‘Who did Minsu see?’ ‘Who did only Minsu see?’

Focus Intervention Effects are not Related to LF or Semantic Interpretation*

Haoze Li

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

1. Introduction

It has been suggested in the literature that focus intervention effects are a phenomenon

related to LF (Beck 1996, Beck & Kim 1997) or semantic interpretation in the sense of Beck

(2006). This paper aims to argue against such a view based on focus intervention effects in

Mandarin.

Focus intervention effects refer to the phenomenon that a focus element cannot precede a

wh-word.

(1) a. Minsu-nun nuku-lûl po-ass-ni?1

Minsu-Top who-Acc see-Past-Q

‘Who did Minsu see?’

b. *Minsu-man nuku-lûl po-ss-ni?

Minsu-only who-Acc see-Past-Q

‘Who did only Minsu see?’

c. Nuku-lûl Minsu-man po-ass-ni?

who-Acc Minsu-only see-Past-Q

‘Who did only Minsu see?’ (Beck 2006: 3)

As shown in (1a), Korean is a wh-in-situ language. When the subject is a focused constituent,

the wh-question is ill-formed, as in (1b). However, when the wh-word is scrambled over the

focused subject, the sentence becomes well-formed, as shown in (1c). Schematically, the

contrast in well-formedness can be represented in (2a-b).

I would like to thank Candice Cheung, Jim Huang, Audrey Li and Barry Yang for their valuable

comments and insightful suggestions. I also thank the audience in GLOW in Asia Workshop for

Young Scholars 2011, in particular, Johnny Cheng and Michael Yoshitaka Eriewine, for their

comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Jess Law for her suggestions on revision. All

remaining errors and shortcomings are my own responsibility. 1 The abbreviations used in the paper are as follows: Acc = accusative case; Asp = Aspect marker;

Cl = classfier; Foc = focus; Past = past tense marker; Q = question particle; Top = topic marker.

– 166 –

Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011

(2) a. *[CP … focus element … wh-word]

b. [CP … wh-word1 … focus element … t1 ]

Based on LF movement hypothesis of in-situ wh-words (Huang 1982), Beck (1996) and

Beck & Kim (1997) argue that (2a) is ruled out because the focus element as a scope-bearing

element blocks LF movement of the wh-word to Spec-CP, as illustrated in (3a). In contrast,

the focus element does not block overt movement, such as scrambling. When the in-situ wh-

word is scrambled, as in (3b), the focus element no longer blocks LF movement of the wh-

word.2

(3) a. *[CP wh-word1 [IP … focus element … t1LF

]]

X

b. [CP wh-word1 [IP t1LF

… focus element … t1 ]]

Beck (2006) does not assume that an in-situ wh-word undergoes any kind of overt or

covert movement. Instead, for a wh-question to be properly interpreted, the Q-Op in CP needs

to be associated with the in-situ wh-word. A focus element introduces the focus operator ~ in

the sense of Rooth (1985, 1992) into the semantic representation. The in-situ wh-word cannot

skip ~ and directly associate with the Q-Op due to minimality effects. In other words, ~

blocks the association between the Q-Op and the in-situ wh-word, hence ruling out the

sentence, as shown in (4a). Beck’s analysis can also account for the fact that focus

intervention effects disappear when the wh-word is scrambled over the focus element: the

scrambled wh-word precedes the focus element and hence it can successfully associate with

the Q-Op, as shown in (4b).

(4) a. *[CP Q-Op [IP2 ~ [IP1 … focus element… wh-word]]]

X

b. [CP Q-Op [… wh-word1 …[IP2 ~ [IP1 … focus element … t1]]]]

2 The superscript “LF” indicates that the trace is an LF trace.

LF movement Scrambling

Scrambling

– 167 –

Focus Intervention Effects are not Related to LF or Semantic Interpretation (Haoze Li)

In sum, the spirit underlying these studies is that focus intervention effects are LF or

semantic phenomenon. On this view, overt operations at Narrow Syntax are not sensitive to

focus intervention effects. Instead, it is failure of certain LF operations or semantic

interpretations that captures such a phenomenon.

