What will you have, DP or NP? ðeljko Boškoviƒ. University of Connecticut. (2) Kamen je razbio prozor. stone is broken window - PDF

Description
What will you have, DP or NP? ðeljko Boškoviƒ University of Connecticut The goal of the paper is to discuss the structure of the traditional NP (TNP) in languages without articles, comparing them in this

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Devices & Hardware

Publish on:

Views: 25 | Pages: 14

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
What will you have, DP or NP? ðeljko Boškoviƒ University of Connecticut The goal of the paper is to discuss the structure of the traditional NP (TNP) in languages without articles, comparing them in this respect with languages with articles. With a few exceptions (e.g. Fukui 1988,Corver 1992, Boškoviƒ 2005, Willim 2000, Baker 2003), it s standardly assumed that languages without articles have a null D; i.e. the difference between (1) and Serbo-Croatian (SC) (2) is assumed to be PF-based, the D being null in SC. (1) The stone broke the window. (2) Kamen je razbio prozor. stone is broken window I will provide a number of arguments for a fundamental structural difference in the TNP of English and languages like SC, which I will implement by arguing DP is not even present in the TNPs in (2).The claim has important ramifications for the semantics of TNP.It argues against Longobardi s (1994) line of research,where DP is required for argumenthood, and supports a system like Chierchia (1998), where this isn t the case.my main argument for a fundamental difference in the structure of TNP in languages with and those without articles concerns a number of generalizations where articles play a crucial role Generalizations: Left-Branch Extraction Languages differ regarding whether they allow left-branch extractions (LB) like (3)-(4). (3) *Expensive/That i he saw [t i car] (4) Skupa/Ta i je vidio [t i kola] (SC) expensive/that is seen car 1 The generalizations could turn out to be strong tendencies, which would still call for an explanation. A weaker version of the claim made in the paper would be that some languages without articles do not have DP. The stronger (and more interesting) position is that this holds for all languages without articles. ðeljko Boškoviƒ Noting a correlation with articles, Uriagereka (1988), Corver (1992) and Boškoviƒ (2005) establish (5) (this is a one-way correlation; articless languages don t have to have LB). (5) Only languages without articles may allow LB examples like (4). As an illustration of (5), Boškoviƒ (2005) notes Bulgarian and Macedonian, the only two Slavic languages with articles, differ from most other Slavic languages (e.g. SC, Russian, Polish, Czech) in that they disallow LB (6). Within Romance, Latin, which didn t have articles, differs from Modern Romance, which has articles, in that it had LB. Mohawk, Southern Tiwa and Gunwinjguan languages also allow LB and lack articles(baker 1996). 2 (6) a. *Novata i prodade Petko [t i kola] new.the sold Petko car The new car, Petko sold. b. Novata kola i prodade Petko t i (Bulgarian) Before proceeding, let me note that for the purpose of (5) and other generalizations below, I take articles to be unique, i.e. occur once per TNP. The long form of Slavic adjectives (cf. (7)) is then not considered to be an article. 3 (7) novi/nov crveni auto new DEF /new INDEF red DEF car (SC) 1.2 Adjunct Extraction from TNP Consider adjunct extraction from TNP, which English disallows (see Chomsky 1986). (8) a. *From which city i did Peter meet [ NP girls t i ] b. Peter met [ NP girls from this city] Observing SC and Russian allow extraction of adjuncts out of TNPs while Bulgarian does not allow it, Stjepanoviƒ (1998) (see also Boškoviƒ 2005) establishes (9). 4 2 I focus on adjectival LB (demonstratives are adjectives in Slavic LB languages, see below), ignoring possessor extraction. The reason for this is that several accounts of the AP LB ban in article languages leave a loophole for possessor extraction to occur in some languages of this type(seeboškoviƒ 2005) 3 This makes Greek, where some speakers allow AP LB, irrelevant to (5). The article in such examples would not be considered an article. See also Mathieu and Sitaridou (2002), who suggest this type of articles in Greek are actually agreement markers. (Greek articles may in fact be ambiguous between real articles and Slavic-type adjectival endings.) It should also become clear from the discussion below that what is important for our purposes is the existence of a definite article in a language (cf. Slovenian, which only has an indefinite article), given that indefinite articles have often been argued to be below DP even in uncontroversial DP languages (see the references in Boškoviƒ in press a). 4 Russian/Polish/Czech pattern with SC (Boškoviƒ in press c). (10) is good in Spanish, where the relevant phrase is an argument (Ticio 2003).With clear adjuncts (e.g. a por phrase),extraction is disallowed. What will you have, DP or NP? (9) Only languages without articles may allow adjunct extraction out of TNPs. (10) a. Iz kojeg grada i je Ivan sreo [djevojke t i ] (SC) b. *Ot koj grad i Ivan [sreštna momi eta t i ]? (Bulgarian) From which city did Ivan meet girls? 