The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification Justin Michael Fitzpatrick

204 Pages·2006·0.68 MB·English

The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification
by
Justin Michael Fitzpatrick
SubmittedtotheDepartmentofLinguisticsand Philosophy
inpartial fulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy
at the
MASSACHUSETTSINSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June2006
(cid:13)c JustinMichaelFitzpatrick, MMVI.Allrightsreserved.
Theauthorhereby grants toMITpermissiontoreproduceand distributepubliclypaper
and electroniccopiesofthisthesisdocumentinwholeorin part.
Author...........................................................................
Department ofLinguisticsand Philosophy
June2, 2006
Certified by.......................................................................
NorvinRichards
AssociateProfessorofLinguistics
ThesisSupervisor
Accepted by......................................................................
Irene Heim
SectionHead, Department ofLinguisticsand Philosophy
2
The Syntactic andSemantic RootsofFloating Quantification
by
JustinMichael Fitzpatrick
SubmittedtotheDepartmentofLinguistics andPhilosophy
onJune2,2006,inpartialfulfillmentofthe
requirements forthedegreeof
DoctorofPhilosophy
Abstract
Thisdissertationdevelopsatwo-partanalysisoffloatingquantification. Basedonastudyoffloating
quantifiers in a variety of languages, I argue that this type of split constituency is not a uniform
phenomenon. Instead,certainfloatingquantifiersarerelatedtotheirnominalassociate bysyntactic
transformation (the stranding approach, Sportiche 1988; Miyagawa 1989) while others are related
onlysemantically tothiselement(theadverbial approach, DowtyandBrody1984;Bobaljik 1995;
Doetjes 1997). I show that each type of floating quantifier imposes a different restriction on the
movement of its nominal associate. An adverbial floating quantifier restricts its associate to A-
′
movement, while a stranded floating quantifier restricts its associate to A-movement. These two
classesofquantifiersalsodividealongsemanticlines: adverbialfloatingquantifiershaveexhaustive
semantics, whilestrandedadnominal floatingquantifiersarenon-exhaustive.
The analysis developed here provides an explanation for these syntactic and semantic differ-
ences. The syntactic behavior is linked to the structural make-up of the two types of elements and
tomoregeneralsyntacticphenomena,includingcross-overandlocalitydifferencesbetweenA-and
′
A-movement. Thus the behavior of floating quantifiers can be used as a tool for the investigation
ofdifferences amongmovementtypes. Thesemanticdifferenceistiedtothesyntaxofpartitivity.
Thisanalysisnotonlyprovidessolutionstothepuzzlesoffloatingquantification,butraisesother
′
more general issues. In particular, it forces us to reevaluate the interplay of A- and A-movement
′
in a derivation. I show that in some cases a phrase that would normally undergo both A- and A-
′
movementinfact undergoes direct A-movement. Theresults presented here should alsoprovide a
modelfortheanalysisofothertypesofsplitconstituency acrosslanguages.
ThesisSupervisor: NorvinRichards
Title: AssociateProfessorofLinguistics
3
4
Acknowledgments
Itisunfortunatethattheacknowledgmentsmustbeleftasthelastpartofadissertationtobewritten.
With time short, and a mind tired from a final edit, someone deserving of my gratitude is sure to
beleftout. Icould neverforget, however, tothankthe manycolleagues, teachers, andvisitors who
I have had the pleasure of interacting with over these past five years at MIT, and who have made
doinglinguistics inCambridgeexciting.
More specifically, my deepest thanks go to my thesis committee, Norvin Richards, David Pe-
setsky, and Shigeru Miyagawa. Shigeru watched this project grow from aterm paper in his course
on Japanese syntax to what(ever) it is today, and his insights, ideas, and encouragement I could
not have done without. Norvin is the model of a perfect thesis advisor; he is unfailingly positive,
uncommonly insightful, and unmistakeably brilliant. His comments and ideas have, I hope, had
a positive effect on this document. David has a seemingly bottomless reserve of ideas that forced
menever to be content with the current state of myanalysis. Healso knows more about language,
linguistics, and linguistic literature than anyone I have met. Having him on my committee was an
enormousblessing andapleasure.
Iwasalso fortunate tohave somanyother linguists around always ready todiscuss whatIwas
up to. My thanks go to Pranav Anand, Jonathan Bobaljik, Noam Chomsky, Kaivon Fintel, Danny
Fox,IreneHeim,SabineIatridou,HeejeongKo,AlecMarantz,KimikoNakanishi,AndrewNevins,
VinaTsakali,andHideakiYamashitaforthemeetingsanddiscussions aboutfloatingquantifierswe
have had over the last year or two. I also wish to thank audiences as Concordia University, NELS
36(UniversityofMassachusetts, Amherst),WilliamsCollege,theCUNYGraduateCenter,Cornell
University, and WAFL3(Moscow State University) for their comments on this material at various
stagesindevelopment.