However, by investigating focus intervention effects in Mandarin, this paper argues

against such a view and claims that they are not related to LF or semantic interpretation, at

least in the case of Mandarin.

2. Focus intervention effects in Mandarin

According to Li (2011), focus intervention effects in Mandarin are triggered when a focus

particle associated with a non-wh focused constituent precedes a wh-word, as shown by the

contrast in grammaticality between (5a, 6a) and (5b, 6b).3

(5) a. Libai mai-le shenme ne?

Libai buy-Asp what Q

‘What did Libai buy?’

b. *Shi Libai mai-le shenme ne?

SHI Libai buy-Asp what Q

‘What was the thing x such that it is Libai who bought x?’

(6) a. Libai song shenme liwu gei Wangwei ne?

Libai send what present to Wangwei Q

‘What present does Libai send to Wangwei?’

b. *Libai zhiyou gei Wangwei cai song shenme liwu ne?

Libai only to Wangwei just send what present Q

‘What is the present x such that Libai sends x only to Wangwei?’

According to previous studies (Rooth 1985, 1992, Tancredi 1990, Aoun & Li 1993, Krifka

2006, a.o.), a focus particle must be associated with a c-commanded focused constituent. In

(5b), the focus particle shi is associated with the focused constituent Libai, while in (6b), the

focus particle zhiyou is associated with the focused constituent Wangwei. In addition, both the

focus particles and the associated focused constituents precede the wh-words.

Focus intervention effects in Mandarin can be schematically represented as (7), where C[Q]

stands for the interrogative complementizer.

3 The focus particles are boldfaced and the associated focused constituents are underlined.

– 168 –


(7) *[CP C[Q] … focus particle XP … wh-word]

Moreover, Yang (2008) and Li (2011) both observe that no focus intervention effect arises

when the wh-word is fronted over the focus particle and the associated focused constituent, as

shown in (8a-b).

(8) a. Na ben shu1, shi Libai qu mai t1 ne?

which Cl book SHI Libai go buy Q

‘What is the book x such that it is Libai who is going to buy x?’

b. Shenme liwu1, Libai zhiyou gei Wangwei cai song t1 ne?

what present Libai only to Wangwei just send Q

‘What is the present x such that Libai sends x only to Wangwei?’

According to Cheung (2008), wh-fronting in Mandarin is a type of focalization.

Specifically, when a wh-word is moved to the specifier of Focus Phrase (FocP, henceforth), it

indicates an identificational focus in the sense of É. Kiss (1998).

Wh-fronting eliminates focus intervention effects, as shown in (9).

(9) [CP … [FocP wh-word1 [IP … focus particle XP … t1]]]

3. Reconstruction

One of the important sources of evidence in support of Cheung’s (2008) movement

analysis of fronted wh-words comes from the fact the fronted wh-words can undergo

reconstruction. Consider the following sentences in (10a-b).

(10) a. [Na zhang taziji1/*2 de zhaopian], Libai1 zui xihuan ne?

which Cl himself DE picture Libai most like Q

‘Which picture of himself, Libai likes most?’

b. [Na zhang Libai*1 de zhaopian], ta*1/2 zui xihuan ne?

which Cl Libai DE picture he most like Q

‘Which picture of Libai, he likes most?’

– 169 –


In (10a), the reflexive pronoun within the fronted complex wh-phrase must be bound by the

subject Libai. In (10b), the proper name Libai within the fronted complex wh-phrase must not

be co-indexed with the subject pronoun ta. These facts clearly point to the effect of Binding

Principles A and C, respectively. Specifically, Binding Principles A and C can hold only

when the fronted complex wh-phrase are reconstructed at LF, as shown in (11a-b).

(11) a. Libai1 zui xihuan [na zhang taziji1/*2 de zhaopian] ne

Libai most like which Cl himself DE picture Q

b. ta*1/2 zui xihuan [na zhang Libai*1 de zhaopian] ne

he most like which Cl Libai DE picture Q

(11a-b) are LF representations. The reflexive pronoun is bound by the subject Libai in (11a),

while the proper name cannot be bound by the subject ta in (11b).

The fronted wh-word in (9) also undergoes reconstruction. Consider the surface

representations in (12a-b) and the corresponding LF representations in (13a-b).

(12) a. [Na ben guanyu taziji1/*2 de shu], shi Libai1 qinzi qu mai ne?

which Cl about himself DE book SHI Libai in.person go buy Q

‘Which is the book x, x is a book about himself, such that it is Libai who is going

to buy x in person?’

b. [Na dao taziji1/*2 de nashoucai], Libai1 zhiyou gei Wangwei

which Cl himself DE speciality Libai only for Wangwei

cai hui zuo ne?

just will make Q

‘Which is the speciality x, x is a speciality of himself, such that Libai makes x

only for Wangwei?’

(13) a. shi Libai1 qinzi qu mai [na ben guanyu taziji1/*2 de shu] ne

SHI Libai in.person go buy which Cl about himself DE book Q

b. Libai1 zhiyou gei Wangwei cai hui zuo [na dao taziji1/*2 de

Libai only for Wangwei just will make which Cl himself DE

nashoucai] ne

speciality Q

– 170 –


Similar to (10a), the reflexive pronouns in (12a-b) must be bound by the following subject.

This is made possible when the fronted wh-phrases undergo reconstruction at LF, as in (13a-

b).

In addition, similar to (10b), the proper names in (14a-b) cannot be coindexed with the

following subject. This is also due to the fact that after LF reconstruction, Binding Principle C

prevents the coindexation between the proper names in the wh-phrases and the subject

pronouns, as in (15a-b).4

(14) a. [Na ben guanyu Libai1 de shu], shi ta*1/2 qinzi qu mai ne?

which Cl about Libai DE book SHI he in.person go buy Q

‘Which is the book x, x is a book about Libai, such that it is him who is going to

buy x in person?’

4 Audrey Li (p.c.) provides a counterexample for reconstruction. Consider (i).

(i) [ Ni song gei Libai1 de shenme shu], ta1/2 zhiyou zai zheli cai hui na ne?

you give to Libai DE what book he only at here just will take Q

‘What is the book x, x is a book you gave to Libai, such that only at this place will he take

x?’

In this example, the fronted wh-phrase includes a relative clause containing a proper name. The proper

name Libai can be coindexed with the following subject pronoun ta. If the reconstruction requirement

is strictly enforced, the proper name would be bound by the subject pronoun when the wh-phrase

undergoes reconstruction and Binding Principle C should be violated. The coindexation should be

ungrammatical, contrary to the fact.

Although we agree with Audrey Li’s intuition that Libai and ta can be coindexed in (i), this may

not constitute a real counterexample for reconstruction. According to Lebeaux (2000), relative clauses,

as adjuncts, may adjoin to wh-phrases which have undergone movement. So the derivation of (i) may

be decomposed into (iia-b).

(ii) a. Step 1: Wh-fronting

[Shenme shu], ta zhiyou zai zheli cai hui na ne?

what book he only at here just will take Q

‘What book will he take only at this place?’

b. Step 2: Adjunction of relative clause

[[Ni song gei Libai1 de] [shenme shu]], ta1/2 zhiyou zai zheli cai hui na ne?

you give to Libai DE what book he only at here just will take Q

If (i) is indeed derived as in (iia-b), then the base-generated position only involves the wh-phrase, but

not the relative clause. Consequently, what undergoes reconstruction includes only the wh-phrase, but

not the relative clause. If the relative clause is not even reconstructed, then the coindexation between

Libai and ta does not violate Binding Principle C and the sentence is naturally well-formed.

(iii) [[Ni song gei Libai1 de] ], ta1/2 zhiyou zai zheli cai hui na [shenme shu] ne?

you give to Libai DE he only at here just will take what book Q

However, based on Tsai’s (2011) study, the possessor Libai in (14b) is not an adjunct, but rather

the specifier of a functional phrase projected by the genitive de. As a specifier, Libai must be included

in the wh-phrase in the base-generated position. Hence, the reconstruction must include Libai, as in

(15a-b), so the coindexation between Libai and the subject violates Binding Principle C.

– 171 –


b. [Na dao Libai1 de nashoucai], ta*1/2 zhiyou gei Wangwei cai

which Cl Libai DE speciality he only for Wangwei just

hui zuo ne?

will make Q

‘Which is the speciality x, x is a speciality of Libai, such that he will make x only

for Wangwei?’

(15) a. shi ta*1/2 qinzi qu mai [na ben guanyu Libai1 de shu] ne

SHI he in.person go buy which Cl about Libai DE book Q

b. ta*1/2 zhiyou gei Wangwei cai hui zuo [na dao Libai1 de

he only for Wangwei just will make which Cl Libai DE

nashoucai] ne

speciality Q

From the above discussion, it is clear that reconstruction is required for (12a-b) and (14a-

b). Interestingly, once the fronted wh-phrases are reconstructed at LF, it will be preceded by

the focus particles and its associated focus—precisely resembling the ill-formed construction

in (7).

According to Beck (1996) and Beck & Kim (1997), the reconstructed wh-phrases have to

undergo LF raising to Spec-CP to be properly interpreted. Focus intervention effects arise

when such movement is blocked by the focus elements. Their analysis would predict that

(13a-b) and (15a-b) are uninterpretable LF representations, hence the corresponding surface

representations (12a-b) and (14a-b) should be ruled out, contrary to the fact.

According to Beck (2006), in the LF representations (13a-b) and (15a-b), the

reconstructed wh-phrases cannot surpass the focus operator ~ introduced by the focus

elements and associate with the Q-OP within CP. If the Q-Op were not associated with the

wh-phrases, these LF representations could not be interpreted at the semantic component. As

a result, focus intervention effects should arise and rule out the corresponding surface

representations in (12a-b) and (14a-b), contrary to the fact.

It becomes clear that the assumption that focus intervention effects are related to LF or

semantic interpretation leads to wrong predictions. Hence, an inevitable conclusion is that

focus intervention effects should neither be an LF phenomenon nor a semantic phenomenon,

at least in the case of Mandarin.

However, according to Chomsky (1995) and Hornstein (1995), only non-quantificational

elements undergo reconstruction while quantifiers like wh-words do not. Hence, a wh-

question like (16a) has the LF representation (16b).

– 172 –


(16) a. Which picture of himself1/*2 did Mozart1 prefer?

b. [which x] Mozart1 prefer [x picture of himself1/*2]

In the LF representation (16b), the wh-word as a quantifier stays at the clause initial position

while the remaining part of the wh-phrase is reconstructed. This enables the reflexive pronoun

to be bound by the subject Mozart. On this view, the LF representations of the Mandarin

examples in (13a-b) and (15a-b) would look like (17a-b) and (18a-b), respectively.

(17) a. [na x] shi Libai1 qinzi qu mai [ x ben guanyu taziji1/*2 de shu] ne

which SHI Libai in.person go buy Cl about himself DE book Q

b. [na x] Libai1 zhiyou gei Wangwei cai hui zuo [x dao taziji1/*2

which Libai only for Wangwei just will make Cl himself

de nashoucai] ne

DE speciality Q

(18) a. [na x] shi ta*1/2 qinzi qu mai [x ben guanyu Libai1 de shu] ne

which SHI he in.person go buy Cl about Libai DE book Q

b. [na x] ta*1/2 zhiyou gei Wangwei cai hui zuo [x dao Libai1 de

which he only for Wangwei just will make Cl Libai DE

nashoucai] ne

speciality Q

The LF representations in (17a-b) and (18a-b) do not exhibit focus intervention effects. It

would be able to account for the absence of focus intervention effects in (12)-(14) and rescue

the proposals put forward by Beck(1996), Beck & Kim (1997) and Beck (2006). One

important point to note is that such analysis is only feasible if the fronted wh-word is a

quantificational element. However, according to Tsai (1994), Mandarin wh-words differ from

their English counterparts in that the former are not quantificational in nature. This implies

that the LF representations (17a-b) and (18a-b) are not applicable to Mandarin.

