---
title: "Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis"
description: "The paper looks at quantifier float (Q-float), where a quantifier is split from the nominal it belongs to, as in The students all… . 54 references."
authors: ["Al Khalaf, Eman"]
year: 2019
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5196/"
doi: "10.5334/gjgl.848"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/khalaf-2019-floating-quantifiers-are-autonomous-phrases/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/khalaf-2019-floating-quantifiers-are-autonomous-phrases/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2019/page/6/) / Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis

# Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis

**Authors:** Al Khalaf, Eman · **Year:** 2019 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2019/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5196/galley/12598/download) · [DOI 10.5334/gjgl.848](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2966303214)

**Citations:** 17 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The paper looks at quantifier float (Q-float), where a quantifier is split from the nominal it belongs to, as in *The students all…*. It uses Modern Standard Arabic data checked with native speakers. There are two standard accounts. Stranding says the nominal moves away from a constituent it shared with the quantifier. The adverbial account treats the quantifier as an adjunct. Al Khalaf argues that neither one fits the Arabic facts.

The data have two sides:
- Arabic floating quantifiers sit in positions where displaced nominals leave lower copies, which points to movement.
- In many cases the quantifier and its associate could never have been a single continuous constituent.

The proposal follows Ott's analysis of German split topics. The quantifier phrase and the associate are merged as a symmetric set of two independent phrases. Under Chomsky's (2013) labeling framework, such a set cannot be labeled until the associate moves out. This captures both the movement-like locality and the lack of a shared constituent. The result is that Arabic floating quantifiers work as a reliable diagnostic of where moved nominals originate.

## Key points
- Arabic allows a wide range of floaters:
  - universal quantifiers: kull, jamiiʕ, kaafah ('all') and kila ('both');
  - generalized quantifiers: baʕd ('some') and aħad ('one');
  - numerals, which the author says had not been documented as floating before.
- Standard English floats only *all*, *both* and *each*; floated *half* or *three* is ungrammatical.
- Arabic floating quantifiers appear in the following positions:
  - subject, direct object, double-accusative object and prepositional complement;
  - the complement of passives and unaccusatives, a position where other languages ban them.
- The floated quantifier carries a pronominal clitic agreeing with the associate (e.g., kull-u=hum), and it matches the associate's case.
- Sentence-final floating quantifiers, even after a transitive object, are explained by subjects being able to sit at either edge of vp. Possessor clitics inside construct-state nominals remain an open problem.

## Interesting ideas
- A floated quantifier stands in an argument–predicate relation to its associate and is not just an adverb, so *the players, three of them were injured* names a subset of a known set.
- The position of a floating quantifier reveals where the associated nominal started, for example the object slot of a passive or unaccusative verb.
- The agreement clitic on the floated quantifier is an explicit morphological link back to its associate, so the association can be resolved by feature matching instead of adjacency.
- The paper's minimal pairs, such as *Children were three playing* versus *Three children were playing*, mark exactly what a language forbids.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (world): Model such phrases as a counted sub-collection of an existing entity, not a new entity, which helps track holdings and quantities in maths word problems.
- **I2** (frames): When assigning VerbNet roles, treat a floated *all*/*both* next to a passive participle as evidence that its associate is the underlying theme/patient.
- **I3** (tree): Add a post-parse rule that links a floated *all/each/both* to the nearest compatible nominal, so the link stays explainable even when the parser attaches the quantifier as an adverbial.
- **I4** (learn): Use starred minimal pairs as negative controls, checking that the tagger and parser do not quietly accept English numeral float as a normal reading.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Jordan](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-jordan/) — University, Amman, Jordan · 7 works · 86 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 9,296 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 9,206 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 798 works · [💭 Developmental and Educational Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/developmental-and-educational-psychology/) · 260 works

