日本英文学会第 90 回大会 シンポジアム
Merge と Labeling を巡って

May 19, 2018
東京女子大学

ラベリングにもとづく逆作用域解釈の可否(Labeling and Inverse Scope)
Satoshi Oku (奥 聡) Hokkaido University
satoshio@imc.hokudai.ac.jp

1. Introduction(1)“inverse correlation” (Szabolcsi 1997)a.
languages with free word order: rigid scopeb.
languages with strict possibilities of word order: tolerance for scope ambiguity- English(2)
A girl recommended every boy.
(3)a.
There is x, x a girl such that for every y, y a boy, x recommended y.
b.
For every y, y a boy, there is x, x a girl such that x recommended y.

(∃ > ∀)(∀ > ∃)- Japanese(4)
Onnanoko-ga hitori dono otokonoko-mo suisensita
one every otokonoko-MO recommended
girl-NOM‘A girl recommended every boy’(5)a.
There is x, x a girl such that for every y, y a boy, x recommended y. (∃ > ∀)b.
* For every y, y a boy, there is x, x a girl such that x recommended y. (*∀ > ∃)(6)
Japanese is claimed to be a scope rigid language.
(e.g. Kuroda 1965, Kuno 1973, Hoji 1985. Lasnik & Saito 1992, Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012)- Why is the inverse scope not allowed in Japanese (i.e., (5b)) while it is available in English (i.e. (3b))?
(7)
Scope Transparency (ScoT)
If the order of two elements at LF is A >> B, the order at PF is A >> B.
(Bobalijk and Wurmbrand 2012: 373)
(8)
“ … inverse scope in [4] is blocked by the availability of [9a], which is a more transparent
reflection of the scope. QR is possible in this context in English, precisely because English
lacks scrambling.” See (9b). (Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2012, 373. The underline is the author’s)(9)a.
dono otokonoko-mo onnanoko-ga hitori suisensita (∀>∃)
girl-NOM
one recommended
every boy-MOlit. ‘every boy, a girl recommended’b.
* Every boy, a girl recommended.
1.1 Issuesa.
A “trans-derivational” (global) comparison is involved in Bobaljik &W’urmbrand’s system.
(“no motivation for additional representations … that assumed trans-derivational
comparisons” (Chomsky, Gallego and Ott (CGO) 2017: 7))b.
How to capture Szabolcsi’s observation without resorting to global comparison?
c.
Why is QR possible even though scrambling is not in English?
-----------------------------------------------* Parts of the current work were presented at NINJAL workshops (December 2016, December 2017, Tachikawa), the92nd LSA Annual Meeting (January 2018, Salt Lake City), and the 62nd General Meeting of the English LiterarySociety of Japan, Hokkaido Branch (October 2017, Sapporo). I am grateful to the audiences in these occasions forcomments and feedbacks, especially to Mamoru Saito, Željko Bošković, Koji Hoshi, and Masahiko Takahashi forinvaluable discussion. This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18K00519.

1

ラベリング・逆作用域

1.2 Theoretical Backgrounds(10) a. free merge (Chomsky 2013, 2015)b. “overt” movement: higher copy externalization(cf. Takahashi’s presentation)c. “covert” movement: lower copy externalizationd. (10b) is typically preferred.
“To what extent and under which conditions this preference can be overridden by parametricand other factors remains as an important research question.” (CGO, p.6)
e. “the same labeling is required at CI and for the process of externalization” (Chomsky 2015:6)
Í I will challenge (10e), which in turn solves inverse scope issue. (cf. Hoshi’s presentation)
1.3 Labeling: a quick review(11)
Labeling is necessary for a syntactic object to be interpreted (for PF interpretation =pronunciation, and for LF interpretation) (Chomsky & Halle 1968, Chomsky 2013, 2015)a.
Labeling “must take place at the phase level, as part of the Transfer operation”(Chomsky 2015:6)b.
labeling timing can be different between (12a) and (12b)(Bošković 2016)(i) immediately upon merge in (12a)(ii) when the structure is sent to the interface in (12b)(12)
a.
{H, YP} = H is the labelb.
{XP, YP} = label?1(13)

Merge itself is insensitive to the label of the syntactic objects: an unlabeled set (e.g., { XP?
{DP, vP}}) can be merged with a head (e.g., T):
T
T

XP?

vP

DP
(14)

Since the CI interface and the SM interface are quite different in nature, it is important toexamine whether the assumption in (11a) is really true.

