the syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification

More documents

Recommendations

Info

69 too, is needed in Quechua. Thus I will effectively be arguing that all structural Case is associated to clausal projections with functional Case-assigning heads. 3.3.2.1 Case Marking in a Main Clause: the TrP projection Let me begin by introducing TrP in a Main transitive clause. The role of Tr is to check Accusative Case (the idea of a functional head to check accusative Case is developed in [Koizumi 1995]) and its presence is overtly manifested in the presence of -ta on the direct object. That is, a noun phrase which merges with this functional head must be Case-marked with -ta. I assume that the verb in a main clause raises to a v head (as is standard based on the work in [Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001a] (called Pr in [Bowers 1993, 2002]) and that the subject is generated in the Specifier position of this head. In the case of nominalized clauses with genitive subjects, I posit instead the presence of n as in [Chomsky 1995], which I assume to be manifested by the nominalizing suffixes. However, a null version of n can be found also in noun phrases containing possessors, and here it is the possessor which Merges with n. As stated in Chapter 1, contra the Antisymmetry framework of [Kayne 1994] I do not limit myself to a right-branching tree. Instead, I place the head in the right or left branch according to the unmarked word order of each projection type. Thus, I assume D heads to occupy a left branch while N and V heads occupy right branches. Furthermore, somewhat arbitrarily I place n, v and Tr to the right and C and T to the left. I also place all Specifiers to the left. I should note at this point that my main aim here is to provide an analysis of the basic constituent structure, and deriving word-order under stricter structural guidelines (such as the LCA), while quite possible, would mask the basic line of argument that I will be making. The structure of the simple transitive clause in (3.43) is shown in (3.44).
70 (3.43) Mariya Maria Juan-ta Juan-acc ‘Maria saw Juan.’ riku-ra-n. see-past-3sg (CQ) (3.44) TP ✟ ✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ Maria i T’ ❍ ✟ ✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ T vP ❍ ❍ ✟ ✟✟✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ t i v’ ❍ ✟ ✟✟✟✟ TrP ✟ ✟✟ ✟ ❍❍ ❍ ❍ Juan k -ta Tr’ ✟ ❍ VP Tr ✟❍ t k V t j ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ v see j -past-3sg t j 3.3.2.2 Case-marking in a Complement clause: the LkP projection Now let us ask what happens in subordinate nominalized clauses. I separate these into two cases: complement clauses, and relative clauses. In the case of complement clauses, we have all the same argument possibilities which exist in main clauses, but with -∅ Case marking in place of -ta. I relate this to the case of Main clauses with more than one argument. In both cases I suggest that the extra arguments (those either not taken care of by Tr, or those which occur in clauses in which Tr is disallowed) are accommodated by another functional projection. I follow [Collins 2003] in calling this functional head Lk (for ‘linker’). Note, however, that the head itself is not overtly expressed in Quechua as it is in languages like |=Hoan. As in [Collins 2001, 2003], the functional head Lk is associated with additional arguments of the verb. I suggest that more than one such projection can occur in a single
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 and 54: 36 something about pisi which induc
Page 55 and 56: 38 (2.41) LF head-raising in (2.40)
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: 68 This is the analysis given in [C
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?