument structure in locative alternation and the explanation as to how ditransitive verbs work in English and Russian. Afterwards, in section 3, we develop the empirical research. Therefore, in this section, we describe the participants who took part in the study and the provided data for the research to be conducted. Apart from that, we include a thorough explanation of the methodology applied to the data selection and the design of questionnaires which were distributed to the participants of the experiment. The inclusion of this information helps to ensure a better account of the section where we present the results of the conducted study. In addition, in this section we discuss the similarities and differences found among the data for both of the studied languages and relate them to the theoretical background previously expounded. The analysis of the results allows us to infer whether the initial hypotheses proved to be valid and vice versa. After that, in section 4, we offer the conclusions that we have reached throughout this study along with some implications for future research. Eventually, in section 5, we provide a list of the resources used in order to carry out the present study. 7 2. Ditransitives and Scope: State of the Art In this chapter, we will provide theoretical framework for how the principles of processing scopally ambiguous and unambiguous sentences containing quantifiers within object arguments of ditransitive verbs can serve as evidence for the derivational and non-derivational analysis of verbal alternants in locative alternation in English and Russian. In the first section, we will talk about double object constructions and the challenges that they present as to the analysis of their underlying structure. In the second section, we will explore the phenomenon of quantifier scope and the factors that trigger quantifier scope ambiguity. In sections three and four, we will analyse quantifier scope ambiguity in double object constructions and prepositional object constructions in English and Russian and pay specific attention to the locative alternation. In section five, we will explore the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic principles that account for the resolution of scopally ambiguous constructions and the interpretation which will be preferred by the speaker. Finally, we will talk about scope-freezing and examine how this disambiguating syntactic phenomenon accounts for the analysis of verbal alternations in English and Russian together with the rest of the ambiguity resolution principles. 2.1. The Treatment of Double Object Constructions: Derivational or Non-derivational Analysis? In natural languages, some verbs are referred to as ditransitive verbs, as they may take more than one Noun Phrase (NP) as their objects. In combination with the NPs, these verbs form the Double Object Constructions (DOCs). DOCs can be defined as the constructions in which two arguments of a verb appear as two NPs following it, and are traditionally referred to as the Indirect Object (IO) and the Direct Object (DO) (Verspoor, 1994, p.1). The DOCs are paired with prepositional object constructions, and both exhibit very small differences as to their semantic component: (1) a. Ronald gave his sister a frog. (double object construction) b. Ronald gave a frog to his sister. (prepositional dative construction) (Bruening, 2014, p.1) 8 The change in the syntactic expression of the arguments in relation to the ditransitive verb as demonstrated in (1) is referred to as a verbal alternation. The analysis of the structural composition of verbal alternating constructions has been the object of research for many syntacticians (Chomsky 1975, Kayne 1984, Barss & Lasnik 1986, Larson 1988, Aoun & Li 1989). One of the crucial problems in the analysis of the DOCs and the prepositional object constructions deals with the question of whether the two alternating frames are derived from the same underlying structure or no. There exist two perspectives on the issue: on the one hand, the supporters of the nonderivational approach to verbal alternations motivate this analysis by the small yet existing semantic differences between the two constructions. In (2a) in the DOC the first object functions with the role of a possessor or a recipient, whereas in (2b) in the prepositional construction this object moves to the end of the sentence and takes the semantic end of motion interpretation: (2) a. I kicked (her/*the goal line) the ball. (recipient or possessor) b. I kicked the ball to (her/the goal line). (endpoint of motion) (Bruening, 2014, p.1) Another argument supporting the view of verbal alternations as non-derived is related to the fact that some ditransitive verbs are non-alternating: (3) a. The boss denied George his pay. (the DOC) b. *The boss denied his pay to George. (prepositional object construction) (Bruening, 2014, p.1) 9 Yet, an opposing view favours the derivational analysis, supporting the idea that the noncanonical pattern (the prepositional object construction) is derived from the basic one (the DOC). For instance, in Bruening (2014) examples from Bresnan and Nikitina (2009) are given, which demonstrate that the alternation corresponding to (3b) is actually acceptable: (4) Who could deny something to someone so dedicated to the causes of international friendship and collaboration? Another argument, which would support the derivational analysis is related to information structure factors, and broad focus specifically. As illustrated in Jiménez-Fernández (2023), for English Dative Alternation in a broad focus condition the speakers give preference to a specific prepositional object pattern: (Jiménez-Fernández, 2023, p.14) From this example, we conclude that in English Dative Shift one of the patterns in the alternations is derived from another 1 . 