Bangla Quantifier Extraction, Unaccusative in situ, and the ECP

Bangla Quantifier Extraction, Unaccusative in situ, and the ECPAuthor(s): Probal DasguptaSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 691-698Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178602 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.125 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:49:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178602?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 691

erating such examples. It seems to us, then, that there is some interesting evidence for this position.4

References

Booji, G. and J. Rubach (1987) "Postcyclic versus Postlexical Rules in Lexical Phonology," Linguistic Inquiry 18, 1- 44.

Chomsky, N. (1986a) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts.

Chomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Or- igin, and Use, Praeger, New York.

Lightfoot, D. (1980) "History of NP-movement," in T. Hoek- stra, H. van der Hulst, and M. Moortgat, eds., Lexical Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.

4 At least one problem remains, drawn to our attention by an anonymous reader. It is illustrated by the following examples:

(i) a. W sukni Maria przyszla czerwonej. in dress Maria came red 'Maria came in a red dress.'

b. *Sukni Maria przyszla w czerwonej.

It is unclear to us what explains such contrasts. We cannot say that (ib) is ungrammatical because it involves extraction from a PP, because (ia) involves the same process.

BANGLA QUANTIFIER I will propose here that a Bangla (or "Bengali") D-Structure EXTRACTION, UNACCUSATIVE object not Case-marked by V may remain in situ if a nominative IN SITU, AND THE ECP null subject forms an expletive-argument chain with it, and that

Probal Dasgupta, V can, by 0-marking its object NP, make a postposed Deccan College, Pune Q(uantifier) P(hrase) trace in it available for antecedent gov-

ernment. In Bangla a QP cannot be postposed out of an agent subject

NP, as in (1), but can be postposed out of an object NP, as in (2): 1

(1) a. aj kOekTa chele dowReche today some boy ran 'Some boys ran today.'

a. *aj chele dowReche kOekTa today boy ran some

I would like to thank two anonymous LI reviewers and Alice Dav- ison for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this squib. The usual disclaimers apply.

' Transcription: E 0 low, Y W mid, M nasalization, R T retroflex, S palatoalveolar. Throughout, the N sister of the QP trace is to be read with nonlow stress. The tense/aspect in the Bangla example sentences corresponds in part to the English past, in part to the present perfect; I have resorted to an inconsistent glossing policy in order to ensure readability of glosses.



692 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION

b. bohudin kono chele dowRoY ni for-long any boy ran not 'For a long time, no boys ran.'

b'. *bohudin chele dowRoY ni kono for-long boy ran not any

(2) a. aj ami kOekTa ciThi likhechi today I some letter wrote 'I wrote some letters today.'

a'. aj ami ciThi likhechi kOekTa today I letter wrote some

b. bohudin ami kono ciThi likhi ni for-long I any letter wrote not 'For a long time, I wrote no letters.'

b'. bohudin ami ciThi likhi ni kono for-long I letter wrote not any

What look like nonagent subjects, inanimate in (3) and human in (4), pattern with objects (as in (2)), not with agents (as in (l)):2

(3) a. ekhane kOekTa phul phuTeche here some flower blossomed 'Some flowers have blossomed here.'

a'. ekhane phul phuTeche kOekTa here flower blossomed some

(4) a. aj kOekTa bacca harieche today some child got-lost 'Some children got lost today.'

a'. aj bacca harieche kOekTa today child got-lost some

What distinguishes the unacceptable primed examples in (1) from their well-formed counterparts in (2)-(4)?

The Unaccusative Hypothesis of Relational Grammar, adapted to Government-Binding (GB) Theory by Burzio (1981), makes the required distinction between agents and nonagents. The hypothesis states that monadic (one-argument) verbs are either unergative, assigning the 0-role Agent to a D- and S- Structure subject, or unacccusative, assigning the 0-role Theme to a D-Structure object that typically becomes an S-Structure subject by Unaccusative Advancement (this process name, like Passive and Raising, may be retained in an account subsuming them all under Move NP). As GB Theory reconstructs it, this advancement is optional in principle but thought to be obliga- tory in effect, for a D-Structure object not Case-marked by V must move, it is assumed, to a position where it receives (nominative) Case and escapes the Case Filter. Notice, however, that if other mechanisms can save such NPs from the filter, they

2 To save space, I have not presented negatives of the (lb) or (2b) type for (3)-(8); they pattern like affirmatives for present purposes.




should be able to stay in situ. I suggest that the possibility of rightward extraction of QP from the apparent subject NP of a monadic verb (i) correlates with independent indications that the verb is unaccusative and (ii) provides the basis for an argument that some unaccusative objects do remain in situ.

