the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

More documents

Recommendations

Info

37 (2.39) [[Irqi-q Child-gen alqu-man dog-dat rumi rock ch’anqa-sqa-n]]-qa throw-nm(nonsbj)-3sg-top ka-rqa-n. be-past-3sg ‘The rock that the child threw at the dog was black.’ yana black 2.4.1.2 tukuy-quantified heads The E-type anaphora analysis accounts for the data in (2.31) and (2.32), but still does not explain why other quantifiers behave quite differently from pisi. In particular, in (2.34) and (2.35), we saw that tukuy-quantified heads receive mandatory wide scope over the relative clause. Furthermore, we saw that the LF-raising of a universally quantified head appears to violate syntactic and semantic restrictions which prohibit this configuration in other IHR languages. To begin to answer the question of how exactly the tukuy-quantified RCs are to be interpreted, I note first that (2.34) and (2.35) have a paraphrase in which the quantifier appears explicitly in front of the relative clause, shown in (2.40). (2.40) Asunta Asunta [tukuy [Mayta-q plaza-pi planta all Mayta-gen plaza-loc plant p’iti-ra-n. prune-past-3sg ‘Asunta pruned all the plants which Mayta planted in the plaza.’ planta-sqa-n]]-ta plant-nm-3sg-acc In (2.40), the general proposal of Williamson [1987] for Lakhota neatly supplies a structure in which tukuy appears in the Determiner position of the outer DP. In this position this quantifier has scope over the relative clause, in keeping with the gloss. The LF structure of (2.40) would then be as in (2.41).
38 (2.41) LF head-raising in (2.40): DP ❍ ❍ ❍ ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ D CP ❍ ❍ ❍ tukuy all ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ CP DP j ✏ ✏ ✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏✏ Mayta-q plaza-pi t j planta-sqa-n-ta Mayta-gen plaza-loc t j plant-nm-3sg-acc ✏ ✏ planta plant Returning to (2.34) and (2.35), in which the quantifier appears adjacent to its associated nominal, there are two related issues to be addressed by any proposal regarding their LF structure and mechanism of interpretation. First, the quantifier is apparently interpreted outside of its S-structure clause, in violation of broad cross-linguistic evidence for the clause-boundedness of strong quantifiers. Second, the associate of the quantifier at S-structure (apparently just the nominal ‘plant’) seems to be different from the associate of the quantifier at the interpretive level (apparently the entire phrase ‘plant that Mayta planted’). I mention here briefly some possible approaches to each of these issues. A detailed study of this problem is the topic of the next chapter. Basilico [1996] addresses the second of these points (the LF disassociation of the apparent Determiner from its apparent sister nominal) by suggesting that a universal quantifier associated with an internal head may not be a Determiner at all, but rather a verbal operator. This he proposes in response to the existence in Mooré [p.524] and Navajo [p.529] of certain examples in which an internal head appears to be associated with a universal quantifier (contra his generalization that this configuration is impossible). These examples look very much like (2.34). Basilico’s verbal operator theory is compatible with his theory of IHRs because it identifies
Page 1 and 2:
THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF RELATIV
Page 3 and 4: THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF RELATIV
Page 5 and 6: Biographical Sketch Rachel Hastings
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements When I entered the
Page 9 and 10: through valuable courses and commen
Page 11 and 12: I have also been the beneficiary of
Page 13 and 14: Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1
Page 15 and 16: 5 Existential and Possessive Senten
Page 17 and 18: List of Abbreviations abl=ablative
Page 19 and 20: 2 The most immediate puzzle of Quec
Page 21 and 22: 4 the availability of slightly diff
Page 23 and 24: 6 goal to the probe H. The detailed
Page 25 and 26: 8 1.3 Background on Quechua This se
Page 27 and 28: 10 1.3.2 Morphosyntax In this secti
Page 29 and 30: 12 that complement clauses exhibit
Page 31 and 32: 14 used is a combination of traditi
Page 33 and 34: 16 tactically, it poses a challenge
Page 35 and 36: 18 (2.4) DP ✟ ✟✟ ✟ ❍❍
Page 37 and 38: 20 clause (specifically, she sugges
Page 39 and 40: 22 2.2.3 Culy 1990 Culy [1990] prov
Page 41 and 42: 24 To explain this phenomenon, Basi
Page 43 and 44: 26 function g c assigns to the inde
Page 45 and 46: 28 Since Quechua allows a great dea
Page 47 and 48: 30 Table 2.1: Cuzco Quechua Quantif
Page 49 and 50: 32 head. Furthermore, these sentenc
Page 51 and 52: 34 basic syntactic analysis given h
Page 53: 36 something about pisi which induc
Page 57 and 58: 40 (2.42) Kayne’s head-raising ap
Page 59 and 60: 42 In general, other weak and stron
Page 61 and 62: 44 as an example. This sentence is
Page 63 and 64: 46 Note that the matrix clause dist
