QUANTIFIERS IN UZBEK: ANALYTICAL STUDY

Ushbu maqolada o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlar tahlil qilinib, suzuvchi kvantorlar, son kvantorlari hamda suzuvchi kvantorlar bilan determinant kvantorlar o‘rtasidagi farqlar muhokama qilinadi. Tadqiqotda o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlar odatda ravish pozitsiyasida paydo bo‘ladimi yoki ularning komplementi Spec-IP ga ko‘chganda ajralib qoladimi, degan savol ko‘tariladi. Shuningdek, mazkur ishda o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlarning tuzilishi, tasnifi va taqsimoti o‘rganiladi hamda egalik (genitiv) va ikki kelishikli kvantorlarning hosil bo‘lish jarayoni tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqotning asosiy masalalaridan biri o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlar A-harakat orqali hosil bo‘ladimi yoki A‘-harakat orqali shakllanadimi, degan savoldir. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, kvantor suzishi asosan GEN va DCQ konstruksiyalarida DP bilan bog‘liq holda / yuzaga keladi, holbuki AQ konstruksiyalarida suzish xususiyati kuzatilmaydi. Oddiy kvantorlar esa doimo DP ichidagi adjunct sifatida namoyon bo‘ladi. Yuqoridagi muhokamalar hamda qisman va ikki DPlardan kelib chiqadigan derivatsiyalarga asoslanib, o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlarning tuzilishi ichki xususiyatga ega bo‘lib, A‘-harakat bilan bog‘liq ekanligi aniqlanadi. Kelgusida o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlarning stranding hodisasi asosida yuzaga keladimi yoki adverbial xususiyatga ega ekanligini aniqlash uchun qo‘shimcha tadqiqotlar talab etiladi.

QUANTIFIERS IN UZBEK: ANALYTICAL STUDY Sayidmurod S. Abdurahmonov Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English Language and Literature Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea E-mail: saidmurodorient@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0000-0000-0000 Gwangrak Son Professor of English Language and Literature Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea E-mail: gson@knu.ac.kr https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18522812 Abstract: This paper investigated quantifiers in the Uzbek language, focusing on floating quantifiers, numerals, and the differences between floating quantifiers and determiner quantifiers. It raises the question of whether floating quantifiers in Uzbek appear in the position of adverbs by default or whether they are stranded when their complement moves to Spec-IP. Furthermore, this study examines the structure, classification, and distribution of quantifiers in Uzbek. It also discusses the derivation of genitive and double-case quantifiers. A key question addressed is whether Uzbek quantifiers are derived through A-movement or A'-movement. As a result, it can be observed that quantifier floating appears as a combination of DP within GEN and DCQ structures, whereas AQ does not exhibit floating properties. Ordinary quantifiers are always adjuncts within DP. Based on the discussion above and derivations from partial and double DPs, the structure of floating quantifiers in Uzbek is internal and involves A'-movement. Further research is needed to determine whether Uzbek floating quantifiers are stranded or function adverbially. Keywords: quantifiers; floating quantifiers; determiner quantifiers; A and A’-movements

O‘ZBEK TILIDAGI KVANTORLAR: ANALITIK TADQIQOT Sayidmurod S. Abdurahmonov Ingliz tili va adabiyoti kafedrasi PhD doktoranti Kyungpook milliy universiteti, Tegyu, Janubiy Koreya E-mail: saidmurodorient@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0000-0000-0000 Gwangrak Son Ingliz tili va adabiyoti professori Kyungpook milliy universiteti, Tegyu, Janubiy Koreya E-mail: gson@knu.ac.kr Annotatsiya: Ushbu maqolada o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlar tahlil qilinib, suzuvchi kvantorlar, son kvantorlari hamda suzuvchi kvantorlar bilan determinant kvantorlar o‘rtasidagi farqlar muhokama qilinadi. Tadqiqotda o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlar odatda ravish pozitsiyasida paydo bo‘ladimi yoki ularning komplementi Spec-IP ga ko‘chganda ajralib qoladimi, degan savol ko‘tariladi. Shuningdek, mazkur ishda o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlarning tuzilishi, tasnifi va taqsimoti o‘rganiladi hamda egalik (genitiv) va ikki kelishikli kvantorlarning hosil bo‘lish jarayoni tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqotning asosiy masalalaridan biri o‘zbek tilidagi kvantorlar Aharakat orqali hosil bo‘ladimi yoki A′-harakat orqali shakllanadimi, degan savoldir. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, kvantor suzishi asosan GEN va DCQ konstruksiyalarida DP bilan bog‘liq holda

