Nakanishi (Nat Lang Semant 20(2):115–136, 2012) presents a novel argument for the so-called scope theory of English sentential even (VP-even), based on examples with antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). Nakanishi’s argument is based on the assumption that even cannot associate with a focus which has moved out of its LF scope. I show that this assumption is incorrect, defusing Nakanishi’s argument. I propose that when even associates with a focus which has moved out of its surface scope, it actually associates with focused material in the lower copies of movement (trace positions). I show that a closer look at ACD examples of Nakanishi’s type in fact yields a new argument against the scope theory. I conclude that English sentential even must always be interpreted in its pronounced position. The patterns of focus association with even presented here constitute a new argument for the copy theory of movement.

中文翻译：

---

甚至不会动弹，但会留下痕迹：对Nakanishi 2012的回复

Nakanishi（Nat Lang Semant 20（2）：115–136，2012 ）基于具有先行包含删除（ACD）的示例，为所谓的英语句子偶（VP- even）范围理论提出了一种新颖的论点。Nakanishi的论据基于这样的假设，即甚至无法与已经超出其LF范围的焦点相关联。我证明了这种假设是不正确的，使中西的论点变得微不足道。我建议，即使焦点与移出其表面范围之外的焦点相关联，它实际上也会与运动的较低副本（轨迹位置）中的焦点材料相关联。我表明，在中西在事实类型的ACD例子仔细看产生了新的论据反对范围理论。我得出的结论是，英语句子甚至必须始终按其发音位置进行解释。在这里提出的甚至与焦点关联的模式构成了运动复制理论的新论据。