Abstract/Summary

This paper examines aggrammatics′ interpretation of quantificationally ambiguous sentences. Although agrammatics are capable of recognizing quantificational ambiguities, they ascribe nonstandard entailments to those sentences involving universal quantification. Since quantificational ambiguity arises from movement of quantifiers at LF, doubt is cast on accounts of agrammatic behavior that rely on an inability to interpret moved constituents. Furthermore, the agrammatics are seen to improve in their thematic interpretation of arguments in reversible passive constructions and relatives if one of the arguments is universally quantified. The nonstandard entailments and improved performance on passive and relatives are accounted for via an elaboration of event semantics in which we propose that the agrammatic treats the event variable associated with a verb as nominal.