1 In fact, there are two perspectives on the analysis of derivations involved in English Dative Shift: the one which supports the DOCs as being derived from prepositional object construction (Barss and Lasnik 1986, Chomsky 1981, Jackendoff 1990, Larson 1988), and the one in which prepositional dative constructions are seen as derived from the DOCs (for more, see Aoun and Li 1989, Dryer 1986, Koizumi 1994). Recent experimental studies, as the one by Sánchez-Calderón and Fernández-Fuertes (2018) favour the DOCs as the source of derivation for (5) A: What happened? B: a. #John gave Mary the book. b. John gave the book to Mary. B: a. #John sent Peter the new regulation. b. John sent the new regulation to Peter. 16 (11) Someone wished that Fred would visit anyone. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ Once again, this sentence exhibits only surface scope interpretation; the inverse reading where the universal quantifier would take wide scope is blocked. 10 The majority of the examples that we have explored display quantifier scope ambiguities in the sentences where the quantified NPs are in the subject-object relationship. However, in this paper, we are going to concentrate specifically on quantifier scope ambiguities in double object constructions (DOCs) and prepositional object constructions. In the next two sections, we are going to explore the interaction between the quantified phrases in English and Russian DOCs and prepositional object constructions and identify the existing cross-linguistic similarities and differences. 2.3. Quantifier Scope Ambiguities in Double Object Constructions in English In English, quantifier scope ambiguities are a frequent instance in double object and prepositional constructions with ditransitive verbs. For instance, let us consider the following sentence with the dative alternating frames of the verb teach (Jiménez-Fernández, 2023, p.24): (12) a. John taught every language to two persons. ∀ > ∃ ; ∃ > ∀ b. John taught two persons every language. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ Sentence (12a) displays two possible readings depending on whether the existential or the universal quantifier takes scope over the other one. In the first reading, where the universal quantifier every has wide scope, the interpretation implies that for every language (within a set), there are potentially two (different) people that John taught it to (Jiménez-Fernández, 2023, p.24). The second interpretation, where the existential Q takes scope over the universal 10 However, as argued in Moulton (2007, p. 2), clause-boundedness in Q-raising should be limited to finite sentences, as those with infinitival complements like in ‘A different nurse began to examine every patient’, the Q- raising of every is not restricted. 17 quantifier, presupposes that there are two potentially different people who were taught all the languages, maybe within a delimited set. In the case of (12b) only the second interpretation will be available: the Q-raising of a universal quantifier is blocked and the second sentence proves to be unambiguous. The same behaviour is exhibited by the verb give in English dative alternation: (13) a. The teacher gave a book to every student. ∀ > ∃ ; ∃ > ∀ b. The teacher gave a student every book. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ (Jiménez-Fernández, 2023, p.25) In (13b) the Q-raising of a universal quantifier is blocked again, what leads to only one possible interpretation, so no ambiguity is displayed. Now, let us turn to locative alternation in English. In this research, we are going to focus on this particular type of verbal alternation, as it has not been as broadly studied as the Dative Shift. In English, the behaviour of locative verbs of the spray-load pair is identical to the patterns displayed by verbs in dative alternation, as demonstrated in the examples below (Larson, 1990, p. 604, from Schneider-Zioga, 1988): (14) a. The worker loaded one box on every truck. ∃ > ∀ ; ∀ > ∃ b. The worker loaded one truck with every box. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ (15) a. Max sprayed some slogan on every wall. ∃ > ∀ ; ∀ > ∃ b. Max sprayed some wall with every slogan. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ In (14a) the first interpretation implies that the worker loaded one particular type of boxes on every truck. In the inverse reading, there is a potentially different type of boxes that the worker loaded on every truck. Sentence (14b) displays only one reading: there was only one truck which was loaded with a (possibly different) type of boxes. The spray-pair in (15) behaves in the way identical to the load-pair. 18 In addition, in the case of (13) and (14) the ambiguity is caused by the nature of the quantifier itself. Kiss and Pafel (2017), as referring to earlier Fodor and Sag’s research (1982), argue that in the case of indefinites, the attested ambiguity may be seen not as scopal but lexical. Let us analyse this grammatical property by appealing to the example in (13b): on the one hand, it has a quantifier interpretation, meaning that the set of students who were given a book is not empty, but, on the other hand, the referential interpretation may imply that there was one particular student who was given a book. 11 We will address more broadly the semantic aspects of certain quantifiers as triggering ambiguity in the context of the principles of ambiguity resolution later in this paper. In the next section, we will analyse scopally ambiguous constructions with ditransitive verbs in Russian (in particular, those involving locative alternation) and compare the behaviour of verbal alternants with English. 2.4. Quantifier Scope Ambiguities in Double Object Constructions in Russian In Russian, constructions with ditransitive verbs have equally triggered questions as to the structural composition of verbal arguments. In Russian dative alternation, quantified objects present ambiguous readings similarly to English. Let us consider the following examples (Antonyuk, 2020, p. 45): ‘The teacher presented some book to every student.’ 