quantifier raising in a top-down grammar valentina bianchi & cristiano chesi university of siena...

Quantifier Raisingin a Top-Down Grammar

Valentina Bianchi & Cristiano ChesiUniversity of Siena

XVII Colloquium on Generative Grammar Girona, June 13, 2007

Bianchi & Chesi – QR in a Top-Down Grammar

The initial assimilation• QRQR is another instance of MoveMove

(1) a. Mary see whowho WhoWho did Mary see tt?

b. Mary saw nobodynobody NobodyNobody Mary saw tt.

• Motivation for LF-covert syntax

• Similar locality constraints (Cecchetto 2004)

(2) a. A technicianA technician will complain [if you damage every planeevery plane]. (>, *>)

b. *WhatWhat will a technician complain [if you damage tt]?

(3) a. Which movieWhich movie did you see tt?

a'. *Which movieWhich movie did you see tt and appreciate ‘‘The House of Mirth’’?

b. A (different) studentA (different) student likes every professorevery professor. (>, >)

b'. A (#different) studentA (#different) student likes every professorevery professor and hates the dean. (>, *>)


Move, as of June 2007

a) Agree as a sub-operation of Move Move is feature-drivenfeature-driven

b) Phase Impenetrability Condition Move is successive-cyclicsuccessive-cyclic

c) The “strong” topmost occurrence is spelled out Move is overtovert and (generally) leftwardleftward


QR, as of June 2007

a) Standard QR is not feature-drivennot feature-driven and doesn’t target a specific position: free adjunction

QR = A-movement (Hornstein, 1995)

QR targets fixed positions (Beghelli & Stowell, 1997)

Exception: negative and focussed phrases (Longobardi 1991, Kayne 1981)


QR, as of June 2007

b) Standard QR is not successive-cyclicnot successive-cyclic; it is clause-bound (tensed clause boundary).

(4) Someone expected [CP that every Republican would win].

(>; *>)

(Exception: indefinites, Reinhart 1997)

≠ Cecchetto (2004): QR obeys the PIC. “Cyclic” steps are possible if they are semantically motivated.


QR, as of June 2007

c1) Standard QR is covert covert (but see see Szabolsci 1997, Kayne 1998). With cyclic Transfer, this no longer follows from the architecture of the grammar.

c2) Fox & Nissenbaum (1999), Fox (2002): QR must be rightward.

(5) a. We [[saw a painting] yesterday]

b. We [[[saw a painting] yesterday] <a painting>] c. We [[[saw a painting] yesterday] <a painting> by John]


Tacking stock

• QRQR is not a well-behaved instance of MoveMove (e.g. Beghelli & Stowell: feature-driven, but not cyclic; Cecchetto: PIC-compliant, but not feature-driven).

• The covert nature of QR no longer follows from the architecture of the grammar.

MovementMovement QRQR

Feature-driven Successive cyclic

Overt, leftward


Reversing the perspectiveMain claim:

The exceptional properties of QR follow if we assume a top-down, left-to-right computation divided in phases

(Phillips 1996, Chesi 2004, Bianchi & Chesi 2006)

In a nutshell:

• remove the QP since not LF-interpretable• re-merge it in a position when it can take an adequate

argument/nuclear scope


Formalizing a minimalist grammar

1.1. Feature StructuresFeature Structures (lexicon + parameterization)

2.2. UniversalsUniversals(structural constraints + economy conditions)

3.3. Structure Building OperationsStructure Building Operations (merge, move, phase)


1 – Feature Structures

V

N licensors

completivepastspeech_act , ... Asp... T C, Mood, Foc, ...Force, Top

. Materiale,Length..nal... Sizinal,CardiK... D,Ord

Only TWO main categories: Nouns and Verbs

(e.g. [V give])

Ordered sets of functional features

(e.g. [=DP =DP =PP ... +Mood ... +T ... V give];

DP [ +D N ]; PP [ +K +D N ] )

Lexical selection

(e.g. [=DP =DP =PP V give])

base = {N, V}

select = {base licensors}


2 – Universals

Linearization Principle (inspired by LCA, Kayne 1994) if A dominates B, then either a. A precedes B if B is a complementcomplement of A (that is, A selects B), or b. B precedes A if B is in a functional projectionfunctional projection of A

B

CB

B

A

precedence: <A, B, C>

dominance:B > AB > C

+ time

3 - Structure Building Operations a. MERGE (merge right, Phillips 1996)

Lexicon: {[=DP =PP V gives], [+K (N) to], [+D N John], [+D N children], [+D N candies]}

1. merge ([=DP =DP =PP V gives], [+D N John])

