Information and syntax: quantifier floating in Brazilian Portuguese

Information and syntax: quantifier floating in Brazilian Portuguese
This paper aims to analyze the interaction between informational and syntactic factors involved
in the quantifier floating phenomenon (QF) in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). In his analysis of QF in
Spanish, Valmala Elguea (2008) proposed that it is discourse-driven. The gist of his work is that a
mismatch between the topic/focus/neutral values of quantifier and associate may lead to a split — i.e.
floating (cf.(1)). Trying to extend that to BP, we see that informational factors are not enough to
determine the great array of floating possibilities and its restrictions. For instance, we have to
accommodate differences of behavior between quantifiers within a given language (cf.(2)) and, of
course, cross-linguistic variation (cf.(3)). In Japanese, for example, not only quantifiers can float, but
also numerals (which is impossible both in BP and in Spanish). But instead of being a topic/focus
phenomenon, numeral floating in that language might be derived through an adverbial-like adjunction
on the verbal domain, as defended by Kobuchi-Philip (2007) (cf.(4)).
I will try to explain QF in BP based on structural asymmetries between the different kinds of
quantifiers and on asymmetries between the high and low left peripheries (cf. Rizzi, 1997, and Belletti,
2004) regarding Case licensing. To derive data such as those in (1)-(3), I propose that the internal
syntactic structure of each quantified expression (i.e. the precise configuration of the QP) will
determine the possibilities of floating, in conjunction with informational factors and other properties of
the grammar, such as Relativized Minimality (RM) and Case licensing.
The contrast in (2b-b’) can be captured if we look at the structural differences between the QP
todos ‘all’ and cada um ‘each one’. I assume with the standard literature that todos selects for a DP as
its complement (cf.(6)), but as for cada um, I propose that its associate DP is adjoined to the QP
(cf.(7)). That being so, movement of the DP in (6) is subject to RM effects, being blocked by the QP,
while the DP in (7) is not, because it is not dominated by the QP. The derivation of (2b) in (8) shows
that the DP is free to move to subject position, and the derivation of (2b’) in (9) shows that the
movement of the DP is barred. This proposal also accounts for why numerals (and quantifiers such as
muitos ‘many’ and poucos ‘few’, which I take to be generated as Numº heads) do not float in BP
(cf.(5) — the NP is dominated by the NumP, the uppermost candidate to Spec,TP).
In order to account for the floatability of todos (cf. (2a’)), whose QP dominates the associate
DP, we have to consider the A’-position involved, namely Spec,FocP in the low left periphery. When
the derivation reaches the step in (10a), the QP is A’-licensed via focalization and is no longer a
candidate to enter into an A-relation with the Tº head. Thus, the DP is the only category available to
move to subject position, in compliance with RM. The A and A’ distinction also captures the crosslinguistic contrast shown in (3): while the preverbal subject position in BP is A, it is A’ in Spanish (see
e.g. Uribe-Etxebarría, 1992). (3a) is grammatical because the movement of the DP is informationallydriven by a topic/focus feature that only the DP has (hence the QP poses no RM intervention)
(cf.(11)); (3b) is ruled out just like (2b’), already derived in (9).
Once it may involve A’-positions, QF is subject to the asymmetries between the high and low
left peripheries. As Avelar (2006) pointed out, the low left periphery in BP cannot license a Caseless
element, while the high one can (cf.(12)). Since NumPs are generated inside the DP and therefore
must satisfy the Case filter, numeral floating is impossible in the low periphery (cf.(2c’)). However, if
the high periphery is involved the separation is possible (I will not commit as to calling it a case of
“floating”) (cf.(13)). Ditransitive constructions can be given as independent evidence for the analysis
proposed here — that QF is related to Case-checking/licensing conditions and to the internal structure
of each quantified expression. (14a) is ungrammatical because it is the QP that checks dative in the
verbal domain, thus the DP is not able to be licensed in the low periphery. In (14b), the DP is an
adjunct of the QP and hence it is able to move to the low periphery and get licensed by an (extra)
dummy preposition (as in (12a)).
To conclude. Regarding Hornstein’s (1999) claim that “[S]emantic structure is a by-product of
grammatical operations driven by formal concerns” and that “Grammars seek morphological rectitude,
not meaning”, this paper tried to show that the same consideration applies to informational properties
as well. Discursive phenomena can be accommodated in the syntax, but they are severely constrained
by its formal requirements, as seen here with informational QF in BP. Of course, this phenomenon
might not be derived by the same mechanism across different languages, since it is not a construction
per se, but the by-product of a combination of formal factors of a given language and of UG.
