Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 The FQs in English
2.1.1 The stranding approach
2.1.1.1 Advantages of Stranding Analysis
The first advantage of Stranding Analysis is providing an appealing piece of
evidence for the VP-internal Subject hypothesis (Bobaljik 200c, Cirillo 2009). That is,
the FQs are able to reveal the base position of the subject, spec of vP, and mark the
positions that the subject has passed through, as shown in (c0) and (c1). Regarding the
positions where the FQs can occupy, the subject has passed through all the spec
positions between the spec vP and its surface landing site (see (c1)), as noted by
Sportiche (1988) and Sportiche et al. (2016).
the children DP
all DP
Q DP all
Qs QP
the children
28
(c0) [DP the children] will [VP [DP all [DP the children] leave]
(c1) (All) the children (all) may (all) have (all) been (all) watching the movie.
Another advantage of Stranding Analysis is that it sheds light on the
quantifying relationship between the FQ and its associated nominal phrase in (2ca-c).
Sportiche (1988:427) claims ‘Qs may appear in [D]P-initial positions, which indicates
that the relationship between an FQ and its associated nominal phrase has been
established when they are situated in the base position as a constituent.
Still another advantage is that the anaphoric properties of the FQ all in
(24)-(25) can be accounted for. Sportiche (1988) has noted that after the associated
nominal phrase is moved away, it leaves a trace behind, which has anaphoric
properties. Since the FQ is adjacent to the anaphoric trace of the associated nominal
phrase, the FQ seems to have anaphoric properties.
29
2.1.1.2 Disadvantages of Stranding Analysis
In the literature, four criticisms on Stranding Analysis have been pointed out.
The first crucial issue, noted by Sportiche (1988), Bobaljik (1995, 200c), Doetjes
(1997), Fitzpatrick (2006), Cirillo (2009) etc., is that under Stranding Analysis some
ungrammatical sentences would be generated, as illustrated by the following sentences
in (c2):
(c2) a. *The studentsi have arrived all ti.
b. *The studentsi were seen all ti.
It is interesting that FQs in (c2) cannot be stranded in their base positions where
they should be under Stranding Analysis. More specifically, given that the surface
subjects of unaccusative and passive sentences are moved from object positions, if the
associated nominal phrases the students in (c2) are moved to the subject positions,
then it is expected that the FQs all can be stranded in the object positions. However,
this predication is not borne out, as shown by the unacceptability of all in the
sentence-final position in (c2).
To deal with this problem, Sportiche (1988) is forced to propose an unwise
solution that the surface subjects of unaccusative and passive sentences are
c0
base-generated, which is contrary to currently predominant hypotheses on
unaccusatives and passives.
In addition to the unexpected examples in (c2), Stranding Analysis also cannot
rule out some ungrammatical sentences. Consider (cc)-(c5). Sportiche (1988) states
that the universal quantifier all can float in lower positions, as shown in (cc), while
Cirillo (2009) claims that all cannot float in lower positions, as shown in (c4).
Fitzpatrick (2006) is on the side of Cirillo (2009), claiming that the universal quantifier
all cannot occur lower than the passive ‘beings in example (c5).
(cc) The carpets will have been being all dusted for two hours.
(c4) *Y? The patients may have been being all examined.
(c5) The veggies will have been *(all) being *Y?(all) roasted.
(Fitzpatrick 2006:48)
c1
The ungrammatical examples in (cc)-(c5) pose a problem for Stranding
Analysis since all should be able to be stranded in spec of vP and spec of progressive
under Stranding Analysis. To tackle the unexpected examples, Cirillo (2009), who is a
proponent of Stranding Analysis, only unconvincingly attributes this problem to
morphological and phonological constraints. It seems that Stranding Analysis still
cannot convincingly account for these ungrammatical sentences.
Another striking problem is that the FQ and its associated nominal phrase cannot
form a natural sequence (see (c6)-(c7)), as noted by Bobaljik (1995, 200c) and
Fitzpatrick (2006). Under Stranding Analysis, the pair, the FQ all and the nominal
phrase Larry, -arryl and -arren, in (c6) and the other pair, FQ all and the nominal
phrase scme (cf the), in (c7) should form a constituent underlyingly. However, the
mismatches between the FQs and their associated nominal phrases in (c6b) and (c7b)
pose a serious challenge to Stranding Analysis.