1.3 Scrambling There is also an important correlation between articles and the availability of scrambling. Thus, in Boškoviƒ (2004) I establish the generalization in (11). 5 (11) Only languages without articles may allow scrambling. SC, Latin, Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Hindi, Chukchi, Chichewa, and Warlpiri all have scrambling and lack articles. Particularly interesting are Slavic and Romance. Bulgarian, e.g., has noticeably less freedom of word order than SC. Also, all modern Romance languages have articles and lack scrambling, while Latin lacked articles and had scrambling. It is also worth noting Lakhota, Mohawk, and Wichita, also related languages. The latter two lack articles and have more freedom of word order than Lakhota, which has articles. 1.4 Negative Raising I now turn to a new generalization regarding negative raising (NR), where negation can be taken to be either in the matrix or the embedded clause of John does not believe she is smart. The embedded clause option is confirmed by the strict clause-mate NPIs in (12). (12) a. John didn t believe [that Mary would leave [ NPI until tomorrow]] b. John doesn t believe [that Mary has visited her [ NPI in at least two years]] That these items require negation is shown by (13), while (14) shows non-nr verbs like claim disallow long-distance licensing of these items. Since they require clause-mate negation, negation must be present in the embedded clause of (12) when NPIs are licensed. (13) a. John didn t leave/*left until yesterday. b. John hasn t/*has visited her in at least two years. (14) a. *John didn t claim [that Mary would leave [ NPI until tomorrow]] b. *John doesn t claim [that Mary has visited her [ NPI in at least two years]] 5 By scrambling I mean the kind of movement referred to as scrambling in Japanese, not German, whose scrambling is a very different operation with very different semantic effects from Japanese scrambling. One of the defining properties of scrambling for the purpose of (11) is taken to be the existence of long-distance scrambling from finite clauses, which German lacks (for German, see also Boškoviƒ 2004). ðeljko Boškoviƒ Before establishing the NR generalization, note that for the purpose of it I confine myself to negative raising from finite clauses. Moreover, instead of relying on interpretation judgments, I rely on the ability of NR to license strict-clause mate NPIs (12). A crosslinguistic check of the availability of NR under these conditions reveals the following: (15) NR is disallowed in languages without articles. SC, Czech, Slovenian, Polish, Russian, Turkish, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese lack articles and NR,and English, German, French, Portuguese, Romanian, Bulgarian and Spanish have both articles and NR(see appendix for the data).we then may need to strengthen(15): (16) Languages without articles disallow NR, and languages with articles allow it. Interestingly, even in languages where the NPI test fails negation is interpretable in the lower clause: (17) has the atheist (non-agnostic) meaning Ivan believes God doesn t exist (the same holds for Korean, Japanese, Turkish, Chinese, Russian, Polish, and Slovenian). (17) Ivan ne vjeruje da bog postoji. Ivan neg believes that God exists (SC) This suggest a three way split among verbs: (a) negation interpreted in the lower clause and strict NPIs licensed under NR (possible only for some verbs in languages with articles) (b) negation interpreted in the lower clause, strict NPIs not licensed c. no NR at all. 1.5 Superiority and Multiple Wh-Fronting There is also a correlation between Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting (MWF) and articles given in (18)(thanks are due to A. Watanabe for helpful discussion of MWF). (18) MWF languages without articles don t show superiority effects in cases like (19). MWF languages differ regarding whether they show Superiority effects (strict ordering of fronted wh-phrases) in examples like (19). It turns out MWF languages without articles (SC, Polish, Czech, Russian, Slovenian, Mohawk) don t show them. Those that do show them all have articles (Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Basque, Yiddish). Hungarian is an exception (it has articles and no superiority), which doesn t violate (18). 6 (19) a. Koj kogo viñda/*kogo koj viñda? who whom sees b. Ko koga vidi/koga ko vidi? who whom sees (Bulgarian) (SC) 6 Interestingly, Watanabe (2003) suggests Hungarian traditional definite article is not a D-element, which casts doubt on its DP status. (For relevant discussion of Hungarian MWF, see Boškoviƒ in press b.) What will you have, DP or NP? Who sees whom? 1.6 Clitic Doubling Another new generalization concerns clitic doubling, where Slavic again gives us a useful clue. Clitic doubling is allowed in only two Slavic languages, Bulgarian and Macedonian (cf. Ivo go napisa pismoto Ivo it wrote the letter ), which also have articles. Slavic languages without articles disallow it. In fact, all clitic doubling languages I know of (Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, Somali, Spanish, French (some dialects), Catalan, Romanian, Hebrew, Arabic, Dutch (some dialects)) have articles. We then have (20). (20) Only languages with articles may allow clitic doubling. 