Intervention tracks
scope-rigidity in JapaneseMichael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

Hadas Kotek
New York University

mitcho@nus.edu.sg

hadas.kotek@nyu.edu

Linguistic Society of America
January 2018

Wh-in-situ and intervention effects(1)

Hanako-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
Hanako-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did Hanako read?’☞ Wh-in-situ is sensitive to intervention effects.
(2)a.

* Dare-mo nani-o yoma-nak-atta-no?
who-MO what-ACC read-NEG-PAST-Qb.

✓

Nani-odare-moyoma-nak-atta-no?

what-ACC who-MO
read-NEG-PAST-Q‘What did no one read?’(Tomioka, 2007, 1571–1572)
2

Wh-in-situ and intervention effects

Intervention effects affect regions of Rooth-Hamblin alternative
computation but not (overt or covert) movement (Beck, 2006; Beck andKim, 2006; Kotek, 2014, 2016; Kotek and Erlewine, 2016)(3)

Beck (2006) intervention schema:a.

✓b.

* [CP Cc.

✓

[CP C...
...

wh ]intervener ... wh ][CP C ... wh intervener ... t ]3

What’s an intervener?

☞ Two related questions:• What counts as an intervener?
(4)

Subete ‘all’ is not an intervener (cf 2a):✓[Subete-no gakusei]-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
all-GENstudent-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did every student read?’• What causes intervention?
• Focus semantics (Beck, 2006; Beck and Kim, 2006)• Quantification (Beck, 1996; Mayr, 2014)• Anti-topic items (Grohmann, 2006)• Prosodic mismatch (Tomioka, 2007)4

Today☞ We consider intervener-hood and scope properties of different
quantifiers in Japanese and establish the generalization in (5):(5)

Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention.
DP quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect tonegation — i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.

5

Proposal
Intervention is not caused by only certain quantifiers, but rather by any
DP in a derived position at LF:(6)

The new intervention schema (Kotek, 2017)* LF: C ... λ ... wh(7)Heim and Kratzer (1998): a λ -binder
is introduced below the landing siteof movement, abstracting over thetrace.

Predicate Abstraction:

everyone iλiJohnsawti

PA in regions of alternative computation is not well-defined (Rooth,1985; Poesio, 1996; Novel and Romero, 2009; Shan, 2004).
Movement can’t target a region where alternatives are computed.
6§2 Intervention tracks
scope-rigidity

7

Shibata’s correlation

Quantifiers in Japanese vary in their ability to take scope under negation:
only Q > Neg, or Q > Neg / Neg > Q.
☞ Shibata (2015a) notes that the scope of different disjunctors
correlates with their status as interveners.

8

Shibata’s correlation
Two disjunctors in Japanese, ka and naishi:(8)

ka-disjunction is scope-rigid; naishi is not:a. [Taro ka Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro or Jiro-NOM come-NEG-PAST‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’(Shibata, 2015a:23)✓or > not, *not > orb. [Taro naishi Jiro]-ga ko-nak-atta.
Taro orJiro-NOM come-NEG-PAST‘Taro or Jiro didn’t come.’(9)(Shibata, 2015a:96)✓or > not, ✓not > orka-disjunction is an intervener; naishi is not:a. ??? [Taro ka Jiro]-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
(Hoji, 1985:264)
Taro or Jiro-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q✓b.
[Taro naishi Jiro]-ga nani-o yon-da-no?
Taro orJiro-NOM what-ACC read-PAST-Q‘What did [Taro or Jiro] read?’(Shibata, 2015a:98)9Intervention tracks scope-rigidity☞ We show that Shibata’s correlation extends to other quantificational
DPs as well, supporting (5), repeated here:(5) Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention.
DP quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect tonegation — i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.

10

Universals(10) wh-mo universal quantifier is scope-rigid; subete is not:a. Da’re-o-mo tsukamae-nak-atta.
who-ACC-MO catch-NEG-PAST‘pro did not catch anyone.’✓every > not, *not > everyb. [Subete-no mondai]-o toka-nak-atta.
all-GEN
problem-ACC solve-NEG-PAST(Mogi, 2000:59)‘pro did not solve every problem.’ ✓every > not, ✓not > every

11Universals(11) wh-mo is an intervener; subete is not:a.

