Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.3 Previous analyses of the Chinese facts
2.3.2 Paul and Whitman (2010)
Paul and Whitman (2010) have discussed the non-numeral quantifier meihren
‘everyones in DOC. In fact, they are mainly concerned about the structure of DOC, as
shown in (71). The quantifier meihren ‘everyones, which is regared as an adverb by
Paul and Whitman (2010), is used to prove that the IO haizihmen ‘childrens in (71) is
moved out of the VP in DOC.
(71) Wo song-gei [APPLP haizi-meni [VP mei-ren [VP ti [yibai kuai
I give-GEI child-PLU everyone 100 buck
qian]]]].
money
‘I gave the children each 100 dollars.s
(Paul and Whitman 2010:12)
6c
Paul and Whitman (2010) follow Doetjess (1997) and Fitzpatrickss (2006)
analyses that the adverbial quantifier needs to c-command the trace of the associated
nominal phrase (see details in section 2.2) to explain the relationship between
haizihmen ‘childrens and meihren ‘everyones. In (71), the associated nominal phrase
haizihmen ‘childrens, base-generated in the indirect object position, moves across the
adverbial quantifier meihren ‘everyones and leaves a trace to be c-commanded by the
non-numeral quantifier meihren ‘everyones.
Paul and Whitman (2010) suggest that (72b) can be used to rule out Stranding
Analysis since under Stranding Analysis the ungrammatical sentence (72b) cannot be
excluded.
(72) a. Wo song-gei [APPLP [haizi-men mei-ren]i [VP san ci ti qian]]].
I give-GEI child-PLU everyone three time money
b. *Wo song-gei [APPLP haizi-meni [VP san ci [VP [ti mei-ren]
I give-GEI child-PLU three time everyone
qian]]]].
money
‘I gave every child money three times.s
(Paul and Whitman 2010:11)
64
Under Stranding Analysis, the FQ meihren ‘everyones and the associated
nominal phrase haizihmen ‘childrens is underlyingly a constituent. In (72a), the
consitutent containing the FQ and the associated nominal phrase is moves across the
frequency adverb sanci ‘three timess. As to example (72b), the associated nominal
phrase haizihmen ‘childrens is moves to a higher position across frequency adverb
sanci ‘three timess but the FQ meihren ‘everyones is stranded its is base position.
Under Stranding Analysis, both (72a-b) should be grammatical. However, contrary to
fact, (72b) is illegitimate.
Paul and Whitman (2010) argue that (72b) presents a challenge for Stranding
Analysis, while it is not a problem for Adverbial Analysis. They note that under
Adverbial Analysis, the position of the adverbial quantifier meihren ‘everyones and that
of the frequency adverb sanci ‘three timess are fixed, namely that the frequency adverb
sanci ‘three timess is always lower than the adverbial quantifier meihren ‘everyones.
Under Paul and Whitmanss (2010) analysis, (72b) can be successfully ruled out since
meihren ‘everyones is lower than the frequency adverb in this sentence (c.f. Fitzpatrick
2006).
Here, I agree with Paul and Whitmanss (2010) analysis that the quantifier
meihren ‘everyones is an adverbial quantifier and that the relationship between the
quantifier and its associated nominal phrase can be established via certain mechanism.
65
However, I do not think that the adverbial quantifier meihren ‘everyones can occur in
such a low position like (71). I will aruge in section c.2 that the adverbial quantifier
meihren ‘everyones should be higher than VP.
Moreover, Paul and Whitman (2010) provide another argument against
Stranding Analysis, namely that meihren ‘everyones cannot form a proper constituent
together with its associated nominal phrase, as shown in (7c), which means
underlyingly the FQ and its associated nominal phrase are not a consitutent.
(7c) *Wo ma-le haizi-men mei-renYyiren.
I scold-ASP child-PLU every(one)
‘I scold the every child.s
(Paul and Whitman 2010:1c)
However, I do not think that this criticism is valid since example (7c) is not so
bad. Besides, Kuo (2016) provides a more natural example (74) against Paul and
Whitmanss argument.
66
(74) Xuesheng-men mei-ren a! yinggai song san-ben shu
student-PLU each EXCL should give three-CL book
gei laoshi.
GEI teacher
‘Students each should give three books to the teacher.s
(Kuo 2016:47)
In (74), the quantifier meihren ‘everyones and its host nominal phrase
xueshenghmen ‘studentss can be topicalized together as a constituent.
To sum up, Paul and Whitman (2010) note that the quantifier meihren
‘everyones adjoins to VP under Adverbial Analysis. Furthermore, they present two
arguments against Stranding Analysis: first, under Stranding Analysis, the
unacceptable sentence (72b) cannot be ruled out; secondly, meihren ‘everyones cannot
form a proper constituent together with its associated nominal phrase.
67
2.3.3 Kuo (2016)
Kuo (2016), following Sportiche (1988), argues that meihren ‘everyones and
its associated nominal phrase haizihmen ‘childrens form a constituent underlyingly.
For Kuo (2016), haizihmen ‘childrens and meihren ‘everyones in (75)-(76) form a
constituent.
(75) Wo song-gei [VP [haizi-men mei-ren] [yibai kuai qian]].