1.7 Adnominal Genitive Willim (2000) notes English, Arabic, Dutch, German, and Catalan, all article languages, allow two nominal genitive arguments, where the genitive is realized via a clitic/suffix or a dummy P. On the other hand, articless languages Polish, Czech, Russian, and Latin disallow this. 7 The same holds for SC, Chinese, Quechua, and Turkish. This leads to (21). 8 (21) Languages without articles don t allow transitive nominals with two genitives. 1.8 Superlatives ðivanoviƒ (2006) notes English (22b) has the majority reading where more than half the people drink beer. This is missing in Slovenian (22a), which has the plurality reading where more people drink beer than any other drink though it could be less than half the people (beer is focused). ðivanoviƒ notes English, German, Dutch, Hungarian, Farsi, Romanian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian, which have articles, allow the majority reading. This reading is disallowed in Chinese, Turkish, Czech, Polish, Slovenian, SC, and Punjabi. These lack articles and allow only the plurality reading. We then have (23). (22) a. Najve ljudi pije pivo. (Slovenian) b. Most people drink beer (23) Only languages with articles allow the majority superlative reading. 1.9 Head-Internal Relatives and Locality 7 Compare German Hannibals(gen)EroberungRoms(gen) Hannibal s conquest of Rome and Polish *podbicie Rzymu(gen) Hannibala(gen), which is unacceptable regardless of the word order. In acceptable examples with two nominal arguments in Polish-type languages, the external argument is generally realized via a PP headed by an analogue of English by (a semantically contentful P) or an inherent oblique Case. 8 (21) concerns only nominal arguments, not possessives. I ignore for obvious reasons languages such as Japanese which allow multiple identical case constructions. ðeljko Boškoviƒ There is a locality distinction among languages with head-internal relatives (HIR). HIRs in Japanese, Quechua, Navajo, and Mohawk are island sensitive, while those in Mojave and Lakhota are not (Basilico 1996, Watanabe 2004, Baker 1996). Interestingly, the former lack articles, while the latter have them. This leads to (24). (Admittedly, the language corpus is limited here. Grosu & Landman 1998 claim there is also a semantic difference: HIRs are restrictive in languages with articles and maximalizing in those without articles.) (24) HIRs are island sensitive in languages without, but not in those with articles Polysynthetic Languages Baker (1996) observes the following generalization regarding polysynthetic languages. (25) Polysynthetic languages do not have articles. 2. DP vs NP These generalizations indicate there is a fundamental difference between TNP in English and articless languages like SC that cannot be reduced to phonology (overt vs phonologically null articles). If DP is posited for both, we need to make a radical principled distinction between D in English and D in SC. Appealing to phonological overtness will not work since English e.g. disallows LB (*Fast, he likes cars), adjunct extraction from TNP, and scrambling even with null D. Moreover, the above generalizations deal with syntactic/semantic, not phonological phenomena. It is often assumed TNP should be treated in the same way in articless languages and English for the sake of uniformity. This argument fails on empirical grounds: it is simply a fact that there are radical differences between the two there is no uniformity here. I will show below that there is an easy way of capturing the differences they can be captured if there is DP in the TNP of English, but not articless languages like SC. Before showing this, I will discuss arguments against DP in TNPs of articless languages that are independent of the above generalizations. I will discuss the issue regarding SC (see Boškoviƒ 2005 and Zlatiƒ 1997; see also Boškoviƒ in press c for Russian, Corver 1992 for Czech/Polish and Fukui 1988 for Japanese). First, SC lacks articles, the prototypical D 0.Though SC doesn t have articles, it has items like that, some and possessives. However, there is a lot of evidence that these are adjectives in SC. First, they are morphologically adjectives, as the partial paradigm in (26) shows. (26) nekim mladim djevojkama/ nekih mladih djevojaka some FEM.PL.INST young FEM.PL.INST girls FEM.PL.INST some FEM.GEN.PL young FEM.GEN.PL girls FEM.GEN.PL Second, in contrast to English, the SC elements in question can occur in typical adjectival positions. Thus, in (27) a possessive occurs in the predicate position of a copula. Third, unlike in English, the elements in question can stack up in SC, just like adjectives (28). (27) Ova knjiga je moja. *this book is my What will you have, DP or NP? (28) ta moja slika *this my picture They also have some freedom of word order.while English D-items must precede