Antonyuk dissertation distribution draft

Quantifier Scope and Scope Freezing in Russian A Dissertation Presented by Svitlana Antonyuk to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University August 2015 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Svitlana Antonyuk We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation. Larson Professor, Dept. of Linguistics John F. Bailyn Professor, Dept.

of Linguistics Jiwon Yun, Chairperson of Defense Assistant Professor, Dept. of Linguistics Kyle Johnson Professor, Dept. of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Amherst Danny Fox Anshen-Chomsky Professor in Language & Thought, Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy MIT Lucas Champollion Assistant Professor, Dept.

of Linguistics New York University This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Charles Taber Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Quantifier Scope and Scope Freezing in Russian by Svitlana Antonyuk Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Stony Brook University 2015 This dissertation supports a view of Russian as a QR language of the English variety, together with the general nuanced picture of Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2012), wherein there is no “QR parameter” sorting languages as scope frozen vs. scope fluid; rather, scope freezing is a property of constructions. Russian, I argue, shows the same contexts of scope fluidity as those in English, but also exhibits a previously unnoticed wide range of contexts where scope is indeed frozen. I propose a theory of scope freezing that relies on a key empirical generalization drawn from the data: SF Generalization: Scope freezing results when one QP raises over another to a c-commanding position as a result of a single instance of movement.

The one thing unifying all scopally frozen cases in Russian, I argue, is the presence of overt raising of a structurally lower QP across a higher one. Scope freezing itself I analyze in terms of a Relation ℜ, established directly between the two QPs as the result of this overt raising operation. Thus unlike previous theories of scope freezing, my account proposes that in scope freezing cases there exists a special relation between the two QPs themselves, similar to that existing between the two QPs in an inversely linked structure, or a binding relation. I propose a possible formalization in the spirit of Stanley and Szabó (2000) and Stanley (2002) whereby nominal restriction of the lower QP is associated with a domain variable bound by the higher QP.

This binding relation established due to overt crossing of QPs is what precludes the now structurally lower QP1 to raise past QP2, thus accounting for the relative nature of scope in scope freezing contexts. The SF Generalization, which is shown to be very robust, has important consequences for the Russian VP-internal argument structure debate: it suggests that Russian ditransitives are not a homogeneous group, with one argument always projected higher than the other; instead, they are subdivided into distinct classes. The detailed picture of Russian scope and scope freezing discussed in the thesis has important implications for cross-linguistic investigation of quantifier scope. It suggests that other languages may also have been misclassified into the “scopally-frozen” class.

iii To my son, Mishka Yudin. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.1 Grammatical Constraints on QR within a Language 1.2 Grammatical Constraints on QR Across Languages 1.1 Scope Rigidity/Isomorphism 1.2 Against the QR Parameter: Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2012) 1.4 Cross-Linguistic Implications of Russian Data 1. QUANTIFIER SCOPE IN RUSSIAN 2. Introduction: Scope Rigidity vs.

