RESEARCH PROPOSAL
Tao MAI
Title: The System
of
Quantification:
a
Cross-linguistic
Study
1. Introduction
My research investigates the system of quantification in huma
n language. Evidence is to be found mainly in Chinese and
English (Evidence from other dialects in China and from Aust
ralian aboriginal languages is also expected).
The previous studies of quantification have focused on the f
ollowing aspects:
• Syntactically, quantification is regarded as a phenome
non operating at the interface between syntax and semantics,
so plenty of researches deal with the syntax of scope and
the strategies of scope taking (Aoun and Li, 1989; Hornste
in, 1995);
• Semantically, the semantic calculation of quantificatio
n and specific quantifiers are explored (Barwise & Cooper, 1
981; Huang 1995);
• Studies of quantification in Chinese have paid specia
l attention to the problem of DOU-quantification (DOU is an
adverbial universal quantifier in Chinese) (Lee, 1986; Wu,
1999)
2. Goals
This study aims to discover the operation system of quantifi
cation in human language. A thorough investigation should be
made into the quantifiers’ lexical forms, and syntactic an
d semantic properties, with the comparison among the several
languages available. The following questions will be address
ed:
• How are quantifiers expressed in different languages,
that is, how are they lexicalized?
• What syntactic and semantic role do quantifiers play?
• How do different quantifiers interact with each other
in a sentence?
• How do different quantifiers interact with other elem
ents in a sentence?
3. Methodology
This study intends to compare quantifiers cross-linguistically.
The most important steps, therefore, are data collection an
d data analysis.
3.1
Data collection
The first-hand data may come from native speakers, while
the second-hand data may come from other researchers’ resu
lts, corpuses of relevant languages. The following methods ca
n be used:
• Introspection. The data of Chinese can be collected
through introspection since I am a Chinese myself.
• Questionnaire. Questionnaires can be designed in sever
al forms: (i) pictures which can elicit quantification struct
ures; (ii) questions that can induce specific quantifiers or
quantification structures; (iii) statements that can detect
judgment on grammaticality.
• Corpus search. If possible, more data can be collect
ed from corpus. With the help of corpus
，
statistic results can be used to balance the inaccuracy of
the data collected by introspection and questionnaires.
3.2
Data analysis
The data collected
will
be
analyzed
from
two
perspectives
:
(1)
Synchronically, functions and properties of quantifiers in dif
ferent languages will be described and compared;
(2)
Diachronically, if possible, the historical changes of quantif
iers in different languages will also be compared.
The synchronic and diachronic comparison of quantifiers in di
fferent languages can help us to delineate a clear picture
of the quantification system in different languages.
The analysis will be conducted in terms of syntax and seman
tics.
(1) The syntactic properties of various quantifiers will be
described and analyzed within the framework of Chomsky’s Min
imalist Program (19995, 1999). The key point of the syntacti
c derivation of quantification sentences is that the derivati
on should be dynamic, inspired by Chomsky’s Derivation by P
hase (1999).
(2) The semantic properties of various quantifiers will b
e fully described, and formal semantics will be implemented
as the theoretical tool to analyze them.
4.
Components
This study
can
be
composed
of
several
components
as
foll
ows.
4.1 Listing of quantifiers
Based on the collected data, a list of morphological forms
of various quantifiers will be made. The morphological forms
of the quantifiers can be an affix, a word, or perhaps e
ven a phrase. Whatever forms they take, a careful and thoro
ugh description is necessary to show who the members in the
system of quantification are. Besides that, a description o
f the parts of speech that quantifiers belong to will be g
iven so as to provide information for further syntactic and
semantic analysis.
4.2 Description of quantifiers’ syntactic and semantic proper
ties
In order to fully understand the role played by quantifiers,
the syntactic and semantic properties of quantifiers should
be given a thorough description. This thorough description
will also facilitate the subsequent theoretical analysis of q
uantification.
4.3 Classification of quantifiers
With the detailed description of quantifiers’ properties, var
ious quantifiers can be classified into proper types. The tr
aditional dichotomy of universal quantifier and existential qu
antifier is not sufficient to distinguish all of the quantif
iers in natural language. Therefore, it is desired to classi
fy quantifiers according to their syntactic and semantic prop
erties.
