Abstract
This chapter is a further illustration of how Quantifier Raising (QR) is constrained by minimal Search and Minimize chain links (MCL) applied to Float. It is argued that the so-called pair-list reading of a multiple wh-question in Japanese is derived from an LF representation in which the lower wh-phrase is covertly merged with the higher one. This proposal is empirically motivated by the fact that the availability of a pair-list reading is sensitive to the c-command requirement on the two wh-phrases involved and that such a reading is unavailable when one of the wh-phrases is embedded in an island and the other is located outside. Under the assumption that a wh-phrase carries a [WH] feature as well as an existential feature expressed as <Scope>, it is argued that it is the <Scope> feature that triggers the application of internal Merge in question. This leads us to conclude that pair-list readings are special cases of cumulative readings; both readings are derived from LF representations in which the two phrases involved undergo covert internal Merge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to the assumptions about the licensing of [WH] features made in Sect. 3.2, the whole amalgamated wh-phrases need to undergo covert movement to Spec-CP, but I ignore this step of movement in the following discussions unless it is relevant.
- 2.
It will be observed in Sect. 5.4 that the relevant Merge operation to create an appropriate LF configuration for absorption exhibits intervention effects. For this reason, the embedded wh-objects are preposed before the embedded subjects in (12).
- 3.
See Sect. 2.2 for relevant discussion. Furthermore, under the assumption that the covert Merge of one wh-phrase with another is subject to the mechanism of minimal Search and Float, as is in fact assumed in Sect. 5.3, such a covert Merge operation does not succeed in the case where no c-command relation holds between the two wh-phrases, because neither wh-phrase is contained in the search domain of the other.
- 4.
(14b) is unacceptable for many Japanese speakers. I am not concerned here with the question of why it is unacceptable. See Watanabe (1992) for a possible account of this.
- 5.
Or none should induce island violations if we assume that in situ wh-arguments must undergo covert movement to Spec-CP but that such covert movement is somehow exempt from island violations. See Sect. 3.2 for relevant discussion. Notice that under the present oblique movement approach to pair-list readings, the movement involved in deriving such a reading is inherently covert in the sense given in footnote 11 of Sect. 3.2, as becomes clear from the claim made in Sect. 5.3 that it is a [Scope] feature carried by the lower wh-phrase that triggers the oblique movement in question. Hence, such covert movement is not subject to exemption from island violations; see footnote 11 of Sect. 3.2.
- 6.
It has been usually assumed that the interpretation of a “distributed” question is derived from an LF representation in which a universal QP takes scope over the question. Thus, the distributed question reading of (31) is expressed as follows:
(i) [∀x: person(x)] [WHy: person(y)] x saw y
We want (35a) to be interpreted as equivalent to (i). Adopting the assumption that the semantics of questions is essentially understood as a set of answers appropriate to them, let us consider the one proposed by Karttunen (1977), according to which the semantic interpretation of a question is regarded as a set of true propositions in a given world w. Thus, the semantic interpretation of (ii) can be expressed as in (iii).
(ii) Who did John see?
(iii) {P | ∃x: person(x) ⋀ P = ^John saw x ⋀ P is true}
Accordingly, the two interpretations of (31) will be expressed as follows:
Given this, we want to claim basically that the notations used in (35) should be read as those in (iv).
- 7.
Note incidentally that (43) has the reading in which John to Mary ‘John and Mary’ takes scope over the wh-phrase dono seito ‘which student’ when absorption does not take place. Thus, the following answer, for instance, is appropriate to (43):
(i) Teacher A said that John hated Bill and Mary hated Susan.
The relevant reading is more salient in the following example:
One of the most natural answers to this sentence is something like the following:
(iii) Teacher A said that John bought Syntactic Structures and Mary bought Aspects.
These facts follow straightforwardly, since the distributed DP John to Mary ‘John and Mary’ c-commands dono seito ‘which student’ in (43) and dono hon ‘which book’ in (ii) in the relevant LF representations. It is interesting in this context to consider the following English example observed by Aoun and Li (1993):
(iv) Who said that everyone bought what?
According to them, this sentence does not have the reading in which everyone takes scope over what. Noting such a contrast between English and Japanese, Saito (1999) argues that the difference can be attributed to the way multiple occurrences of wh-phrases are licensed. Roughly put, in English, absorption is obligatory whereas in Japanese it is not forced. I do not have anything interesting to say about why such a difference holds, leaving this matter to future research. See Saito (1999) for details of his claim.
- 8.