I give-GEI child-PLU everyone 100 buck money
‘I gave the children each 100 dollars.s
(76) Xuesheng-men mei-ren a! yinggai ge song san-ben
student-PLU everyone EXCL should each give three-CL
shu gei laoshi.
book GEI teacher
‘Students each should give books to the teacher.s
In Kuo (2016), the constituent containing meihren ‘everyones and its host
nominal phrase haizihmen ‘childrens in (76) is moved together to the topic position. In
fact, if meihren ‘everyones in (75) is an adverb, then it would be impossible for an
adverb to move along with the associated nominal phrase. I will follow Kuoss (2016)
68
analysis that in DOC like (75), meihren ‘everyones and its associated nominal phrase
are a constituent.
To defend Stranding Analysis, Kuo (2016) gives arguments against Adverbial
Analysis. First, Kuo (2016) provides an indirect argument against Stranding Analysis.
She claims that meihren ‘everyones cannot behave like another VP-adjoined adverb, ge
‘eachs (see ex. (77)-(78)) so it is not VP-adjoined adverb proposed by Paul and
Whitman (2010).
(77) a. Zhe wu-ge xuesheng yinggai ge mai san-ben shu.
this five-CL student should each buy three-CL book
b. *Zhe wu-ge xuesheng ge yinggai mai san-ben shu.
this five-CL student each should buy three-CL book
‘These five students each should buy three books.s
(Kuo 2016:44)
69
(78) a. Zhe wu-ge xuesheng yinggai mei-ren mai san-ben shu.
this five-CL student should each buy three-CL book
b. Zhe wu-ge xuesheng mei-ren yinggai mai san-ben shu.
this five-CL student each should buy three-CL book
‘These five students each should buy three books.s
(Kuo 2016:44)
According to Kuo (2016) the VP-adjoined adverb, ge ‘eachs cannot be placed
higher than modals, as shown in (77), while meihren ‘everyones can surface among
modals. If they are both VP-adjoined adverbs, they should have the same distribution,
contrary to fact. Given this fact, Kuo (2016) asserts that meihren ‘everyones is not an
adverb. However, I do not think that this criticism is valid since (77b) is not so bad.
Another argument Kuo provides against Stranding Analysis is that meihren
‘everyones and its associated nominal phrase can both be located in the topic position
together, as shown in (76). Such sentences would be impossible if meihren ‘everyones
is an adverb.
However, Kuo (2016) does not address the unexpected sentence (72b),
proposed by Paul and Whitman (2010), for Stranding Analysis. Therefore, Kuo has
not sloved the problem.
70
Here, I agree with Kuoss claim that meihren ‘everyones in (75) is an adnominal
quantifier. As shown in (76), meihren ‘everyones and its associated nominal phrase
haizihmen ‘childrens can be topicalized together as a constituent. However, I do not
agree with Kuoss proposal that meihren ‘everyones can be accounted for by Stranding
Analysis. I propose that neither meihren ‘everyones nor its assoicated nominal phrase
can be moved out of the constituent containing them. I suggest the ungrammaticality
of example (72b) is because the quantifier meihren ‘everyones and the host nominal
phrase haizihmen ‘childrens form a constituent and neither of them can be moved out
of the constituent. This proposal can be supported by the ungrammatical unaccusative
sentence in (79a), which cannot be ruled out under Stranding Analysis. More
precisely, under Stranding Analysis after the nominal phrase nahdui fuqi ‘that married
couples moves to the subject position, the quantifier lianghge ren ‘two peoples should
be able to be stranded in the object position, contrary to fact. However, if I assume that
neither the quantifier nor its host nominal phrase can be moved out of the constituent
containing them, (79a) can be exluded.
71
(79) a. *Na-dui fuqii jintian yizao jiu lai-le ti
that-CL husband.wife today early.morning just come-ASP
liang-ge ren.
two-CL person
b. [Na-dui fuqi liang-ge ren] i jintian yizao
that-CL husband.wife two-CL person today early.morning
jiu lai-le ti.
just come-ASP
‘Both of that married couple came in an early morning.s
I thus conclude that the quantifier meihren ‘everyones forming a constituent
with its host nominal phrase, as shown in (75), is an adnominal quantifier and the
quantifier meihren ‘everyones which does not form a constituent with its associated
nominal phrase, as displayed in (78), is an adverb.
In sum, the three studies, Shin (2008), Paul and Whitman (2010) and Kuo
(2016) have discussed some facts of the FQ and the PNQ at issue. Shin (2008) has
discussed the numeral FQ in Chinese under his type A. Under Shinss (2008)
Argument Analysis, the FQ occupies an argument position and its associated nominal
phrase takes a topic position. However, this analysis would be questioned due to the
72
example (70). Paul and Whitman (2010) have examined the non-numeral quantifier
meihren ‘everyones in DOC (see ex. (71)) and treated it as a VP-adjoined adverb.
Moreover, they provide some evidence against Stranding Analysis. Finally, Kuo
(2016) also has discussed the non-numeral quantifier meihren ‘everyones in DOC but
she does not agree with Paul and Whitmanss analysis on the quantifier meihren
‘everyones. She follows Sporthchess (1988) Stranding Analysis and claims that in
(75), the quantifier meihren ‘everyones and its associated nominal phrase form a
constituent.
I agree with Kuoss (2016) analysis that the non-numeral quantifier meihren
‘everyones and its associated nominal phrase in DOC (see ex. (75)) form a constituent
but I disagree with her Stranding Analysis (see ex. (75)). In the next chapter, I will
give more details of the PNQ and FQ in Chinese at issue and prove that Stranding
Analysis cannot account for the Chinese FQ.
7c