Q/Clf in Thai

[Joan Bresnan]

Peter, thanks very much for your query.  I've made a couple of
observations below.  I hope they'll be helpful.  --Joan

> Hello! I'm writing an honors thesis on Quantifier Float in Thai within LFG,
> and have run into an interesting problem and would truly appreciate any
> input you might have.
[...]

> With that in mind, it wouldn't be hard to map the floated quantifier +
> classifier (FQ) in the f-structure. The main problem is that Thai has
> virtually no inflection and is thus extremely endocentric, but I don't think
> it would be possible to annotate both the DP and the later ClfP as having
> Subj f-structures, since that would violate uniqueness.

I think this may be a misconception, if I understand you correctly.
It certainly is possible to annotate discontinuous constituents in
c-structure with the same function (GF); it is functional uniqueness
**in f-structure** that causes them to be merged into a single f-structure.

>
> Right now, I'm leaning towards making the FQ the right branching spec of VP,
> but a distinct problem is that the ClfP, assuming it's a Spec, seems to be
> projected in both the Spec of IP and the Spec of VP, as the following
> sentences show:
>
> (2)  a.  dek      pai    rong rian  maj  daj   thuk khon
>          child    go    school      NEG  can   all  CLF
>          "The children all can't go to school"
>
>        b. dek      pai     rong rian thuk khon  maj daj
>                                      all  CLF   NEG can
>           "The children can't all go to school"
>
> The big problem here is that the DP is already in the Spec of IP, so it
> seems impossible to also have a right branching Spec from the same IP. This
> problem, I'm sure, will be easier to solve than the other once I think
> of/get more data.

If you have multiple specifier positions, you could certainly allow
the ClfP to be optionally generated in any of them.  The problem would
be to explain why it can't be generated in all of them at the same
time, if it is carrying agreement information only, rather than
semantic features (e.g. a PREd).  If it has a PRED, then by the co-head
principle, the various Specifiers will get unified into a single
SPEC f-structure, and functional uniqueness will be violated, ensuring
that there is only one classifier.

>
> So my current options are having the FQ be:
> A) another subject projected somewhere to the right of the VP in the spec of
> IP or VP (unlikely)
> B) a non-argument discourse function, kind of like TOP or FOC, again in the
> Spec of IP or VP (more likely, but it ignores the fact that it should be
> contributing directly to the f-structure of the subject)  or
> C) making the floated quantifier a right-branching adjunct to I' or V.' This
> possibility has the interesting option of making the floated quantifier
> endocentrically unannotated and saying that the classifier is lexocentric
> and mapped back to the NP (this is pretty much an ad hoc solution.)

Optional (A) seems simplest.  Optional (C) would be unlikely, given
the absence of morphology in Thai.

You might think of the crawling classifier as analogous to head
mobility, except that it is annotated as a specifier ( e.g. by (^SPEC)=|)
rather than a head (^=|).  It can be inserted in any or all of the
categorially available c-structure Spec positions, but the principles
of the theory, functional uniqueness and the unique instantiation of
PREds,  will limit the c-structure overgeneration, so that the
classifier appears in just one of the available positions.  If it is
obligatory, more must be said....

HTH, TTFN--

Joan



>
> If you've made it this far, I'd just like to thank you again for taking some
> interest in my problem, and also thank you ahead of time for any insights
> any of you might have.
>
> -Peter