4. Syntactic analysis

So far, I have provided evidence from reconstruction to argue that focus intervention

effects are not related to LF representations or semantic interpretations. In this section, I will

propose a syntactic analysis for focus intervention effects in Mandarin along the lines of

Agree (see Chomsky 2001, 2002).

– 173 –


I propose that focus intervention effects in Mandarin are the result that the Agree relation

between C[Q] and an in-situ wh-word is blocked. Following Rooth’s (1985, 1992) focus

semantic interpretation, I assume that a focus particle bears an uninterpretable focus feature

(Foc-feature, henceforth), while its associated focus bears an interpretable Foc-feature. The

uninterpretable Foc-feature forces the focus particle to scan their c-command domain for the

interpretable Foc-feature of the focused constituent to agree with. Consider the process in (19).

(19) [ … focus particle{[-Foc]} XP{[+Foc]} …]

Agree is operated between the focus particle and the focused XP. The uninterpretable Foc-

feature of the focus particle is valued by the interpretable Foc-feature of the XP. The

uninterpretable Foc-feature is deleted after the valuation. As a result, the derivation is

interpretable at the interfaces.

In addition, based on Hamblin’s (1973) and Beck’s (2006) arguments that the

interpretation of a wh-question also involves the focus semantic interpretation, it is natural to

assume that a wh-word bears an interpretable Foc-feature, while C[Q] bears an uninterpretable

Foc-feature. Moreover, according to Chomsky’s (1995) wh-feature system, the wh-feature of

C[Q] is uninterpretable, but that of a wh-word is interpretable (see also Bošković 2006). C[Q]

must enter into an Agree relation with a wh-word. Only when Agree is operated between C[Q]

and the wh-word, the uninterpretable features of C[Q] can be valued and deleted, as in (20).

(20) [ C[Q]{[-wh], [-Foc]} … wh-word{[+wh], [+Foc]}]

Section 2 has pointed out that focus intervention effects in Mandarin arise when a focus

particle and its associated focused constituent both precede a wh-word, as shown in the

configuration (7), repeated in (21).

(21) *[CP C[Q] … focus particle XP … wh-word]

In this configuration, the Agree relation between C[Q] and the wh-word is blocked. Consider

the derivation in (22).

– 174 –


(22) a. Step 1: the focus particle probes and finds the focus XP as its closest goal

*[CP C[Q]{[-wh],[-Foc]} … focus particle{[-Foc]} XP{[+Foc]} … wh-word{[+wh],[+F]}]

b. Step 2: C[Q] probes and finds the XP rather than the wh-word as its closest goal

*[CP C[Q]{[-wh],[-Foc]} … focus particle{[-Foc]} XP{[+Foc]} … wh-word{[+wh],[+F]}]

In Step 1, the focus particle with the uninterpretable Foc-feature probes its c-command

domain, and the closest goal for it is the focused XP with the interpretable Foc-feature. After

Agree is operated between them, the uninterpretable Foc-feature is valued and deleted. Then,

in Step 2, C[Q] probes its c-command domain. Apparently, the XP is closer to C[Q] than the

wh-word is. According to Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001), interpretable features do not undergo

deletion and can be used more than once (see also Pesetsky & Torrego 2004). In addition,

according to the locality condition of Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001), the unintepretable Foc-

feature of C[Q] forces C[Q] to enter into an Agree relation with the interpretable Foc-feature of

the XP. Once C[Q] enters into an Agree relation with the XP, it will not scan its c-command

domain further for another goal. As a result, the uninterpretable Foc-feature of C[Q] is valued

and deleted after agreeing with the interpretable Foc-feature of the focused XP, but the

uninterpetable wh-feature cannot be valued and deleted through the Agree operation because

the focused XP lacks a corresponding interpretable wh-feature. Consequently, the derivation

crashes at the interfaces. All in all, the locality condition prevents the establishment of an

Agree relation between C[Q] and the wh-word.