To see (i), compare (1)-(4) with the corresponding passives:

(5) aj dowRono gEche today run-Infl went 'Today, it has been possible3 to run.'

(6) aj kOekTa ciThi lekha gEche today some letter write-Infl went 'Today, it has been possible to write some letters.' (also acceptable with kOekTa moved)

(7) *aj phoTa gEche today blossom-Infl went 'Today, it has been possible to blossom.'

(8) *aj harano gEche today get-lost-Infl went 'Today, it has been possible to get lost.'

Among the monadic-verb-based passives, (5) contrasts with (7) and (8). Postal (1986) argues that such a pattern, with unergative monadics allowing Passive as in (5) and unaccusative monadics prohibiting it as in (7) or (8), reflects a general distinction at D- Structure (or in Postal's "initial" relations), where unergatives have an object and unaccusatives do not. Thus, whether a monadic allows (impersonal) Passive can serve as a diagnostic: the pattern, which I will call Postal's Generalization, is that unaccusatives always prohibit Passive and unergatives in general allow it.4 Assuming this to be an independent means of checking whether a monadic verb has a D-Structure object, we find that for a very wide range of monadic verbs in Bangla the facts are as above: QP can postpose out of the single argument NP in the active iff the passive is ill-formed. Thus, among monadic verbs, all and only those that are unaccusative according to the Passive test permit QP postposing from the argument. This was point (i).

The point would become firmer if I were to offer a deri- vation of Postal's Generalization from deeper principles; but

I The passive exemplified here, called the possibility passive because of its semantics or the ja-passive because it uses the auxiliary ja 'to go', is discussed in Dasgupta (1980).

4 Passive is a notoriously idiosyncratic process; even a verb "per- mitted" by grammatical principles to passivize may have the lexical property of resisting the process. For example, the verb choT 'run', an unergative verb (as diagnosed by the QP postposing test discussed earlier), which is otherwise quite similar to dowRo 'run', strongly resists Passive: *choTa gEche 'It has been possible to run'. There are very few exceptions of this type; the discussion in the text ignores them.




limitations of space prevent this. My focus is on the analysis of QP postposing, and it is this analysis that I seek to derive from basic principles.

Before trying to ground the analysis, I must state it more precisely. Where is the postposed QP attached? Assume that the Bangla clause has the structure [Ip NP [IT [vp NP V] I]] (see Dasgupta (1984)) and that V moves to I in PF. Given the data presented here, QP could be adjoined to I' or to IP; if movement only "sees" minimal and maximal projections (Chomsky (1986a, 4)), the adjunction must be to IP. Let us assume that this is so. Then QP always c-commands its trace in the IP, removing that factor from the discussion. Consider now the S- Structure representations of (la') and (2a'):

(9) *[IP[IP aj [NP tj chele][, [vp dowRe][i chel]] today boy run Infl

[Qpi kOekTa]] some

(10) [IP[lP aj ami [14VP[NP ti ciThi][v likhe]] today I letter write

[I chif]]][Qpi kOekTa]] Infl some

If we find a treatment for this clear agent vs. object contrast, it can be extended to (3)-(4).

(9) and (10) do not differ with respect to whether N can properly govern ti (it cannot; if it could, (9) would be acceptable), or whether NP per se is a barrier for proper government (it is not; if it were, (10) would be ruled out), or whether QP can adjoin to NP en route (a device equally (un)available in both cases). They differ in that only in (10) does V govern the relevant NP. This makes available an account (to be made more precise below) based on government by V. I now wish to extend this account to unaccusatives like (3a'). The S-Structure form of (3a') is (11) if, as commonly assumed, NP must move out of VP:

(11) [IP[IP ekhane [NPJ ti phul] [I'[vp tj phuTe] [I che]]] here flower blossom Infl

[QPi kOekTa]] some

But V here does not govern ti, and my analysis incorrectly pre- dicts that (11) should be starred. What must be adjusted in order to extend the account to this case?

One option would be a layered trace analysis or, equiva- lently, moving NP back to t by LF reconstruction. But layered trace or reconstruction proposals have been motivated only for cases involving A-positions (Chomsky (1981)); and in (11) reconstruction would create at LF an irregular expletive-argument A-chain of the type Chomsky (1986b) argues should be




eliminated at LF. These considerations suggest that such a move would be rather ad hoc.

