Formal Approaches to Semantic Microvariation: Adverbial ...

theoretical assumptions differ significantly from those presented in Chapter 1, and,
since her proposal is purely syntactic (albeit guided by semantic considerations), how
it would be cashed out in a model-theoretic analysis is not clear. In fact, it not even
clear that the semantics that I give in the next section could not be a possible semantics
for Doetjes’ structures in (64). Indeed, the spirit of her analysis is compatible with my
own: the purely adverbial quantifier beaucoup quantifies at the same time over the verb
and the direct object, and this is what creates the restrictions on what kind of event and
argument structures QAD sentences can have. However, instead of conjecturing about
the many ways that Doetjes could or would interpret her structures, I will provide an
argument that de phrases do not have a < q > position, or at least not one with the
properties that she proposes.
A key aspect of Doetjes’ proposal is her account for the following < q > position
asymmetry: she observes that, while the < q > position in verbs may be satisfied
pragmatically (i.e. not syntactically), the < q > position in de phrases needs to be
satisfied in the syntax. This is why sentences with simple verbs and no degree adverbs
are grammatical (65); whereas, sentences with de phrases and no degree adverbs are
ungrammatical (66).
(65) J’ai lu trois livres
I have read three books
‘I read three books’
(66) *J’ai lu de livres
I have read of books
To account for (66), she proposes the following constraint:
(67) The q-position in the NP must be saturated in syntax, while the q-position in
the VP can be saturated through pragmatic devices.
48