Lecture 7: Locality in Syntax and Floating Numeral Quantifiers

October 8, 2004 LOCALITY IN SYNTAX AND FLOATED NUMERAL QUANTIFIERS 1 Importance of QF VP-internal subject position (1) a. Tous les enfants ont vu ce film. all the children have seen this movie b. Les enfants ont tous __ vu ce film. the children have all seen this movie (Sportiche 1988: 426) Intermediate trace (McCloskey 2000) (2) West Ulster English a. What all did he say (that) he wanted t? b. What did he say (that) he wanted all? c. What did he say all (that) he wanted t? NP trace (Miyagawa 1989) (3) a. Kurumai-ga doroboo-ni ti ni-dai nusum-are-ta. (passive) thief-by ti 2-CL steal-Pass.-Past cari-Nom ‘Two cars were stolen by a thief.’ b. Doa-gai kono kagi-de ti futa-tu aita. (unaccusative) doori-Nom this key-with ti 2-CL opened ‘Two doors opened with this key.’ c. *Kodomo-ga geragerato san-nin waratta. (unergative) children-Nom loudly 3-CL laughed ‘Three children laughed loudly.’ 2 Locality of Floated Numeral Quantifiers “Standard judgment” Haig (1980) and Kuroda (1980) (4) a. Gakusei-ga san-nin sake-o nonda. sake-ACC drank student-NOM 3-CLSUB ‘Three students drank sake.’ b. *Gakusei-ga sake-o san-nin nonda. student-NOM sake-ACC 3-CLSUB drank ‘Three students drank sake.’ (Haig 1980, Kuroda 1980) c. Hon-o gakusei-ga go-satu katta. bought book-ACC student-NOM 5-CLOBJ ‘Students bought five books.’ (Haig 1980, Kuroda 1980) Problem with (4): why not (5)? 1 (5) (6) Gakusei-ga sake-o __ san-nin students-NOM sake-ACC __ nonda. drank 3-CLSUB Saito (1985) (i) NQ and the associated noun phrase observe strict locality. (ii) The subject in Japanese cannot scramble. 2.1 The Nature of Locality (cf. “Locality in Syntax and Floated Numeral Quantifiers,” Shigeru Miyagawa and Koji Arikawa, 2004, MIT and St. Andrews University ms. Nuclear Stress (7) *Gakusei-ga sake-o san-nin nonda. student-NOM sake-ACC 3—CLSUB drank ‘Three students drank sake.’ (8) *………… ……. (9) [sake-o san-nin]…. [sake-ACC 3-CLSUB]… Hon-oi gakusei-ga ti go-satu book-ACCi student-NOM ti 5-CLobj ‘Students bought five books.’ katta. bought 3 Counterexamples to Locality Counterexamples to syntactic locality (e.g., Gunji and Hasida 1998, Ishii 1998, Kuno 1978, Kuno and Takami 2003, Nishigauchi and Ishii 2003, Takami 1998) Two patterns: (10) ?Gakusei-ga sake-o imamadeni san-nin nonda student-NOM sake-ACC so far 3-CLSUB drank ‘Three students drank sake so far.’ (Gunji and Hasida 1998: 57) (11) Gakusei-ga watasi-no hon-o student-NOM my-GEN book-ACC ‘Only two students bought my book.’ futa-ri-sika kaw-anakat-ta buy-not-past 2-CLSUB-only (cf. Takami 1998, 1: 92) 4 Responding to the Counterexamples Saito (1985) assumed the following for the standard judgment. (12) (i) NQ and the associated noun phrase observe strict locality. (ii) The subject in Japanese cannot scramble. Every linguist who has presented a counterexample has concluded that (12i) must be rejected. 2 (13) SUB [VP OBJ NQSUB V] (14) (i) Subjects may scramble (Ko, to appear) (ii) Local A-movement scrambling is due to the EPP (15) a.[TP SUB [vP OBJ [vP b. [TP SUB [TP OBJ [tSUB NQSUB] … tOBJ …]]] “Sportiche-type” [vP [tSUB NQSUB] … tOBJ …]]] 5 The Analysis EPP analysis of scrambling (Miyagawa 2001, 2003) (16) Taroo-ga zen'in-o Taro-NOM all-ACC 'Taro didn't scold all.' not > all, all > not sikar-anakat-ta. scold-NEG-PAST (17) Zen'in-ga tesuto-o uke-nakat-ta. all-NOM test-ACC take-NEG-PAST 'All did not take the test.' *not > all, all > not (18) Tesuto-oi zen'in-ga ti uke-nakat-ta. all-NOM ti take-NEG-PAST test-ACCi 'That test, all didn't take.' not > all, all > not 3 (cf. Kato 