Vietnamese focus particles and derivation by phase

Open Access
Article

Abstract

I show that the focus-sensitive operator chỉ, ‘only’ in Vietnamese is a sentential modifier and required to be as low as possible in its phase while taking its focus associate in its scope. I show that this “as low as possible” requirement cannot be violated even in order to yield a different meaning. Within a phase-based, bottom-up conception of structure-building, I analyze this behavior as the result of sentential focus particles adjoining as early as possible while being interpretable. The fact that this requirement only holds between different adjunction positions in each phase is naturally explained by the theory of derivation by phase (Chomsky 2000, 2001) and provides a new kind of evidence for this form of cyclic structure-building. This work also provides cross-linguistic support for one aspect of the controversial analysis of German focus particles as sentential modifiers (Jacobs 1983, 1986, Büring and Hartmann 2001), which similarly requires an “as low as possible” requirement on sentential focus particles.

Keywords

Vietnamese Association with focus Sentential only Adverb placement Phases 

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199–238.Google Scholar
  2. Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver, David Ian, and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruening, Benjamin, and Thuan Tran. 2006. Wh-questions in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 229–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–350.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen der Computerlinguistik 51.Google Scholar
  12. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. Movement out of focus. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  13. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2015. Minimality and focus-sensitive adverb placement. In Proceedings of NELS 45, ed. Thuy Bui and Deniz Özyildiz, vol. 1, 193–202.Google Scholar
  14. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. in progress. The uniform syntax of Mandarin Chinese focus particles.Google Scholar
  15. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. 2014. Intervention in focus pied-piping. In Proceedings of NELS 43, ed. Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, and Amanda Rysling, vol. 1, 117–130.Google Scholar
  16. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. 2016. Tanglewood untangled. In Proceedings of SALT 26, ed. Mary Moroney, Carol-Rose Little, Jacob Collard, and Dan Burgdorf, 224–243.Google Scholar
  17. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. to appear. Focus association by movement: Evidence from Tanglewood. In Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Damir Ćavar. 2001. Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In Competition in syntax, ed. Gereon Müller, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 107–150. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Fox, Danny. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation: A study of scope and variable binding. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2004. Derivation and representation of syntactic amalgams. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Heck, Fabian, and Gereon Müller. 2001. Successive cyclicity, long-distance superiority, and local optimization. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, ed. Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 218–231.Google Scholar
  25. Hole, Daniel. 2013. Focus particles and related entities in Vietnamese. In Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey, ed. Daniel Hole, and Elisabeth Löbel, 265–303. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hole, Daniel. 2014. The scalar basis of (Vietnamese) focus particle doubling. Presented at the 9th Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics (TEAL 9), University of Nantes.Google Scholar
  27. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jacobs, Joachim. 1983. Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, Joachim. 1986. The syntax of focus and adverbials in German. In Topic, focus, and configurationality, ed. Werner Abraham, and Sjaak de Meij, 103–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jannedy, Stephanie. 2007. Prosodic focus in Vietnamese. In Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 8, ed. Shinichiro Ishihara, Stephanie Jannedy, and Anne Schwarz, 209–230. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  31. Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Kluck, Marlies. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  33. Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantik: Ein internationales handbuch der zeitgenössischen forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow, and Dieter Wunderlich, 825–834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002), ed. Yuko Otsuka, 1–25. Tokyo: Hitsuji Syobo.Google Scholar
  35. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, ed. Devon Strolovitch, and Aaron Lawson, 111–129. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  36. Krifka, Manfred. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In The architecture of focus, ed. Valéria Molnár, and Susanne Winkler, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. In Proceedings of CLS 10, 321–344.Google Scholar
  38. Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 506–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCawley, James D. 1996. The focus and scope of only. In Discourse and meaning: Papers in honor of Eva Hajicová, ed. Barbara Hall Partee, and Petr Sgall, 171–193. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer, Marie-Christine, and Uli Sauerland. 2009. A pragmatic constraint on ambiguity detection. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27: 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nguyen, Chieu. 2013. Fusion and scattering in particle collisions: When universal quantification and contrastive focus interact with themselves and each other in Vietnamese. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia IX, ed. Nobu Goto, Koichi Otaki, Atsushi Sato, and Kensuke Takita, 213–228.Google Scholar
  42. Reis, Marga. 2005. On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German: A reply to Büring and Hartmann 2001. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 459–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shimoyama, Junko. 2006. Indeterminate quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14: 139–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smeets, Liz, and Michael Wagner. 2016. The syntax of focus association in Dutch and German: Evidence from scope reconstruction. In Proceedings of WCCFL 34, ed. Aaron Kaplan, Abby Kaplan, Miranda K. McCarvel, and Edward J. Rubin, 470–480.Google Scholar
  47. Taglicht, Josef. 1984. Message and emphasis: On focus and scope in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Tancredi, Chris. 1990. Not only EVEN, but even ONLY. Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Tran, Thuan, and Benjamin Bruening. 2013. Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. In Linguistics of Vietnamese: An international survey, ed. Daniel Hole, and Elisabeth Löbel, 217–241. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  50. Trinh, Tue. 2005. Aspects of clause structure in Vietnamese. Master’s thesis, Humboldt University.Google Scholar
  51. Wagner, Michael. 2006. Association by movement: Evidence from NPI-licensing. Natural Language Semantics 14: 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner, Michael. 2013. Additivity and the syntax of even. Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
  53. Wold, Dag E. 1996. Long-distance selective binding: The case of focus. In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. Teresa Galloway and Justin Spence, 311–328.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English Language and LiteratureNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations