SPECTOR, I. (2008) Hebrew Floating Quantifiers: a Non-Derivational Approach. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Presented at LFG09 (The 14th International

SPECTOR, I. (2008) Hebrew Floating Quantifiers: a Non-Derivational Approach. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Presented at LFG09 (The 14th International LFG Conference) at Trinity College, Cambridge between 13-16 July 2009 it is online on (http://www.lfg09.net/index.html)), U

http://www.lfg09.net/index.html

OUTLINE of the PRESENTATION

Overview of Spector’s arguments‘kul’ and its behaviourPrevious Studies * Adverbial Analyses -Spector’s opinion * Derivational Analyses -Spector’s opinionSemanticsSyntaxCritical viewConclusion

Spector’s Argument

1- The quantifiers in (a) and (b&c) have different semantic effects . As a result, we should deal with them separately.

a- kol ha-yeladim halxu la-yam all the-children went to-the-sea 'All the children went to the sea'.

b- ha-yeladim halxu kulam la-yam the-children.MASC.PL went all3.MASC.PL to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

c- ha-yeladim kulam halxu la-yam the-children.MASC.PL all3.MASC.P L went to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

Spector argues that in the construction where the quantifier is floated, the NP (i.e. ha-yeladim ‘the children’) is topicalised.

‘kul’’ can appear adjacent to the NP, forming QP as is shown in this example.

kol ha-yeladim halxu la-yam all the-children went to-the-sea 'All the children went to the sea'.

‘kul’’ can be floated and that is shown below:

ha-yeladim halxu kulam la-yam the-children.MASC.PL went all3.MASC.PL to-the-sea'The children went all to the sea'.

ha-yeladim kulam halxu la-yam the-children.MASC.PL all3.MASC.P L went to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

‘kul’’ as a floated quantifier must be inflected and agree with the subject in number and gender. Moreover, /kol/ is realised phonologically as /kul/ not /kol/.



c- ha-feyot kul-an blondiniyot the-fairies.3.FEM.PL all.3.FEM.PL blonde.3.FEM.PL

‘the fairies are all blonde’

ha-yeladim halxu kul-an la-yam the-children.MASC.PL went all3.FEM.PL to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

ha-yeladim halxu kul-am la-yam the-children.MASC.PL went all3.MASC.PL to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE

*

PREVIOUS ANALYSES

Adverbial Analyses

FQs are treated as adverbs (originated by kayne,1975, mentioned by Pollock,1989. others)

Les soldats ont {tous les deux} été {tous les deux} présentés {tous les deux} the soldiers have {all the two} been{all the two} introduced {all the two} à Anne par ce garçon. to Anne by this boy. 'Both soldiers were introduced to Anne by this boy'.

It has been observed by Sag (1978) that FQs pattern with the adverbs, not with negation, in case of VP-ellipsis.

Otto has read this book, and my brothers have (all/certainly) read it, too. b.

Otto has read this book, and my brothers have (*all/*certainly)_ _, too. c.

Otto has read this book, but my brothers have (n't/not) .

Otto has read this book, and my brothers have (all/certainly) read it, too. b. Otto has read this book, and my brothers have (*all/*certainly)_ _, too. c. Otto has read this book, but my brothers have (n't/not) .

It is cited in (Bobaljick, 2003) that (Kayne, 1981 and Beletti, 1982) that the dependence between the an FQ and a NP obeys in essence the same locality constraint as those holding between an anaphor and its antecedent.

There are two conditions that must be met:

1- the DP must c-command the FQ.2-there is no ‘subject’ intervening between them (i.e. the DP and FQ)

* [the mother of my friends] has all left.

*[my friends] think that I all have left.

The c-commanding condition is not met

‘I’ intervenes between ‘my friends’ and ‘all’



c- ha-yeladim kulam halxu la-yam the-children.MASC.PL all3.MASC.P L went to-the-sea 'The children went all to the sea'.

Spector disagrees with the previous analyses

Spector argues that:1- this analysis cannot be accommodated to Hebrew because Hebrew exhibits an incorporated pronoun on FQ which is not a property of the Adverb.

2- It is true that there is a locality constraint between the antecedent and the FQ ‘I believe this can be explained by other means’

Derivational Analyses

Sportiche (1988) argue the sentences (a,b) have the same underlying structure but they differ in the surface structure.

a- Tous les enfants ont vu ce film all the children have seen this movie'All the children have seen this movie'. b- Les enfants ont tous vu ce film the children have all seen this movie'The children have all seen this movie'.