1988) (Miyagawa 2001) (19)=(17) TP alli T' T vP ti Neg v' VP v ...Object... (20)=(18) TP that test i T' T vP all Neg v' VP v ti (21) a. [TP SUB [vP OBJ [vP tSUB NQSUB [VP tOBJ tV] ] V-v-T] b. [TP SUB [TP OBJ [vP tOBJ [vP tSUB NQSUB [VP tOBJ tV] ] V-v-T] 5.1 Evidence We will first give two pieces of evidence that in the non-standard judgment structure, the object occurs in the Spec of TP. 4 5.1.1 Negation and “all” (22)a. Gakusei-ga futa-ri zen’in-o mi-nakat-ta ( not > all, all > not) student-NOM 2-CL all-ACC see-NEG-PAST ‘Two students did not see all.’ b. Gakusei-ga zen’in-o futa-ri-tomo student-NOM all-ACC 2-CL-both ‘Neither of the two students saw all.’ mi-nakat-ta (*not > all, all > not) see-NEG-PAST c. Gakusei-ga zen’in-o futa-ri-dake student-NOM all-ACC 2-CL-only ‘Only two students saw all.’ mi-nakat-ta (*not > all, all > not) see-NEG-PAST (23) [TP SUB [TP zen'in-o [vP tSUB NQSUB [VP tOBJ V ]NEG]T] 5.1.2 Indeterminate Pronoun (Kishimoto 2001) An indeterminate pronoun is a wh-phrase that is interpreted as a universal any in the scope of the universal particle mo. To make this interpretation possible, the indeterminate pronoun must be ccommanded by the universal –mo, and they must be clausemates. (24)a. Taro-ga nani-o kai-mo-si-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM what-ACC buy-MO-do-NEG-past ‘Taro did not buy anything.’ b. * Dare-ga warai-mo-si-nakat-ta. who-NOM laugh-MO-do- NEG-PAST ‘No one laughed.’ c. * Dare-ga Hanako-o home-mo-si-nakat-ta. who-NOM Hanako-ACC praise-MO-do-not-past ‘No one praised Hanako.’ (Kishimoto 2001: 600) As Kishimoto notes, while the object position can host an indeterminate pronoun ((24a)), the subject position cannot ((24b/c)). The subject position is outside the domain of the mo particle, which he assumes is at v. (25) a. Kodomo-ga san-nin dono-eiga-o mi-mo-si-nakat-ta. kids-NOM 3-CL which-movie-ACC see-MO-do-NOT-PAST. ‘Three kids did not see any movie.’ b. *Kodomo-ga dono-eiga-o imamadeni san-nin mi-mo-si-nakat-ta. kids-NOM which-movie-ACC so far 3-CL see-MO-do-NOT-PAST ‘Three children did not see any movie so far.’ In (25b), which is a non-standard judgment case, the object indeterminate pronoun is ungrammatical, indicating that this object has moved to the Spec of TP. 5 5.1.4 Anaphor Binding (26) a. Gakuseii-ga san-nin-dake zibunzisini-o hihansita. student-NOM 3-CL-only self-ACC criticized ‘Only three students criticized himself.’ b.*Gakuseii-ga zibunzisini-o san-nin-dake hihansita student-NOM self-ACC 3-CL-only criticized ‘Only three students criticized himself.’ 5.1.5 Quantifier Scope In Japanese quantifier scope is usually limited to surface scope (Kuroda 1971, Hoji 1985). (27) Dareka-ga daremo-o sikatta. someone-NOM everyone-ACC scolded ‘Someone scolded everyone.’ some > every, *every > some However, note below. (28) Dareka-ga daremo-o tugitugito sikatta. someone-NOM everyone-ACC one.after.another scolded ‘Someone scolded everyone one after another.’ some > every, every > some 6. Why doesn't Japanese have the “Sportiche-style” QF? (29) Nevins and Anand (2003): EPP + agreement – reconstruction possible; “pure” EPP – no reconstruction. Korean (30) Sensayngnim-(tul)-i caki-uy haksayng-ul teacher-(pl)-NOM self-GEN student-ACC ‘Three teachers criticized his student.’ 3-myeng-*(i) 3-CL-*(NOM) honnay-ss-ta. criticized 7 New Way to do NP trace (Miyagawa 1989) (31) gakusei-ga Hon-oi book-ACCi student-NOM ‘Students bought five books.’ ti go-satu ti 5-CLobj (32) Hon-oi zen’in-ga ti go-satu book-ACCi all-NOM ti 5-CLOBJ ‘All did not read five books.’ all > not, *not > all (33) a. Kurumai-ga doroboo-ni ti ni-dai cari-Nom thief-by ti 2-CL ‘Two cars were stolen by a thief.’ katta. bought yom-anakat-ta. read-NEG-PAST nusum-are-ta. steal-Pass.-Past 6 (passive) b. Doa-gai kono kagi-de ti futa-tu aita. doori-Nom this key-with ti 2-CL opened ‘Two doors opened with this key.’ (unaccusative) (34) Zen’in-ga tuk-anakat-ta. all-NOM arrive-NEG-PAST ‘All didn’t arrive.’ not > all, all > not (35) Miyagawa and Babyonyshev (2004) observe that this lack of the EPP for the unaccusative construction can be observed in other parts of the Japanese grammar. Selected references Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24:239-298 Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2003. Verb-raising and numeral quantifiers in Japanese: incompatible bedfellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12:313-347. Gunji, Takao, and Koiti Hasida. 1998. Measurement and quantification. In Gunji, Takao and Koiti Hasida (eds.) Topics in Constraint-Based Grammar of Japanese. 39-79. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Haig, John, H. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18:1065-1083. Hoji, Hajime, and Yasuo Ishii. 2004. What gets mapped to the tripartite structure of quantification in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 101-114. Standford, Calif.: CSLI Publications. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press.] Ishii, Yasuo. 1998. Floating quantifiers in Japanese: NP quantifiers vs. VP quantifiers, or both? Grant-in-Aid for COE Research Report (2), 149-171. Kanda University of International Studies. Kato, Yasuhiko. 1988. Negation and the discourse-dependent property of relative scope in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 32:597-633. Ko, Heejeong. To appear. Cyclic linearization and asymmetry in scrambling. NLLT. Kuno, Susumu, and Ken-ichi Takami. 2003. Remarks of unaccusativity and unergativity in Japanese and Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12:280-294. Standford: CSLI Publications. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1971. Two remarks on pronominalization. Foundations of Language 7:183-198. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1980. Bun kouzou no hikaku [The comparison of sentence structures]. In Kunihiro, Tetsuya (ed.), Niti-Eigo Hikaku Kouza 2: Bunpou [Lectures on Japanese-English Comparative Studies 2: Grammar], 2361. Tokyo: Taisyukan. McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31:57-84. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case-Marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. “Against Optional Scrambling,” Linguistic Inquiry 28.1, Winter 1997, pp. 1-25. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Karimi, S. (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling. Malden, Mass: Blackwell. Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Babyonyshev. 2004. “The EPP, Unaccusativity, and the Resultative Constructions in Japanese,” Scientific Approaches to Language No. 3, Center for Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies, Kanda, Japan. Nevins, Andrew, and Pranav Anand. 2003. "Some AGREEment matters," G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, eds., pp. 370-383, WCCFL 22 proceedings. Nishigauchi, Taisuke, and Yasuo Ishii. 2003. Eigo kara Nihongo o Miru [Looking at Japanese from English]. Tokyo: Kenkyusya. 7 Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425-449. Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Nihongo no suuryousi yuuri nituite [On quantifier float in Japanese]. Gekkan Gnego 27, No.1:86-95, No.2:86-95, No.3:98-107. Tokyo: Taisyukan. 8