11 Fodor and Sag (1982) defend the referentiality of indefinites by appealing to their ability to scope out of islands. For instance in a sentence like ‘Each teacher overheard the rumor that a student of mine had been called before the dean’ the existential quantifier within a complex NP a student of mine scopes out of the island (which is a relative clause) and takes wide scope over the universal quantifier within the NP each teacher. This is claimed to only be possible when the indefinite possesses referentiality (Kiss & Pafel, 2017, p. 10). The scopal behaviour of indefinite NPs proves to be heterogeneous, as they exhibit quantificational and nonquantificational uses, specific and non-specific uses and etc., and thus remains a vast domain of research. (16) a.Učitel’ po-dari-l [kak-uju-to knig-u] [každ-omu teacher PO-present-PST.M some-ACC.F-IND book-ACC.F every-DAT.M student-u]. ∃ > ∀ ; ∀ > ∃ student-DAT.M 19 ‘The teacher presented some student with every book’ In sentence (16a) the Q-raising of the universal quantifier allows two possible interpretations, very similar to the ones we have seen in (13a) and (13b). However, in (16b) the second reading is not available. The behaviour of Russian ditransitives, while being more complex in particular aspects, is parallel to English in many ways. In Russian, ditransitive verbs normally share the same property of taking an Accusative (ACC) argument (the DO), and a case-marked Oblique (OBL) argument (the IO), which can occur in any order in surface structure (Antonyuk, 2020). 12 Based on the way the permutation in their order affects the possibilities of scopal interpretations, Antonyuk (2020, pp. 48-49) divides Russian ditransitive verb constructions into three groups: 1. The first group, where the DO+IO argument ordering allows ambiguous interpretations, and only the surface reading in the IO+DO ordering; 2. The second group, where the IO+DO argument ordering allows ambiguous interpretations, and only the surface reading in the DO+IO ordering; 3. The third group, where in both orderings quantifier scope ambiguity is exhibited. For the present research, we are mostly interested in the scopal behaviour of verbs of group 2, and specifically the spray-load pair in Locative Alternation. In Russian, the spray-load pair functions similarly to English (Antonyuk, 2020, p.46): (17) a. Vanja za-gruz-i-l [kak-oj-to vid sen-a] Vania ZA-load-IPFV-PST.M some-ACC.M-IND type.ACC.M hay-GEN.N ACC.M [na každ-yj gruzovik]. ∃ > ∀ ; ∀ > ∃ 12 The fact that Russian has a more flexible word order presents challenges as to stating whether the DO+IO or the IO+DO pattern should be considered as the canonical one. In general, this is the DO+IO pattern which is claimed to be the basic one (Titov, 2017). b. Učitel’ po-dari-l [kak-omu-to student-u] [každ-uju teacher PO-present-PST.M some-DAT.M-IND student-DAT.M every-ACC.F knig-u]. ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ book-ACC.F 20 on every- ACC.M truck-ACC.M ‘Vania loaded some type of hay on every truck.’ b. Vanja za-gruz-i-l [kak-oj-to gruzovik] [každy-m Vania ZA-load-IPFV-PST.M some-ACC.M-IND truck-ACC.M every-INS.M. vid-om sen-a.] ∃ > ∀ ; * ∀ > ∃ type-INS.M. hay-GEN.N ‘Vania loaded some truck with every type of hay.’ In (17a) both readings are available: in surface reading, the interpretation would imply that there was one particular type of hay that Vania loaded on every truck within a present set, whereas in the inverse reading the implication is that for every truck there was a potentially different type of hay that Vania loaded it on. In (17b) only the surface scope is permitted, with the reading implying that there was only one truck on which Vania loaded different types of hay. The reasons for the differences in quantifier scope behaviour between these three groups must be explained in the context of the principles that restrict one quantified NP from taking scope over another one. These are both structural constraints and the principles of sentence processing, which we will refer to as quantifier scope ambiguity resolution principles. These principles will be used by us as an instrument of proving the relationship between the two alternating object constructions with ditransitive locative verbs in English and Russian and explored in detail in the next section of this paper. 2.5. Quantifier Scope Ambiguity Resolution Principles Since the beginning of research in quantifier scope, scholars have tried to understand what type of operations a speaker implements in order to solve the ambiguity arising on the processing level. In 1990-s the field has gained experimental support with the research conducted by Kurtzman & MacDonald (1993), Tunstall (1998), Villalta (2003) and others. In the course of theoretical and experimental work, two accounts have emerged as to how scopal ambiguities should be treated: some scholars proposed multi-factor theories (May 1985, Kuno 1991, Kurtzman & Macdonald, 1993), whereas others supported the theory of relativized scope (Beghelli & Stowell 1997; Szabolcsi 1997). While supporters of multi-factor theories claim that the resolution of scopal ambiguity is dependent on a combination of syntactic principles, in the 21 theory of relativized scope the absence of ambiguity is associated with the constraints that quantifiers have with respect to their idiosyncratic properties. A distinct approach takes into account the pragmatic factors and the influence of information structure on the disambiguation of scopally ambiguous sentences containing quantified NPs (Hornstein 1999, Espinal and Villalba 2015, Antonyuk & Larson, 2016, Jiménez-Fernández, 2023). We are going to give a brief account of these principles as follows and focus specifically on the syntactic principles and the phenomenon of scope-freezing. In research investigating quantifier scope ambiguity there have been formulated specific parsing principles, which operate in the speaker’s comprehension system and define the possible interpretations to be adopted. First of all, let us delve into generally accepted syntactic principles. One of the most widely discussed principles is the linear order principle (VanLehn 1978, Fodor 1982), which refers to the left-to-right reading of the quantified phrase rearrangement in the surface structure of the sentence. The preferred interpretation for the speaker is the one where the quantifier, located in the left periphery of the sentence, takes scope over the quantifier that follows it. Two other principles, the surface subject principle and the external argument principle, originally suggested by Ioup (1975) appeal to the phrase pattern where the quantifiers occur in the determinant position of the subject and the object. The above-mentioned principles, governing the choice of one particular interpretation, depend primarily on the grammatical hierarchy within a sentence: if a phrase, containing a quantifier, occupies the surface or the deep-structure subject position, it will take scope over the quantifier phrase in the object position. For instance, in phrases like ‘A kid climbed every tree’, the reading ‘There is a kid x, such as that for every tree y, x climbed y’ is preferred (∃x>∀y; x is a kid & y is a tree & x climbed y: the existential quantifier a takes scope over the universal quantifier every). In active sentences both of the principles work in the same way, however, for passives there will be contradictions, as the external argument principle in this case will account for the preference of the interpretation of scopally ambiguous sentence . Another principle, seeking to confirm the association of scope interpretation with the syntactic position of the quantified phrases, is the c-command principle, advocated by Reinhart (1983). In her work, she suggests that the quantified phrase will preferably take scope over another one in the case where the former c-commands the latter on surface structure of the sentence. Such c-command relationship of quantifiers is illustrated as follows: 22 Figure 3. C-command relationship of someone and everyone (Higgins & Saddock, 2003, p. 75) Note. The tree above illustrates the surface reading of a sentence Someone saw everyone, and the way someone c-commands everyone after both of the quantified NPs undergo Q-raising. The c-command principle is directly related to the linear order principle, as the deep sentence structure is not seen here as the key criterion for the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguity. However, as Kiss & Pafel (2017) state, Reinhart’s approach is not entirely comprehensive in determining the relative scope of quantifiers only by surface c-command. While it predicts scope ambiguities in sentences where quantifiers mutually c-command each other, it does not take into account such cases of scopal ambiguity as sentences with transitive verbs with a quantified subject and a quantified direct object: (18) In this office somebody speaks every official language of the UNO. Two interpretations may be given depending on how quantifier scope is interpreted: the surface reading implies that in the office there is a particular person who speaks each of the official languages of the UNO. Yet, the operation of Q-raising makes possible an inverse interpretation, which implies that for every language of the UNO there is a person who speaks it in this office. 23 So far, all of the mentioned syntactic principles account for the preference of a surface reading in a scopally ambiguous sentence by the speakers of a language. For the present research, this assumption implies that the quantifier contained within the first NP in sentences with double object constructions, will be preferred in terms of taking wide scope over the quantifier contained with the following NP. Apart from syntactically based views, there exist other approaches, as the one belonging to Kempson and Cormack (1981) and May (1985), who claim that scope ambiguity resolution should be explained by semantically based principles. In this case, the phrase expressing the topic of the sentence will have wide scope and take over the phrase in the comment position. In English, the surface subject or the left-most surface constituent normally expresses the topic, thus, it should be predicted that the leftward phrase is the one which will take wide scope and will be preferred by the speakers in terms of interpretation order (Kurtzman, 1993). Some other quantifier ambiguity resolution principles deal with the idiosyncratic properties of quantifiers, which predict the scope they take in a sentence. For instance, Beghelli and Stowell (1997) provided a classification with five types of quantifiers and their scope abilities depending on the class they belong to: 1. Interrogative QPs (or wh-phrases), with their scope depending on the constraints that wh-phrases are subjected to; 2. Negative QPs, such as no or nobody; 3. Distributive-Universal QPs, such each and every, which can take either wide or narrow scope; 4. Counting QPs, which include decreasing quantifiers (few, fewer) and modified numerals (at most 10 or at least 2); these quantifiers tend to take limited or in situ scope; 5. Group-Denoting QPs, such as a, or some, which allow wide scope readings, even when c-commanded by other quantifiers. (Beghelli & Stowell 1997, p. 73) In an exerimental study by Kurtzman & Macdonald (1993) one more principle (earlier described in Fodor, 1982) was formulated, which is the single reference principle. In section 2.3. we already mentioned that the ambiguity exhibited in the sentences containing an indefinite a is the case of not only syntactic but also lexical ambiguity, as this quantifier clearly possesses referentiality. Thus, the single reference principle states that an existential quantifier a is 24 expected to be interpreted as having one single referent if it is placed before the universal quantifier every in a sentence, and will be more likely to take wide scope 13 . In such languages as Russian, the referential properties of quantifiers can also be responsible for provoking ambiguity. In Russian, this is the case for the indefinite pronouns which carry either a -to or -nibud’ suffix: the -to suffix normally corresponds to a specific reading while the -nibud’ suffix to a non-specific, as seen in the examples below (Ioup, 1977, p. 241): (19) a. Ona xočet vyjti zamuž za kogo-to She.3SG.F. wants.PRES.3SG go.INF.PERF married to wh-TO. ‘She wants to marry someone (specific).’ b. Ona xočet vyjti zamuž za kogo-nibud’ She.3SG.F. wants.PRES.3SG go.INF.PERF married to wh-NIBUD’. ‘She wants to marry someone (non-specific).’ It is also important to note that the -nibud’ marker cannot appear in simple declarative senteces. In Geist’s (2008) work one more specificity marker is introduced, which is the prefix –koe: (20) Igor’ hochet zhenit’sja na Igor wants PRES.3SG to marry.INF.PURP. at koe-kakoj/kakoj-to/kakoj-nibud’ studentke. KOE-wh/wh-TO/wh-NIBUD’ student.LOC.F. ‘Igor wants to marry a student.’ (Geist, 2008, p. 153) 13 One interesting finding correlates with Ioup’s study (1975) and the quantifier scope preferences hierarchy that she proposes: each> every> all > most > many > several > somepl > a few ( Ioup, 1975, pp. 73-74). Yet, in Kurtzman & Macdonald’s experiment (1993) it was revealed that there was no specific preference for the universal quantifier every to take wide scope over the existential a. 25 The identifiability of the referent by the speaker and the scope determine the disambiguation of the sentences containing these pronominal determiners. Here we are focusing specifically on the way these specificity markers impact the scope of the NPs they can be found within. As Geist (2008) claims, these three specificity markers exhibit different scopal behaviour: -koe indefinites normally take wide scope, whereas -nibud’ indefinites always take narrow scope. The indefinites containing the -to marker behave differently, and can take either narrow or wide scope: (21) a. Kazhdyj student voschischchaetsja Every.NOM.MASC. student.NOM.MASC. admire-PRES.3SG koe-kakim / -to / *-nibud’ professor-om. KOE-wh /wh-TO/ wh-NIBUD’ professor.INS.MASC. ‘Every student admires a certain professor.’ b. Kazhdyj student voschischchaetsja Every.NOM.MASC. student.NOM.MASC. admire-PRES.3SG *koe-kakim / -to / -nibud’ professor-om. KOE-wh /wh-TO/ wh-NIBUD’ professor.INS.MASC. ‘Every student admires a professor.’ (Geist, 2008, p.156) In (21a) the -to indefinite takes wide scope, and the interpretation implies that there is a certain professor that every student admires, whereas in (21b) the NP it is in takes narrow scope, and the reading is that ‘for every student there is a professor (possibly a different one) that they admire’. The fact that the -to indefinites can take either wide or narrow scope with respect to universal quantifiers creates ambiguity in a sentence. One more semantically based approach, explored by Kurtzman (1993) is based on the thematic hierarchy of the arguments of verbs. This means that a quantified phrase in which the argument bears a θ-role hierarchically higher than that of another argument will take scope over the phrase containing it. Thus, given the hierarchy Agent> Experiencer> Theme, a phrase where the 32 All of the participants signed an agreement to participate in a survey on a voluntary basis. The participation in the survey was anonymous. 3.2. Methodology In order to answer our research questions, two experiments were conducted. Two questionnaires, containing ambiguous and unambiguous sentences, were designed in both English and Russian. Each of the questionnaires consisted of four personal data questions, five questions with ambiguous and five questions with unambiguous sentences with locative verbal alternation and four questions used as distractors with ambiguous and unambiguous sentences containing alternating frames with dative verbs. In the survey aimed at English-speaking participants such locative verbs as spray, smear, load, sprinkle and spray were tested. In Russian the verbs zagruzit’ (load), namazat’ (spread), posipat’ (sprinkle), povyazat’ (tie around), zalit’ (fill) were used in questionnaires. All of the questions were preceded by a context. As we have mentioned earlier in the theoretical part, in both Russian and English, sentences with locative alternating frames can exhibit both ambiguous and unambiguous readings in the cases where a direct object with an existential quantifier (∃) precedes an indirect object with a universal quantifier (∀) in surface order. Therefore, for each of the verbs a pair of sentences was designed: the first sentence in a pair was scopally ambiguous and had two possible readings, whereas the second sentence was scopally frozen. In the table below both ambiguous and unambiguous sentences are presented: Table 1 Sentences with DOCs with Locative Alternation, English. Ambiguous (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Unambiguous (∃>∀, *∀>∃) 1. Lewis loaded a package on every van. 1. Lewis loaded a van with every package. 2. My brother spread some kind of cream on each cake. 2. My brother spread some cake with each kind of cream. 3. Grandmother spread some insecticide on every plant. 3. Grandma sprayed some plant with each insecticide. 33 4. The kid smeared some paint on every couch. 4. The kid smeared some couch with every paint. 5. The chef sprinkled a spice on every dish. 5. The chef sprinkled a dish with every spice. Table 2 Sentences with DOCs with Locative Alternation, Russian. Ambiguous (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Unambiguous (∃>∀, *∀>∃) 1. Vania zagruzil kakuju-to Vania ZA-load-IPFV-PST.M some-ACC.F-IND korobku v každij gruzovik. box.ACC.F in every.ACC.M. truck.ACC.M. 1. Vania zagruzil kakoj-to Vania ZA-load-IPFV-PST.M some-ACC.M-IND gruzovik každoj korobkoj. truck.ACC.M. every.INS.F. box.INS.F. 2. Moj brat namazal My.Nom.M. brother NA-spread-IPFV-PST.M. kakoe-to maslo na some-ACC.M.-IND oil-ACC.NEUT. on každij tost. every.ACC.M. toast.ACC.M. 2. Moj brat namazal My.Nom..M. brother NA-spread-IPFV-PST.M. kakoj-to tost some-ACC.M.-IND toast.ACC.M. *with každim maslom every.INS.NEUT. oil.INS.NEUT. 3. Povar posipal kakoj-to Chef PO-sprinkle-IPFV-PST.M. some-INS.F.-IND spetsijej každoje bludo. spice.INS.F every.ACC.NEUT. dish.ACC.NEUT. 3. Povar posipal kakoje-to Chef PO-sprinkle-IPFV-PST.M. some ACC.F.IND bludo každoj spetsiej. dish.ACC.NEUT. every.INS.F. spice.INS.F. 4. Mama povyazala kakoj-to Mom PO-tie around-IPFV-PST.F. some INS.F.-IND lentoj každij tsvetok. ribbon.INS.F every.ACC.M. flower.ACC.M. 4. Mama povyazala kakoj-to Mom PO-tie around-IPFV-PST.F. some ACC.M.IND tsvetok kajdoj lentoj. flower.ACC.M. every.INS.F. ribbon.INS.F. 5. Rabochij zalil kakuju-to Worker fill IPFV-PST.M. some.ACC.F.IND. židkost’ v každij bak. liquid.ACC.F. in every.ACC.M. barrel.ACC.M. 5. Rabochij zalil kakoj-to Worker fill IPFV-PST.M. some.ACC.F.IND bak každoj židkostju. barrel.ACC.M. every.INS.F.