Unlike (78a), (78b) does not have a scope-under-scope reading, either. This is because this reading also requires the two wh-arguments to be in the c-command relation due to the interpretive rules given in (33).
- 9.
As one reviewer points out, doreka(-no) ‘one of them-GEN’ goes with inanimate nouns such as e ‘picture’ and bizyutukan ‘museum’ better than with animate nouns. For this reason, I use the combination of doreka-no and an inanimate noun in all the relevant Japanese data.
- 10.
In (85b), I have used nanika without attaching -no to it. This is because, as one reviewer points out, nanika-no N does not really mean ‘some N’. The same comment applies to the expression dareka N, which also means ‘some N’ where N expresses a human being; see (90c). I follow this strategy throughout this chapter.
- 11.
Since doreka does not have a restrictive N to characterize a D-linked set, unlike doreka(-no) N-phrases, nothing prevents the two sets Di and Dj in (89a) from being the same set.
- 12.
The wh-phrase counterpart of doreka is dore ‘which’, just as the wh-phrase counterpart of nanika ‘something’ is nani ‘what’. We will then expect that dore also presupposes that there is a D-linked set and that there is only one thing of this set that makes the relevant proposition true. This prediction does not seem to be borne out. Consider the following examples:
Although these examples require a subtle judgment, it seems to me that (ib) presupposes that John attached only one picture to that paper, so that (iia) is an appropriate answer but (iib) is not, whereas (ia) does not have such a presupposition, so that both answers given in (ii) are possible.
I do not have any idea why such a difference holds, hence leaving this matter aside. For this reason, I will exclusively use dono N-phrases for discussion in the text.
- 13.
For some unknown reason, omitting -no in doreka-no riyuu-de ‘for one reason’ is not good.
- 14.
One might wonder if (123) also represents the reading in which some problem takes scope narrower than every analysis since its <Scope> feature is bound by the [Scope] of this universal QP. I assume that (123) does not represent this reading, since if it did, then QI would not serve to any end, hence violating Full Interpretation. Thus, it follows that whenever QI exits, there is at least one occurrence of existential QPs that needs such a licenser. One may further ask if it is possible that more than one occurrence of existential QPs can be licensed in different ways. Let us consider the following schematic representation:
Under the present assumptions, it should be possible in principle that the <Scope> feature of QP2 is licensed by QI and the <Scope> feature of QP3 is licensed by the [Scope] of QP1, or vice versa. The relevant examples show, however, that this is not the case; consider the following Japanese example:
It seems that this sentence has only the readings in which the two occurrences of existential QPs, dareka otoko ‘some man’ and dareka onna ‘some woman’, take the same scope in relation to subete-no okurimono ‘every present’, that is, those readings in which both QPs take scope wider than this universal QP or narrower than it. Thus, we need to posit some constraint on the way <Scope> is licensed. But this is far afield from the present discussion, and hence I leave this matter for future research. - 15.
In (127), the existential QP John ka Mary ‘John or Mary’ is used instead of dareka ‘someone’ to avoid the unnaturalness of the latter phrase appearing in a wh-question, as illustrated below:
- 16.
When John ka Mary ‘John or Mary’ is replaced by dare ‘who’, it becomes possible to answer the question in such a way that the people who helped buying differ in each pair that is in the relation of buying. Thus, consider the following example:
We can answer this question in the following way:
This is probably due to the fact that dare ‘who’ can be involved in absorption for producing pair-list readings when it is marginally taken as a D-linked wh-phrase, presupposing a set of people for appropriate answers. In that case, (i) can have the LF representation in which not only dono e-o ‘which picture-ACC’ but also dare is covertly merged with dono bizyutukan-ga ‘which museum-NOM’. This is supported by an example such as the following, which shows that dare and a dono N-phrase may induce a pair-list reading when the former is marginally taken as a D-linked wh-phrase:
- 17.
Thus, the wh-phrase that undergoes absorption with dono hon-o ‘which book-ACC’ in (132a) is dono riyuu rather than the whole PP dono riyuu-de.
- 18.
Here the plurality of dono N-phrases is expressed by means of repetition of noun expressions, accompanied with some phonetic changes; cf. kuni ‘nation’ versus kuniguni ‘nations’ and sima ‘island’ versus simazima ‘islands’.
- 19.
In these truth conditions, X, Y, etc. denote a set and hence the statement X invaded Y means that a set of nations invaded a set of islands. This statement, however, does not tell us how each member of the sets is involved in the event of invading. It is possible that the events took place in a way following either the truth conditions of the cumulative reading or those of the independent reading. Thus, strictly speaking, such information should be included in the truth conditions stated in (155). However, these “readings” might not be the kind of readings that have syntactic effects and hence need not be distinctly represented at the LF interface, as is the case with the cumulative and independent readings discussed in the text. In this sense, we may regard such apparent readings as stemming from the vagueness of the statement of truth conditions and hence should be treated differently from those discussed in the text.