4.4 Theoretical analysis
The theoretical analysis is divided into two steps. First, a
formal semantic analysis of sentences containing different q
uantifier types will be presented. Then it is followed by a
syntactic derivation of quantification sentences. The best r
esult may be that the calculation steps of semantic analysis
will match the derivation steps of syntactic analysis.
In order to present the system of quantification, analysis s
hould be conducted to the interaction between quantifiers in
a sentence containing more than one quantifier, and the in
teraction between quantifiers and their semantically related e
lements in the sentence.
One of the key points in theoretical analysis is that w
hether quantifiers can play the role of a functional head w
hich can cause syntactic movement. For example, DOU (all) in
Chinese is an adverbial universal quantifier. Usually adverb
s are analyzed as adjuncts in syntax, and they do cause sy
ntax movement. However, some linguists like Hsieh (1995) and
Wu (1999) treat DOU as a functional head which can cause
syntactic movement. Especially in Wu (1999) the Scope Check
ing Theory (SCT) proposed by Beghelli& Stowell (1997) is app
lied. SCT is a theory which proposes different syntactic pos
itions for different quantifiers to check. In my previous st
udy (Mai, 2003) I treat DOU as an adjunct which does not
cause syntactic movement in the way as a functional head do
es. However, to settle the dispute we need to inspect more
quantifiers from one or more languages.
Another key point is that the calculation of semantics a
nd derivation of syntax should be dynamic. Only by being dy
namic can the syntactic derivation and semantic calculation d
emonstrate the interaction between quantifiers, and the intera
ction between quantifiers and their related elements in the
sentence.
At last, the semantic analysis in this study is of spec
ial importance. First, from the perspective of (generative) s
yntax, this phenomenon operates at the level of LF. It is
semantic force expressed in syntactic form (structure). Second
, Chinese is a language lacking in inflections. It is more
likely that in Chinese the syntactic movement is driven by
semantic force.
5. Significance
A system of quantification will be set up by investigating
Chinese and English (possibly some other languages). The synt
actic analysis is carried out within the framework of Minima
list Program in the spirit of Derivation by Phase (Chomsky
1999). With a complementary role played by semantic research,
this study will be a checker and pusher of this program
in this field. Furthermore, the research result is expected
to provide some hint to the question—how human being’s cog
nitive ability of quantification functions.
References
Aoun, J. and A. Li. 1989.
Inquiry, 20, 141-72.
Constituency
Barwise, J.
1981.
and
R.
Cooper.
and
Generalized
Scope.
Linguistic
quantifiers
and
natural
language.
Linguistics
and
Philosophy
4:
159-219.
Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell. 1997. Distributivity and negatio
n: the syntax of each and every. In Ways of scope taking,
ed. by Anna Szabolcsi, 71-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic P
ublishers.
Chomsky, N. 1995.
he MIT Press.
The
minimalist
program.
Cambridge,
Mass.:
T
Chomsky, N. 1999. Derivation by phase. In
ers in Linguistics No. 18.Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Occasional
MITWPL.
Pap
Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical form: From
bridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.
to
Cam
Hsieh, R. 1995. Dou and universal
In Proceedings of the 6th North
nese Linguistics, Vol 1: 85-99.
GB
Minimalism.
quantification in Chinese.
American Conference on Chi
Huang, S. 1996. Quantification and predication in Mandarin Ch
inese: A Case Study of dou. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania.
Lee, T. H. 1986. Studies
ral dissertation, UCLA.
Mai, T. 2003. A Syntactic
cation in Manarin Chinese.
on
quantification
in
Chinese,
Docto
and Semantic Study of Dou-quantifi
MA Thesis, Hunan University.
Wu, J. 1999. Syntax and semantics of quantification in Chine
se. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland College Park
.
Mr. MAI, TAO
Email:
rainbowtao@163.com / toraintao@yahoo.com.cn
Address:
College of Foreign Languages, South China Agricul
tural University
Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Gua
ngdong
510642
P.R.CHINA
Home phone: 00 86 20 85288486
Cell phone:
00 86 13535471740
OBJECTIVE
To obtain an offer of acceptance
PhD program in Linguistics.
