Ling537(Fall06): Prof. Hoji

Outline Draft ver.1

Maki Irie

Is intermediate reconstruction possible? Review of Nishigauchi 2002

There are several issues that you intend to address.

Which one(s) of those do you want to focus on?

I think it would be more effective if you focused on one or two issues.

You can address the other issues too, but I am not sure if you can address all the issues in depth in your term paper.

1Outline

The main purpose of this project aims at close examination on the hypothesis proposed by Nishigauchi 2002, summarized as follows:

(1)The 'scrambled' NPs are reconstructed not only to their original position but also to the periphery of various projections (edge of CP, vP, and so on) that dominate their original position.

What is the theory behind "to be reconstructed to …" in Nishigauchi 2002?

I.e., how is "being reconstructed to …" expressed in Nishigauchi in theoretical terms?

Specifically, Nishigauchi 2002 claims that there are [more than three <==at least three?] positions where a dislocated NP in the scrambling construction can be interpreted. Namely, the dislocated NP in the scrambling construction (NPDL) can be interpreted in its surface position as in (3a), in its original position as in (3c), or in the intermediate position between the surface position and the original position as in (3b):

(2)Surface:NPDL ....[ .... ec .... ] (ec= the position to which NPDL is thematically related.)

(3)LF:

a.NPDL ....[ .... ec .... ] -- no reconstruction

b.... [ NPDL [ .... ec .... ] -- the edge of the intermediate phrase

c.... [ .... NPDL .... ] -- the original position (reconstruction)

The main point of Nishigauchi 2002 is the possibility of the intermediate reconstruction site as in (3b): reconstruction to the intermediate phrase is possible. In fact, he argues that the (3b) type reconstruction is forced if the NPDL is necessarily interpreted in the intermediate position in order to observe binding theory such as condition A and C.

However, his claim and arguments have problems. The first problem lies in the referential and non-referential reading of QPs. The second problem is that his auxiliary hypotheses (Hsub's) may not be correct. Addressing these problems, I would like to argue that his arguments do not show that his main hypothesis (Hmain) is valid, with an emphasis on the importance of the validity of Hsub.

Considering the discussion outlined above, I would like to claim the following hypothesis, against Nishigauchi:

(4)The intermediate reconstruction in scrambling constructions is not possible.

<==If you can establish that something is possible only if 'intermediate reconstruction' is possible, then you will have a negative prediction.

Taking (4) as Hmain, I would like to design the two sets of experiments in the following:

(5)a.Interaction between a scope-bearing X0 element (SB) and BVA reading.

b.Interaction between a SB and QP.

Can you provide the schematic structure of each of these experiments on the basis of your current understanding?

I will show the result of the experiments, and discuss the implication of the results.

2Nishigauchi 2002

In this section, I will summarize Nishigauchi 2002.

2.1Claim

2.2Interaction with SB

2.2.1Condition C

2.2.2Condition A

2.3Wh-marker

2.3.1Condition C

2.3.2Condition A

3Issues

In this section, I would like to discuss three issues.

One has to do with referential and non-referential readings of the NP containing QP in it. I would like to compare the differences between (6) and (7), the former of which Nishigauchi uses as QP in his observation:

(6)a.[NPnannin-no (...) gakusei]-o

how:many:cl-gen student-acc

b.[NP (...) Q-gen (...) N]-CM

(7)a.[NP(...) gakusei]-o (...) nannin

student-acc how:many:cl

b.[NP (...) N]-CM (...) Q

He seems to assume that (6) itself is ambiguous, in the sense that it can be interpreted as nonreferential, namely it asks the number of the students without presupposing a specific set of the students, or as referential, that is, the speaker presupposes a specific set of students and asks how many of the students of that set. However, it is suggested by Hoji and Ishii (2004: 110 (28)) that (6) and (7) patterns differently in that xxx <==You need to provide the minimal info. here. .

The second issue addresses Condition A and Condition C in Japanese, which is are crucially used in Nishigauchi 2002. I would like to point out the dubious status of these conditions in Japanese, and argue, along with Ueyama 1998: xxx, that they should be avoided to be used when designing experiments. (Well, at least in the case of Condition C.)

The third issue is regarding X0 scope-bearing elements (SBs). I would like to review Heycock 1995 and Fox 1999, 2000 so that I can incorporate this into my experimental design.

3.1Referential/nonreferential readings

3.2Condition A and Condition C

3.3Scope-bearing elements

4Hypotheses and predictions

The Hmain of this section is the following:

(4)The intermediate reconstruction in scrambling constructions is not possible.

I would like to make predictions after I understand Heycock and Fox better. I would like to make the following two sets of the experiments:

(5)a.Interaction between a scope-bearing X0 element (SB) and BVA reading.

b.Interaction between a SB and QP.

5Experiments and results

This section will demonstrate the experiments and their results.

5.1Scope-bearing element and BVA

5.2Scope-bearing X0 and XP

5.3Results

6Conclusion

This section concludes the paper.

References

Reading List

Base

Nishigauchi, T. 2002. Scrambling and reconstruction at LF. Gengo Kenkyu 121: 49-106. (SOFT and HARD: Soft copy of the version 2000 is available, and I photocopied the published version)

Super-important

referential/nonreferential reading with X0 scope-bearing elements

Heycock, C. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547-570. (HARD: I photocopied this.)

Fox, D. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-196. (SOFT)

Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. MIT Press. (NOT YET-- I haven't got this, it's checked out from the library.)

Important

specific/non-specific reading of quantifiers

Nishigauchi, T. and A Uchibori. 1992. Japanese bare NPs and syntax-semantics correspondencesin quantification. Ms. UConn and OsakaUniversity. (NOT YET: I am not sure if I can get this paper...)

Hoji, H and Y. Ishii. 2004. What gets mapped to the tripartite structure of quantification in Japanese. B. Schmeiser, V. Chand, A. Kelleher and A. Rodriguez eds. WCCFL 23: 101-114. and references therein. (SOFT)

Scrambling

Ueyama, A. 1998. Two types of dependency. Doctoral dissertation. USC.(SOFT)

Ueyama, A. 2003. Two types of scrambling constructions in Japanese." In A. Barss & T. Langendoen eds., Anaphora: A Reference Guide. Cambridge: Blackwell. (SOFT and I have the book)

Saito, M. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:69–118.(SOFT)

Maybe?

If scope interaction between QPs becomes necessary

Hayashishita. J.-R. 2004. Syntactic and non-syntactic scope. Doctoral dissertation. USC. (SOFT)

These may say something about his view of reconstruction?

Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer. (NOT YET)

Nishigauchi, T. 1999. Quantification and wh-constructions, in Natsuko Tsujimura ed., The Handbookof Japanese Linguistics, Oxford: Blackwell.(HARD: I just got this book.)

If pronoun-binding by wh-phrase becomes important:

Ruys, E. G. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 513-539. (NOT YET, but it should be available on line)

1/4Outline Draft (Ling537)

Irie