Jaume Solà i Pujols - Departament de Filologia Catalana ...

(31) SS: Therei came a mani
LF: A mani came ti
This solution does not account for the obligatory narrow scope reading of the indefinite
w.r.t. negation in cases like:
(32) There aren't many linguistics freaks here
where many linguistics freaks cannot have wide scope w.r.t. negation. Since the LF
representation Chomsky proposes is essentially the same as the SS in 0:
(33) Many linguistic students aren't here
where the wide scope interpretation is possible and preferred (or, for some speakers, exclusive),
the theory of LF expletive-replacement makes wrong predictions in this connection.
To overcome this problem, Chomsky (1988) proposes an alternative approach: at LF the
Argument does not replace the expletive, but rather adjoins to it. The theory of LF adjunction,
Chomsky argues, would be a solution for the interpretation problem concerning the relative
scope between Negation and the indefinite: if the Argument adjoins to the expletive as in 0 for an
S-Structure like 0, there is no scope relation between the negative particle and the quantifier
many, so that many can be assumed to have narrow scope, as desired:
(34) [ DP there [ many l. students ]] aren't t here
It is a mystery why many has to have narrow scope w.r.t. negation when there is no
structural scope relation between them. In addition, it is doubtful that this is so in cases where
there is no scope relation at SS:
1