yuzaga keladi, holbuki AQ konstruksiyalarida suzish xususiyati kuzatilmaydi. Oddiy kvantorlar esa doimo DP ichidagi adjunct sifatida namoyon bo‘ladi. Yuqoridagi muhokamalar hamda qisman va ikki DPlardan kelib chiqadigan derivatsiyalarga asoslanib, o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlarning tuzilishi ichki xususiyatga ega bo‘lib, A′-harakat bilan bog‘liq ekanligi aniqlanadi. Kelgusida o‘zbek tilidagi suzuvchi kvantorlarning stranding hodisasi asosida yuzaga keladimi yoki adverbial xususiyatga ega ekanligini aniqlash uchun qo‘shimcha tadqiqotlar talab etiladi. Kalit so‘zlar: kvantorlar; suzuvchi kvantorlar; determinant kvantorlar; A va A′-harakatlar

КВАНТИФИКАТОРЫ В УЗБЕКСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ: АНАЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ Сайидмурод С. Абдураxмонов Аспирант (PhD), кафедра английского языка и литературы Национальный университет Кёнпук, Тегу, Республика Корея E-mail: saidmurodorient@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0000-0000-0000 Гванграк Сон Профессор кафедры английского языка и литературы Национальный университет Кёнпук, Тэгу, Республика Корея E-mail: gson@knu.ac.kr Аннотация: В статье исследуются квантификаторы в узбекском языке с особым вниманием к плавающим квантификаторам и числительным, а также к различиям между плавающими квантификаторами и детерминативными квантификаторами. Рассматривается вопрос о том, занимают ли плавающие квантификаторы в узбекском языке по умолчанию адвербиальную позицию или же они остаются «осиротевшими» при перемещении их комплемента в позицию Spec-IP. Анализируются структура, классификация и распределение квантификаторов, а также деривация генитивных и двойных падежных квантификаторов. Центральный вопрос — выводятся ли узбекские квантификаторы через A-перемещение или A′-перемещение. Показано, что quantifier float наблюдается в структурах GEN и DCQ как комбинация DP, тогда как AQ не демонстрирует свойств «плавания». Обычные квантификаторы выступают как адъюнкты внутри DP. На основании обсуждения и дериваций из частичных и двойных DP делается вывод, что структура плавающих квантификаторов в узбекском языке является внутренней и связана с A′- перемещением. Для уточнения — являются ли они результатом stranding или функционируют адвербиально — требуются дальнейшие исследования. Ключевые слова: квантификаторы; плавающие квантиф��каторы; детерминативные квантификаторы; A- и A′-перемещения

INTRODUCTION In recent decades, there have been many scientific debates between two main groups against each that supports the adverbial view and stranding view in terms of floating quantifiers in linguistics. One group has assumed that when floating quantifiers float, they occupy an adverbial position in the sentence, and they are adjacent to the verbs like adverbs. Based on this assumption, they claim that floating quantifiers are base generated in the adverbial position. On the other hand, supporters of the stranding approach state that floating quantifiers are nominal inside of Noun