2. A labeling-based account of the scrambling-QR inverse correlation
(15)

a.
V

VP

b.
DP

DP

XP?
TP

DP
(16)

Saito (2016):
anti-labeling property of Japanese suffixal cases

Two strategies are proposed to avoid the {XP, YP} problem in Chomsky (2013). One is that some shared features
between the “head” of XP and the “head” of YP is the label of {XP, YP}. The other is that one of the phrase (say, XP)moves out so that the remaining phrase (say, YP) is now the most salient and thus turns out be the label of the set.

1

2

S. Oku (Hokkaido Univ)(17)

Englisha.
[TP Mary didn’t go [DP anywhere]]b.
* [ XP? [DP anywhere] [TP Mary didn’t go [DP anywhere]]]

c.
d.
(18)

(19)

The upper copy of [DP anywhere] in (17b), for instance, cannot stay up there (i.e., noscrambling allowed) because there is no way to specify the label for XP? in English: XP? in(17b) is uninterpretable at the interfaces.
Japanesea.
[TP Mary-wa [DP doko-ni-mo] ikanakatta]]
M-TOP
anywhere go-neg-PASTb.
[XP [DP doko-ni-mo] [TP Mary-wa [DP doko-ni-mo] ikanakatta]]
c.

d.

(20)

[TP Bill will give [DP the book][PP to John]]* [ XP? [DP the book] [ XP? [PP to John] [TP Bill will give [DP the book][PP to John]]]][TP Bill-ga [PP John-ni] [DP sono hon-o] watasu]
Bill-NOM [PP John-to] [DP the book-ACC] will-give‘Bill will give the book to John’[XP [DP sono hon-o]2 [XP [PP John-ni]1 [TP Bill-ga [PP John-ni]1 [DP sono hon-o]2 watasu]]]lit. ‘The book, to John, Bill will give’
Given Saito’s (2016) proposal in (16), the upper [DP doko-ni-mo] ‘anywhere’ in (19b) can stayup there because the label for XP is uniquely determined as TP. Likewise, the upper copy of[DP sono hon-o]2 ‘the book-ACC’ and the upper copy of [PP John-ni]1 ‘to John’ are externalized.
(Scrambling is allowed in Japanese).

- Why is scope rigid in Japanese (why no inverse scope available)?
(21)a.
(Internal) Merge (the operation itself) is freely available.
b.
Once XP is “moved”, the upper copy is pronounced unless some PF condition
prevents the upper copy externalization.
(22)

Proposal (I) Externalize Highera.
PF parser prefers the higher copy externalization.
b.
If something “phonological” prevents the realization of the upper copy, the lower
copy is pronounced.

(23)

The intuition behind (22a) is that PF parser is a mechanism which maps a syntactic object(a set) onto a linearly aligned object to be dealt with in the SM performance system. The
parser simple-mindedly processes the object top-down: when you find one, externalize(pronounce) it.

(24)

What is (22b)? We will see a possible instantiation of (22b) in Romanian, and argue that
English QRs are another case of (22b) in terms of labeling failure at the PF side.

3

ラベリング・逆作用域- Romanian(25)
Romanian is an SVO language.
(26)
Romanian is a multiple wh-fronting language: all wh-phrases must be fronted.
a.
Cine
ce
precede?
who
what
precedesb.
* Cineprecede ce?
whoprecedes what
‘Who precedes what?’- However,
(27)
a.
Ce
precede ce?
what
precede what
b.
* Ce
ce
precede?
what
what
precedes‘What precedes what?’(28)
PF constraint*consecutive homophonous wh-phrases(Bošković 2002)
(29)

a.

