Movement and alternatives don’t mix: Evidence from Japanese Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine National University of Singapore mitcho@nus.edu.sg Hadas Kotek New York University hadas.kotek@nyu.edu Amsterdam Colloquium 2017 December 2017
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 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 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 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)
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)
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 quantifjers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. Quantifjers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation — i.e., which can reconstruct into a base position — do not. 5
Proposal trace. Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed. Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004). (See Appendix.) PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defjned (Rooth, 1985; who saw John Predicate Abstraction: (7) of movement , abstracting over the The problem is not with quantifjcation in regions of alternative is introduced below the landing site The new intervention schema (6) computation, but rather with quantifjers in derived positions: 6 * LF: C ... λ ... wh Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ λ λ -binder
Proposal (7) Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed. Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004). (See Appendix.) PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defjned (Rooth, 1985; t i saw John who i Predicate Abstraction: trace. The problem is not with quantifjcation in regions of alternative of movement , abstracting over the is introduced below the landing site The new intervention schema (6) computation, but rather with quantifjers in derived positions: 6 * LF: C ... λ ... wh λ Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ λ -binder λ i
Proposal (7) Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed. Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004). (See Appendix.) PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defjned (Rooth, 1985; t i saw John who i Predicate Abstraction: trace. The problem is not with quantifjcation in regions of alternative of movement , abstracting over the is introduced below the landing site The new intervention schema (6) computation, but rather with quantifjers in derived positions: 6 * LF: C ... λ ... wh λ Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ λ -binder λ i
Proposal (7) Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed. Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004). (See Appendix.) PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defjned (Rooth, 1985; t i saw John who i Predicate Abstraction: trace. The problem is not with quantifjcation in regions of alternative of movement , abstracting over the is introduced below the landing site The new intervention schema (6) computation, but rather with quantifjers in derived positions: 6 * LF: C ... λ ... wh λ Heim and Kratzer (1998): a 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
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 quantifjers above an in-situ wh cause intervention. Quantifjers that allow scope ambiguities with respect to negation— i.e., which can reconstruct into a base position — 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
Recommend
More recommend
