On Telescoping

The phenomenon we discuss is illustrated by the contrast in (1)-(8) (we use coindexing to indicate intuitive binding): (1) ??Every dog i came in. It i lay down under the table. (2) *If every cat i purrs, it i is happy. (3) *If John owes every man i money then Sam pays him i. Hornstein, 1984] (4) *John likes every dog i and Sam feeds it i. Hornstein, 1984] (5) Every story i pleases these children. If it i is about animals, they are excited, if it i is about witches, they are enchanted, and if it i is about humans, they never want me to stop. Belvadi, 1989] (6) Each degree candidate i walked to the stage. He i took his diploma from the dean and returned to his i seat. (Partee, from Roberts, 1987]) (7) Each student i in the syntax class was accused of cheating on the exam and he i was reprimanded by the dean. Fodor and Sag, 1982] (8) Each candidate i for the space mission meets all our requirements. He i has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and extensive prior ight experience. Roberts, 1987] Data of the type in (1)-(4) led Heim (Heim, 1982], p.204) to assume the Scope Constraint: quantiiers cannot take scope beyond the clause in which they appear at S-structure. Yet, (5)-(8) involve an occurrence of a singular pronoun which is in some sense anaphorically related to a universal quantiier in the previous sentence. Roberts 1987] called this phenomenon telescoping. 2 Why Telescoping is a Problem In the Kamp/Heim approach, (i) quantiiers are unable to bind variables outside their scope at S-structure, (ii) indeenite NP's have no quantiicational This paper appears in C. Barker and D.