# Causative scoping over disjunction

**URL:** <https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/causative-scoping-over-disjunction/242>\
**Category:** Jacy\
**Created:** [January 11, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/causative-scoping-over-disjunction/242 "2019-01-11T23:02:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/34f0e0/32.png) [@ebender](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/u/ebender)\
**Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://delphinqa.ling.washington.edu/t/causative-scoping-over-disjunction/242/1 "2019-01-11T23:02:26Z")

</div>

Also from Bruening 2018, citing Kuroda 2003, is this example:

花子 が 正男 に 家 を 掃除する か 部屋代 を 払わせる こと にした  
Hanako ga Masao ni uti o soozisuru ka heya-dai o haraw-aseru koto ni sita.  
Hanako NOM Masao DAT house ACC clean or room-rent ACC pay-CAUS that to do  
`Hanako decided to make Masao clean the house or pay room rent.’

(The glosses and transliteration are per Bruening; standard orthography is my best guess.)

What’s interesting here is that the causative is analyzed as morphological (i.e. attaching only to haraw-) and yet it scopes over the disjunction. Most of Bruening’s putative “scope” problems with lexicalist analyses are non-problems in a framework that doesn’t take the syntax tree itself as a semantic representation, but this one seems stickier. Any thoughts?