Phrase (NP) and stranded when their complement moved to the Spec-IP position. This thesis investigates quantifiers in Uzbek, their properties (floating quantifiers), numeral quantifiers, and distinctions between floating quantifiers (FQs) and determiner quantifiers (DQ). I challenge the question which considers whether floating quantifiers in Uzbek are base generated in the position of adverbs, or they are stranded when their complement moves to the Spec-IP. Additionally, this thesis concerns the structure and distribution of Uzbek floating quantifiers. Finally important question discussed is whether Uzbek floating quantifiers are created under A or A`- movement. As is known from the previous observations and research, languages may use one strategy (stranding), the other (verb phrases (VP) adverbs), or both, which would explain the wide range of diversity attested. Despite extensive research on floating quantifiers in Indo-European and East Asian languages (e.g., Sportiche 1988; Bobaljik 2003; Miyagawa & Arikawa 2017; Son 2020), Turkic languages remain largely underrepresented in this line of inquiry. In particular, Uzbek, despite its rich case morphology, flexible word order, and typological relevance, has not been systematically analyzed with respect to floating quantifiers. Previous studies on quantifier float have primarily focused on languages such as English, French, Korean, Japanese, and Tatar, leaving open the question of how quantifier float operates in Uzbek. This study addresses this gap by providing the first detailed syntactic analysis of floating, genitive, and double-case quantifiers in Uzbek within a generative framework. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has provided a formal syntactic account of floating quantifiers in Uzbek. By situating Uzbek within the broader theoretical debate on stranding and adverbial analyses, this study contributes novel empirical evidence from a previously understudied Turkic language. This study addresses the following research questions: Do floating quantifiers in Uzbek occupy adverbial positions, or are they stranded as a result of DP movement? What structural and distributional differences distinguish adjectival, genitive, and double-case quantifiers in Uzbek? Are Uzbek floating quantifiers derived through A-movement or A′-movement? The objectives of this study are as follows: a) to classify quantifier constructions in Uzbek into adjectival, genitive, and double-case types; b) to examine the syntactic distribution and floatability of Uzbek quantifiers; c) to determine the derivational mechanism responsible for quantifier float in Uzbek. LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews previous research on quantification and floating quantifiers, focusing on their theoretical foundations, syntactic properties, and cross-linguistic variation. The review is organized thematically, moving from general theories of quantification to specific approaches to floating quantifiers and their treatment in typologically diverse languages. General Theories of Quantification: Research on quantification has a long tradition in formal semantics and syntax, addressing the interpretation, structure, and distribution of quantifiers across languages. Early influential work by Hackl (1995) examined comparative quantifiers such as more than three students, proposing a unified semantic and syntactic analysis of comparative constructions. Szabó’s study on bare quantifiers further contributed to this field by distinguishing how natural and artificial languages encode quantification. A foundational contribution to quantifier theory was made by Barwise and Cooper (1981), who introduced the theory of generalized quantifiers. Their work explored the relationship between quantifier semantics and syntactic structure, demonstrating how generalized quantifiers can be formally integrated into the grammar of natural languages. Chierchia (1993) extended this