(c6) a. Larry, Darryl and Darren have all come into the café.
b. ?*All (of) Larry, Darryl and Darren have come into the café.
(c7) a. Some (of the) students might all have left in one car.
b. *All (of) some (of the) student might have left in one car.
(Carden 1976)
c2
This problem is attributed to the morphological and phonological constraints by
Sportiche (1988) and Cirillo (2009). Sepcifically, Cirillo (2009) only addresses the
mismatch in (c6b) (and not ex. (c7)) and suggests that the universal quantifier all can
select conjoined nominal phrases, and if the first conjoined nominal phrase is singular,
all and the whole conjoined nominal phrase will be an anomalous sequence that cannot
be spelled out (see (c6b)). Then, to get around the problem of the mismatch in (c6b),
Cirillo is forced to claim that the FQ all in (c6a) is not a stranded quantifier but an
adverb or an appositive. Admittedly, this problem is still unsolved under Stranding
Analysis.
Still another notable problem is that the sentence with a pre-nominal quantifier
and the sentence with an FQ may not always have the same interpretation (Bobaljik
1995, 200c, Fitzpatrick 2006). Consider (c8)-(c9). According to Bobaljik (200c), the
two sentences in each of the examples in (c8) and (c9) have different interpretations.
(c8) a. All lions, tigers and bears are scary.
b. Lions, tigers and bears are all scary.
(c9) a. All students, professors and clowns have come to the meeting.
b. Students, professors and clowns have all come to the meeting.
cc
Example (c8a) has a salient meaning that every lion, every tiger and every bear is
scary. (c8b) has an identical reading as (c8a), but it has one more reading that lions,
tigers and bears are generally scary. Examples (c9a) and (c9b) have a similar contrast
as well. The former means that every member of each of the three groups will come to
the meeting while the interpretation of the latter is that each of the three groups will
come to the meeting, but not all of the members of each group will come. Recall that
one of the important motivations for Stranding Analysis is that the sentence with a
pre-nominal quantifier and the sentence with an FQ have the same interpretation.
However, examples in (c8)-(c9) would weaken this argument. The issue whether the
sentence with a pre-nominal quantifier and the sentence with an FQ have the same
interpretation has been widely discussed and it is a prima facie challenge for Stranding
Analysis.
Last but not least, Bobaljik (1995, 200c) and Fitzpatrick (2006) point out that
Stranding Analysis cannot explain the fact that of English dialects, the associated
nominal phrases can only undergo A movement when the FQs are left behind, as
shown in (40).
c4
(40) a. *The professors who Taylor will have all met ___ before the end of term.
b. *These professors, Taylor will have all met ___ before the end of term.
(Bobaljik 200c:15)
The associated nominal phrases prcfesscr in (40) undergoes As movement. More
precisely, the nominal phrase in (40a) is relativized and that in (40b) is topicalized. As
seen, the FQs in (40) are unable to refer to the associated nominal phrases the
prcfesscrs, which undergo As movement. However, under Stranding Analysis, (40)
should be acceptable since the associated nominal phrase is moved away from the
constituent containing the FQ and its associated nominal phrase like A movement in
(27). It is unexpected that the quantifying relationship between the FQ all and its
associated nominal phrase the prcfesscr, cannot be established in (40). Admittedly,
Stranding Analysis cannot explain the fact that the associated nominal phrase cannot
undergo As movement but only A movement.7
7 Aside from the four criticisms, Stranding Analysis cannot account for the rightward and leftward FQs in French neatly (4ca-b). As discussed in Bobaljik (1995, 200c), Doetjes (1997), Fitzpatrick (2006), (4ca) is a typical example for Stranding Analysis. Under Stranding Analysis, the FQ tcus ‘alls is stranded with the trace of the associated nominal phrase and the associated nominal phrase is moved to a higher position. However, it seems that the same analysis cannot account for (4cb) because the associated nominal phrase in (4cb) is the object les ‘thems. That is to say, there is no trace for the tcus
‘alls to adjoin.
