I found the terms when I went on an angry research binge in search of a name for my preference and frustration. What I discovered, in addition to the name, was

I found the terms when I went on an angry research binge in search of a name for my preference and frustration. What I discovered, in addition to the name, was an interesting twist: Scopal ambiguity and isomorphic readings have played an interesting role in research on linguistic development for a long time. It turns out that little, little kids also strongly prefer isomorphic readings of statements involving quantifiers like this. But as they grow up, the 'inverse scope reading becomes accessible' to them— they gain the ability to correctly interpret the common way of phrasing these things which strikes you and me as 'wrong'. I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I've never really followed up on that initial research or asked a linguist what they think all that's about. I think for me, my preference for isomorphic readings and phrasings definitely relates to at least these two things: 1. I'm neurodivergent and part of what that means for me is that context is difficult, and I tend to prefer explicit syntax over reliance on context. 2. I work in a profession where (a) I deal with machines/languages that (obviously) always expect scopal isomorphism and (b) we often care about a quantification (all X are not Y) that is rarely actually intended in natural language. The more I revisit it, the more curious I get about this difference in handling 'ambiguity' (it doesn't feel ambiguous to me at all! lol) and where it comes from. :) If you wanna crawl into this rabbit hole, have at it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scopal+ambiguity+isomorphism+inverse https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=scop...