??

b.

✓

Da’re-mo-ga nani-o kai-mashi-ta-ka?
who-MO-NOM what-ACC buy-POLITE-PAST-Q
Intended: ‘What did everyone buy?’(Hoji, 1985:270)[Subete-no gakusei]-ga dono-mondai-o
toi-ta-no?
all-GENstudent-NOM which-problem-ACC solve-PAST-Q‘Which problem(s) did every student solve?’

12

Two positions for -dake ‘only’(20) -P-dake is scope-rigid; -dake-P is not:a. Taro-wa Hanako-to-dake hanashi-tei-nai.
Taro-TOP Hanako-with-only talk-PERF-NEG
lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked only with H.’ ✓only > not, *not > only
b. Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to hanashi-tei-nai.
Taro-TOP Hanako-only-with talk-PERF-NEG
lit. ‘Taro hasn’t talked with only H.’ ✓only > not, ✓not > only13

Two positions for -dake ‘only’(21) -P-dake is an intervener; -dake-P is not:a. ??? Taro-wa Hanako-to-dake nani-o tabe-ta-no?
Taro-TOP Hanako-with-only what-ACC eat-PAST-Qb.

✓

Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to nani-o tabe-ta-no?
Taro-TOP Hanako-only-with what-ACC eat-PAST-Q
literally ‘Taro ate what (only) with (only) Hanako?’14

Summary

scope-rigid?
intervener?

disjunction
kanaishi⃝ (8a)× (8b)⃝ (9a)× (9b)

scope-rigid?
intervener?

NPI only-shika⃝*⃝ (15)

universal
wh-mosubete⃝ (10a)× (10b)⃝ (11a)× (11b)indefinite
wh-ka⃝ (16)⃝ (17)

modifiednumerals
× (18)× (19)

also-mo⃝ (12)⃝ (13)

even-sae⃝ (12)⃝ (14)

NPI
wh-mo⃝*⃝ (2b)

only-P-dake-dake-P⃝ (20a) × (20b)⃝ (21a) × (21b)* See Kataoka (2006) and Shimoyama (2011) on the rigid wide scopeof so-called NPIs.

15

§3 Analysis

16

Analysis
1

All arguments evacuate vP in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b), moving
out of NegP (if present). We adopt the vP-internal subject hypothesis
for Japanese (see e.g. Fukui, 1986; Kitagawa, 1986; Kuroda, 1988).

2Some (but not all) quantifiers can reconstruct into base positions.

3Intervention reflects the uninterpretability of (6) at LF:(6) Kotek (2017) intervention schema* LF: C ... λ ... wh
The logical problem caused by (6) has been discussed by Rooth(1985); Poesio (1996); Novel and Romero (2009); Shan (2004).
Kotek (2017) proposes that this is the source of intervention effects.
A quantifier moved above wh could lead to (6), but quantifiers thatcan reconstruct into vP can avoid (6) at LF.
17

Analysis(22) Scope-rigidity in Japanese (Shibata, 2015a,b):
a. All arguments move out of vP:[CP ... DP ... [vP ... t ... V ] ]b. Interpretation in surface position ⇒ wide scope over Neg:
LF: [CP ... DP λx ... [NegP [vP ... x ... V ] Neg ] ] DP > Neg
c. Some (not all) quants. reconstruct into vP ⇒ narrow scope:
LF: [CP...
[NegP [vP ... DP ... V ] Neg ] ] Neg > DP18

Analysis(23) Deriving the generalization (5):a.

b.