To tackle this problem, Sportiche (1988) claims that unlike the rightward FQ in (4ca), the leftward FQ in (4cb) cannot be accounted for by Stranding Analysis but by Quantifier Raising. Since the Quantifier Raising is not what this thesis focuses on, I will not provide further details of it. The most important issue is whether it is necessary to use two analyses to explain (4ca) and (4cb).
c5
2.1.2 The adverbial approach
Under Adverbial Analysis, FQs are analyzed as adverbs, and they are
base-generated in adverbial positions, as proposed by Kayne (1981), Doetjes (1997)
and Fitzpatrick (2006). These adverbial analyses share some characteristics. First, there
is no transformational relationship between a sentence with an FQ in (41a) and a
sentence with a pre-nominal quantifier in (41b), namely that the FQ and its associated
nominal phrase do not form a constituent at any level of representation. Second, the
FQs like adverbs adjoin to certain maximal projections like auxiliaries.
(41) a. The carpets will all have been being dusted for two hours.
b. All the carpets will have been being dusted for two hours.
In terms of the anaphoric relationship between the FQ and its associated
nominal phrase, Kanye (1981) and Doetjes (1997) have different proposals. Kayne
(1981) states that the FQ itself is an anaphor and that the anaphoric relationship
between the FQ and its associated nominal phrase is due to the nature of an anaphoric
element. Doetjes (1997:206) proposes that the anaphoric relationship is held between
the trace of the associated nominal phrase and the associated nominal phrase itself.
c6
Under Doetjess analysis the prc adjoined by an FQ must bind the trace of the
associated nominal phrase, as shown in the configuration of (42).
(42) [XP [[QP FQ [DP prc]]i [XP…eci…]]
Furthermore, it is notable that Doetjes (1997) argues that her analysis can capture
both the rightward and leftward FQs in French in a unified way whereas Kayness
(1981) analysis cannot. In Kayne (1975), the rightward and leftward FQs in French
have already been treated as two distinct processes.
Kayness adverbial approach cannot account for the leftward FQ in French since
the FQ, which has anaphoric nature, cannot be bound by its associated nominal phrase,
as shown in (4c).
(4c) a. Les enfants ont tous dormi.
the children have all slept
‘The children have all slept.s
b. Jsai tous voulu les voir.
I-have all wanted them see
‘I want to see them all.s
c7
In (4ca), the associated nominal phrase les enfants ‘the childrens can c-command
the anaphoric FQ tcus ‘alls while in (4cb), the anaphoric FQ tcus ‘alls cannot be
c-commanded by its associated nominal phrase les ‘thems since the position of the FQ
is higher than that of the associated nominal phrase. However, (4cb) is a grammatical
sentence. To deal with the unexpected example (4cb), Kayne (1975) claims that (4ca)
and (4cb) in French are derived through different processes, which means that
Kayness (1981) analysis cannot capture the FQ in French in a unified way.
Nevertheless, Doetjess (1997) adverbial approach can account for the rightward
and the leftward FQ in French in a unified way, as shown in (44a-b).
(44) a. Les enfantsi ont [[QP tous [DP prc]]i ti dormi.
the children have all slept
‘The children have all slept.s
b. Jsai [[QP tous [DP prc]]i voulu lesi voir ti.
I-have all anted them see
‘I want to see them all.s
c8
As seen in (44a-b), the FQ tcu ‘alls containing a empty category prc can bind the
traces of the associated nominal phrases les enfants ‘the childrens and les ‘thems and
thus the quantifying relationship between the FQ and its associated nominal phrase
can be established.
Given these facts, the significant difference between Kayness (1981) and Doetjess
(1997) adverbial approach is that the former cannot account for the leftward FQ in
French but the latter can.
Adverbial Analysis proposed by Kayne (1981) and Doetjes (1997) still can
explain the floating behaviors of the FQ and the anaphoric relationship between the
FQ and its associated nominal phrase. Nevertheless, it also has pros and cons, as
shown in following sub-sections.
2.1.2.1 Advantages of Adverbial Analysis
One strength of Adverbial Analysis is that the mismatches between the FQ
and the associated nominal phrase (see ex.(c6)-(c7)), and the different interpretations
between the sentence with an FQ and the sentence with a pre-nominal quantifier (see
ex.(c8)-(c9)) would not pose a challenge to Adverbial Analysis since the sentence
with an FQ and the sentence with a pre-nominal quantifier are independent sentences,
not derived from the same underlying structure.
c9
Another strength of Adverbial Analysis is that it can explain three
unexpected sentences under Stranding Analysis, as shown in (45a-b). The
unacceptability of (45a-b) is because the FQ is not allowed in the sentence final
positions. Different kinds of adverbs have different distributions. For example, a
frequency adverb cannot occur at the end of a sentence, as shown in (45c).
