Q/Clf in Thai

[Avery Andrews]

'Glue logic' could also keep too many floated quantifiers from being
produced, although you'd have to get into details of a formal semantics
analysis of plurality to spell it out; if your thesis is due soon it might
be best not to try to learn about glue logic right now!

 - Avery Andrews

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joan Bresnan wrote:

> 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
>