[ce

ce

precede

ce]

(30)

b.
[ce ce precede ce]
IM applies.
PF constraint (28) prevents Externalize Higher from applying. Î Lower copy pronounced 2- Coming back to the Szabolcsi’s inverse correlation: [α scrambling] ÍÎ[ - α QR]
(34)

XP
YP

QP2
every boy

TPQP1
a girl[QP1 a girl] recommended [QP2 every boy]

(35)

Given Externalize Higher and phonological condition (22), once you move, you have to bepronounced upstairs unless something phonological blocks the upstairs realization.

(36)

Given Saito’s anti-labeling hypothesis in (16), in Japanese the labeling of XP and YP in (34)is uniquely determined as TP because of the Case suffix on QP1 and QP2. Consequently,
scrambling is possible AND QR is not.
In English, on the other hand, the labeling of XP and YP in (34) is not determined given
Chomsky’s (2013, 2015) Labeling Algorithm (12b), assuming that there is no relevant sharedfeatures between the Q head and the T head. Hence, no overt realization of the upper QP1
and the upper QP2 is allowed. No scrambling in English.

(38)

2

See Oku (2018) for discussion that Stjepanović (2007) gives another possible instance of (20b).

4

S. Oku (Hokkaido Univ)

(12)

a.
b.

{H, YP} = H is the label{XP, YP} = label?

(39)

We can capture B&W’s intuition by appealing to a fundamental requirement of language
computation, i.e., labeling. No global “trans-derivational” comparison is necessary.

3. Types of Labels at CI- If scrambling is not allowed because of the labeling failure in English, why is QR free from thelabeling problem in English to begin with?
(40)
Why is there no labeling problem for XP and YP in (34) at the LF interface (in English)?
(41)
Proposal (II)At LF, a quantifier phrase is a kind of “head.”(42)a.
[every boy] [a girl] [a girl recommended every boy]
(PF representation)b.
[∀y] [∃x] [ x, x a girl recommended y, y a boy ](LF representation)- PF interface(43) (= (34))

XP
YP

QP2
every boy
QP1a girlTP[QP1 a girl] recommended [QP2 every boy]

(44)

Syntactically (morphophonologically), a girl is a phrase, not a head, and thus YP in (43) isunlabeled at PF. Likewise, every boy is not a head and thus XP in (43) is unlabeled at PF.
XP and YP in (43) cannot be interpreted at PF if we try to make the upper copy externalized(pronounced): thus the lower copy must be pronounced.
Î no scrambling (no “overt” QR) in English- LF interface
(45)

XP
YP

Q2
∀y
Q1
∃x

TP

[QP1 x a girl] recommended [QP2 y a boy](46)

Semantically, [ ∃ x] is a one-place predicate taking TP (“a proposition containing acorresponding variable x, and its restriction”) as its complement, and thus it (“Q1”) is a headsemantically in (45), determining the label YP at LF. Likewise, [∀y] is a one-place predicate
taking YP as its complement, and thus it (“Q2”) is a head semantically in (45), determining
the label XP at LF. There is no labeling problem at the LF interface.
5ラベリング・逆作用域(47)

The upper copy can stay at LF while the lower copy must be pronounced: Î “QR”

4. Implications and Further Thoughts
Implication (I): against LF-movement analysis of dake ‘only’ scope domain extension 3(48)a.
John-wa [VP manga-dake yon]-de zenzen benkyo-si-nakatta
John-TOP comics-only read] at all study-do-not-PAST
lit. ‘John read only comics and did not study at all.’b.
John-wa [VP manga-o yon]-da-dake-de zenzen benkyo-si-nakatta
John-TOP comics-ACC read]-only at all study-do-not-PAST
lit. ‘John only read comics and did not study at all.’(Aoyagi 1998)
VP
VP
NP
NP
comics

dake
V
read

dake

LF movement- According to Aoyagi (1998), dake ‘only’ in (48a) can take the VP scope (as well as the object scope),
having the same meaning as (48b). Specifically, Aoyagi proposes an LF movement analysis of dake.
- This is incompatible what we proposed above.4
if move: pronounced upstairs and upper scope (or downstairs(?))*pronounced downstairs and upper scope (i.e., no LF movement)- Hoshi and Miyoshi (2007), however, convincingly argue that the scope extension of (48a) Aoyagi
argues for is simply illusory.
(49)