A better choice is to leave NP optionally unmoved in the syntax, making possible the S-Structure representation (12) for sentence (3a'):

(12) [Ip[lP ekhane [NP e][I'[VP[NP ti phul] here flower

[v phuTe]] [I che]]] [Qpi kOekTa]] blossom Infl some

The government-by-V analysis (elaborated below) now easily extends to this case, for in (12) V does govern the NP that contains t. To make the extension plausible, we must (a) give evidence that Bangla otherwise allows unaccusative object NP in situ and (b) show that the object NP in (12) is duly Case- marked.

For (a), the clearest discussion is by De (1984, 65-67); her proposals supersede earlier ones by Dasgupta (1980) about gerunds having either genitive or overtly non-Case-marked subjects. De shows that the true subject in a Bangla gerund (her structure for this gerund is basically [N"' NP [N" Det [N' VP [N Gerund-affix]]]]), if nonnull, is consistently genitive-marked and precedes the Det, as in (13):

(13) ramer ey SomOYmoto na aSa Ram's this punctually not coming 'this not-coming-punctually of Ram's'

Moreover, she shows that this subject contrasts in both respects with the NP ram in (14):

(14) ey ram na aSa this Ram not coming 'this Ram-not-coming (event)'

In the latter example, De argues, ram has no overt Case, must follow the Det position, and must be analyzed as an object, not a subject, at D-Structure. The verb aS 'come' permits both op- tions; some monadic verbs choose just one. De Dan (1985) argues further that among monadic verbs it is unaccusatives that choose to let the single NP argument follow Det and lack overt Case. We see here a clear instance, then, of unaccusative in situ.

Turning to (b), I propose that in (12) the expletive-argument chain (e, t, phul) agrees with and is nominative-marked by I, with phul manifesting the Case. To see that Bangla indepen- dently allows this, consider (15):

(15) [lp eTai [lP ti tumid hote] paro it you be can-2nh

'It can be you.'

Here the Agr element in paro 'can' shares second person and




nonhonorific status with the argument in the expletive-argument chain (eTa, t, tumi). Consider also the (synonymous) null subject variant [ECi [ti tumid hote] paro], where the expletive empty category is presumably a small pro.

Now, exactly what is it about government by V in (2)-(4) that distinguishes them from (1)? At this point I can offer an explicit answer, drawing on the principles of grammar system- atically presented in Chomsky (1986a).

My specific hypothesis is this. By governing and L-marking the object NP in cases like (2)-(4), V makes it a nonbarrier, thus allowing the QP trace in the NP to be antecedent-governed from outside the NP. Wherever an NP containing such a trace cannot be L-marked, as in (la') and (lb'), this substructure will contain a trace that is not properly governed and the sentence will be excluded by the Empty Category Principle (ECP). To see the contrast more concretely, consider the additional evidence presented in the following minimal pair, where the primed traces are left by the intermediate adjunction to VP (Chomsky (1986b, 21)) of QP:

(16) a. [IP[IP amra [I'[VP ti[VP[NP ti dhopa] we washermen

[v khuMj]]] [I chi]]] kOekTai] seek Infl some

'We are looking for (some) washermen.' b. *[IP[P amra [I'[VP t1[VP[PP[NP ti dhopa] ke]

we washermen ke [v khuMj]]] [I chi]]] kOekTai]

seek Infl some (The unpostposed version is well-formed and means 'We are looking for certain washermen'.)

In (16b) the nonlexical adposition ke, like its Hindi counterpart ko, is "used to emphasize the object as individual and definite" (Porizka (1963, 91)); apparently Spanish a, a dative-marking adposition, has partly similar properties with respect to the marking of specificity (which Porfzka calls "definite"-ness), a matter I will not pursue. In both (16a) and (16b) the nearest landing site for the QP as it leaves its D-Structure position is the VP edge, for adjunction to argument is excluded (Chomsky (1986a, 6)); NP in (16a) and (16b) and PP in (16b) are argument nodes and cannot host an intermediate trace. The question, in both examples, is whether t' can antecedent-govern t. In (16a) it can, for the NP is L-marked (specifically, 0-marked) by V. Thus, the NP is not a B(locking) C(ategory) and not for any other reason a barrier for t; and in turn t', which is not excluded by any barrier that dominates t, antecedent-governs t. But in (16b) V L-marks PP; the nonlexical P ke cannot L-mark NP (regardless of whether the correct account of 0-marking here is that V 0-marks PP, and V and P compositionally 0-mark NP,




or that this P has no distinct index and allows NPi and PPi to share an index i that is 0-marked by V); thus, the NP is a BC and a barrier for t, and the PP, though L-marked and thus not a BC for t, is by inheritance a barrier for t.5 These barriers, NP and PP, exclude t', preventing t' from antecedent-governing t, which thus ends up without proper government-for the QP position, which modifies and does not complement N, is not 0- marked and can only be properly governed if antecedent government is possible. Thus, the ECP excludes (16b).6

This account extends directly to the case of (9), where the NP [t chele] is not L-marked, since only I governs it, and I is nonlexical; thus, NP is a barrier for t, and the IP-adjoined QP fails to antecedent-govern t, as required.