EDUCATION
Sep, 2000—Jun, 2003
Applied Linguistics) at
Honors and Awards
by Hunan University
and
financial
aid
from
a
Master of Arts (Linguistics and
Hunan University
Excellent MA Thesis granted
Excellent Postgrad
2000-2001) granted by
uate Student (for the academic year of
Hunan University
Sep, 1994—Jun, 1997
Diploma (Business English) at
Xiangtan Institute of Machinery and Electricity Technology (
now named as Hunan Institute of Engineering)
Honors and Awards
Excellent Student (for the a
cademic year of 1995-1996)
Excellent Graduate
Student (for the year of 1997)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
July, 2003—Present
Teacher
of
English
• College of
Foreign Languages, South China Agricultural University
•
The cours
es that I have taught include: Advanced English (for the th
ird year undergraduates of English major), Intensive Reading
(for the second year undergraduates of English major), Englis
h Audio, Video and Oral Training (for the second year under
graduates of English major), and English Listening (for the
first year undergraduates of English major).
July, 1997—Aug, 2000
Salesperson & Translator
•
Sales Dep
artment, Xiangtan Chemical & Light Industry Co. Ltd.
LANGUAGE COMPETENCE
IELTS:
7.0
PUBLICATIONS (with English abstract)
(1) Mai, Tao, and Hejian Cao. 2003. A new view on translat
ability from linguistic universalism. Social Science Journal o
f Xiangtan Polytechnic University 1: 61-63.
Title: A New View on Translatability from Linguistic Universa
lism
Abstract: Translatability is the starting point of the study
into translation practice and translation theory. This paper
explores the question of translatability from a point of v
iew of linguistic universalism. It, firstly, introduces the m
ain ideas of generative grammar’s strong linguistic universal
ism, and then deals with the relevant questions, such as th
e relation between transcendentalism and empiricism, and the
relation between language and thought. The conclusion drawn h
ere is that the study of translation theory should take the
transcendental approach, not the empirical approach; and the
universality of human languages, and the universality of hu
man thought provide the necessary base for translation betwee
n languages. By applying the ideas of linguistic universalism
, especially the ideas of newly developed Minimalist Program
(MP), the paper attempts to offer analyses of and reflecti
ons on the question of translatability. What is proved in t
his paper is that translatability is possible, and untraslata
bility is relative, not absolute.
Key words: translatability
；
linguistic universalism； generative grammar；Minimalist Program
(2) Cao, Hejian, and Tao Mai. 2003. Semantic Properties of
Dou-quantifiable NPs. Journal of Chinese Language and Literatu
re 9:35-37.
Title: Semantic Properties of Dou-quantifiable NPs
Abstract: The adverbial quantifier dou (all) in Chinese owns
a set of unique syntactic and semantic properties, and has
been a charming topic for Chinese linguists’ study. This
paper examines previous studies on dou-quantifiable NPs, and
lists the problems unsolved in these studies. The proposal o
ffered in this paper is to study the semantic properties of
dou-quantifiable NPs from a combination of two aspects: qua
ntity and definiteness of reference.
Key words: dou-quantification；noun phrase；semantic properties；
definiteness
(3) Cao, Hejian, and Tao Mai. 2004. The accessibility of UG
in second language acquisition. Contemporary Linguistics 4.
(In print)
Abstract: The accessibility of Universal Grammar (UG) in Seco
nd Language Acquisition (SLA) is a question frequented by ge
nerative researchers of SLA. The present paper offers a comp
rehensive introduction to the researches conducted in this ar
ea. Arguments arising in this area and the focuses of argum
ents are also included, and a tentative study under the fra
me of Minimalist Program (MP) is presented and discussed. It
is pointed out that UG theory is the theory of First Lan
guage Acquisition, therefore it is not perfectly suitable for
the explanation of SLA.
