Chapter 3 Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 7c
3.3 The Adverbial Quantifier (The AVQ) ............................................................................ 10c
3.3.4 Some remarks on other constructions which are claimed to be FQ constructions in
The universal quantifier DOU and some other numeral quantifiers in Mandarin
will be compared with the AVQ since the AVQ is similar to DOU and those numeral
quantifiers in the way that they both can quantify their associated nominal phrases
even though they are not adjacent. In this section, I will compare the AVQ with DOU
first, and then distinguish the AVQ from those numeral quantifiers.
127
3.3.4.1 DOU
DOU and the AVQ both can quantify their associated nominal phrases even
thought these quantifiers are not adjacent to their associated nominal phrases, as
shown in (1c7)-(1c8), respectively.
(1c7) Na liang-dui shuangbaotai xiongdi hui dou yiqi dao
that two-CL twin brother will DOU together arrive
taishang biaoyan.
stage.top perform
‘All the two pairs of twin brothers will perform on the stage.s
(1c8) Na liang-dui shuangbaotai xiongdi hui si-ge ren
that two-CL twin brother will four-CL person
yiqi dao taishang biaoyan.
together arrive stage.top perform
‘Those two pairs of twin brothers, four people, will perform on the stage.s
128
In (1c7)-(1c8), DOU and the AVQ sihge ren ‘four peoples quantify the
subjects, which are not adjacent to them. This particular relationship between DOU
and its associated nominal phrase has been discussed extensively, as noted by Chiu
(199c), Cheng (1995) and Huang et al. (2009).
In fact, AVQ does not behave in the same way as DOU. Semantically, the AVQ
can have either distributive or collective reading while DOU can have only
distributive reading. In terms of syntactic distribution, they occur in different
positions in sentences, as shown in (1c9a-b).
(1c9) a. Na-dui xiongdi (liang-ge ren) zhongzhong-de
that-CL brother two-CL person heavily-DE
(*liang-ge ren) fenbie da-le Zhangsan yi-quan.
two-CL person respectively hit-ASP Zhangsan one-fist
‘Both that pair of brothers gave Zhangsan a hard punch.s
b. Na-dui xiongdi (dou) zhongzhong-de (dou) da-le
that-CL brother DOU heavily-DE DOU hit-ASP
Zhangsan yi-quan.
Zhangsan one-fist
‘That pair of brothers all gave Zhangsan a hard punch.s
129
As seen in (1c9), the AVQ must be higher than a manner adverb (see ex.
(1c9a)) but DOU can be higher or lower than a manner adverb (see ex. (1c9b)).
Furthermore, the AVQ and DOU can co-occur but the position of the AVQ
and DOU are not interchangeable, as shown in (140). If the two elements have similar
syntactic behaviors, then they should be interchangeable in word order (see ex.(141)).
In (141), two manner adverbs manmanhde ‘slowlys and qingscnghde ‘airilys can
change their word order, because they have the same syntactic property. However,
this cannot work for DOU and the AVQ.
(140) Na-dui xiongdi hui (liang -ge ren) dou *(liang-ge ren)
that-CL brother will two-CL person DOU two-CL person
dao taishang biaoyan.
arrive stage.top perform
‘Both of that pair of brothers will all perform on the stage.s
(141) Wo hui (manman-de) qingsong-de (manman-de) sanbu.
I will slowly-DE airily-DE slowly-DE walk
‘ I will take a walk airily and slowly.s
1c0
Moreover, the AVQ and the DOU can have different quantifying targets, as
shown in (142)-(14c).
(142) Youyou he Lele, ta yinggai dou hen xihuan.
Youyou and Lele he probably DOU very like
‘He probably like both Youyou and Lele.s
(14c) *Youyou he Lele , ta yinggai liang-ge ren hen
Youyou and Lele he probably two-CL person very
xihuan.
like
‘He probably like both Youyou and Lele.s
More specifically, DOU quantifies the arguments which c-command can it so
DOU can refer to the topicalized argument in (142) while the AVQ can only refer to
the argument undergoing A movement, and thus it cannot be associated with the
topicalized argument in (14c).
