Syntactic Funfact of the Day: the Scope of Quantifiers

In modern grammar, a quantifier is a word like most, many, only;  and its scope in the sentence  consists of the words (or, rather, the concepts behind them) to which it applies.

Thus, in

            (1)  Most men and women like penguins.

the word most would, on the normal reading of the sentence, apply to men and women, and the sentence means that a majority of adults like penguins.  Whereas in

            (2)  Most men and quite a few women like hamsters.

most applies to men only.

The scholastics and their inheritors delighted in the syntax and semantics of such constructions.  A parade-example is

            (3)  Only Satan pities himself.

which is ambiguous, meaning either

            (3i)  The only individual who pities Satan is Satan himself.

or

            (3ii) Only Satan is given to self-pity.

           

Contrast

            (4)  Satan pities only himself.

which is unambiguous, and means “Satan pities himself and no-one else”  -- as opposed to “Satan pities himself and no-one else does”, which is another way of saying (3i).  This behavior is typical:  as a rule of thumb, a quantifier farther out to the syntactic edge will tend to admit readings of either broad or narrow scope, whereas a quantifier nestling well-embedded is more likely to be narrow.

Careful attention to where you place your quantifiers, and to the possible uncertainties  of interpretation with which you might be burdening the reader in case of scope-ambiguity, are sound linguistic hygiene.

(Note:  During the heyday of "Generative Semantics", to which your reporter was exposed at a tender age,  the term "Satan" in such sentences  was generally replaced by "Nixon" or "LBJ".  A distinction without a difference.)

*     *     *

~ Commercial break ~

Relief for beleaguered Nook lovers!

http://murphybros.blogspot.com/p/read-murphy-on-your-nook.html

We now return you to your regularly scheduled essay.

*     *     *

~

I was reminded of those old chestnuts earlier today, when reading a bit about Africa, currently so prominently in the news.    The following sentence appears in the article Mauritania, in the Third Edition of the Concise Columbia Encylopedia:

            (5)  Slavery was only officially abolished in 1980.

Encyclopedia articles tend to receive more careful copy-editing than do the daily newspapers;  nonetheless, a crucial ambiguity has here escaped the grammarian’s pen.  (5) can mean either

            (5i) Slavery was officially abolished only in 1980 (and not before)

-- that is, where only modifies in 1980;  or

            (5ii) Slavery was “abolished” in 1980 -- but only officially, not de facto.

That makes quite a big difference, especially for the existent or non-existent slaves!

I suspect that what the writer intended was (5i), but that the actual truth is (5ii).  Indeed, it is even possible that subconscious awareness of the real as opposed to the official state of affairs  led the writer to a sort of quantificational Freudian slip, where the meaning (5ii) peeps through below the surface.

By now curious as to the real-word state of events, I checked Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania

which reports that, although officially abolished in 1981 (sic), the practice lives on -- nay, continues to enjoy a rude good health, with up to one fifth of the population being slaves.

(Only Satan is especially pleased at this.)