Intervention tracks scope-rigidity in Japanese Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine National University of Singapore mitcho@nus.edu.sg Hadas Kotek New York University hadas.kotek@nyu.edu Linguistic Society of America January 2018
Wh -in-situ and intervention efgects nani-o (Tomioka, 2007, 1571–1572) ‘What did no one read?’ read- NEG - PAST - Q yoma-nak-atta-no? who- MO dare-mo what- ACC b. read- NEG - PAST - Q yoma-nak-atta-no? what- ACC who- MO (1) * Dare-mo a. (2) Wh -in-situ is sensitive to intervention efgects . ☞ ‘What did Hanako read?’ read- PAST - Q yon-da-no? what- ACC nani-o Hanako- NOM Hanako-ga 2 ✓ Nani-o
Wh -in-situ and intervention efgects Intervention efgects afgect regions of Rooth-Hamblin alternative t ] c. intervener ... wh ] ... b. wh ] ... a. Beck (2006) intervention schema: (3) Kim, 2006; Kotek, 2014, 2016; Kotek and Erlewine, 2016) computation but not (overt or covert) movement (Beck, 2006; Beck and 3 ✓ [ CP C * [ CP C ✓ [ CP C ... wh intervener ...
What’s an intervener? student- NOM ‘What did every student read?’ read- PAST -Q yon-da-no? what- ACC ☞ nani -o gakusei]-ga all- GEN Subete ‘all’ is not an intervener (cf 2a): (4) Two related questions: 4 • What counts as an intervener? ✓ [ Subete -no • What causes intervention? • Focus semantics (Beck, 2006; Beck and Kim, 2006) • Quantifjcation (Beck, 1996; Mayr, 2014) • Anti-topic items (Grohmann, 2006) • Prosodic mismatch (Tomioka, 2007)
Today ☞ We consider intervener-hood and scope properties of difgerent quantifjers in Japanese and establish the generalization in (5): (5) Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking Scope-rigid DP quantifjers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. DP quantifjers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation — i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not. 5
Proposal (7) Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed. 1985; Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004). PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defjned (Rooth, t i saw John everyone i Predicate Abstraction: trace. Intervention is not caused by only certain quantifjers, but rather by any of movement , abstracting over the is introduced below the landing site The new intervention schema (Kotek, 2017) (6) DP in a derived position at LF: 6 * LF: C ... λ ... wh Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ λ λ -binder λ i
§2 Intervention tracks scope-rigidity 7
Shibata’s correlation Quantifjers in Japanese vary in their ability to take scope under negation: only Q > Neg, or Q > Neg / Neg > Q. ☞ Shibata (2015a) notes that the scope of difgerent disjunctors correlates with their status as interveners. 8
Shibata’s correlation b. Taro ka or Jiro]-ga Jiro- NOM nani -o what - ACC yon-da-no? read- PAST -Q (Hoji, 1985:264) Taro Two disjunctors in Japanese, ka and naishi : naishi or Jiro]-ga Jiro- NOM nani -o what- ACC yon-da-no? read- PAST -Q ‘ What did [Taro or Jiro] read?’ (Shibata, 2015a:98) a. ka -disjunction is an intervener; naishi is not: (9) (Shibata, 2015a:23) (8) ka -disjunction is scope-rigid; naishi is not: a. [Taro Taro ka or Jiro]-ga Jiro- NOM ko- nak -atta. come- NEG - PAST ‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’ b. [Taro Taro naishi or Jiro]-ga Jiro- NOM ko- nak -atta. come- NEG - PAST (Shibata, 2015a:96) ‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’ 9 ✓ or > not, *not > or ✓ or > not, ✓ not > or ??? [Taro ✓ [Taro
Intervention tracks scope-rigidity ☞ We show that Shibata’s correlation extends to other quantifjcational DPs as well, supporting (5), repeated here: (5) Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking Scope-rigid DP quantifjers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. DP quantifjers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation — i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not. 10
Universals (10) (Mogi, 2000:59) solve- NEG - PAST toka- nak -atta. problem- ACC mondai]-o all- GEN b. [ Subete -no ‘ pro did not catch anyone.’ catch- NEG - PAST tsukamae- nak -atta. who- ACC - MO a. Da’re -o- mo wh - mo universal quantifjer is scope-rigid; subete is not: 11 ✓ every > not, *not > every ‘ pro did not solve every problem.’ ✓ every > not, ✓ not > every
Universals b. ‘Which problem(s) did every student solve?’ solve- PAST -Q toi-ta-no? which-problem- ACC dono-mondai -o student- NOM gakusei]-ga all- GEN (Hoji, 1985:270) (11) Intended: ‘What did everyone buy?’ buy- POLITE - PAST -Q kai-mashi-ta-ka? what- ACC nani -o who- MO - NOM a. wh - mo is an intervener; subete is not: 12 ?? Da’re - mo -ga ✓ [ Subete -no