For the syntactic analysis of DOU, the interested readers are referred to Cheng
(1995) and Huang et al. (2009). Although the AVQ and DOU can both quantify a DP
when they are not adjacent, they do not have the same syntactical behaviors. As
1c1
shown above, they have different distributions and their associated nominal phrases
are different. This suggests that they have different mechanisms to be associated with
their targets. The purpose of comparing DOU and the AVQ here is to argue that the
analyses of DOU are unable to account for the facts of AVQ (c.f. Cheng 1995, Huang
et al. 2009).
3.3.4.2 Other numeral quantifiers
In Chinese, some numeral quantifiers which are not adjacent to their associated
nominal phrases are regarded as Chinese FQs (Cheng 2007, Shin 2008), as shown in
(144).2c
(144) a. Tamen ban de xuesehng lai-le san-ge.
they class DE student come-ASP three-CL
‘Three of the students in their class came.s
b. Na-xie pingguo, wo chi-le san-ke.
that-CL apple, I eat-ASP three-CL
‘I ate three of those apples.s
2c Thanks to Prof. Jen Ting for pointing out that the example (i) may be derived from the example (145b) so it seems to be improper to treat it as an independent type. Shin (2008) treats (i) as an independent type of numeral quantifiers.
(i) Na-xie shu, wo san-ben dou kan-le.
that-CL book I three-CL all read-ASP
‘I read all of those three books.s
1c2
The type of numeral quantifier in (144) has been discussed in Cheng (2007) and
Shin (2008) and it can be associated with a topicalized object in a transitive sentence
or a subject in unaccusative sentence. Moreover, this numeral quantifier can only have
a paritive reading and stay lower than a verb.24
The numeral quantifiers in (144) can be distinguished from the AVQ at issue
24 Shin (2008) has discussed a type of numeral quantifier, which is similar to the type of quantifier in (144) and can express exhaustive reading, as shown in (i).
(i) Xuesheng, lai-le san-ge.
student come-ASP three-CL
‘Here came three students.s
According to Shin (2008), in this type of numeral quantifier, the numeral quantifier follows the verb in a sentence and the associated nominal phrase can only have a general reading. This type of numeral quantifier and the AVQ are quite irrelative since the associated nominal phrase of this type of quantifier cannot indicate any quantitive information itself.
1cc
In (145), an exhaustive reading is not allowed since the number that the numeral
quantifier sanhke ‘three-CLs indicates cannot be the same as the number that the
associataed nominal phrase na sanhke ping guc ‘those three appless indicates, which
means an exhaustive reading is impossible for the numeral quantifiers in (144).
Still another difference between the AVQ and the numeral quantifiers in (144) is
that the AVQ cannot be associated with object whereas these quantifiers can, as
shown in (14c) and (144b), respectively. In (144b), the numeral quantifiers, sanhke
‘three-CLs, can be associated with topicalized objects nahxie pingguc ‘those appless
while the AVQ in (14c) cannot.
Given these facts, I think that the AVQ differs from the numeral quantifiers in
(144). I will stop the discussions on the numeral quantifiers in (144) and leave them
for the future reseaches since these numeral quantifiers are outside the scope of this
thesis.
Overall, the AVQ behaving like adverbs can float among modals but must
occur higher than VP, as depicted in (124). Although the AVQ is not adjacent to its
associated nominal phrase, the AVQ can be associated with its associated nominal
phrase in a sentence. Besides, as proved in section c.c.2, the AVQ at issue cannot be
accounted for by Doetjess (1997) analysis in which the FQ adjoins to an empty
category. The AVQ should be treated as an adverb without any empty category.
1c4
Furthermore, like Japanese FQ, the AVQ can yield either a partitive reading or an
exhaustive reading, which can be deemed as a characteristic of an FQ. Last but not the
least, I find that although DOU is one of the candidates of FQ in Chinese, its
distribution, properties and referring mechanism differ from the AVQ. Thus, it seems
that the account for DOU may not be suitable for the AVQ. As to other numeral
quantifiers, which have been considered as Chinese FQs, they can be distinguished
from the AVQ since their readings and quantifying targets differ from the AVQ.