Page 65 and 66: 48 some English consultants find th
Page 67 and 68: 50 However, -nka may not appear on
Page 69 and 70: 52 EHR sentence (2.61) is the stron
Page 71 and 72: Chapter 3 The Syntax of Head-Raisin
Page 73 and 74: 56 Note that for a head-raising ana
Page 75 and 76: 58 (3.7) Juan-pa wasi-n Juan-gen ho
Page 77 and 78: 60 which show a subject internal he
Page 79 and 80: 62 (3.26) [[Rumi stone riku-sqa-y]
Page 81 and 82: 64 The tree in (3.30) shows the S-s
Page 83 and 84: 66 Bianchi suggests that it is the
Page 85 and 86: 68 This is the analysis given in [C
Page 87 and 88: 70 (3.43) Mariya Maria Juan-ta Juan
Page 89 and 90: 72 First (3.45) and (3.46) illustra
Page 91 and 92: 74 (3.49) CP (3.47). TP ❍ ✟ ✟
Page 93 and 94: 76 possibility is that the Case of
Page 95 and 96: 78 sitions. The derivation of (3.51
Page 97 and 98: 80 3.3.2.4 Why no -∅-marking in a
Page 99 and 100: 82 the feature sets of each D are c
Page 101 and 102: 84 (3.54) DP ✟ ❍❍ ✟ ✟✟
Page 103 and 104: 86 Given the discussion thus far th
Page 105 and 106:
88 (3.60) IP ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
Page 107 and 108:
90 reconstruction of the head (in t
Page 109 and 110:
92 (3.66) [[naranja orange ch’arw
Page 111 and 112:
94 (3.74) DP ✟ ❍❍ ✟ ✟✟
Page 113 and 114:
96 (3.80) *[[pro pro [[e] e Lima-pi
Page 115 and 116:
98 Despite the similarity in (3.83)
Page 117 and 118:
100 Consider their examples (3.90)
Page 119 and 120:
102 (3.95) *Santiyagu Santiago Xwan
Page 121 and 122:
104 analysis presented here also pr
Page 123 and 124:
106 Recall that Cuzco Quechua and I
Page 125 and 126:
108 The cognate nominalizers -sqa (
Page 127 and 128:
110 (4.7) [wayna-q boy-gen waka cow
Page 129 and 130:
112 Furthermore, like CQ, IQ allows
Page 131 and 132:
114 of possessor-noun agreement. Th
Page 133 and 134:
116 (4.18) CP ✟ ✟✟✟ ❍ ❍
Page 135 and 136:
118 (merged with n or v) to n or v
Page 137 and 138:
120 and in the pattern of Case-mark
Page 139 and 140:
122 4.4.1.4 Overt Case marking on a
Page 141 and 142:
124 4.4.3 How the analysis explains
Page 143 and 144:
126 Examples (4.32) to (4.39) show
Page 145 and 146:
128 (4.40) *[[Marya Maria [warmi wo
Page 147 and 148:
130 of (4.38) and (4.39). On the ot
Page 149 and 150:
132 allowing an external interpreta
Page 151 and 152:
134 4.5.3.1 Distribution of pro Sin
Page 153 and 154:
136 (4.66) [[[e] Mishki-ta candy-ac
Page 155 and 156:
138 Positive evidence that the exte
Page 157 and 158:
140 For example, in a context which
Page 159 and 160:
142 (4.83) DP ❍ ✟ ✟✟✟ ❍
Page 161 and 162:
144 (4.85) and (4.86) are examples
Page 163 and 164:
146 (4.93) [ñuka I wasi-*(pi) hous
Page 165 and 166:
148 (4.97) Empty external head posi
Page 167 and 168:
Chapter 5 Existential and Possessiv
Page 169 and 170:
5.2 The basic facts of Cuzco Quechu
Page 171 and 172:
154 (5.9) Maria-q llama-n-kuna Mari
Page 173 and 174:
156 position, or is kay more like E
Page 175 and 176:
158 5.3.1 Quechua adverbial evidenc
Page 177 and 178:
160 is agreeing in some default way
Page 179 and 180:
162 5.3.2 Relative clause morpholog
Page 181 and 182:
164 (5.37) Llaqta-y-pi ka-q/*ka-sqa
Page 183 and 184:
166 5.3.3 The syntax of CQ existent
Page 185 and 186:
168 (5.44) Initial view of the stru
Page 187 and 188:
170 Adoption of the partitive Case
Page 189 and 190:
172 In the following sections I wil
Page 191 and 192:
174 According to Freeze, there is n
Page 193 and 194:
176 (5.62) Mari-nak mari-dat van-na
Page 195 and 196:
178 I will argue that the overt pre
Page 197 and 198:
180 Although differing in some deta
Page 199 and 200:
182 are typically either full DPs o
Page 201 and 202:
184 (5.82) Nuqa I [Gabriela-q Gabri
Page 203 and 204:
186 of the preposition into the exi
Page 205 and 206:
188 marking and with overt possesso
Page 207 and 208:
190 (5.93) Pilar-pa mihuna wasi-n k
Page 209 and 210:
192 (5.100) [[[Waka-q cow-gen uña-
Page 211 and 212:
Chapter 6 The Semantics of Disconti
Page 213 and 214:
196 appear separated from the noun.
Page 215 and 216:
198 The phenomenon I am considering
Page 217 and 218:
200 Other quantifiers that appear D
Page 219 and 220:
202 be associated to any element wi
Page 221 and 222:
204 sample analysis for an instance
Page 223 and 224:
206 6.3.2 Semantic effects of co-Ca
Page 225 and 226:
208 (6.32) (a) [Ana-q pisi llama-n]
Page 227 and 228:
210 Sánchez [1996] suggests that w
Page 229 and 230:
212 Also striking in this regard ar
Page 231 and 232:
214 configuration of a discontinuou
Page 233 and 234:
216 from encoding definite DPs. In
Page 235 and 236:
218 wasi ‘house’ can be extract
Page 237 and 238:
220 the analysis I have outlined he
Page 239 and 240:
222 in adjunct positions at all, an
Page 241 and 242:
224 (6.59) Sapa 2 /*llapan/*tukuy [
Page 243 and 244:
226 tants, but the intervening suff
Page 245 and 246:
228 Without the intermediary level,
Page 247 and 248:
230 Bittner, M. and K. Hale. 1995.
Page 249 and 250:
232 Hastings, R. 2001. The interpre
Page 251 and 252:
234 Muysken, P. 1989. Predication c
show all

the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?