(1)
[Los estudiantes de física]Top han conseguido [todos]Foc tfoc ttop beca. (SPA) (2008:845)
the students
of phisics have got
all
grant
(2) a. Os alunosi ganharam cada um ti dois livros. (BP)
the students got
each one two books
a’. Os alunosi ganharam todos ti dois livros.
the students got
all
two books
b. Os alunosi ganharam dois livros cada um ti .
b’. *Os alunosi ganharam dois livros todos ti .
c. Poucos/muitos alunos viram a palestra.
few/many
students saw the lecture
c’. *Alunosi viram poucos/muitos ti a palestra (poucos/muitos ti ).
(3) a. Las alumnas
leyeran dos libros todas. (SPA)
the students.fem read two books all.fem
b. *As alunas
leram dois livros todas. (BP)
(4) gakusei-ga [san-nin aruita]. (JAP)
student-NOM 3-CL walked
‘Three students walked.’
(2007:815)
(5) a. Três alunos compraram o livro. (BP)
three students bought the book
b. *Alunosi compraram três ti o livro (três ti ).
(6) [QP todos [DP os alunos] ] (BP)
all
the students
(7) [QP [QP cada um] [DP (d)os alunos] ] (BP)
each one (of-)the students (with dummy de ‘of’)
(8) a. [T’ Tφ+ganhar [FocP [dois livros]k [vP [QP [QP cada um] [DP os alunos] ] tk ] ] ] (BP)
get
two books
each one the students
b. [TP [DP os alunos]i ganharam [FocP [dois livros]k [vP [QP cada um ti ] tk ] ] ]
(9) a. [T’ Tφ+ganhar [FocP [dois livros]k [vP [QP todos [DP os alunos] ] tk ] ] (BP)
get
two books
all
the students
b. *[TP [DP os alunos]i [T’ ganharam [FocP [dois livros]k [vP [QP todos ti ] tk ] ]
(10) a. [T’ Tφ+ganhar [FocP [QP todos [DP os alunos] ]q [vP tq [VP dois livros] ] ] (BP)
b. [TP [DP os alunos]d ganharam [FocP [QP todos td ]q [vP tq [VP dois livros] ] ] ]
(11) [AgrSP [DP las alumnas]i [AgrS’ leyeran [XP [dos libros]k [vP [QP todas ti ] tk ] ] ] ] (SPA)
(12) a. Eu li, [*(d)o Machado de Assis]i, os principais romances ti . (BP)
I read (of-)the Machado de Assis the main
novels
b. [(D)o Machado de Assis]i, eu li os principais romances ti . (2006:94)
(13) Livrosi, os meninos compraram poucos ti . (BP)
books, the boys
bought
few
(14) a. *Eu mostrei pr[os meninos]i dois mapas pra [QP todos ti ] (BP)
I showed
to-the boys
two maps to
all
b. Eu mostrei pr[os meninos]i dois mapas pra [QP [QP cada um] ti ] ]
I showed to-the boys
two maps to
each one
AVELAR, J. O. de (2006). Adjuntos Adnominais Preposicionados no Português Brasileiro. PhD
Thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas. // BELLETTI, A. (2004). Aspects of the Low IP Area. In:
Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.2. New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 16-51. // HORNSTEIN, N. (1999). Minimalism and Quantifier
Raising. In: Epstein, D. (Ed.) Working Minimalism. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.45-76. // KOBUCHIPHILIP, M. (2007). Floating Numerals and Floating Quantifiers. In: Lingua, v.117, pp.814-831. //
RIZZI, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In: Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of
Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht. // URIBE-ETXEBARRÍA, M. (1992). On the structural positions of the
subject in Spanish, their nature, and their consequences for quantification. In: Lakarra, J. and Ortiz de
Urbina, J. (eds.) Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax. San Sebastián: ASJU, pp. 447-493. //
VALMALA ELGUEA, V. (2008). Topic, Focus and Quantifier Float. In: Artiagoitia, X. and Lakarra,
J. (eds.). Gramatika jaietan: papers in honour of professor Patxi Goenaga. Donostia: Supplements of
ASJU, pp. 837-857.