Vgives

NJohn

V




Vgives

V

V

NJohn

V<gives>




2. merge ([=DP =DP =PP V gives], [+D N candies])

Vgives

V

V

NJohn

V

V<gives>

Ncandies

V

V<gives>




2. merge ([=DP =DP =PP V gives], [+D N candies])

3. merge ([=DP =DP =PP V gives], [+K +D N to children])

Vgives

V

V

NJohn

V

V<gives>

Ncandies

V

V

V<gives>

N

to children

c. MOVE

Linearization Principle (inspired by Kayne’s LCA) if A immediately dominates B, then either a. <A, B> if A selects B as an argument, or b. <B, A> if B is in a functional specification of A

e.g. “the boy kissed the girl”

Success condition: M-buffer(s) must be empty at the end of the computation

b. PHASE (PROJECTION)

Phase selection requirement: phases must be properly (licensed/)selected

the boy

<the boy>kissed [=o kiss]

[=s =o kiss]

[+T kiss]

[=s =o kiss]

M-Bufferthe boyM(ove)-Buffer

Vhead

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Selected Phase(s)

(select features)

Force ...(left

periphery)

...

Mood

AspFunctionalSequence

(licensor features)

the girl

3 - Structure Building Operations


(6) Whoi do you believe [twho that John admires twho]?

Who

believe

do

you

youyou = 2= 2ndnd Nested Phase (DP) Nested Phase (DP)

Matrix Phase (CP)Matrix Phase (CP)

M(ove)-Buffer (Matrix Phase, CP)

whowho = 1= 1stst Nested Phase (DP) Nested Phase (DP)

who

you

Sel.

Lic.

<you><you>

<who><who>

that

John

admires

who

<who><who>

thatthat = Selected Phase (CP)= Selected Phase (CP)

Successive Cyclic A'-movement


1. Every computation is a top-down processtop-down process divided in phasesphases. Each lexical phase head licenses a left-hand functional domain and some right-hand selected positions.

2. A phase n gets closed when all the functional and selectional specifications of its head are satisfied. Any internal constituent will be a computationally nestednested phasephase.

3. The Move operation stores an unselected element found before (i.e. on the left of) the head position in the local M-local M-bufferbuffer of the current phase, and discharges it in a selected position if possible; if not, when the phase is closed the content of the memory buffer is inherited by that of the lowest selected phase (the sequential phase, Chesi 2004).

To summarize


A fundamental asymmetry

Overt movement: the system first computes the displaced occurrence in a functionally licensed (criterial) position, stores the element in a M(ove)-memory bufferM(ove)-memory buffer, and then looks for a selected position where the element can be re-merged.

What did John buy tP3What did John buy tP3WhatWhat JohnJohn <P3><P3> <P2><P2>

P1P2 P3 P4

P5

M1P2P2 P3P311 22 33

44


A fundamental asymmetry

Quantifier Raising: the system computes the QP in an argument position which is PF-interpretable but not LF-interpretable, stores the QP in a Q(uantifier)-memory Q(uantifier)-memory bufferbuffer, and re-merges it at the point where it can be properly interpreted (i.e., at the end of the phase).

Mary gave Mary gave <P4><P4>

P1

MaryMaryP2

every bookevery bookP4

P6

M1P2P2 P4P411 22 33 44

Q1

to Sueto SueP5

tP2tP2

P3


An implementation of QRa. Compute a QP and spell it out in the selected (or functionally

licensed) position within phase n.

b. Insert the QP in the Q-buffer of phase n with index i (QPi)

c. Insert a variable with index i in the selected position.

d. At the end of the computation of phase n, retrieve QPi from the Q-buffer of n and attach it to the structure built in phase n.

e. Success Condition: at the end of any phase n, the Q-buffer of n must be empty.


(7) Mary gave every book to Sue

gave

M(ove)-Buffer

Mary

V<Mary>

to John

every booki

QR – sample derivation

every book

Mary

xi <every booki>

Q(uantifier)-Buffer

Fuctional projections

VP shells


Main Consequences

1. The re-merge position is (as usually) covertcovert

2. The re-merge position of QR follows the computation of the selected position: “rightward” movement“rightward” movement.

3. The clause-boundednessclause-boundedness of QR is a “right roof” effect, corresponding to a final phase boundary.


1. Covertness• The position computed first is “PF-interpretable” (criterial

or argumental position) and the QP phase is spelled out there, before storage in the Q-buffer

• Remerge positions are generally unpronounced (Chesi 2004)

• It is possible to implement Late Merge à la Fox & Nissenbaum (1999)

Mary saw Mary saw <P4><P4>P1

WeWeP2 a painting a paintingP4

M1 P2P2 P4P411 2233 44Q1

yesterdayyesterdayP5tP2tP2P3 by Johnby JohnP6


2. Rightward orientation

• The first position of the QP dependency is selected or functionally licensed.