- 20.
Recall that in fn. 9, it is noted that doreka(-no) ‘one of them-GEN’ does not go well with animate nouns, so this factor prevents us from testing the prediction in question with a relevant example involving doreka(-no), since zibun requires an animate DP as its antecedent. Despite this difficulty, it does not seem impossible to judge on the availability of the relevant readings of the sentence corresponding to (173) which involves a doreka(-no) N-phrase, as given below:
As far as I can see, this sentence is fine with either the cumulative or the independent reading, but is odd with the pair-list reading, exactly like (173). - 21.
Notice that a pair-list answer like (187c) is derived when the set Y in (186a) is taken as a singleton set.
- 22.
See fn. 16 for relevant discussion. When dare is marginally taken as a D-linked wh-phrase, it will carry a <Scope> feature, hence being able to induce a pair-list reading in such a sentence as (200b).
- 23.
I assume that the [Scope] feature of dare is licensed by way of either being bound by the <Scope> feature of dono hito or dare being covertly merged with TP. In the latter case, the minimal Search[Scope] applied at TP successfully finds dare as its goal, since the intervening QP dono hito-ga carries <Scope> rather than [Scope].
Although these examples require a subtle judgment, it seems to me that (ib) presupposes that John attached only one picture to that paper, so that (iia) is an appropriate answer but (iib) is not, whereas (ia) does not have such a presupposition, so that both answers given in (ii) are possible.
Under the present assumptions, it should be possible in principle that the <Scope> feature of QP2 is licensed by QI and the <Scope> feature of QP3 is licensed by the [Scope] of QP1, or vice versa. The relevant examples show, however, that this is not the case; consider the following Japanese example:
It seems that this sentence has only the readings in which the two occurrences of existential QPs, dareka otoko ‘some man’ and dareka onna ‘some woman’, take the same scope in relation to subete-no okurimono ‘every present’, that is, those readings in which both QPs take scope wider than this universal QP or narrower than it. Thus, we need to posit some constraint on the way <Scope> is licensed. But this is far afield from the present discussion, and hence I leave this matter for future research.
We can answer this question in the following way:
This is probably due to the fact that dare ‘who’ can be involved in absorption for producing pair-list readings when it is marginally taken as a D-linked wh-phrase, presupposing a set of people for appropriate answers. In that case, (i) can have the LF representation in which not only dono e-o ‘which picture-ACC’ but also dare is covertly merged with dono bizyutukan-ga ‘which museum-NOM’. This is supported by an example such as the following, which shows that dare and a dono N-phrase may induce a pair-list reading when the former is marginally taken as a D-linked wh-phrase:
As far as I can see, this sentence is fine with either the cumulative or the independent reading, but is odd with the pair-list reading, exactly like (173).References
Abe, Jun. 1992. The nature of anaphors and distributivity, Ms., University of Connecticut.
Abe, Jun. 1993. Binding conditions and scrambling without A/A’ distinction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Abe, Yasuaki. 1977. Semantic interpretation of the plural reflexive in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 10: 63–80.
Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83–136.
Aoun, Joseph, and Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale, and Sammuel J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Papers from the 17th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, ed. Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek, and Mary Frances Miller, 59–66. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Club.
Fodor, Janet Dean, and Ivan A. Sag. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398.
Higginbotham, James, and Robert May. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1: 41–80.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. The syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 1–44.
Kawasaki, Noriko. 1989. Jibun-tati and non-coreferential anaphora. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1968. English relativization and certain related problems. Language 44: 244–266.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. Eric J. Reuland and Alice G.B. ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier-scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.
Ruys, Eduard G. 1992. The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. Published in the OTS Dissertation Series, Utrecht.
Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional-WH effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 195–240.
Saito, Mamoru. 1999. Wh-quantifier interaction and the interpretation of wh-phrases. In Linguistics: In search of the human mind, ed. Masatake Muraki, and Enoch Iwamoto, 588–621. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation. In Papers in linguistics 2, ed. M.I.T. Occasional. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abe, J. (2017). Case Study II: Multiple Wh-Questions in Japanese. In: Minimalist Syntax for Quantifier Raising, Topicalization and Focus Movement: A Search and Float Approach for Internal Merge. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 93. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47304-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47304-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47303-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47304-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)