To summarize, my major findings are that an NP in a Bangla S-Structure form may contain the trace of a postposed quantifier only if a V L-marks the NP (and makes it a nonbarrier, allowing the VP-adjoined intermediate QP trace to antecedent- govern into the NP and avert what would otherwise be an ECP violation) and that, in cases like (3a') or (4a') where the NP appears to be a subject, in fact it is the unmoved object of an unaccusative verb and receives nominative Case by forming an expletive-argument chain with the null subject of the clause. I have shown that this new criterion for unaccusative status correlates with the better-known Passive test and that the account in terms of L-marking and barriers can, without special stipu- lation, appropriately distinguish V complements with and without the marker ke.

References

Burzio, L. (1981) Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chomsky's suggestion that oblique Case confers barrierhood (Chomsky (1986a, 36)) provides an alternative account for these data. Antecedent government of the trace of QP then fails because of the barrier created by oblique Case. Examples with genitive r follow the same pattern as those with ke:

(i) *amra t cheler paS-kaTalam kOekTa we boys-gen avoided a few 'We avoided a couple of boys.'

The prediction that L-marked NPs permit QP extraction also fails for direct objects not adjacent to the verb:

(ii) *amra t ciThi bohudin pay ni kono we letter long-time got not any 'For a long time, we got no letters.'

This fact remains unexplained in my analysis. 6 Because QP is not an argument, we must assume that its trace

is y-marked at LF, in which case the intermediate trace adjoined to VP must also be antecedent-governed. However, this is not a problem, because IP, I', and VP are not barriers for the trace.




Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N. (1986a) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts.

Chomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Or- igin, and Use, Praeger, New York.

Dasgupta, P. (1980) Questions and Relative and Complement Clauses in a Bangla Grammar, Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.

Dasgupta, P. (1984) "Bangla Emphasizers and Anchors," In- dian Linguistics 45, 102-117.

De, M. (1984) Bangla Gerunds, M.Phil. dissertation, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.

De Dan, M. (1985) "Subjects of Unaccusative Gerunds," paper presented at the Advanced Transformational Grammar Workshop, University of Delhi, Delhi.

Porfzka, V. (1963) Hindstina, State Pedagogical Publishing House, Prague.

Postal, P. M. (1986) Studies of Passive Clauses, State Univer- sity of New York Press, Albany, New York.

CLITICS, ANAPHORS, AND A The purpose of this squib is to investigate sentences like (1) in PROBLEM OF COINDEXATION Modern Greek (MG):

Sabine Iatridou, (1) 0 Costas ton thavmazi ton eafton tu. MIT

Costas him admires himself 'Costas admires himself.'

This sentence raises two questions. The first one can be ac- counted for within the framework of the binding theory as pos- tulated in Chomsky (1981) and related works, but the second one cannot. It will appear, however, that the two issues are ultimately related.

1. The First Problem

The peculiarity of (1) is obvious: if the anaphor ton eafton tu is properly bound by Costas, then the preverbal ton, as a pro- noun, should violate Principle B of the binding theory (Chom- sky (1981)).' Nevertheless, (1) is fully acceptable.

I have benefited from discussions with Derek Bickerton, Hans den Besten, Ken Hale, Costas Marinos, and Pierre Pica. I am especially grateful to two LI reviewers for their insightful remarks on an earlier draft. During the writing of this squib I was partially supported by Grant BNS 83-00351 from the National Science Foundation.

1 The distribution of the Greek short-distance anaphor [ton eafton tu] obeys Principle A of the binding theory, as stated in Chomsky (1981):

(i) 0 Costas vlepi ton eafton tu. Costas sees himself 'Costas sees himself.'



Bangla Quantifier Extraction, Unaccusative in situ, and the ECP

Documents

Transcript of Bangla Quantifier Extraction, Unaccusative in situ, and the ECP