1c5
Chapter 4 Conclusion
In this thesis, I study a set of quantifiers, which has a similar distribution to the
FQ all in English. As reviewed in chapter 2.2, the FQ construction has received two
main approaches, Stranding Analysis and Adverbial Analysis. Under Stranding
Analysis, significant problems like the mismatch between the FQ and its associated
nominal phrase, the ungrammatical unaccusative sentences and the different
interpretations of a sentence with an FQ and those with an adnominal quantifier will
arise for not only the FQ all English but the set of quantifiers examined in this thesis
in Chinese. Therefore, I will take Adverbial Analysis as the main account instead of
Stranding Analysis.
I divide the quantifiers at issue into two types: the adnominal quantifier (ADQ)
and the adverbial quantifier (AVQ). The ADQ adjoins to its host nominal phrase to
form a constituent and due to the violation of ECP, the extraction of the host nominal
phrase is forbidden. In terms of the AVQ, it is regarded as an adverbial adjunct, which
can adjoin to functional categories. Furthermore, even though Adverbial Analysis
with an empty category (Doetjes 1997) and Adverbial Analysis without an empty
category (Kayne 1981) can both explain the anaphoric relationship between the AVQ
and its associated nominal phrase with different mechanisms, yet, Doetjess analysis
1c6
cannot hold for all the facts of the AVQ in Chinese, as shown in (129). It seems that
Adverbial Analysis without an empty category (Kayne 1981) is a better analysis for
the Chinese AVQ. Overall, importantly, a sentence with an ADQ and a sentence with
an AVQ do not have a derivational relationship, which is also the essence of
Adverbial Analysis.
There are some implications we can obtain in this thesis. Firstly, given the facts
of the ADQ and the AVQ, I suggest that Adverbial Analysis is a more proper
approach to the AVQ in Chinese. Furthermore, my analysis of the ADQ and the AVQ
can further strengthen Adverbial Analysis cross-linguistically. Secondly, I provide
another possible FQ, the AVQ, in Chinese. I observe that the AVQ and the universal
quantifier DOU, which has been treated as an FQ (Chiu 199c) have different
syntactical behaviors and, furthermore, the AVQ behaves syntactically closer to the
canonical FQ all in English than DOU. This leads us to suggest that the analysis of
DOU may be unable to account for AVQ in Chinese. Lastly, given that fact that the
ADQ and its host nominal phrase form a constituent in DOC, as shown in (75), Paul
and Whitman (2010) cannot use the claimed VP-adjoined position of meihren
‘everyones to argue for the movement of IO to across meihren ‘everyones. Therefore,
the analysis of the DOC would be challenged.
1c7
In this thesis, two problems remain unsolved. The first is that it is unclear
why the ADQ can only yield an exhaustive reading but the AVQ can yield either an
exhaustive or a partitive reading. Secondly, I do not know why a licenser is necessary
in the sentence when the non-numeral AVQ yields an exhaustive reading. In the end, I
hope that this thesis will shed some light on the cross-linguistic phenomenon, Floating
Quantifier, and leave the unsolved problems for further study.
1c8
References
Adger, D. 200c. Ccre Syntax: A Minimalist Apprcach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri & Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement, and
derivational economy. Linguistic inquiry c2.c: c71-40c.
Baker, C. L. 1995. English Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection.
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 200c. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In the Seccnd
Glct Internaticnal Statehcfhtheharticle Bcck: The Latest in Linguisticsi, eds. by
Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma, 107-148.
Brisson, Christine M. 1998. Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers.
Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.
Carden, Guy. 1976. English Quantifiers: Lcgical Structure and Linguistic Variaticn.
New York: Academic Press.
Cheng, Lai-Shen Lisa. 1995. On dcu-quantification. Jcurnal cf East Asian Linguistics
4.c:197-2c4.
Chiu, B. 199c. The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation,
UCLA.
1c9
Cirillo, R. 2009. The Syntax cf Flcating Quantifiers: Stranding Revisited. Utrecht:
Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Cheng, Johnny Hsu-Te. 2007. The Theory of Floating Quantifiers: Evidence from
Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the 19th North American Conference on
Chinese Linguistics (NACCL), Columbia University, New York.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 197c. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift fcr Mcrris, Halle,
eds. by Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 2c2-286. New York: Hole,
Rinehart and Winston.
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of
Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Leiden, Leiden.