• ““Rightward” movement: Rightward” movement: the re-merge position of QR follows the computation of the selected position.

• The remerge position implements inverse selection: the structure previously computed in the current phase is the argument of the QP function.


3. Clause-boundedness

(8) a. WhatWhat did a technician say [t''t'' that John t't' inspected tt] ?b. A technicianA technician said [that John inspected every planeevery plane]

(∃>∀; *∀>∃) c.* [every planeevery plane] a techniciana technician said [t''t'' that John t't' inspected tt]

(cf. Cecchetto 2004:345 )

QR is not successive cyclic:® Why no attraction by the edge feature EF?® Why no one-step Form Chain?



The clause-boundedness of QR is a right roof effect.

The QP is stored in the Q-buffer of the current phase n:

a) It takes scope over all the phases nested in n, by rightward attachment;

b) It cannot take scope over any superordinate phase, because this would require either non-local retrieval, or super- copying from the Q-buffer of the current phase into the Q-buffer of a superordinate phase.



A technician said that J. inspected every plane

A technician said that J. inspected every plane

P1

A technicianiA techniciani

P2

M1P2P2 P2P2

22 3344

Q1

tP2tP2

P3

that J. inspected every planethat J. inspected every planeevery planekevery planek

P5

Q4

P4

P5P5

<P5>k<P5>k

<P2>i<P2>i

11

55

non-local retrievalsuper-copying


Further Consequences

1. Scope ambiguities Surface Scope Preference

2. Pronominal Binding Leftness Condition

(9) Every boy invited two girls

invited

two girls

every boy1

1. Scope ambiguities

Every boyx1

<two girls2>

Q-Buffer

<every boy1>

two girls2

x2

two girls (x2.x1 T invited x2 )

every boy (x1.two girls (x2.x1 T invited x2 ))

Default derivation: Surface Scope

invited

two girls

every boy1


Every boyx1

<every boy1>

Q-Buffer

<two girls2>

two girls2

x2

every boy (x1.x1 T invited x2 )

two girls (x2.every boy (x1.x1 T invited x2 ))

Reordering in Q-buffer: Inverse Scope

(9) Every boy invited two girls

invited

two girls

every boy1


Every boyx1

<every boy1>

Q-Buffer

<two girls2>

two girls2

x2

two girls (x2.every boy (x1.x1 T invited x2 ))

Reordering in Q-buffer: Inverse Scope

G/CQPs DQPs


2. Pronominal Binding Implementation of A-binding (Bianchi 2007a, based on Schlenker 2005):

• When an R-expression is processed, its referent is stored (step 2) in a phase-local R(eferential)-bufferR(eferential)-buffer (≠ M-buffer M-buffer & Q-bufferQ-buffer: no discharge/remerge);

• Nested and selected phases inherit the R-bufferR-buffer of the containing phase (step 4)

• The bound pronoun retrieves the referent (via a negative index) from within the R-bufferR-buffer (step 5, and moves it to the last position of the R-bufferR-buffer, where it is used to evaluate the truth conditions)

John loves John loves

P1

John JohnP2

M1P2P2 P2P2

33

R1

<P2><P2>P3 his-1 wifehis-1 wife

R4

P4

P2P211

44

22

55


P2P2Q1

2. Pronominal Binding When the pronoun is bound by a QP:

• After QR (step 1), the bound variable is stored in the local R-bufferR-buffer (step 3);

• The pronoun retrieves the variable from the R-bufferR-buffer in the usual way (step 6)

Every man loves Every man loves

P1

Every man Every manP2

M1xixi xixi

33

R1

xi xi P3 his-1 wifehis-1 wife

R4

P4

xixi11

5522

66 <every mani><every mani>44

77


Q1

2. Pronominal Binding This mechanism immediately derives the Leftness Condition:

(10) *His wife loves every man.

• The pronoun can retrieve the Q-bound variable from the R-bufferR-buffer only after the QP has been processed and the variable has been inserted by the QR operation.

• Therefore, the processing of the QP must precede the processing of the bound pronoun. (Cf. Schlenker 2005, Shan & Barker 2006).

Every man loves ... Every man loves ...

P1

His wife His wifeP2

R1


ConclusionsAdvantages of a top-down derivation:

• Covertness and rightward orientation of QRQR

• Rightward attachment as inverse selection

• Right roof constraint (i.e., limitation to the immediately containing phase)

• Preference for surface scope (last in, first out retrieval strategy)

• Leftness Condition on Q-binding of pronouns

What remains of the initial assimilation of QRQR to overt instances of MoveMove?