(45) a. *The students have arrived all.
b. *The students were seen all.
c. *Those students fail in exams always.
Thus, it is possible to claim that FQs are a kind of adverb which cannot
occur in the end of a sentence like a frequency adverb. If the FQ is some kind of
adverb and its distribution does not include the final positions like always in (45c),
then the ungrammaticality of (45a-b) naturally follows.
Moreover, Adverbial Analysis can also deal with the unacceptability of the
sentences with As movement (see ex.(40)), which cannot be accounted for under
Stranding Analysis. Based on Kayness (1981) and Doetjess (1997) analyese, there are
two different accounts for the unacceptability of the sentences with As movement in
(40). Under Kayness (1981) analysis the FQ all in (40a-b) as an anaphoric element
40
will choose the closest argument Taylcr as its antecedant rather than the other
argument the prcfesscrs in the As position. However, the argument Taylcr cannot
satisfy the requirement of plurarity of the quantifier all. Therefore, (40a-b) are
unacceptable. Moreover, regarding Doetjess (1997:207) claim that the FQ can trigger
principle C violation, Bobaljik (200c) and Fitzpatrick (2007) point out that As
extraction across the FQ will raise a strong crossover violation while the A movement
should be unproblematic. Take (40a-b) for instance. Because the associated nominal
phrase the prcfesscrs is moved across the FQ all to As position, principle C is
violated.
So far, it seems that Adverbial Analysis can successfully rule out the
ungrammatical sentences in (40), which are predicted to be legitimate under Stranding
Analysis.
2.1.2.2 Disadvantages of the adverbial approach
The first noteworthy problem of Adverbial Analysis is that it has little to say
about what type of adverb an FQ is (Sportiche 1988, Cirillo 2009). Sportiche (1988)
and Cirillo (2009) both compare three different types of adverbs with FQ: manner
adverbs, sentential adverbs and subject-oriented adverbs. Consider examples of the
manner adverb and the FQ in (46)-(47) first.
41
(46) a. The students have carefully and thoroughly read the book.
b. * The students have carefully thoroughly read the book.
c. * The students have carefully and all read the book.
d. The students all carefully read the book.
The FQs cannot be categorized as manner adverbs since the FQs do not have the
properties of the manner adverb, as demonstrated by the contrast between (46c-d).
Contrast between (46a-b) shows that if two or more manner adverbs occur together,
they must be conjoined; however, the universal quantifier all cannot be conjoined
with the other manner adverb carefully. Furthermore, consider (47).
(47) a. The students have been careful to read the book well in advance of the test.
b. * The students have been all to read the book well in advance of the test.
The manner adverbs can be converted into adjectival forms (see ex. (47a) but the
FQ all cannot (see ex. (47b)). With these facts, Cirillo (2009) claims that FQ does not
belong to the manner adverbial type. Sportiche (1988) also mentions that the function
of manner adverbs is to modify the action of a sentence, and hence, manner adverbs
42
adjoin to V or VP; however, FQs seem not to be the case. Next, I shall compare the
FQ and the sentential adverb in (48)-(49).
(48) a. The students have probably all read the book.
b. ? The students have all probably read the book
(49) a. It is probable that the students have read the book.
b. * It is all that the students have read the book.
Unlike sentential adverbs, if the FQ all precedes a sentential adverb, the sentence
is not preferred, as shown in (48a-b). What is more, sentential adverbs can be
paraphrased as (49a), but the paraphrasing is not allowed for the FQs (see (49b)).
Therefore, Cirillo (2009) suggests that the FQs do not belong to the sentential
adverbial type. Sportiche (1988) states that the FQs and sentential adverbs appear to
modify different objects: an FQ modifies nominal phrases while a sentential adverb
modifies a whole sentence. Then, consider the examples of the subject-oriented
adverbs and the FQ in (50).
4c
(50) a. The students rudely and stupidly insulted the teacher who helped them.
b. *The students rudely stupidly insulted the teacher who helped them.
c. *The inventors have wisely and all withdraw their money.
d. The inventors have wisely all withdraw their money.
(Cirillo 2009:c)
The FQ is different from the subject-oriented adverbs. As noted by Sportiche
(1988), the behaviors of FQs are much more similar to that of subject-oriented
adverbial type, since both are used to modify a nominal phrase; however, they are
semantically different. Cirillo (2009) notes more obvious differences between FQs and
subject-oriented adverbs. As can be seen in (50a-b), when two subject-oriented adverbs
are adjacent, they should be conjoined, but when the FQ all and the subject-oriented
adverb stupidly are put side by side, they cannot be conjoined, as presented in (50c-d).
Given these facts, Sportiche (1988) and Cirillo (2009) argue that FQ and the three
types of adverbs do not behave the same, and thus the FQ does not belong to these
class of adverb. Here, Adverbial Analysis faces its first challenge.
However, the supporters of Adverbial Analysis, Brisson (1995), Bobaljik
(1995), and Fitzpatrick (2006) note that the distribution of FQ all is not a challenge for
Adverbial Analysis. They further claim that first English FQ all has the same
44
distribution as modal adverb easily, arguing against the criticism that the FQ does not
have the nature of adverbs (see (51)).8 Consider the example in (51).
(51) a. The veggies (all) will (all) have (all) been ?*(all) being *(all) roasted.
b. The veggies (easily) will (easily) have (easily) been ?*( easily) being *(easily)
roasted.
In (51), the FQ all and the modal adverb easily can float among auxiliaries but
both of them cannot occur lower than the functional verb been, which is against the
argument that FQ does not have adverb nature since its distribution does not belong to
any type of adverb.
Moreover, like other adverbs, FQs can restrict the distribution of adverbs, which
co-occur with the FQ in a sentence (Fitzpatrick 2006:50, c.f. Bobaljik 1995), as shown
in the following sentences:9
8 According to Fitzpatrick (2006:49), the modal adverb easily should be distinguished from the manner adverb easily, as shown in the following examples:
(i) That bird could easily be a bald eagle, judging by its size. (modal easily) (ii) You could make this shot easily if you would just concentrate. (manner easily)
9 In Fitzpatrick (2006:50), he claims that an adverb can limit the distribution of the other adverbs in a sentence. Take the two subject-oriented adverbs, allegedly and willingly, for instance.
(i) The students have allegedly willingly been being yelled at.
(ii) *The students have willingly allegedly been being yelled at.
As seen in (i-ii), willingly is not allowed to occur higher than allegedly.
45
(52) a. The gladiator bravely fought the lions. (Subject-oriented, Manner)
b. The gladiator all bravely fought the lions. (Subject-oriented, Manner)
c. The gladiator bravely all fought the lions. (Subject-oriented, *Manner)
In (52a), the adverb bravely can yield the subject-oriented reading, indicating the
brave gladiator, or the manner reading, the bravely fighting action. When all precedes
bravely in (52b), the adverb bravely can have the reading of a subject-oriented adverb
or that of a manner adverb. Now consider (52c). The adverb bravely is positioned
above the FQ all. In this case, the adverb bravely can only be interpreted as the
subject-oriented adverb, i.e.. This means that the FQ blocks the manner reading of the
adverb bravely. In light of the above facts, Fitzpatrick (2006) asserts that this
distributional evidence is consistent with the claim that the FQ is an adverbial element
(c.f. Bobaljik 1995) since other adverbs also have the same behavior.
Given these facts, Fitzpatrick (2006:52) further claims that ‘I have not (yet)
suggested that these FQs belong to the adverb word class, instead, I propose that they
appear in adjoined positions that are available to many types of adverbial adjuncts,
including some adverbss. Therefore, for Fitzpatrick, FQs are a type of adverbial
adjuncts which may not belong to the class of adverbs just like adjuncts of other
46
categories as in (5cb-d). In sum, I agree with Fitzpatrick that even though an FQ
cannot be categorized into any type of adverbs, it has the nature of an adverbial adjunct.
(5c) a. The team won the game easily.
b. The team will play the day after tomorrow.
b. The team will play the day after tomorrow.