Advertisement

Construing WH

  • Taisuke Nishigauchi
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 40)

Abstract

The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the status of WH-phrases as quantificational expressions. In particular, we will address the question of how the WH-expression should be characterized in terms of its quantificational force. We will see that the syntactic and semantic behavior of constructions in Japanese involving the class of words which Kuroda (1965) very pertinently referred to as ‘indeterminate pronominals’ provides an interesting insight to the issue at hand. The ‘indeterminate pronominals’ essentially correspond to WH-expressions.1 Some of them are listed below:
  1. (1)

    dare ‘who’, nani ‘what’, itu ‘when’, doko ‘where’, dore ‘which’ (NP), dono ‘which’ (Det)...

     

Here, we will generally refer to these elements as WH-phrases/expressions. As the glosses suggest, these words are used as WH-(interrogative) expressions, as in the following.2

Keywords

Relative Clause Logical Representation Existential Quantifier Quantificational Expression Apparent Violation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, C.L.: 1970, ‘Notes on the description of English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme’, Foundations of Language 6, 197–219.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Fiengo, R. and Higginbotham, J.: 1981, ‘Opacity in NP’, Linguistic Analyisis 7, 395–421.Google Scholar
  5. Fukui, N.: 1986, A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Haïk, I.: 1984, ‘Indirect Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 185–223.Google Scholar
  7. Harada, K.: 1971, ‘Constraints on WH-Q Binding’, Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 5,180–206, ICU, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  8. Hasegawa, N.: 1986, ‘More Arguments for the Pied-Piping Analysis of WH-Questions in Japanese’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11.Google Scholar
  9. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  10. Hoji, H.: 1985, Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  11. Hornstein, N.: 1984, Logic as Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Huang, C.-T. J.: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato, Y.: 1985, Negative Sentences in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. Sophia University, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  16. Kuno, S.: 1982, ‘The Focus of the Question and the Focus of the Answer.’ CLS: Papers from the Parasession on Nondeclaratives. University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Kuno, S. and Masunaga, K.: 1986, ‘Questions with WH-phrases in Islands,’ University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11.Google Scholar
  18. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1965, Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, D.: 1976, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in: E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. May, R.: 1977, The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Nishigauchi, T.: 1985, Japanese LF: Subjacency vs. ECP’, Seoul Papers in Formal Grammar Theory, 71–105. Hanshin, Seoul.Google Scholar
  23. Nishigauchi, T.: 1986, Quantification in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Ohno, Y.: 1984, On the Form and Function of the Quantifier Rule. B.A. thesis, Sophia University. Tokyo.Google Scholar
  25. Onoe, K.: 1983, ‘Futeigo no gosei to yoohoo. [The nature and use of the indeterminate.]’ Fukuyoo-go no Kenkyuu. [Studies on Adverbials.] in: M. Watanabe (ed.,) Meiji Shoin, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  26. Pesetsky, D.: 1987, ‘WH-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’ The Representation of (In)definiteness, in: EJ. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Riemsdijk, H.: 1978, A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Roberts, C.: 1985, ‘Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora’, Ms. University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Saito, M. and Hoji, H.: 1983, ‘Weak Crossover and Move a in Japanese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.2.Google Scholar
  30. Selkirk, E.: 1981, The Syntac of Words. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Vendler, Z.: 1967, Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  32. Williams, E.: 1984, ‘A Reassignment of the Functions of LF’, Linguistic Inquiry 17.2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taisuke Nishigauchi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations