Quantifier scope ambiguity in Mandarin dative constructions

Although Mandarin has been widely considered a "rigid-scope language" since Huang (1982), some studies (e.g., Larson & Wu, 2018; Lin, 2013; Su, 2001) have argued that quantifier scope ambiguity (QSA) can be observed in a variety of constructions other than simple transitive sentences, such as dative constructions (DCs). For example, (1) is ambiguous in allowing both surface scope (SS; ∃ > ∀) and inverse scope (IS; ∀ > ∃) interpretations. The IS interpretation (1b) is attributed to quantifier raising (QR) by these studies.

(1) Zhangsan mai-le yi-kuai dangao gei mei-yi-wei nvsheng.
Zhangsan buy-ASP one-CL cake give every-one-CL girl
'Zhangsan bought a cake for every girl.'
a. ∃ > ∀ (SS): 'There was one cake that Zhangsan bought for every girl.'
b. ∀ > ∃ (IS): 'For every girl x, Zhangsan bought a (potentially different) cake for x.'

(2) Zhangsan mai-le mei-yi-kuai dangao gei yi-ge nvsheng.
Zhangsan buy-ASP every-one-CL cake give one-CL girl
'Zhangsan bought every cake for a girl.'
a. *∀ > ∃ (*SS): 'For every cake x, Zhangsan bought x for a (potentially different) girl.'
b. ∃ > ∀ (IS): 'There was one girl for whom Zhangsan bought every cake.'

However, QR fails to explain why (2), where the ∀-QP precedes the ∃-QP in the otherwise identical DC to (1), is not ambiguous. The crucial observation is that (2) only permits the IS reading (∃ > ∀) even though in syntax the direct object should be able to c-command the indi-rect object (Lin & Huang, 2015). Meanwhile, many speakers seem to prefer the IS over the SS reading for (1), which is at odds with Anderson's (2004) Processing Scope Economy. In this paper, we offer an analysis based on the above judgments which are experimentally supported.