🧭 Topics (1): [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 1,485 works

## Cite

Cite as: Al Khalaf, Eman. 2019. Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{eman2019floating,
  title = {{Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis}},
  author = {Al Khalaf, Eman},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.848},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848}
}
```

- [← previous The ERG at MRP 2019: Radically Compositional Semantic Dependencies](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/oepen-2019-erg-mrp-2019-radically-compositional/)
- [next → Zero-shot transfer for implicit discourse relation classification](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kurfali-2019-zero-shot-transfer-implicit-discourse/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2019](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2019/page/6/)

## References

54 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. Newark, DE: University of Delaware dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Al+Khalaf%2C+Eman%2E+2015%2E+Coordination+and+linear+order%2E+Newark%2C+DE%3A+University+of+Delaware+dissertation%2E)
2. Al Khalaf, Eman. 2017. First conjunct agreement is an illusion. Ms., University of Jordan. Available at [http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003250](http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003250). [↗](http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003250)
3. Aoun, Joseph & Elabbas Benmamoun. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and PF movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 569–597. www.jstor.org/stable/4179038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553888 Authier, J.-Marc. 1991. V-governed expletives, case theory, and the projection principle. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 721–740. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178747. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553888)
4. Baltin, Mark R. 1978. Toward a theory of movement rules. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baltin%2C+Mark+R%2E+1978%2E+Toward+a+theory+of+movement+rules%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E+Distributed+by+MIT+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics%2E)
5. Baltin, Mark R. 1995. Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 199–248. www.jstor.org/stable/4178896. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baltin%2C+Mark+R%2E+1995%2E+Floating+quantifiers%2C+PRO%2C+and+predication%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+26%2E+199%E2%80%93248%2E+www%2Ejstor%2Eorg%2Fstable%2F4178896%2E)
6. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. The syntax of quantifiers and quantifier float. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 621–642. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179084. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1162/002438999554237 Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot international state-of-the-article book, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554237)
7. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bobaljik%2C+Jonathan+David%2E+1995%2E+Morphosyntax%3A+The+syntax+of+verbal+inflection%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E+Distributed+by+MIT+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics%2E)
8. Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 681–742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2541-z [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-2541-z)
9. Brisson, Christine. 1998. Distributivity, maximality and floating quantifiers. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brisson%2C+Christine%2E+1998%2E+Distributivity%2C+maximality+and+floating+quantifiers%2E+New+Brunswick%2C+NJ%3A+Rutgers+University+dissertation%2E)
10. Bruening, Benjamin & Eman Al Khalaf. 2018. No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for binding condition C. Linguistic Inquiry 55. 247–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000324 Bruening, Benjamin & Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00336 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226718000324)
11. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chomsky%2C+Noam%2E+1986%2E+Knowledge+of+language%3A+its+nature%2C+origin%2C+and+use%2E+New+York%3A+Praeger%2E)
12. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structure 3. 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004)
13. Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? 1–29. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207552-001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207552-001)
14. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007)
15. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003)
16. Collins, Chris. 1988. Conjunction adverbs. Ms., MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Collins%2C+Chris%2E+1988%2E+Conjunction+adverbs%2E+Ms%2E%2C+MIT%2E)
17. Deprez, Viviane. 1994. Parameters of object movement. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena, 101–152. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857214.101)
18. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Doetjes%2C+Jenny%2E+1997%2E+Quantifiers+and+selection%2E+Hague%3A+Holland+Academic+Graphics%2E)
19. Dowty, David & Belinda Brodie. 1984. A semantic analysis of “floated” quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. In Mark Cobler, Susannah MacKaye & Michael T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 3. 75–90. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dowty%2C+David+%26+Belinda+Brodie%2E+1984%2E+A+semantic+analysis+of+%E2%80%9Cfloated%E2%80%9D+quantifiers+in+a+transformationless+grammar%2E+In+Mark+Cobler%2C+Susannah+MacKaye+%26+Michael+T%2E+Wescoat+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+WCCFL+3%2E)
20. Fiengo, Robert D. & Howard Lasnik. 1976. Some issues in the theory of transformations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. 182–191. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177915](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177915). [↗](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177915)
21. Fitzpatrick, Justin M. 2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. Cambrdige, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Available at [http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37420](http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37420). [↗](http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37420)
22. Giusti, Giuliana. 1990. The syntax of floating ‘alles’ in German. In Wim Kosmeijer Werner Abraham & Eric Reuland (eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax, 327–350. New York/Berlin: Mouton/Walter de Gruyter. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847277.327)
23. Henry, Alison. 2012. Phase edges, quantifier float, and the nature of (micro-) variation. Iberia 4(1). 23–39. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Henry%2C+Alison%2E+2012%2E+Phase+edges%2C+quantifier+float%2C+and+the+nature+of+%28micro%2D%29+variation%2E+Iberia+4%281%29%2E+23%E2%80%9339%2E)
24. Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39. 641–681. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.027)
25. Jenks, Peter. 2013. Quantifier float, focus, and scope in Thai. In Matthew Faytak, Mtthew Gross, Nicholas Baier, John Merrill, Kelsey Neely, Erin Donnelly & Jevon Heath (eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 39. 90–107. CA: Berkeley: The Linguistic Society of America. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v39i1.3872 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v39i1.3872)
26. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johannessen%2C+Janne+Bondi%2E+1998%2E+Coordination%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
27. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kayne%2C+Richard%2E+1975%2E+French+syntax%3A+The+transformational+cycle%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
28. Kayne, Richard. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 93–133. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178206](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178206). [↗](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178206)
29. Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2007. Floating numerals and floating quantifiers. Lingua 117(5). 814–831. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.03.008)
30. Lacerda, Renato. 2016. Rebel without a case: Quantifier floating in Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish. In Mary A. Kato & Francisco Ordónẽz (eds.), The morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, 78–106. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190465889.003.0004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190465889.003.0004)
31. Maling, Joan M. 1976. Notes on quantifier postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 708–718. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177962](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177962). [↗](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177962)
32. McCawley, James. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English (Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vol. 2). University of Chicago Press. [https://books.google.jo/](https://books.google.jo/) books?id=p8Hqzc9875cC. [↗](https://books.google.jo/)
33. McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 57–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554299 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554299)
34. Merchant, Jason. 1996. Object scrambling and quantifier float in German. In Proceedings of NELS 26. 179–193. Amherst: Graduate Student Linguistics Association. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merchant%2C+Jason%2E+1996%2E+Object+scrambling+and+quantifier+float+in+German%2E+In+Proceedings+of+NELS+26%2E+179%E2%80%93193%2E+Amherst%3A+Graduate+Student+Linguistics+Association%2E)
35. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese, vol. 22 (Syntax and Semantics). San Diego: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miyagawa%2C+Shigeru%2E+1989%2E+Structure+and+case+marking+in+Japanese%2C+vol%2E+22+%28Syntax+and+Semantics%29%2E+San+Diego%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
36. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Moro%2C+Andrea%2E+2000%2E+Dynamic+antisymmetry%2E+Cambridge%3A+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
37. Ott, Dennis. 2011. Local instability: The syntax of split topics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ott%2C+Dennis%2E+2011%2E+Local+instability%3A+The+syntax+of+split+topics%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Harvard+University+dissertation%2E)
38. Ott, Dennis. 2012. Local instability: Split topicalization and quantifier float in German. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110290950 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110290950)
39. Ott, Dennis. 2015. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax 18. 157–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12027 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12027)
40. Payne, Thomas E. 2011. Understanding English grammar: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press. [https://books.google.jo/books?id=BbUYXzwAyhUC](https://books.google.jo/books?id=BbUYXzwAyhUC). [↗](https://books.google.jo/books?id=BbUYXzwAyhUC)
41. Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Postal%2C+Paul+M%2E+1974%2E+On+raising%3A+One+rule+of+English+grammar+and+its+theoretical+implications%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
42. Reed, Ann M. 2010. The discourse function of floated quantifiers. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 1737–1761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.004)
43. Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84. 159–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90069-H [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90069-h)
44. Shlonsky, Ur. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114. 1465–1526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.019)
45. Spector, Ilona. 2009. Hebrew floating quantifiers. In Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 conference, 521–540. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Spector%2C+Ilona%2E+2009%2E+Hebrew+floating+quantifiers%2E+In+Miriam+Butt+%26+Tracy+Holloway+King+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Proceedings+of+the+LFG09+conference%2C+521%E2%80%93540%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+CSLI+Publications%2E)
46. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 425–449. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164903. [↗](https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982372-4)
47. Sportiche, Dominique. 2019. Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2). 416–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00306 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00306)
48. Tilleson, Paul. 2018. Floating all in the Upper Midwest dialect of English. A poster presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Utah: Salt Lake City. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tilleson%2C+Paul%2E+2018%2E+Floating+all+in+the+Upper+Midwest+dialect+of+English%2E+A+poster+presented+at+the+92nd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Linguistic+Society+of+America%2E+Utah%3A+Salt+Lake+City%2E)
49. Torrego, Esther. 1996. Experiencers and raising verbs. In Robert Freidin (ed.), C urrent issues in comparative grammar, 101–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0135-3_5 Zhang, Niina Ning. 2010. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0135-3_5)
50. Zyman, Erik. 2018. Quantifier float as stranding: Evidence from Janitzio P’urhepecha. Natuaral Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 991–1034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-017-9393-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9393-9)
51. How to cite this article: Al Khalaf, Eman. 2019. [Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/khalaf-2019-floating-quantifiers-are-autonomous-phrases/). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 89. 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848)
52. Submitted: 29 October 2018 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Submitted%3A+29+October+2018)
53. Published: 02 August 2019 [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Published%3A+02+August+2019)
54. Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS [↗](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

*Updated 24 October 2026*