The properties of the FQs that are served as a background of Sportiche’s analysis are:

1- FQ and the NP-adjacent Qs modify their related NP in the same way (e.g. ‘tous’ in (a) and (b) universally quantifies over the set denoted by the NP.

2- in some languages, the Q and its NP agree in number and gender.

3- FQs tend to appear at the left of the VP.

4- there is an anaphoric locality condition on FQs and their NP antecedent.

What Shlonsky (1991) argues

Shlonsky followed Sportiche’s analyses. However, the difference is that in order to account for the incorporated pronoun on FQ, Shlonsky proposes movement and various empty categories; namely the agreement clitic that is on the FQ licenses movement to an empty SPEC QP.

[NP]i ….. [QP[e]i Q [e]i]

Spector disagrees with the previous analyses

1- the analyses are based on the assumption that the Q_NP and NP_FQ have the same meaning as a result they share the same underlying structure.

2- the derivational accounts is based on the constituency of Q_NP / NP_FQ in both constructions. She argue that the Q forms a constituent with its NP when they are Q_NP, but when the Q is floated, NO

TYPE of PREDICATION

kol ha-yeladim herimu even.all the-children picked up stone.‘all the children picked up a stone’.

has ‘both’ collective and distributive readings

ha-yeladim herimu kul-am even.the-children picked up all.3.MASCPL stone.‘the children all picked up a stone’.

‘understood collectively’

TYPE of QUANTIFICATION

Q_NP and NP_FQ impose different readings in terms of set vs. members of sets and presupposition of existence.

Kol ha-feyot blondiniyiotall the-fairies. 3.FEM.PL blonde.3.FEM.PL‘all the fairies are blonde’.

∀x(Fx → Bx)

BLONDE

FAIRIES

F ⊆ B

ha-feyot kul-an blondiniyotthe-fairies.3.FEM.PL all.3.FEM.PL blonde.3.FEM.PL‘the fairies are all blonde’

∀x(x1….n is a fairy → Bx)

The Q here ranges over members of sets and reflects a relation between individual fairies and the set of blondes

Kol ha-parot ha-sgulot notnot xalavall the-cows the-purple give milk‘all the purple cows lactate’.

Q presupposes existence (=weak Q)

??? ha-parot ha-sgulot notnot kul-an xalav the-cows.FEM.PL the-purple.FEM.PL give all.3.FEM.PL milk‘the purple cows all lactate.’

Q presupposes existence (=strong Q). This sentence is unacceptable because ‘there are no purple cows as a result, there are no members for FQ to range over

Scope Ambiguities

the interaction of Q_NP and NP_FQ with modality and/or negation results in scope ambiguities

kol ha-mitxarim yexolim lenatzeaxall the-contestants can win‘all the contestants can win.’

kol ha-mitxarim lo nitzxuall the-contestants not won‘all the contestants did not win.’

⋄>∀ , ∀>⋄

¬>∀ , ∀> ¬

The quantifier may take a wide or narrow scope relative to a model or negation

ha-mitxarim yexolim kul-am lenatzeaxThe-contestants.3.MASC.PL can al.3.MASC.PL win‘the contestants can all win’

ha-mitxarim kul-am lo nitzxu.the-contestants.3.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL not won‘the contestants did not all win.’

⋄>∀

¬ > ∀

The Q takes only narrow scope, below the model or negationThe Q takes only narrow scope, below the model or negation

GenericityGenericity

kol ha-arayot, ha-nemerim ve-ha-dubim mafxidimAll the-lions the-tigers and-the-bears scary‘all lions, tigers and bears are scary.’

arayot, nemerim ve-dubim kulam mafxidimLions tigers and-bears all.3.MASC.PL scary‘lions, tigers and bears are all scary.’

‘all’ quantifies over [lions, tigers, and bears]

GenericityGenericity

kol ha-arayot, ha-nemerim ve-ha-dubim mafxidimAll the-lions the-tigers and-the-bears scary‘all lions, tigers and bears are scary.’

arayot, nemerim ve-dubim kulam mafxidimLions tigers and-bears all.3.MASC.PL scary‘lions, tigers and bears are all scary.’