Key Words: Universal Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, Pri
nciple-Parameter Approach，the Faculty of Language
MA THESIS (title & abstract)
Title: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Dou-quantification i
n Mandarin Chinese
The present thesis is a syntactic and semantic study of dou
-quantification in Mandarin Chinese. It aims to: (a) find ou
t the similarities and differences between leftward dou-quanti
fied elements and rightward dou-quantified elements; (b) disco
ver the factor causing the leftward shift of dou-quantified
elements; (c) update the syntactic analysis of dou sentences
within the framework of Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist Program
in its new spirit of Derivation by Phase (hence, DbP) (Ch
omsky, 1999). To fulfill these three aims, the thesis addres
ses itself to four questions.
First, what syntactic and semantic properties do the leftward
dou-quantified elements have? The generally accepted idea is
that dou-quantified elements lie to the left of dou, and
must have plural interpretations (Lü, 1980; Lee, 1986; Cheng,
1995; Li, 2002; among many others). According to DPs’ dif
ferent internal constituents, we classify DPs into three type
s (bare NPs, Q(C)NPs, and D(Q)(C)NPs), and each type receive
s a careful study on its referentiality, and the quantity i
t denotes. After a careful discussion of these three types
of DP, we observe that those dou-quantified DPs have three
semantic properties: (a) Denoting a set of more than one me
mber; (b) Every member in the set is quantified by dou; (c
) Definite in reference, or containing a quasi-universal quan
tifier. All these three properties cannot be omitted in orde
r to guarantee a dou sentence’s grammaticality. It is found
that dou-quantified wh-phrases and dou-quantified AdvPs have
shared properties with dou-quantified DPs.
Secondly, what properties and functions does dou own? Besides
those properties and functions observed in previous literatu
res, we argue that dou functions as a secondary universal q
uantifier and secondary definiteness marker. The reason is th
at the quantifier in a DP has a closer syntactic and seman
tic relationship with the base NP in this DP than the adve
rbial quantifier dou does. When dou quantifies a DP, dou do
es not directly quantify every member in the set denoted by
the base NP within that DP. Instead, the quantifier in th
at DP quantifies the set denoted by the base NP before dou
quantifies it, and provides a subset for dou to quantify.
Dou also functions as a secondary definiteness marker, sinc
e it cannot change a DP’s inherent indefiniteness, but can
convert a DP which is neutral in referentiality into a de
finite one.
Thirdly, how to derive dou sentences? This thesis proposes a
DbP approach to the derivation of dou sentences. Following
Dai’s (2002a) analysis of adjuncts, we argue that the mer
ger position of dou is AdvC which is between subjects and
light verbs. It is proposed that c-command should be taken
as the modification relation between dou and its quantified
element. To derive dou-quantification the dou-quantified elemen
ts must be c-commanded by dou. After an analysis of the de
rivation of dou sentences, we argue that dou can only quant
ify an element that is externally merged into the CP that
dou itself is merged in.
Fourthly, what syntactic and semantic properties do the right
ward dou-quantified elements have? The rightward dou-quantified
elements all lie to the right of dou. They are: (a) Pron
ouns; (b) Interrogative wh-phrases; (c) Indefinite DPs. We ob
serve that the rightward dou-quantified elements have the fol
lowing properties: (a) Denoting a set consisting of more tha
n one member; (b) Every member in the set is quantified by
dou; (c) Inherently indefinite in reference; (d) Containing
no quasi-universal quantifier.
As argued in Chomsky (1995), Hatakeyama (1998), Dai (2002a),
among others, some strong semantic features can cause topic
alization. Since dou plays a role of a secondary universal
quantifier and secondary definiteness marker, we argue that w
hen an element is quantified by dou, it gets an emphasis o
n the quantity it denotes, or gets a stronger definite inte
rpretation. And it is this strong semantic feature that caus
es the process of topicalization. As to those rightward douquantified elements, since they do not contain quasi-universal
quantifiers, and are inherently indefinite, dou, as a secon
dary universal quantifier and definiteness marker, cannot lay
a stress on the quantity they denote, and cannot change t
heir indefiniteness either. Therefore, they lose the motivatio
n for topicalization, which results in rightward dou-quantific
ation.
The theoretical significance of this thesis is that this
study offers a dynamic derivational analysis of dou-quantifi
cation in Mandarin Chinese in the framework of DbP, which i
s different from previous static representative analyses of d
ou-quantification. The Phonetic Form of a dou sentence is th
e result of dynamic derivation.
(The full thesis is available on request.)