Two positions for -dake ‘only’ (20) talk- PERF - NEG hanashi-tei- nai . Hanako-only-with Hanako- dake -to Taro- TOP b. Taro-wa 13 talk- PERF - NEG hanashi-tei- nai . Hanako-with-only Hanako-to- dake Taro- TOP a. Taro-wa -P- dake is scope-rigid; -dake -P is not: lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked only with H.’ ✓ only > not, *not > only lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked with only H.’ ✓ only > not, ✓ not > only
Two positions for -dake ‘only’ b. literally ‘Taro ate what (only) with (only) Hanako?’ eat- PAST -Q tabe-ta-no? what- ACC nani -o Hanako-only-with Hanako- dake -to Taro- TOP eat- PAST -Q (21) tabe-ta-no? what- ACC nani -o Hanako-with-only Hanako-to- dake Taro- TOP a. -P- dake is an intervener; -dake -P is not: 14 ??? Taro-wa ✓ Taro-wa
Summary intervener? of so-called NPIs. * See Kataoka (2006) and Shimoyama (2011) on the rigid wide scope intervener? scope-rigid? - dake -P -P- dake numerals wh - ka - shika only modifjed indefjnite NPI only disjunction 15 wh - mo - sae universal also even NPI ka naishi subete - mo scope-rigid? wh - mo ⃝ (8a) × (8b) ⃝ (10a) × (10b) ⃝ (12) ⃝ (12) ⃝ * ⃝ (9a) × (9b) ⃝ (11a) × (11b) ⃝ (13) ⃝ (14) ⃝ (2b) ⃝ * ⃝ (16) × (18) ⃝ (20a) × (20b) ⃝ (15) ⃝ (17) × (19) ⃝ (21a) × (21b)
§3 Analysis 16
Analysis 1 can reconstruct into v P can avoid (6) at LF. A quantifjer moved above wh could lead to (6), but quantifjers that Kotek (2017) proposes that this is the source of intervention efgects. (1985); Poesio (1996); Novel and Romero (2009); Shan (2004). The logical problem caused by (6) has been discussed by Rooth Kotek (2017) intervention schema (6) Intervention refmects the uninterpretability of (6) at LF: 3 Some (but not all) quantifjers can reconstruct into base positions. 2 for Japanese (see e.g. Fukui, 1986; Kitagawa, 1986; Kuroda, 1988). We adopt the v P-internal subject hypothesis out of NegP (if present). All arguments evacuate v P in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b), moving 17 * LF: C ... λ λ λ ... wh
Analysis (22) Scope-rigidity in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b): x LF: [ CP ... 18 a. All arguments move out of v P: [ CP ... DP ... [ v P ... t ... V ] ] b. Interpretation in surface position ⇒ wide scope over Neg: λ x LF: [ CP ... DP λ x λ x ... [ NegP [ v P ... x x ... V ] Neg ] ] DP > Neg c. Some (not all) quants. reconstruct into v P ⇒ narrow scope: [ NegP [ v P ... DP ... V ] Neg ] ] Neg > DP
Analysis x x ... V ] ] x Scrambling wh above also avoids intervention: d. ... Reconstruction avoids the intervention confjguration: (23) x ... V ] ] c. LF interpretation in surface position lead to intervention! b. Potential intervener (DP) above wh : a. Deriving the generalization (5): 19 [ CP C ... DP ... wh ... [ v P ... t ... V ] ] λ x * LF: [ CP C ... DP λ x λ x ... wh ... [ v P ... x ✓ LF: [ CP C wh ... [ v P ... DP ... V ] ] ✓ LF: [ CP C ... wh λ y ... DP λ x λ x λ x ... y ... [ v P ... x
Predictions This analysis makes a number of predictions: (or otherwise moved out of the way). their base positions are not interveners. 20 • A “non-intervening” quantifjer is interpreted as reconstructed in v P • Quantifjers that are base-generated high and can be interpreted in
Non-intervention through reconstruction ☞ Answer: Dimsum (because it’s better with more people) b. Answer: Squid ink pasta (because he gets embarrassed) * ‘What does Taro only not eat with Hanako F ?’ only > not a. literally ‘Taro doesn’t eat what with only Hanako?’ eat- NEG -Q tabe- nai -no? what- ACC nani -o Hanako-only-with Hanako- dake -to Taro- TOP Taro-wa (24) A “non-intervening” quantifjer is interpreted as reconstructed in v P. 21 ? ‘What does Taro not eat with only Hanako F ?’ not > only
Non-intervention through reconstruction zen’in ]-ga distributive (and they each bought other books too) * ‘Which book(s) did the students all individually buy?’ b. collective a. buy- PAST -Q ka-tta-no? book- ACC hon -o which dono all- NOM student Consider also the collective vs distributive event interpretation of subjects: LGB-o (25) [Gakusei student zen’in ]-ga all- NOM LGB- ACC [Gakusei ka-tta. buy- PAST a. ‘All the students together bought a copy of LGB.’ collective b. ‘All the students each bought a copy of LGB.’ distributive (26) 22 ✓ ‘Which book(s) did the students all buy together?’
Recommend
More recommend
