In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • A Derivational Approach to Scope Interaction between Wh-phrases and Quantifiers
  • Yoichi Miyamoto

1. Introduction

There has been an extensive debate about whether Binding Conditions are a primitive of Universal Grammar. Some proposals view Condition A effects as (at least partially) the result of A-movement (Lebeaux 1983; Chomsky 1986; Heim et al. 1991; Hornstein 2001; Zwart 2002), and others propose that Conditions B and C also derive from a movement operation (Hornstein 2001; Kayne 2002). In contrast to this, Zwart (2002) argues against Kayne's movement-based proposal, and Safir (2004) states that nothing is effectively reduced under the movement theories of co-construal put forward by Hornstein and Kayne. With this debate in mind, the behaviour of bound pronouns is investigated in the context of the scope interaction between a wh-expression and a Quantified Phrase-henceforth wh-QP scope interaction-exemplified in (1) and (2).

(1) &Who did everyone1 say that she1 met?1                      (Sloan 1991)

  1. a. Narrow scope collective reading: [WH > ∀

    Answer: Everyone said that she met Madonna.

  2. b. Wide scope distributive reading: [∀ > WH]

    Answer: Sally said that she met Madonna; Suzy said that she met Cher; Cicely said that she met Prince. [End Page 219]

(2) Who did everyone say that Mary met?

  1. a. Narrow scope collective reading: [WH > ∀

    Answer: Everyone said that Mary met Madonna.

  2. b. Wide scope distributive reading: [∀ > WH]

    Answer: #Sally said that Mary met Madonna; Suzy said that Mary met Cher; Cicely said that Mary met Prince.

Example (1) is ambiguous. In (1), the universal QP may have a narrow scope collective interpretation or a wide scope distributive interpretation: the answer to the former provides a value for the wh-variable (1a); the answer to the latter provides a value for the wh-variable and the QP-variable (the multiple-pair reading). In contrast to the ambiguity of (1), in (2), the universal QP has only a narrow scope collective interpretation. The availability of the wide scope distributive interpretation in (1) is surprising since quantifier scope is generally clause-bound (May 1977). I argue that this state of affairs is expected under the hypothesis that wh-QP scope interaction is subject to general wellformedness conditions of QP-pronoun relations, which are here analyzed as involving movement.

Section 2 examines sentences of the type discussed in Sloan (1991) and Miyamoto (1995), and argues that a movement analysis of bound pronouns accommodates the scope facts. I propose that scope interaction between a wh-phrase and a QP reflects the asymmetrical relationship between these two phrases at a single point in the derivation. Section 3 provides a supporting argument from Japanese for a condition on wh-QP scope interaction fromWatanabe (2000). Section 4 discusses Sloan-type sentences in Japanese; I argue that such sentences are amenable to the proposed analysis, and I provide further arguments in support of the claim that the determination of scope reflects conditions on derivation. In so doing, I also support Motomura's (2001) proposal that zibun 'self' is a residue of movement. Section 5 suggests directions for future research and presents conclusions.

2. On WH-QP Scope Interaction In English

I propose that scope determination takes place derivationally: in particular, it is determined by an asymmetrical relationship that holds between a wh-phrase and a QP at a single point in the derivation.2

2.1. Background

There is a contrast between (3) and (4) with respect to the types of responses available to these questions (May 1985): while (3) is ambiguous between the collective and distributive interpretations, (4) lacks the distributive interpretation. [End Page 220]

(3) &Who did everyone meet?

  1. a. Narrow scope collective reading: [WH > ∀]

    Answer: Everyone met Madonna.

  2. b. Wide scope distributive reading: [∀ > WH]

    Answer: Sally met Madonna; Suzy met Cher; Cicely met Prince.

(4) Who met everyone?

  1. a. Narrow scope collective reading: [WH > ∀]

    Answer: Everyone met Madonna.

  2. b. Wide scope collective reading: *[∀ > WH]

    Answer: #Sally met Madonna; Suzy met Cher; Cicely met Prince.

I introduce Watanabe's (2000) analysis of the contrast between (3) and (4), which forms the basis for the analysis developed here. Chomsky (1964) suggests that a wh-phrase consists of a wh-part and existential quantifier phrase: thus who...

pdf

Share