-IND liquid.INS.F. 34 Each of the research questions contained two pictures supporting either a direct or inverse reading of a tested sentence. Each question contained three answers which corresponded either to the choice of one or both of the pictures by the participant of the survey. A sample of one of the questions is provided below: Figure 4. An example of an ambiguous sentence with the verb load (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Figure 5. An example of a scopally frozen sentence with the verb load (∃>∀, *∀>∃) 35 To answer the questions, the respondents were to choose one of the three available options: either an inverse or a surface scope interpretation, or both interpretations. For ambiguous sentences, option A corresponded to an inverse scope reading (∃>∀, *∀>∃), option B to a surface scope reading (∃>∀, ∀>∃). For unambiguous sentences, option A corresponded to a surface scope reading and option B to an inverse scope reading. For both ambiguous and unambiguous sentences, the option ‘Both are correct’ corresponded to the preference of both a surface and an inverse scope interpretation. 3.3. Materials & Procedure Both questionnaires were designed with the help of Google Forms, a software used to create online forms and surveys. The pictures used for the questionnaires were made with the help of Canva, a free online graphic design tool. Both L1 English speakers and L1 Russian speakers were tested online. The questionnaires were distributed by a shareable link provided in Google Forms to each of the participants. Before completing the survey the respondents had to sign an agreement for the processing of their data. All of the informants were provided with instructions before completing the survey and asked to pay attention to the context preceding each answer. The participants were informed that there were no correct answers in the survey but that they were to answer based on their perception. No time restrictions were set on completing the questionnaires. 3.4. Data Collection and Analysis Each of the answered surveys was automatically stored in an Excel document, with two separate sheets for surveys in English and Russian. The stored answers were automatically analysed in Google Forms using the 100% percentage scale. For both ambiguous and unambiguous sentences mean scores 21 were calculated by using the standard mean formula x  = ( Σxi ) / n, where x  stands for the achieved mean score, Σxi stands for the sum of all the x-values and n denotes the number of tested items in the sample that the sum is divided by. For unambiguous 21 In this research, mean score stands for an average value found for the surface/inverse interpretation preferences or the absence of preference (where the informants mark both answers as correct). In the case of calculating mean scores for the surface and the inverse readings, the result is achieved by dividing into two the summed initial surface/inverse reading preference percentage and a half of the both readings preference percentage. 36 sentences, mean scores were calculated for the preference of surface scope interpretations. For ambiguous sentences, mean scores were calculated for the preference of surface scope interpretations, the inverse scope interpretations and the preference of both the surface and the inverse scope interpretations (where the respondents chose both answers as available interpretations). Surface and inverse scope interpretations were calculated by using the corresponding mean formulae x  = (xsinv) /n + xs, and x  = (xsinv) / n + xinv. In these formulae x  stands for the achieved mean score, xsinv for the x-value corresponding to the answer favouring both interpretations only, n for the number of tested items in the sample and xs and xinv for the surface and the inverse score figures respectively. 3.5. Results For scopally ambiguous sentences in English, the achieved results indicated the overall speakers’ preference for both of the interpretations, with the mean score = 62,66%. For the verbs load and smear the majority of the respondents, 86,7% and 80% respectively indicated the preference for both of the two readings, with either the existential (∃) or the universal (∀) quantifier taking scope one over another (Figure 6 and Figure 7): Figure 6. Processing of a scopally ambiguous sentence with load 37 Figure 7. Processing of a scopally ambiguous sentence with smear For the verbs spread and sprinkle although still prevalent, the preference for both of the possible readings was much lower, 60% and 53,3% respectively. For both verbs, a certain percentage of participants displayed the preference for either of the two readings: for the verb spread an equal number of the respondents indicated preference for either direct (20%) or inverse (20%) quantifier scope interpretations as the only possible ones. For the verb sprinkle, the preference for inverse scope as the only one possible was slightly higher – 26,7%, with 20% indicating the preference only for direct scope interpretation. The same pattern was displayed with respect to the verb smear: 20% of the respondents indicated the preference for inverse scope reading as the only possible. The verb spray resulted as the hardest for the participants in terms of the availability of both interpretations: only one third of the respondents (33,3%) displayed preference for both of the interpretations as possible. Yet, 60% of the respondents exhibited preference for the surface scope reading (option B) in the ambiguous sentence with spray as the only available reading. 38 Figure 8. Processing of a scopally ambiguous sentence with spray Yet, we achieve distinct results after analysing the answers in terms of only the surface or the inverse reading preference. In the table below, mean scores for either the surface or the inverse interpretations of the sentences with each of the tested verbs are presented: Table 3. Mean scores for surface and inverse readings in scopally ambiguous English sentences Scopally ambiguous sentences (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Mean score for surface reading Mean score for inverse reading 1. Lewis loaded a package on every van. 50% 50% 2. My brother spread some kind of cream on each cake. 50% 50% 3. The chef sprinkled a spice on every dish. 46,65% 53,35% 4. Grandmother sprayed some insecticide on every plant. 