Presuppositional Effects of Scrambling Reconsidered*

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4. Floating Quantifiers and Focus We have seen in Section 3 that scrambling in Japanese, unlike scrambling in Dutch, does not shift the focus to the verb due to overt verb raising, and that it is always the constituent that immediately precedes the verb that bears the main stress unless stress strengthening applies. If, as we have seen in Section 2, the shift of focus to the verb is the crucial source of presuppositional effects of scrambling on indefinite NPs, then it will be predicted that Japanese scrambling does not induce such presuppositional effects in the same context. This prediction is basically borne out: Scrambling of cardinal NPs, for example, does not make any difference in interpretive possibilities in Japanese unlike the Dutch examples in (3). There is, however, one case where a somewhat similar effect is observed. The effect arises when scrambling of the object NP strands a numeral quantifier associated with it. The following examples show that scrambling in Japanese can strand a floating quantifier. 20 (48) Taroo-ga Hanako-ni [QP [NP hon-o] [Q san-satu]] ageta (koto) Taro-NOM Hanako-to book-ACC 3-CL gave fact ‘Taro gave three books to Hanako.’ (49) Taroo-ga [QP [NP hon-o] [Q san-satu]]i Hanako-ni ti ageta (koto) Taro-NOM book-ACC 3-CL Hanako-to gave fact ‘Taro gave three books to Hanako.’ (50) Taroo-ga [NP hon-o]i Hanako-ni [QP ti [Q san-satu]] ageta ( koto) Taro-NOM book-ACC Hanako-to 3-CL gave fact ‘Taro gave three books to Hanako.’ Floating quantifiers (=FQs) have been analyzed (e.g., in Ueda 1986 and Miyagawa 1989) as secondary predicates taking an (indefinite) host NP as their subject. The host NP and the associated FQ form a constituent, as in (48). 21 When the host NP is scrambled, it can either take the FQ along, as in (49), or strand it, as in (50). Scrambling the host NP while leaving the associated FQ behind has an effect somewhat similar to what we have seen in Dutch: The focus shifts from the host NP to the FQ (as a predicate) just as the focus shifts from the object NP to the verb, and the host NP becomes destressed and becomes presuppositional. In order to see the pragmatic effect of the operation in question, let us consider some examples where the host NP is modified by a relative clause as in (51). 22 In (52), 20 The observation that FQs sometimes require a partitive interpretation goes back to Inoue 1978. 21 See Fujita 1994, Ishii 1999, Kamio 1983, Kawashima 1998, Terada 1990, and Yoshida 1992, among others, for the argument that the host NP and the FQ can form a constituent when the former immediately precedes the latter. 22 In fact, the relative clause providing the context is necessary in order for the presuppositional effect to be observable in many cases. See Ishii 1997 for related discussion. I now suspect that the condition is rather pragmatic in nature: The context helps the contrast between the existential and the partitive readings 16
the FQ is stranded in the preverbal focus position by S-scrambling. This sentence prefers the partitive interpretation. (51) John-ga Mary-ni [QP [NP urenokotta hon-o] [Q san-satu]] ageta (koto) John-NOM Mary-to left unsold book-ACC 3-CL gave fact ‘John gave Mary three books that were left unsold.’ (existential reading) (52) S-scrambling: John-ga [NP urenokotta hon-o]i Mary-ni [QP ti [Q san-satu]] John-NOM left unsold book-ACC Mary-to 3-CL ageta (koto) gave fact ‘John gave three of the books that were left unsold to Mary.’ (partitive reading) As a result of the S-scrambling operation, the stranded FQ is now the most deeply embedded and receives focus, while the host NP is defocalized, and hence is interpreted as “presuppositional,” due to the rule in (20). This scrambling can be string-vacuous as in (51’). (51’) String-vacuous S-scrambling: John-ga Mary-ni [NP urenokotta hon-o]i [QP ti [Q san-satu]] ageta (koto) John-NOM Mary-to left unsold book-ACC 3-CL gave fact ‘John gave three of the books that were left unsold to Mary.’ (partitive reading) be easily conceivable. Further, the presuppositional effect is observed only when the FQ has a non-distributive reading (involving a single event). (See Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992 and Ishii 1999 for related observations.) Thus, there is no contrast between (i) and (ii), where the FQs are interpreted as distributive. (i) Kono ni-syuu-kan-no aida-ni John-wa urenokotta hon-o hyaku -satu these two weeks during John-TOP left unsold book-ACC 100-CL ton’ya-ni okurikaesita. warehouse-to returned ‘For the past two weeks John has returned 100 books / 100 of the books that were left unsold to the warehouse.’ (existential/partitive) (ii) Kono ni-syuu-kan-no aida-ni John-wa urenokotteita hon-o these two weeks during John-TOP left unsold book-ACC ton’ya-ni hyaku-satu okurikaesita. warehouse-to 100-CL returned ‘For the past two weeks John has returned 100 books / 100 of the books that were left in the store to the warehouse.’ (existential/partitive) This may also be pragmatic in that the existential vs. presuppositional contrast is more easily conceived in a single event than in multiple events. (I am grateful to Minoru Amanuma for the comment leading to this possibility.) 17
Page 1 and 2: February 2001 To appear in the proc
Page 3 and 4: the generalization given in (4), an
Page 5 and 6: (15) Main stress assigned by the nu
Page 7: (24) Economy entails that stress st
Page 11: . Taroo-ga hon-oi Hanako-ni ti aget
Page 14 and 15: By examining many other examples il
Page 18 and 19: However, the partitive reading on t
Page 20 and 21: (60) #okane-o dare-ga Taroo-ga nusu
Page 22 and 23: Kamio, Akio. 1983. Meishiku-no kooz

Presuppositional Effects of Scrambling Reconsidered*

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?