Potential intervener (DP) above wh:[CP C ... DP ... wh ... [vP ... t ... V ] ]LF interpretation in surface position lead to intervention!
* LF: [CP C ... DP λx ... wh ... [vP ... x ... V ] ]

c.
✓d.
✓

Reconstruction avoids the intervention configuration:
LF: [CP C...
wh ... [vP ... DP ... V ] ]Scrambling wh above also avoids intervention:
LF: [CP C ... wh λy ... DP λx ... y ... [vP ... x ... V ] ]19Predictions

This analysis makes a number of predictions:• A “non-intervening” quantifier is interpreted as reconstructed in vP(or otherwise moved out of the way).
• Quantifiers that are base-generated high and can be interpreted intheir base positions are not interveners.

20Non-intervention through reconstruction☞ A “non-intervening” quantifier is interpreted as reconstructed in vP.
(24) Taro-wa Hanako-dake-to nani-o tabe-nai-no?
Taro-TOP Hanako-only-with what-ACC eat-NEG-Q
literally ‘Taro doesn’t eat what with only Hanako?’a.

* ‘What does Taro only not eat with HanakoF ?’ only > notAnswer: Squid ink pasta (because he gets embarrassed)b.

?

‘What does Taro not eat with only HanakoF ?’ not > onlyAnswer: Dimsum (because it’s better with more people)

21

Non-intervention through reconstruction
Consider also the collective vs distributive event interpretation of subjects:(25) [Gakusei zen’in]-ga LGB-o ka-tta.
student all-NOM
LGB-ACC buy-PASTa. ‘All the students together bought a copy of LGB.’ collectiveb. ‘All the students each bought a copy of LGB.’

distributive(26) [Gakusei zen’in]-ga dono hon-o ka-tta-no?
student all-NOM
which book-ACC buy-PAST-Qa.

✓b.

* ‘Which book(s) did the students all individually buy?’(and they each bought other books too)
distributive‘Which book(s) did the students all buy together?’collective22

Non-intervention by scoping out☞ A “non-intervening” quantifier could “scope out” of the question.
(26) also has a pair-list reading, made salient by embedding:(27) Sensei-wa [[gakusei zen’in]-ga dono hon-oteacher-TOP student all-NOM

ka-tta-ka] shiri-tai.
which book-ACC buy-PAST-Q know-wanta.

✓b.

* ‘The teacher wants to know [which book(s) the students allbought individually].’
distributivec.

✓‘The teacher wants to know [which book(s) the students allbought together].’collective‘The teacher wants to know [for each studenti , which book(s)theyi bought].’
pair-list

The pair-list reading can be derived by scoping the universal quantifier
out of the question (see e.g. Karttunen and Peters, 1980; Comorovski,1989, 1996).

23Base-generated quantifiers

What we have seen so far is compatible with the interpretation of
wh-in-situ being interrupted by (a) any quantification or (b) λ-binders ofquantifiers in derived positions.
☞ Quantifiers that are base-generated high and can be interpreted intheir base positions are not interveners.

24Base-generated quantifiers(28) Temporal adjuncts base-generated high do not causeintervention:✓

Taro-wa kayoubi-ni-dake nani-o tabe-ru-no?
Taro-TOP Tuesday-on-ONLY what-ACC eat-NONPAST-Q‘What does Taro eat only on Tuesdays?’

Recall that -P-dake was an intervener above (21). -dake in (28) is on atemporal modifier which is base-generated high and can be interpreted
in-situ.

25

Base-generated quantifiers

Hagstrom (1998, p. 54) similarly shows that ka-disjunction of locative
adjuncts do not interene, even for speakers for whom ka-disjunction ofarguments cause intervention.
(29) Locative adjuncts base-generated high do not causeintervention:✓John-ga [ronbun ka kougi]-de dare-o hihan-shi-tano?
John-NOM article or lecture-in who-ACC criticize-do-PAST Q‘Who did John criticize either in an article or a lecture?’26

§4 Conclusion

27

Conclusion

1Intervention effects track the ability of quantifiers to reconstruct:(5) Generalization: Intervention correlates with scope-taking
Scope-rigid DP quantifiers above an in-situ wh cause intervention.
DP quantifiers that allow scope ambiguities with respect tonegation — i.e., which can reconstruct below the wh — do not.