⇩lions are generally scary, ……. . This generic reading is unavailable in (⇧)

Conclusion

According to Spector, it is ‘inaccurate’ to assume that there is a derivational relation between Q_NP and NP_FQ constructions.

Analysisconstituency

According to derivational analyses, the quantifier and its modified NP form a constituent in construction where either the quantifies is floated or not. However, Spector argues that the Q when it is adjacent to its NP, then the Q and its NP form a constituent, but when the Q is floated, they do not form a constituent.

Spector applies the following constituency tests:

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing as a unit

3-Sentence fragment

4-Relative Clause/PP modification

5-VP ellipsis+but not

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing

3-fragment

4-modification


ha-tapuzim kim’at/vaday kul-am nirkevu

the-oranges almost/certianly all.3.MASC.PL got rotten

‘the oranges all almost/certainly got rotten.’

insert

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing

3-fragment

4-modification


*et ha-yeladim kul-am ani raitti.

ACC the-children all.3.MASC.PL I saw

‘the children all I saw.’

Preposing as a unit

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing

3-fragment

4-modification


ha-yeladim kul-am halxu la-yam.The-children all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea

Sentence Fragment

A: mi halax la-yam?Who went to-the-sea?

B: *ha-yeladim kul-am the-children all.3.MASC.PL

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing

3-fragment

4-modification


* ha-yeladim kul-am še ohavim lisxot the-children all.3.MASC.PL that like swim halxi la-yam. went to-the-sea.‘the children all who like swimming went to the sea.’

Relative Clause/PP Modification

* ha-yeladim kul-am me-ha-gan the-children all.3.MASC.PL from-the-kindergarten

šeli halxu le-tiyul. my went to-trip

‘the children all from my kindergarten went for a trip.’

1- Adverb insertion

2-Preposing

3-fragment

4-modification


* Dani axal et ha-tapuzim kul-am Dani ate ACC the-oranges all.3.MASC.PL aval lo et ha-bananot rub-an but not ACC the-bananas most.3.FEM.PL

‘Dani ate all the oranges but not most the bananas.’

VP ellipsis + but not

Spector’s Proposal

[ha-yeladim-TOPIC], [kulam-SUBJ halxu la-yam]The-children.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea‘the children went all to the sea.’

It has an overlay discourse function TOPIC

This is the really syntactic subject + incorporated pronoun which agrees with the topic in number and gender.

In the example above, the Extended Coherence Condition (ECC) is satisfied because the topic is associated with the incorporated pronoun on the Q.

Spector’s Proposal

[ha-yeladim-TOPIC], [kulam-SUBJ halxu la-yam]The-children.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea‘the children went all to the sea.’

TOP

PRED ‘yeled’DEF +NUM PL

SUBJPRED ‘kul <( OBJ)>’

OBJPRED ‘pro’PERS 3GEND MASCNUM PL

Ɩ

Ɩ

.

.

ha-yeladim, kulam halxu la-yamThe-children.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea‘the children went all to the sea.’

ha-yeladim, halxu kulam la-yamThe-children.MASC.PL went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea‘the children went all to the sea.’

The Difference??

Spector states that Falk (2004) argues that a trigger is “an element with discourse prominenece that can be placed at the beginning of a Hebrew clause”.

Why NP is topicalized……………

Chafe (1976), ‘topic sets a spatial, temporal or individual framework within which the main predication holds

halxu kulam la-yam.went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea.

The sentence predicates about ‘ha-yeladim’

Topic represents old or given information.

Lambrecht (1981) ‘topics are usually defiite and clause initial.

Bresnan (2001) for Chickewa claims that topics cannot be questioned. The common view is that the wh-word bears a FOCUS function and the result of that one may ask about the subject but not about the topic [SUBJ ha-yeladim] halxu la-yam.

The-children went to-the-sea.

[FOCUS mi] ata amarta še _________ halax la-yam?who you said that went to-the-sea‘who did you say that _______ went to the sea?’

[TOP ha-yeladim] halxu kul-am la-yam. the-children went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea

*[FOCUS∧TOPIC mi] ata amarta še ______ halxu kul-am la-yam? who you said that went all.3.MASC.PL

to-the-sea‘who did you say that ____ all went to the sea?’

Triggered Inversion

A- ha-yeladim, halxu kulam la-yam The-children.MASC.PL went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea ‘the children went all to the sea.’