Downing, Pamela. A. 1996. Numeral Classifier Systems: The Case cf Japanese (Vcl. 4).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edmondson, J. A., & F. Plank. 1978. Great expectations: An intensive self analysis.
Linguistics and Philcscphy 2.c: c7c-41c.
Fitzpatrick, Justin. 2006. The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Fujita, Naoya. 1994. On the Nature of Modification: A Study of Floating Quantifiers
140
and Related Constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik & Robert May. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality.
Linguistic Inquiry 22.1: 6c-101.
Hsieh, M. L. 2008. The Internal Structure cf Ncun Phrases in Chinese. Taipei: Crane
Publishing Company.
Hsu, Yu-Yin & Jen Ting. 2016. A monoclausal analysis of Chinese modals:
functional category at TP. Paper presented at the 24th Meeting of the
International Associated Chinese Linguistics (IACL), Beijing.
Huang, James, & Masao Ochi. 2014. Remarks on classifiers and nominal structure in
East Asian. In Peaches and Plums, eds. by C.-T. James Huang and Feng-Hsi
Liu, 5c-74.
Huang, James, Yen-Hui Audrey Li & Yafei Li. 2009. The Syntax cf Chinese.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, James, Yen-Hui Audrey Li, & Anderson Simpson. 2014. The Handbcck cf
Chinese Linguistics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Huang, Shizhe. 1995. -cu as an existential quantifier. Prcceedings cf the 6th
Ncrth
American Ccnference cn Chinese Linguitcis: 114-125.
Ishii, Y. 1999. A Note on Floating Quantifiers in Japanese. In Linguistics: In Search cf
the Human Mind—A Festschrift fcr Kazukc Incue, eds. by M. Muraki & E.
141 Iwamoto, 2c6-267. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1982. Tcpic in Rcmance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kayne, R. 1981. Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control. In Binding and Filtering, ed.
by Frank Henry, 191-211.
Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2004. Distributivity and the Japanese Floating Numeral
Quantifier. Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York.
Kobuchi-Philip, Mana. 2007. Floating numerals and floating quantifiers. Lingua
117.5:814-8c1.
Kuno, S. 1978. Theoretical perspectives on Japanese linguistics. Prcblems in Japanese
Syntax and Semantics, 21c-285. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuo, Pei. Jung. 2016. Applicative and the double object construction in Mandarin
Chinese. Taiwan Jcurnal cf Linguistics 14.2:cc-76.
Lee, T. H. T. 1986. Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California.
Lin, T. H. J. 2012. Multiple-modal constructions in Mandarin Chinese and their
finiteness properties. Jcurnal cf Linguistics 48.1: 151-186.
McKay, T. J. 1991. He himself: Undiscovering an anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 22.2:
c68-c7c.
142
Miyagawa, Shigeru 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. Syntax and
Semantics. San Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, & Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floating numeral
quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry c8.4:645-670.
Moravcsik, E. 1972. Some cross-linguistic generalizations about intensifier
constructions. Chicagc Linguistic Scciety 8: 271-277.
Paul, Waltraud, & John Whitman. 2010. Applicative structure and Mandarin
ditransitives. In
Argument Structure and Syntactic Relaticns: A
Crcsshlinguistic Perspective, eds. by Maia Duguines, Susan Huidobro, and
Nerea Madariaga, 261-282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A
Ccmprehensive Grammar cf the English Language. New York: Pearson
Education India.
Shimozaki, Minoru. 1989. The quantifier float construction in Japanese. Gengc Kenyc
95: 176-205.
Shin, Joonho. 2008. Numeral Phrase in Mandarin. Doctoral dissertation, Tsinghua
University, Hsinchu.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew.
Lingua 84:159-180.
14c
Siemund, P. 200c. Intensifiers in English and German: A Ccmpariscn. London:
Routledge.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1999. Grammar Rules cf Japanese. Tokyo: Taisyukan.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for
constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19.c: 425-449.
Sportiche, Donminique, Hilda Koopman & Edward Stabler. 2016. An Intrcducticn tc
Syntactic Analysis and Thecry. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 2001. A Functicn Analysis cf English and Japanese Ccnstructicn.
Tokyo: Hoo Syoboo.