idiom-chunk test
mizu-osasi] taa.
John-ga [VP hanasi-ni
John-NOM conversation-DAT water-ACC pour-PAST‘John put a damper on the conversation’mizu-dake(-o) sasi] tab.
* John-ga [VP hanasi-ni
John-NOM conversation-DAT water-only(-ACC) pour-PAST
lit. ‘John put only a damper on the conversation’(Hoshi and Miyoshi 2007: 40)c.
John-ga [VP hanasi-ni
mizu-osasi]-dake sita
John-NOM conversation-DAT water- ACC pour-only do-PAST‘John only put a damper on the conversation’

A part of an idiom alone cannot be focused by dake ‘only’ as in (49b),5 but if LF movement of dake
‘only’ is allowed as Aoyagi argues, (49b) may have the idiomatic reading in the same sense (49c), which
is not the case. (49b) cannot have the VP scope interpretation as in (49c): no LF movement of dake.
I owe Masahiko Takahashi for bringing this type of phenomenon to my attention.
In B&W’s term, the existence of (48b) does not block the upper scope reading of (48a).
5 (49b) is possible only with its literal meaning which does not make any sense.
3
4

6

S. Oku (Hokkaido Univ)

Implication (II): Japanese “LF” wh-movement (Saito 2017)- another case in Japanese which may support the idea that even when the upper copy is not realized
phonologically because of the labeling failure, it still exists upstairs as a phonologically empty element.
(50)
(51)

Japanese wh-phrases must be associated with a particle such as ka ‘Q’, mo ‘also,’ etc.
(Kuroda 1965)a.
* Taroo-wa
Hanako-ga
nani-otabeta toomotteiru
Taro-TOP

Hanako-NOM

what-ACC

ate

COMP think‘Taro thinks what Hanako ate’b.

Taroo-wa

Hanako-ga

nani-otabete-mo odoroka-nai

Taro-TOP

Hanako-NOM

what-ACC

eat-MObe-surprized-NEG‘Taro will not be surprised no matter what Hanako eats’c.

Taroo-wa

Hanako-ga

nani-otabeta-ka

sitteiru

Taro-TOP

Hanako-NOM

what-ACC

ate-Q

know

‘Taro knows what Hanako ate’
(52)
(53)

Unselective binding? (Nishigauchi 1990, a la Heim 1982)
Wh-island effects (Nishigauchi 1990, Watanabe 1992)

(54)

a.

[[Hanako-ga

sono toki [[dare-ga

Hanako-NOM that time who-NOMkuru] to]itta]ka] osiete kudasaicome COMP said Q teach please‘Please tell me who Hanako said then was coming’b.

[[Hanako-ga

sono toki [[dare-ga

Hanako-NOM that time who-NOM
A.
Bkuru] ka] tazuneta] ka] osiete kudasaicome Q

asked

Q

teach please

Please tell me if Hanako asked then who was coming?? Please tell me who Hanako asked then if she/he is coming (Saito 2017: 2)

A long distance association, which is possible between dare ‘who’ and ka ‘Q’ in (54a), is blocked by theintervening ka in the embedded clause as in (54b): a typical wh-island effect.
(55)

Saito’s (2017) proposal: “covert” movement of wh-words
a wh-phrase dono pizza ‘which pizza’ in (56a) covertly moves to CP as in (56b), where it ccommands and probes the relevant quantification feature on the question particle ka. 6

(56)

a.

Taroo-wa[[Hanako-ga

dono pizza-otabeta] ka]

Taro-TOP

Hanako-NOM which pizza-ACC ate

Qsitteiruknow‘Taro knows which pizza Hanako ate’

6

Saito (2017) assumes Bošković’s (2017) mechanism of feature valuation, which I will not recreate here. See Saito(2017) and Bošković (2017) for details.