adjectives, SC allows As to precede some D -items (see Boškoviƒ in press c for interpretation of (29)). As also have some freedom of word order tall angry men/angry tall men).note I don t claim the order of the SC items in question is completely free. What is important is the SC/English contrast regarding the order of As and some D items (the order of As themselves isn t expected to be freer in SC than English, see Boškoviƒ in press c). (29) Jovanova bivša kuƒa/ bivša Jovanova kuƒa Jovan s former house/ *former John s house Next, a SC prenominal possessive (susjedov in (30)) can t be modified by a possessive, or more generally, an adjective. ((30) is acceptable if moj/bogati modifies konj.) Assuming adjectives cannot be modified by adjectives,(30) follows if SC possessives are adjectives. (30) *moj/bogati susjedov konj my/rich neighbor s horse Extraction from definite TNPs/TNPs with filled SpecDP is banned in English. Interestingly, the effect is often relaxed in SC (see Willim 2000 for Polish). This follows given the standard claim that the culprit for the badness of English (31)is DP,which I claim isn t present in SC, demonstratives, possessives, and Qs like every not being DP items in SC. (31) O kojem piscu je pro itao [svaku knjigu/sve knjige/(tu) tvoju knjigu t i ] about which writer is read every book/ all books/that your book *About which writer did he read every book/all books/this book of yours? English Ds are thus either missing or clearly not Ds in SC, which argues in favor of the no-dp analysis.note also that Chierchia (1998) shows the DP layer isn t needed for argumenthood,which removes a potential semantic argument for DP in SC. Most importantly, I will now show the DP/NP analysis explains the generalizations from sec. 1 (I will leave (23) open). Moreover, the DP/NP analysis provides a uniform account of these generalizations, where a single difference between the two types of languages is responsible for all of them. I don t rule out the possibility that the differences could be captured in a uniform DP analysis (such accounts generally ignore the above generalizations, which are the most serious problems for them).the analysis would obviously have to posit radical differences in the syntax and semantics of DP in English and languages like SC. However, it s hard to see how a DP analysis could provide a uniform account of the above generalizations. Given how different the relevant phenomena are, a uniform DP account would likely rest on a number of separate stipulations regarding the nature of D in English/SC, each tailored for a separate generalization. To illustrate, while it might be possible to account for (5) by stipulating DP is a phase in English but not SC (Bašiƒ 2007), it s hard to see how the stipulation could explain other generalizations from sec. 1, e.g. (16), ðeljko Boškoviƒ (11), (18) or (24) (even if we put aside the stipulatory nature of the account). Furthermore, a uniform DP account also faces the question of why languages like SC don t have articles given that they have D, and why other English DP-items display strange non- DP behavior in SC, both of which receive a principled account under the no-dp analysis. 3.1 Explaining the Generalizations: Left-Branch Extraction Revisited I now turn to explanations for the above generalizations under the DP/NP account, starting with LB. 9 Boškoviƒ (2005) gives two accounts of (5) (see also this work for problems with alternative remnant movement and copy & delete accounts of LB). The first one is based on the PIC, which says only the Spec of a phase is accessible for phrasal movement outside the phase (so, XP movement from phase YP must proceed via SpecYP).On a par with Chomsky s (2000) claim that CP but not IP is a phase, I suggest DP is a phase, but NP isn t. Given the PIC, XP can then move out of DP only if it moves to SpecDP. There are two more ingredients of the analysis: the traditional claim that AP is NP-adjoined and the anti-locality hypothesis (the ban on movement that is too short), which is deducible from independent mechanisms and argued for by many authors(e.g. Boškoviƒ 1994,1997, Grohmann 2003, Abels 2003, Ticio 2003, Boeckx 2005). Like most other approaches, the version of anti-locality adopted in Boškoviƒ (2005) requires Move to cross at least one full phrasal boundary (not just a segment). AP then cannot move to SpecDP in [ DP AP i [ D D [ NP t i [ NP due to anti-locality. Given the PIC, it can t move directly out of DP either (cf. AP i [ DP [ D D [ NP t i [ NP ). Anti-locality/PIC thus prevent AP extraction from DP, banning AP LB in English. They don t ban all movement out of DP: Who do you like [ DP t[ NP friends of t]] is still allowed. The ban on adjunct extraction from TNP in English can be accounted for in the same way as the ban on AP LB, given that NP adjuncts are also NPadjoined. Moreover, the PIC/anti-locality problem does not arise in SC, which lacks DP. Boškoviƒ (2005) proposes another account based on the claim that both Abney s (1987) A-as-the-head and the traditional NP-over-AP structure are correct, but for
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks