Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:27:21.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Derivational Approach to Scope Interaction between Wh-phrases and Quantifiers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Yoichi Miyamoto
Yoichi Miyamoto*
Affiliation:
Osaka University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine scope interaction between a wh-phrase and a quantified phrase (QP). Sloan-type sentences in Japanese are also discussed, based on Motomura’s analysis on zibun ‘self’. I show that Sloan’s original proposal is empirically inadequate, and propose an analysis based on the Hornstein/Kayne-type analysis of bound pronouns. One consequence is that scope determination must be understood to occur derivationally, based on the asymmetrical relationship between a wh-phrase and a QP at one point in the derivation. Also, only QPs collocated with an unchecked Case feature can be a probe for Q-absorption.

Résumé

Résumé

J’examine les interactions de portée entre un syntagme-Qu et un syntagme quantifié (QP). Les phrases de type Sloan telles qu’elles se présentent en japonais sont discutées, à partir de l’analyse de zibun ‘soi-même’ par Motomura. Je démontre que l’analyse de Sloan est empiriquement déficiente et propose en contre-partie une analyse des pronoms liés à la Hornstein/Kayne. Une conséquence de l’analyse est que la détermination de la portée doit être conçue de façon dérivationnelle à partir de la relation asymétrique entre un syntagme-Qu et un QP à une étape donnée de la dérivation. De plus, seulement les QPs qui se combinent avec un trait de cas non-vérifié peuvent être ciblés pour l’absorption-Q.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 2-3 , November 2008 , pp. 219 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ben-Shalom, Dorit. 1993. Object wide scope and semantic trees. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 3, ed. Lahiri, Utpal and Wyner, Adam Zachary, 19–37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Butler, Jonny. 2004. Phase structure, phrase structure, and quantification. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001a. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, Lasnik, Howard, and May, Robert. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22:63–101.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Homstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory ofconstrual. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel, 133–166. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch7Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1969. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only. Part 1: Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo 3:111–129. Available at www.umin.ac.jp/memorial/rilp-tokyo/ [accessed 13 December 2007].Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1970. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only. Part 2: Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo 4:127–152. Available at www.umin.ac.jp/memorial/rilp-tokyo/ [accessed 13 December 2007].Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1983. A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 14:723–730.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Yoichi. 1995. Reciprocals and island effects. In FLSM VI: Papers from the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, ed. Gabriele, Leslie, Hardison, Debra, and Westmoreland, Robert, 138–149. IULU Publications.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Yoichi. 2004. On scope interaction. In Generative grammar in a broader perspective (Proceedings of the 4th Asian GLOW), ed. Yoon, Hang-Jin, 303–325. Seoul: Hankook Publishing.Google Scholar
Motomura, Mitsue. 2001. Zibun as a residue of overt A-movement. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41: Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3, ed. Cuervo, María Cristina, Harbour, Daniel, Hiraiwa, Ken, and Ishihara, Shinichiro, 309–325.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6595.001.0001Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1999. WH-Quantifier interaction and the interpretation of WH-phrases. In Linguistics: In search of the human mind: A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, ed. Muraki, Masatake and Iwamoto, Enoch, 588–621. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Sloan, Kelly. 1991. Quantifier-WH interaction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: More papers on WH-movement, ed. Cheng, Lisa and Demirdache, Hamida, 219–237.Google Scholar
Ueda, Yukiko. 2002. Subject positions, ditransitives, and scope in Minimalist syntax: A phase-based approach. Doctoral dissertation, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. WH-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2000. Absorption: Interpretability and feature strength. Grant-in-Aid for COE Research Report 4: Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language, 253–296. Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel, 269–304. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755662.ch12Google Scholar