• Storage mechanism, with phase-local stores (but Q-bufferQ-buffer instead of M-M-bufferbuffer)

• Emptiness condition (the stored elements must be “discharged” from the store by the end of the phase computation)


Further consequences (in progress)

1. Inverse Linking

2. Lower Scope (vP scope) w.r.t. negation and modals

3. Economy of Scope (Fox 2000)

4. Wh-/QP Scope interactions (Chierchia 1993, Beghelli & Stowell 1997)

5. Cyclic QR (Cecchetto 2004)

6. Semantic Nesting


1. Inverse Linking (11) [cQP One appleOne apple in [iQP every basketevery basket]] is rotten

How to obtain wide scope of the i(nternal)QP over the c(ontaining)QP?

a. Extraction of iQP from cQP (cf. Sauerland 2005)

b. Adjunction of iQP to cQP (cf. Büring 2004)

One apple is rotten One apple is rotten

P1 Q2

One apple One appleP2

Q1

in every basket in every basket

P3P3

P3 <P3i><P3i>

P2P2

<P2j><P2j>

11 22

3344


1. Inverse Linking A pronoun in the matrix phase apparently bound by the iQP must be an E-type pronoun, à la Büring (2004):

(12) [cQP SomebodySomebody from [iQP every cityevery city]k ]i hates itsk climate

SomebodySomebody from every cityevery city hates [the city they are from]’s climate

Problem: how to obtain internal scope of the iQP? (Cf. Heim & Kratzer 1998, 221 ff.) This may follow if the PP can be an independent phase with its own Q-buffer (i.e., akin to a reduced relative).


2. VP-scope(13) Al didn’tdidn’t attend more than two meetingsmore than two meetings (Heim & Kratzer 1998:218)

( QP) (QP > ):

a) ( QP) the maximum number of meetings that Al attended is two

b) (QP > ) There are more that two meetings such that Al did not attend them

Our top-down system doesn’t have a vP phase with a Q-buffer lying in the scope of negation (cp. Fox’s vP scope). The matrix phase Q-buffer will have scope over negation.

Assume that negation too is stored in the Q-buffer, so that it can take either relative scope w.r.t. the QP. This assumption is also required to account for Quantifier Lowering of a subject QP into the scope of negation (cp. Fox’s lowering to the vP-trace position):

(14) Every arrow didn’tEvery arrow didn’t hit the target


3. Economy of scope (Fox 2000)

(14) a. A boyA boy admires every teacherevery teacher. (>), (>) b. A boyA boy admires every teacherevery teacher. Mary does, too. (* >), (>)

• In order to have scope reversal in the first conjunct of (b), the QPs in the Q-buffer must be rearranged

• No rearrangement of the Q-buffer is required in the second conjunct, because the subject is non-quantificational

• therefore, the two conjuncts are not semantically parallel.

Does the linear position of the scopally uninformative conjunct matter? Probably not:

(14) c. Yesterday, a guarda guard stood in front of this churchthis church, and a policemana policeman did, in front of every mosqueevery mosque.

(#>),(*>)


Selected referencesBeghelli, Filippo and Tim Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negation. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi,

77-109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Bianchi, Valentina. 2001. Antisymmetry and the Leftness Condition: Leftness as anti-c-command. Studia

Linguistica 55, 1-38.Bianchi, Valentina. 2007. Non-redundancy and backward anaphora. XXX Glow Colloquium, Tromsoe.Bianchi, Valentina. & Cristiano Chesi. 2006. Phases, left branch islands, and computational nesting. U.Penn

Working Papers in Linguistics 12.1, 15-28.Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12, 23-62.Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural

Language Semantics 12, 345-397.Chesi, Cristiano. 2004. Phases and Cartography in Linguistic Computation. Doct diss., University of Siena.Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Fox , Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. Proceedings of WCCFL 18,

132-144.Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1: 128-191.Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and

Philosophy 20, 335-397.Sauerland, Uli. 2005. DP is not a scope island. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 303-314.Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Non-redundancy: towards a semantic reinterpret-ation of binding theory. Natural

Language Semantics 13, 1-92.Shan, C. & Chris Barker. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and

Philosophy 29, 91-134.

quantifier raising in a top-down grammar valentina bianchi & cristiano chesi university of siena...

Documents

grammar qr

bianchi chesi qr

c1standard qr

driven astandard qr

covert nature of qr

free adjunction qr

exceptional properties

minimalist grammar