In contrast, as discussed in Section 2, when the wh-word is fronted over the focus particle

and its associated focused constituent, focus intervention effects disappear, as shown in (23).

(23) [CP C[Q] … wh-word1 … focus particle XP … t1 …]

The absence of focus intervention effects in (23) can naturally be accounted for by my

proposal. In this configuration, an Agree relation is successfully established between C[Q] and

the wh-word, since the fronted wh-word is the closest goal for C[Q], as in (24).

(24) [CP C[Q]{[-wh], [-Foc]} … wh-word1{[+wh],[+Foc]} … focus particle{[-Foc]} XP{[+Foc]} … t1 …]

– 175 –


Since the Agree relation between C[Q] and the wh-word in (24) is established at Narrow

Syntax, it is not affected by reconstruction of the wh-word at LF. Hence, even if the focus

particle and the focused XP precede the reconstructed wh-word, focus intervention effects do

not arise.

In sum, my analysis shows that focus intervention effects in Mandarin are due to the lack

of an Agree relation between C[Q] and the wh-word. Since Agree is an operation at Narrow

Syntax, focus intervention effects are related to Narrow Syntax rather than to LF or semantic

interpretation.

5. Conclusion

This paper mainly argues against the view that focus intervention effects are related to LF

or semantic interpretation (Beck 1996, Beck & Kim 1997, Beck 2006). Specifically, this

claim is incompatible with the previous observation that wh-fronting cancels focus

intervention effects (Yang 2008, Li 2011), when reconstruction is taken into consideration.

Instead, I propose that focus intervention effects arise when the Agree relation between C[Q]

and the wh-word is blocked at Narrow Syntax.

References

Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Y.-H. Li (1993) “Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF,” Linguistic

Inquiry 24, 199-238.

Beck, Sigrid (1996) Wh-constructions and Transparent Logical Form, Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Tuebingen.

Beck, Sigrid (2006) “Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation,” Natural

Language Semantics 14, 1-56.

Beck, Sigrid and Shin-Sook Kim (1997) “On Wh- and Operator Scope in Korean,” Journal of

East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384.

Bošković, Željko (2006) “On the Operator Freezing Effect,” Natural Language and Linguistic

Theory 26, 249-287.

Cheung, C.-H. Candice (2008) Wh-Fronting in Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, USC.

Chomsky, Noam (1995) Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Chomsky, Noam (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” Step by step: Essays on

minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and

Juan Uriagereka, 89-156, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

– 176 –


Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase,” Ken Hall: A life in language, ed. by Michael

Kenstowicz, 1-50, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ѐ. Kiss, Katalin (1998) “Identificational Focus versus Information Focus,” Language 74, 245-

273. “

Hamblin, Charles L (1973) “Questions in Montague English,” Foudatiions of Language 10,

41-53.

Hornstein, Norbert (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford and

Cambridge.

Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT.

Krifka, Manfred (2006) “Association with Focus Phrases,” The Architecture of Focus, eds. by

V. Molnar and S. Winkler, 105-136, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin.

Li, Haoze (2011) Focus Intervention Effects in Mandarin. M.Phil. thesis, The Chinese

University of Hong Kong.

Lebeaux, David (2000) Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar, John Benjamins

Publishing Company, Philadelphia and Amsterdam.

Rooth, Mats (1985) Association with Focus, Ph.D. dissertation, UMass.

Rooth, Mats (1992) “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–

116.

Tancredi, Christopher (1990) “Syntactic Association with Focus,” Proceedings from the first

meeting of the Formal Linguistic Society of Mid-America, eds. by Denise Meyer,

Satoshi Tomioka, and Leyla Zidani-Eroglu, 289–303, University of Wisconsin.

Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies. Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT.

Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (2011) “Rethinking Formal Licensing,” presented at GLOW in Asia

Workshop for Young Scholars, Mie University.

Yang, Barry (2008) Intervention Effects and Covert Component of Grammar. Ph.D.

dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.

– 177 –

‘Who did Minsu see?’ ‘Who did only Minsu see?’

Documents

Transcript of ‘Who did Minsu see?’ ‘Who did only Minsu see?’