76,65% 23,35% 5. The kid smeared some paint on every couch. 40% 60% Overall (mean): 52,66% 47,34% As the table shows, after analysing mean scores for each of the verbs separately, no specific preferences were exhibited as to the quantifier scope in sentences with the verbs load and 39 spread, a strong surface scope preference was displayed for the verb smear, and the inverse scope interpretations for the verbs spray and sprinkle. Overall, the mean score for the surface scope preference in ambiguous interpretations is 52,66%, whereas for the inverse scope the mean score = 47,34%. For English unambiguous sentences the results achieved showed that native English-speaking respondents tend to give preference to surface scope interpretations as the only possible, with mean score = 83,3% for all tested scopally frozen sentences with locative alternating frames. For the verbs smear and sprinkle in the constructions with DO∃ + IO∀, 100% of the respondents displayed only the frozen surface scope perception of the sentences, with the existential quantifiers some and a taking wide scope and the universal quantifier every taking narrow scope. Similar results were shown with respect to the verb load: 93.3% of the respondents selected the answer corresponding to the surface scope reading of the sentence, with the existential quantifier a taking wide scope over the universal quantifier every. Table 4. Mean scores for surface and inverse readings in scopally frozen English sentences Scopally ambiguous sentences (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Mean score for surface reading Mean score for inverse reading 1. Lewis loaded a van with every package. 93,3% 6,7% 2. My brother spread some cake with each kind of cream. 76,7% 23,3% 3. Grandmother sprayed some plant with each insecticide. 73,35% 26,65% 4. The kid smeared some couch with every paint. 100% 0% 5. The chef sprinkled a dish with every spice. 100% 0% Overall (mean): 88,67% 11,33% For the verbs spray and spread more than two thirds of the respondents (66,7%) displayed the preference for the scopally frozen surface reading of the sentences as the only possible one. Yet, 20% of the respondents reported that sentences containing these verbs with DO∃ + IO∀ constructions could have more than one reading and 13,3% chose the inverse reading of the sentence as preferred and the only available reading. The overall mean score for surface 40 interpretations for unambiguous sentences when taking into account the speakers’ preference of both readings = 88,67%. Now let us turn to the analysis of the results for sentences in Russian. As long as Russian locative alternation with the verbs of the spray/load group follows the same pattern as English, similar results were expected. Yet, for tested scopally ambiguous Russian sentences, the variation in results was much broader. The achieved figures demonstrated that Russian respondents gave a lower preference to the availability of both interpretations as compared to English respondents, with the mean score = 52%. The highest preference for both the surface and the inverse readings was shown in the questions with the verbs zagruzit’ (load) and povyazat’ (tie around), being 73,3% and 66,7% respectively (Figure 9): Figure 9. Processing of a scopally ambiguous sentence with the verb zagruzit’ (load) 22 The lowest figures were exhibited in the phrases containing verbs zalit’ (fill), posipat’ (sprinkle) and namazat’ (spread), being 46,7%, 40% and 33,3% respectively: 22 The sentences appearing in Figure 9 and Figure 10 were transcribed from Russian, as the language uses a nonlatin writing system. Yet, as long as the questionnaire was aimed at Russian native speakers, the original version can be found in Appendix 2 on p. 64 of the present paper. 41 Figure 10. Processing of a scopally ambiguous sentence with the verb namazat’ (spread/smear) For the verb namazat’ (spread), the preferred interpretation was the one of the inverse scope with the universal quantifier taking wide scope, with 40% choosing the inverse scope as the only possible interpretation and mean score = 56,65%. For the verb posipat’ (sprinkle) the majority of the respondents chose the surface reading as the only possible, with the initial figure = 46,7 % and the mean score = 66,7%. For sentences with the verbs zagruzit’ (load) and povyazat’ (tie around), 20% and 33,3% of the respondents indicated preference for the surface scope reading only with the mean score for zagruzit’ = 56,65 and for povyazat’ = 66,65% with none of the respondents indicating preference for the inverse scope. The rest of the figures are presented in the table below: Table 5. Mean scores for surface and inverse readings in scopally ambiguous Russian sentences Scopally ambiguous sentences (∃>∀, ∀>∃) Mean scores for surface reading Mean scores for inverse reading 1. Vania zagruzil kakuju-to Vania ZA-load-IPFV-PST.M some-ACC.M-IND korobku v každij gruzovik. box.ACC.F in every.ACC.M. truck.ACC.M. 56,65% 43,35% 2. Moj brat namazal My.POSS.M. brother.. NA-spread-IPFV-PST.M. 43,35% 56,65% 48 sentences the variety of English that the respondents dominated was not taken into consideration, as certain patterns may sound unnatural for the speakers of certain varieties. Hence, further research is required, in which we intend to take into account all of the abovementioned limitations. A more thorough selection of participants has to be made, with focusing on a particular age group and education level. Apart from that, we aspire to test a wider range of verbs from the same verb class in order to obtain more accurate data. Finally, we suggest a study in which more complex quantifier scope ambiguity resolution principles are taken into consideration (especially those that account for the inverse scope preference). We assume that cross-linguistic comparative research needs to be conducted between the languages where quantifier scope possibilities account for derivational analysis, as in the case of English or Russian, and non-derivational analysis, as in the case of Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. 