7ラベリング・逆作用域

αb.

dono pizza(-ACC)

CP

TP

C
ka [Q]

Hanako-NOM dono pizza-ACC ate(57)

Why covert wh-movement is allowed here?

(58)

Given Externalize Higher (22), repeated here as (59), there must be some reason thatprevents the upper copy realization of the wh-phrase in (56a).

(59)

Proposal (I) Externalize Highera.
PF parser prefers the higher copy externalization.
b.
If something “phonological” prevents the realization of the upper copy, the lower
copy is pronounced.

(60)

Saito’s proposal: not problematic for (59), rather an additional support for (59). 7

(61)

a.

Upper copy of dono pizza without ACC in (56b): labeling problem for α.
Î lower copy must be externalized: “LF wh-movement”b.

Upper copy of dono pizza with ACC in (56b): no labeling problem for α.
Î upper copy must be externalized: (62)8(62)

Taroo-wa[dono pizza-oi[Hanako-gatitabeta] ka] sitteiru

5. Summary
(63)

(64)

labeling based account for the scrambling-QR inverse correlation- global “trans-derivational comparison” issue is gone
- labels can be different between SM and CI- priority of upper copy externalization unless something phonological prevents it
There are good reasons for lower copy realization cases (Corver and Nunes 2007)(The impossibility of) labeling at PF can also be one of thema.
any other implications in (or evidence for) the proposal that types of labels
can be different at SM and CI?
b.
What can be possible labels at PF and at LF?

7

I thank Mamoru Saito (personal communication) for suggesting the following idea to be relevant and worth exploring.

8

I assume that because Japanese wh-words do not have specific quantificational force lexically, they are different

from English type wh-words in that they do not implement the Q-feature sharing mechanism for labeling of the whquestion at CP.

8

S. Oku (Hokkaido Univ)

References
Aoyagi, H. 1998. On the Nature of Particles in Japanese and its Theoretical Implication, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Southern California.
Bobaljik, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand. 2012. Word Order and Scope: Transparent Interfaces and the 3/4
Signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43; 371-421.
Bošković, Ž. 2002. On Multiple Wh-Fronting, Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351-383.
Bošković, Ž. 2016. On the Timing of Labeling: Deducing Comp-Trace Effects, the Subject Condition,
the Adjunct Condition, and Tucking in from Labeling, The Linguistic Review 33, 17-66.
Bošković, Ž. 2017. On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: an Even More Minimal Theory,
Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of Projection, Lingua 130, 33-49.
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of Projection: Extensions, In Domenico, E. D., C. Hamann, and S.
Matteini, (eds.) Structues, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, John
Benjamins, 3-16.
Chomsky, N., Á. Gallego, and D. Ott. 2017. Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language:
Insights, Questions, and Challenges. To appear in A.J. Gallego and D. Ott. 2018. Generative
Syntax: Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges. Special issue of Catalan Journal of
Linguistics.
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row.
Corver, N. andJ. Nunes (eds.) 2007. The Copy Theory of Movement, John Benjamins
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts at Amherst.
Hoji, H. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Washington.
Hoshi, Koji and N. Miyoshi. 2007. A Derivational Approach to Dake: A Preliminary Sketch of
Association with Focus. ms. Keio University and Asahikawa Medical College.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. diss. MIT.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. MIT Press.
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Oku, S. 2018. Labeling and Overt/Covert Movements, Nanzan Linguistics 13, 9-28.
Saito, M. 2016. (A) Case for Labeling: Labeling in Languages without f-feature Agreement, The
Linguistic Review 33, 129-175.
Saito, M. 2017. Japanese Wh-Phrases as Operators with Unspecified Quantificational Force,
Language and Linguistics 18, 1-25.
Stjepanović, S. 2007. Free Word Order and Copy Theory of Movement, in Corver, N. andJ. Nunes (eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement, John Benjamins, 219-248.
Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for Scope Taking. In Ways of Scope Taking, ed. by Anna Szabolcsi,
109-154. Kluwer.
Watanabe, A. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure Movement of wh-in-situ, Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1, 255-291.

9