Along with many other linguistic consultants who I cannot hope to name here, I would like
5
tosingle out Alya Asarina, Yoshio Endo, Pavel Grashchenkov, Valentine Hacquard, Sachiko Kato,
Hee-sunKim,HeejeongKo,YukaMakita,YoichiMiyamoto,AndrésSalanova,HideakiYamashita,
ShoichiTakahashi,VinaTsakali,MichaelWagner,andDong-WheeYangforobligingmewiththeir
careful judgments and insightful comments on sometimes incredibly complex examples. I would
also like tothank NareaMadariaga forsharing her workonRussian floating quantifiers withme. I
amalsoverymuchindebttothosewhohaveworkedonthephenomenon offloatingquantification
overtheyears. Newton’sobservation aboutgiants’ shoulders certainly applieshere.
Mythanksalsogototheprofessorsthatfirstintroduced metothefieldoflinguistics andwhose
passion for the field is in large part responsible for the fact that I am here, writing the final few
paragraphs of a doctoral dissertation. Among these are Sam Epstein, Mark Hale, Tom Toon, José
AgustínVidal,andÁngelYanguas.
I am also pleased to be able to acknowledge those who have lent less direct, though no less
crucial support to me during this research and writing, and during my whole career here at MIT.
I count myself singularly lucky to have shared this experience with Ling O. Wan—Allison Adler,
Pranav Anand, Valentine Hacquard, Andrés Salanova, Shoichi Takahashi, and Mary AnnWalter. I
couldnothavehopedforabettersetofclassmates. Ialsowanttothankallofthenon-linguists who
′
have provided me with refuge from floating quantifiers and A/A-movement when I most needed
it, and accompanied me on countless rocky and snowy vertical adventures in the beautiful New
England“mountains”.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unquestioning and unfailing support. My
greatest thanks andlovegotomybeautiful wifeDiana,whohasseenmethrough thisproject from
thebeginning.
6
Contents
1 TypesofFloatingQuantification 11
1.1 FloatingandNon-Floating Quantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2 FloatingQuantification asQuantifierStranding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.3 FloatingQuantifiersasAdverbials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4 FloatingQuantifierPuzzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.1 TheDistribution Puzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.2 TheMovementPuzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.4.3 TheExtraction Puzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4.4 TheExhaustivity Puzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.4.5 TheCorrelation Puzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.5 TwoTypesofFloatingQuantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.5.1 AdverbialFloatingQuantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5.2 StrandedAdnominalFloatingQuantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
′
1.6 DirectA-Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.7 AnOutlineoftheDissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2 AdverbialFloatingQuantifiers 35
7
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 AdverbialDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.1 Passives/Unaccusatives vs. Unergatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.2.2 LowArgumentPositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.3 Comparison withAdverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.2.4 Iteration ofFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3 FrenchTousasanAdverbial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.1 LeftwardTous-Float(L-tous) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.4 A-Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.4.1 Tous/ToutesinFrenchRelativeClauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4.2 HebrewFloatingkol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.5 OtherProperties ofAdverbialFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.5.1 AgreementinAdverbialFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.5.2 OvertPronounsinAdverbialFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.5.3 LocalityEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.5.4 DPvs.PronounFQ-Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.6 TheImpossibility ofaMovementAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
′
3 A-StrandedQuantifiers 91
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.2 LocalityConstraints acrossMovementTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.3 FNQsAppearinNPPositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.4 AnaphorBinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.5 WeakCross-Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
8
3.5.1 Subject-Related FNQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.6 GaandNoMarkinginKumamotoJapanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.7 TheScopeofZen’inandNegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.7.1 Subject-Related FNQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
′
3.8 DirectA-MovementinJapanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3.9 KoreanFloatingNumeralQuantifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.10 TheAdverbialChallenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4 (Non-)Exhaustivity 131
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.2 Japanese andKoreanExhaustiveFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.2.1 AnaphorBindinginJapanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.2.2 WeakCross-OverinKorean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.3 Russian(Non-)Agreeing FQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.3.1 Adverbialvs. NominalDistribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.3.2 SubjectConditionEffects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
′
4.3.3 A-movementEffectswithStrandedNQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.3.4 VerbalAgreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.3.5 ComplexFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4.4 WestUlsterAll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.5 KoreanCase-MarkedFNQs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
9
5 SyntacticLinksto(Non-)Exhaustivity 163
5.1 TheProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.2 WhyDoesn’tEveryFloat? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.3 Partitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.4 TheLackofStrandedExhaustiveFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.5 TheLackofNon-Exhaustive AdverbialFQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
5.6 KoreanCase-MarkedFNQs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
5.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
′
6 DirectA-Movement 189
6.1 Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.2 WestUlsterEnglish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
6.3 Icelandic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
7 Conclusions 203
7.1 ANewAnalysisofFloatingQuantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.2 ASyntax-Semantics Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
′
7.3 DirectA-movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
7.4 Directions forFutureWork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
10