B- ha-yeladim, kulam halxu la-yam The-children.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea ‘the children all went to the sea.’

According to Spector B has ‘ the regular SVO order’. She claims that A and B sentences are free variants and the ‘SOLE difference’ (p.27) between them is the position of the verb and the subject. Spector adopts Falk’s approach (2004). Falk claims that ‘an element with discourse prominence can be placed at the beginning of a Hebrew clause’. Shlonsky (1997) ‘the verb moves…. In the presence of a non subject initial elements’. Spector argues that ‘the NP (i.e. topic) seems to be a good candidate to be a good candidate for serving as a trigger and it is a non-subject initial element which has discourse prominence.

Spector follows Falk (2004) in which Falk rejects the Internal Subject Hypothesis and adopts the IP-over-S structure as shown below.

Critical Look on Constituency TestsReplacement with a question word:According to Kroeger (2004), constituents can be replaced by question words to form a content question. Examples from Malay (ibid., p.24-25)

[Orange tua itu] makan [ikan besar itu]Person old that eat fish big that‘that old person ate the big fish.’

Seapa yang makan [ikan besar itu]?Who REL eat fish big that‘Who ate that big fish?’

[TOP ha-yeladim] halxu kul-am la-yam. the-children went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea

*[FOCUS∧TOPIC mi] ata amarta še ______ halxu kul-am la-yam? who you said that went all.3.MASC.PL

to-the-sea‘who did you say that ____ all went to the sea?’

Critical Look on Constituency Tests

ADVERB TEST:According to Radford (2009, p.35) , ‘a key assumption underlying this test is that adverbs are subject to the following condition on their use:Adverb Condition: Only a string of words which is a constituent can be modified by and adverb.

A- Perhaps the chairman has resigned from the board.B- the chairman definitely has resigned from the board.C- the chairman has certainly resigned from the board.D.*the probably chairman has resigned from the board.

(vadai) kol (*vadai) ha-tapuzim (vadai) hayu (vadai) rekuvim.(certainly) all (*certianly) the-oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten‘Certainly all the oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten.’

Critical Look on Constituency Tests

ADVERB TEST:(vadai) kol (*vadai) ha-tapuzim (vadai) hayu (vadai) rekuvim.(certainly) all (*certianly) the-oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten‘Certainly all the oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten.’

(vadai) ha-tapuzim (vadai) kulam (vadai) hayu (vadai) rekuvim.(certainly) the-oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten‘Certainly all the oranges (certainly) were (certainly) rotten.’

A

B

kol

Q

ha-tapuzim

NP

QP QP

Q INC.PKul -am

A B

Critical Look on Spector’s Topicalizaion

.. Crystal (1997, p.24 cited in Sadler and Nordlinger (2009) ‘Nominal Juxtaposition in Australian Languages) defines apposition as ‘ A traditional term retained in some models of GRAMMATICAL description for a sequence of units which are CONSTITUENTS at the same grammatical LEVEL, which have an identity or similarity of REFERENCE.’

(from Kalkatungu, Blake 2001 cited in Sadler and Nordlinger ,2009)

Tijaa maa wartatji (GENERIC-SPECIFIC CONS.)This vegetable.food orange‘the/this orange.’


Ryding (2005) in A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic (page.226) considers the floated quantifier under “Appositive Specification of Quantitiy or Identity)

‘al-sha’b-u kull-u-hu (appositional construction) (p.226)All the people‘the people, all of them’

Cited in Sadler and Nordlinger (p.9) in the literature on apposition a distinction is commonly drawn between (close and loose apposition) e.g.Burns the poet (close)Burns, the poet (loose)


Haspelmath (2007 cites in Sadler, et.al) defines a coordination as:

The term coordination refers to syntactic constructions in which two or more units of the same type are combined into a larger unit and still have the same semantic relations with other surrounding elements.


A- ha-yeladim, halxu kulam la-yam The-children.MASC.PL went all.3.MASC.PL to-the-sea ‘the children went all to the sea.’

B- ha-yeladim, kulam halxu la-yam The-children.MASC.PL all.3.MASC.PL went to-the-sea ‘the children all went to the sea.’

Juxtaposed coordination.

Documents

SPECTOR, I. (2008) Hebrew Floating Quantifiers: a Non-Derivational Approach. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Presented at LFG09 (The 14th International