28Conclusion
2

Intervention reflects the LF configuration in (6):(6)

* LF: C ... λ ... wh

Scope-rigid interveners in a derived position above the whnecessarily lead to the LF configuration in (6).
3(6) can be avoided by...
• scrambling the wh above the quantifier;• reconstructing the quantifier below wh; or• scoping the quantifier out of the question…for items that allow reconstruction/quantifying-in.

Together with Shibata’s proposal for DP scope in Japanese, thisderives the generalization in (5).

29Conclusion

4The idea that an LF configuration like (6) causes intervention is an
important aspect of proposals such as Beck (2006).
(6)* LF: C ... intervener ... whHowever, we have seen that the LF configuration (6) leads tointervention with any quantifier in a derived position (Kotek, 2017).
Problematic for all previous accounts of intervention effects, whichassume that interveners are a proper subset of quantifiers.

30

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
For comments and questions on this work, we thank participants of theNYU seminar on wh-constructions—in particular Lucas Champollion,
Chris Collins, Paloma Jeretic, Haoze Li, Anna Szabolsci—and the NUS
syntax/semantics reading group, as well as audiences at LENLS 2017 at
Tsukuba University, the 2017 Amsterdam Colloquium, Stony Brook
University, and at the University of Pennsylvania. For discussion ofjudgments, we thank Daisuke Bekki, Minako Erlewine, Hiroki Nomoto,Yohei Oseki, and Yosuke Sato. Errors are each other’s.

31References I
Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. NaturalLanguage Semantics 4:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation.
Natural Language Semantics 14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternativequestions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 9:165–208.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse and the syntax of multiple constituent
questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics
interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its application.
Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2006. Top issues in questions:
Topics—topicalization—topicalizability. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed.
Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

32References II
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1995. Wh-gimonbun, hitei-taikyoku-hyogen-no shika, toalso no mo [wh-questions, NPI shika, and ‘also’ mo]. In Proceedings of theThird International Nanzan University Symposium on Japanese Language
Education and Japanese Linguistics, 107–128.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures inJapanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington.
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1980. Interrogative quantifiers. In Time,tense, and quantifiers, ed. Christian Rohrer, 181–205. Niemeyer.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. Neg-sensitive elements, neg-c-command, andscrambling in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 221–233.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

33

References III
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kotek, Hadas. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature ofderivations. Glossa 1.
Kotek, Hadas. 2017. Intervention effects arise from scope-taking overalternatives. In Proceedings of NELS 47, ed. Andrew Lamont and Katerina
Tetzloff, volume 2, 153–166. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Kotek, Hadas, and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine. 2016. Covert pied-piping in
English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47:669–693.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax ofEnglish and Japanese. Linguisticæ Investigations 12:1–47.
Mayr, Clemens. 2014. Intervention effects and additivity. Journal of Semantics
31:513–554.
Mogi, Toshinobu. 2000. Toritate-shi-no kaisosei-ni tsuite [on the layeredness offocus particles]. In Proceedings of the Fall 2000 meeting of the Society forJapanese Linguistics, 54–61.

34

References IVNovel, Marc, and Maribel Romero. 2009. Movement, variables, and Hamblin
alternatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14.
Poesio, Massimo. 1996. Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In
Semantic ambiguity and underspecification, ed. Kees van Deemter andStanley Peters, chapter 8, 159–201. Chicago, IL.: CSLI Publications.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shan, Chung-chieh. 2004. Binding alongside Hamblin alternatives calls forvariable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 16.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015a. Exploring syntax from the interfaces. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2015b. Negative structure and object movement inJapanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24:217–269.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Japanese indeterminate negative polarity items andtheir scope. Journal of Semantics 28:413–450.

35

References V

Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP.
English Linguistics 7:129–146.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2007. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese andKorean interrogatives. Journal of Pragmatics 39:1570–1590.
Yanagida, Yuko. 1996. Syntactic QR in wh-in-situ languages. Lingua 99:21–36.

36