Russian as a Surface-Scope Frozen Language 2. Expanding the Data 2.1 Is Russian Really Scope Rigid? 2.4 Antecedent Contained Deletion 2. Evidence from Disambiguation 2.1 The Possessive DP Island Constraint 2.2 The Coordinate Structure Constraint 2.3 Complex NP Constraint 2.5 Quantifier Scope Across Slavic 2.1Further Evidence for QR in Eastern Slavic: Ukrainian 2.2 QR in Western Slavic: Polish 2.3 QR in South Slavic (Eastern Group): Bulgarian 2.1 Overview of Chapter 3 3.2 Scope Freezing in English 3.1 Scope Freezing in the English Dative Alternation v 3.2 Scope Freezing in the English Spray-Load Alternation 3.3 The Relative Nature of Scope Freezing 3.3 Scope Freezing in Russian Argument Alternations 3.1 Scope Freezing in the Russian Dative Alternation 3.2 Scope Freezing in the Russian Spray-Load Alternation 3.3 Scope Freezing with the Russian Spray-Load Type Verbs 3.4 Scope Freezing in the Other Russian Diransitive Constructions 3.5 Scope Freezing in Russian Reflexive Monotransitives 3.4 Scope Freezing in Russian Scrambling Constructions 3.1 Scope Freezing with Long-Distance Scrambling 3.2 Scope Freezing with Local Scrambling 3.5 The Scope Freezing Generalization 3.1 The Apparent Generalization from Scrambling 3.2 Extending the Generalization: Ditransitives 3.3 Refining the Generalization: Scope in Russian OVS Sentences 3.6 On the Nature of Scope Freezing 3.1 Fox’s Scope Economy Principle 3.2 Scope Freezing as Scope Economy (Antonyuk-Yudina 2009) 3.3 Russian Scope Freezing: A New Proposal 3.1 Relative Scope and Variable Binding 3.2 Scope Freezing as Domain Binding 3.3 Evidence for the Analysis: Intervention Effects 3.4 A Potential Parallel: Rigidity in Multiple Subject Constructions 3. RUSSIAN DITRANSITIVE VP: SCOPE FREEZING AND ARGUMENT STRUCTURE 4.0 Overview of the Chapter 4.1 A Brief Review of Russian Ditransitive Structure 4.2 The Basic Empirical Generalization: 3 Classes of Russian Ditransitives 4.1 Group 1: “ES Pattern” 4.2 Group 2: “Reverse ES Pattern” 4.3 Group 3: “Free Pattern” 4.3 The Proposed Structures of the Three Groups of Russian Ditransitives 4.1 Possible Structures for Group 1 Predicates 4.2 Possible Structures for Group 2 Predicates 4.1 Distributive-po test 4.2 Genitive of Negation Test 4.3 Possible Structures for Group 3 Predicates 4.2 Derived Orders for Group 3 Predicates 4.4 Outstanding Questions vi CHAPTER 5.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACCOUNT OF RUSSIAN QP SCOPE AND SCOPE FREEZING 5.1 Consequences of Russian Non-Rigidity for Russian Syntax and Beyond 5.2 Stepanov and Stateva (2009) 5.2 Consequences of the Proposed Account of Scope Freezing for English 5.1 Scope Freezing in English: More on Bruening (2001) 5.2 Bruening (2001) Tested Against Russian Data 5.3 Initial Evidence for the SF Generalization in English and Its Consequences for the Analysis of the English Scope Freezing Constructions 5.3 Significance of the Russian QP Scope and Scope Freezing Data for Other Languages 5.1 Japanese Scope Freezing 5.2 Larson and Harada (2011): Cyclic Linearization Account of Japanese Scope Freezing 5.2 Larson and Harada (2011) Tested Against Russian Data 5.4 Significance of Russian Scope Data for Crosslinguistic Inverstigation of Quantifier Scope 5.1 Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2012): An Overview of the Account 5.2 Testing Bobaljik and Wurmband’s (2012) Account Against Russian Data 5.1 Scope in Russian SVO Sentences 5.2 Scope in Inverse Linking Contexts 5.3 Scope in Russian Ditransitives 5.1 Summary of the Thesis 6.1 Syntactic Work from the Cross-Linguistic Perspective 6.2 Work at the Prosody-Syntax-Semantics Interface APPENDIX I: RUSSIAN DITRANSITIVE CLASSES 7.0 Russian Ditransitives: An Overview 7.1 Scope Freezing in Russian Ditransitives: the Three Classes of Ditransitive Verbs in Russian 7.1 The General Picture 7.2 Group 1: “The ES Pattern” 7.3 Group 2: “The Reverse ES Pattern Pattern” Group 7.4 Group 3: “The Free Pattern” Group 7.2 Scope Freezing and Contrastive Focus vii 7.3 Is There Movement in Frozen Scope Contexts? Evidence from ACD in Russian Ditransitives 7.1 Bruening (2001): ACD in Frozen Scope Contexts in English 7.4 Is There Movement in Frozen Scope Contexts? Additional Evidence from Intensional Predicates and ACD in Russian Ditransitives 4.6 Other Syntactic and Lexico-Semantic Properties of Russian Ditransitives 7.1 Unaccusative formation test 7.2 Distributive po-phrases 7.3 Genitive of Negation 7.4 Semantics of the Three Verb Groups 7.7 Summarizing the Results: Refining the Analysis 7.8 Another Context of Scope Freezing: 7.1 Reflexive Monotransitive Verbs 7.2 Bona fide Spray-Load Verbs in Russian viii Acknowledgements When I was having my interview to get a US visa after being accepted to the PhD program at Stony Brook, the interviewing officer looked at my papers and said, “So they are giving you 12 years to do the PhD? Why do you need so many?” I laughed and said something like, “I have no idea, but I intend to finish it in four”. Of course, I should have known right then and there that that was not going to happen – life does have a pretty wicked sense of humor. It took me exactly 11 years to finish my PhD and another half a year to let go and finally release the thesis. If you’ve done one yourself you probably know that if there is one thing this means, it’s this: the number of people I have to thank here, for affecting me during those incredible 11 years, is huge.

So I won’t even attempt to thank everyone, as in my mind I’ve written this acknowledgments section a few times when I thought I was about to be done, each time remembering quite a few people I’d forgotten to mention before. So instead I would like to say this: the last 11 years have been the most incredible, unbelievable and truly transformative years of my life and if I met you during that time, or if I haven’t, but your work is cited in this thesis, I thank you for becoming a part of this journey. I could keep it this short and try to make up for the length of the thesis this way, but a few people do need to be mentioned separately, so here goes. Tania Ionin: thank you for essentially giving me the dissertation topic that I still find as fascinating as on the day your paper introduced me to quantifier scope.

I can only hope my work will some day affect a student of linguistics as much as yours has affected me. John Bailyn: thank you for pointing out Tania’s paper to me in the first place and for your fascinating syntax classes, for micromanaging my handouts from day one and all the way to the defense handout (“less prose, still less prose, line up our examples”, your proverbial “put extra stuff in boxes!”). Thank you also for helping me get rid of a pretty bad case of a public speaking phobia early on (“imagine you are a rock star and this is your moment to enjoy and always, always overprepare!”) and for believing in me throughout the years. Marie Huffman: thank you for being kind and strict (but always fair!) to all of us and to me personally, for being my female linguist role model, a friend and a mother figure all rolled into one, and for making me love acoustic phonetics so much that choosing S over P was really not a trivial decision to make.

Christina Bethin: thank you for being someone I could always come and talk to, from the day I was accepted into the program and way after I moved away from Stony Brook. Thank you for being such a strict reviewer of our student papers and a great public speaker to learn from. Talking to you has always been a great pleasure. ix Daniel Finer: thank you for your wonderful undergraduate syntax classes that I had the privilege of TAing one semester.

They were amazing fun, full of subtle humor and imbued with your charisma; I’ve enjoyed every single one of them and learned so much from you, both as a student of syntax and a new teacher. Jiwon Yun: Thank you for agreeing to join my thesis committee, for going to all the trouble of talking to native Chinese speakers for me, verifying judgments and teaching me about quantification in Chinese as well as for being such a wonderful person to interact with throughout the whole process. Our department is lucky to have you and I only wish you had arrived earlier (or I had left later) so I could have had more opportunities to interact with you in person and learn from you. Richard Larson: my thank you letter to you could make up a separate chapter of this thesis, but I’ll try to keep it short.