49 5. List of References Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook). Antonyuk, S., & Larson, R. (2016). Scope freezing in PP dative constructions. In 12th meeting of the Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL), Berlin, Germany: Humboldt University. Antonyuk, S. (2019). Quantifier scope in Russian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1). Antonyuk, S. (2020). The puzzle of Russian ditransitives. Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 7, 43. Antonyuk, S., & Mykhaylyk, R. (2022). Scope freezing and object shift in Ukrainian: Does Superiority matter?. Syntax, 25(1), 122-146. Aoun, J., & Hornstein, N. (1985). Quantifier types. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(4), 623-637. Aoun, J., & Li, Y. H. A. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic inquiry, 20(2), 141-172. Arnold, J. E., & Watson, D. G. (2015). Synthesising meaning and processing approaches to prosody: Performance matters. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(1-2), 88-102. Barss, A., & Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic inquiry, 17(2), 347-354. Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking (pp. 71-107). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Bobaljik, J. D., & Wurmbrand, S. (2012). Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the ¾ signature. Linguistic inquiry, 43(3), 371-421. Bresnan, J., & Nikitina, T. (2009). The gradience of the dative alternation. Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 161-184. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2). 233–273. DOI:10.1162/00243890152001762 Bruening, B. (2014). Double object constructions and prepositional dative constructions are distinct: a reply to Ormazabal and Romero. Linguistic Inquiry. Bunt, H. (2018). Semantic annotation of quantification in natural language. [s.n.]. 50 Cépeda, P., & Cyrino, S. (2020). Putting objects in order: Asymmetrical relations in Spanish and Portuguese ditransitives. Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, 7, 97. Chomsky, N., Anderson, S., & Kiparsky, P. (1973). Conditions on transformations. 1973, 232- 286. Chomsky, N. (1975). Questions of form and interpretation. Scope of American linguistics, 159- 196. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding (dordrecht: Foris). Studies in generative grammar, 9, 1995. Dryer, M. S. (1986). Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language, 808-845. Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface (Vol. 3). OUP Oxford. Espinal, M. T., & Villalba, X. (2015). Ambiguity resolution and information structure. The Linguistic Review, 32(1), 61-85. Fodor, J. D., & Sag, I. A. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and philosophy, 5, 355-398. Geist, L. (2008). Specificity as referential anchoring: Evidence from Russian. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 12, pp. 151-164). Higgins, D., & Sadock, J. M. (2003). A machine learning approach to modeling scope preferences. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 73-96. Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic inquiry, 30(1), 69-96. Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In Syntax and Semantics volume 4 (pp. 37-58). Brill. Ioup, G. (1977). Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 233–245 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351105 Jackendoff, R. (1990) Semantic Structures. MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 51 Jiménez-Fernández, Á. L. (2023). The heterogeneous nature of verbal alternations: What information structure can tell us about it. Isogloss. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics, 9 (4), 1-44. Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9783111682228 Kempson, R. M., & Cormack, A. (1981). Ambiguity and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 259-309. Kiss, K. É., & Pafel, J. (2017). Quantifier scope ambiguities. In M. Everaert & H. C. Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax (Second ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom005 Koizumi, M. (1994). Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3(1), 25-79. Kuno, S. (1991). Remarks on quantifier scope. Current English Linguistics in Japan, 261-287. Kurtzman, H. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48(3), 243-279. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3), 335–391. Larson, R. K., Antonyuk, S., & Liu, L. (2019). Superiority and scope freezing. Linguistic Inquiry, 50(1), 233-252. May, R. C. (1978). The grammar of quantification (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). May, R. (1985). Logical form: Its structure and derivation (Vol. 12). MIT press. Moulton, K. (2007). Scope relations and infinitival complements. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 33(1), 8. Radford, A. (1997). Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm. Rikardo, R., & Etxepare, R. (2021). Superiority effects without superiority conditions. 52 Sánchez-Calderón, S., & Fernández-Fuertes, R. (2018). “Which Came First: The Chicken or the Egg?” Ditransitive and Passive Constructions in the English Production of Simultaneous Bilingual English Children. Atlantis, 40(1), 39-58. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1988. Double objects and small clauses. unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA. Szabolcsi, A. (1997). Strategies for scope taking (pp. 109-154). Springer Netherlands. Titov, E. (2017). The canonical order of Russian objects. Linguistic inquiry, 48(3), 427-457. Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. University of Massachusetts Amherst. VanLehn, K. A. (1978). Determining the scope of English quantifiers. Verspoor, C. M. (1994). Double Object Constructions. University of Melbourne. Disponível na internet em https://pdfs. semanticscholar. org/06dc/c4de6e4bbadb7272 1a3b31d67f164c49719a. pd f Acedido a, 5(06), 2018. Vilalta, E. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20(2), 115-162. 53 Appendix 1. Questionnaire for native L1 English-speaking respondents 54 55 56 57 64 65 66