line of research by examining the interaction between wh-elements and quantified noun phrases, particularly focusing on scope and list readings in questions. Quantification has also been studied from a developmental perspective. Crain (2017) investigated children’s acquisition of quantifiers, addressing issues such as scope interpretation, quantifier–negation interaction, and the comprehension of focus-sensitive elements like only. Other studies, such as Gil’s work on universal quantifiers and distributivity, analyzed how quantifiers differ in their distributive properties. Roehrs and Sapp (2018) examined complex quantifiers with genitive marking and concord in Old English, highlighting the morphosyntactic properties associated with quantified elements. While these studies establish the theoretical foundations of quantification, they do not directly address the syntactic behavior of floating quantifiers, which has emerged as a distinct area of research. Floating Quantifiers: Core Theoretical Approaches: Floating quantifiers (FQs) have been the subject of extensive debate, particularly concerning their syntactic status and derivation. One of the most influential contributions is Sportiche’s (1988) stranding analysis, which proposes that floating quantifiers originate as part of a nominal phrase and become stranded when the associated DP moves to a higher syntactic position. This approach accounts for agreement patterns and the close syntactic relationship between the quantifier and its associated DP. An alternative perspective is the adverbial analysis, developed by scholars such as Belletti (1982), Dowty and Brodie (1984), and Baltin (1995), which treats floating quantifiers as VPadjuncts base-generated in adverbial positions. According to this view, floating quantifiers occupy positions similar to manner or sentential adverbs. Bobaljik’s (2001, 2003) influential work critically evaluated both approaches, demonstrating that floating quantifiers share quantificational properties with determiner quantifiers rather than adverbs. He emphasized the importance of agreement, scope, and constituency in distinguishing floating quantifiers from true adverbial elements. Further refinements of the stranding approach were proposed by Cirillo (2009), who provided a comprehensive re-examination of floating quantifier syntax. Despite decades of debate, most theoretical discussions of floating quantifiers are based on evidence from Indo-European languages, raising questions about the cross-linguistic validity of these analyses. Floating Numeral Quantifiers: A related but distinct phenomenon concerns floating numeral quantifiers, which are absent in English but widely attested in languages such as Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai. Research by Miyagawa and Arikawa demonstrated that floating numeral quantifiers obey strict locality conditions and maintain a syntactic dependency with their associated noun phrases. Kobuchi-Philip (2016) investigated the licensing conditions of floating quantifiers and proposed a distinction between DP-internal quantifiers and those that undergo syntactic displacement. Chocano and Torrego (2017) provided an extensive overview of floating quantifiers, integrating both stranding and adverbial analyses into a hybrid approach. Studies on numeral quantifier float have shown that these constructions offer crucial insights into the interaction between case marking, word order, and movement. However, research in this area has largely overlooked Turkic languages, where numeral quantifiers interact with rich case morphology.

Floating Quantifiers in Non-Indo-European Languages: Recent research has expanded the investigation of floating quantifiers beyond Indo-European languages. Korean linguists JongBok Kim and Jung-Su Kim (2009) proposed a non-movement approach to English floating quantifier constructions, while Ko and Oh (2012) examined hybrid analyses supported by experimental evidence. Son (2020) introduced a novel proposal in which floating quantifiers initially form a constituent with their associated nominal but are later reanalyzed through the labeling process. Japanese studies, particularly by Miyagawa and Arikawa, emphasized syntactic locality and movement constraints in floating quantifier constructions. Grashchenkov’s work on Tatar provided valuable insights into floating quantifiers in a Turkic language, addressing their structural properties and the role of A- and A′-movement. These studies demonstrate that floating quantifiers interact closely with language-specific syntactic properties, especially case marking and movement. Nevertheless, Uzbek has remained absent from this growing body of crosslinguistic research. Research Gap and Position of the Present Study: The review above shows that while quantifiers and floating quantifiers have been extensively studied from theoretical and crosslinguistic perspectives, Turkic languages—particularly Uzbek—have received little attention. No previous study has provided a systematic syntactic analysis of adjectival, genitive, and doublecase quantifiers in Uzbek or examined their floatability within a generative framework. The present study addresses this gap by offering the first comprehensive account of floating quantifiers in Uzbek, situating the language within ongoing theoretical debates on stranding, adverbial, and hybrid approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study adopts a qualitative, theory-driven approach to the analysis of quantifiers and floating quantifiers in Uzbek. The data are drawn from multiple sources, including descriptive and generative grammars of Uzbek, naturally occurring examples from written and spoken language, and native speaker acceptability judgments. The dataset consists of sentences containing adjectival, numeral, genitive, and double-case quantifiers. Both attested and carefully constructed examples are used, with constructed examples included only when necessary to test specific syntactic configurations related to quantifier placement and floatability. All examples were evaluated through native speaker judgments, with a primary focus on Standard Uzbek based on the Tashkent dialect. The analysis is conducted within a generative syntactic framework. Standard syntactic diagnostics—such as word order variation, agreement patterns, scope interpretation, and movement-related constraints that are employed to examine the structural position of quantifiers. Competing approaches to floating quantifiers, including the stranding, adverbial, and hybrid analyses, are applied to Uzbek data to assess their explanatory adequacy. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Approaches to FQs: This chapter draws on both foundational and recent theoretical work on quantifiers and floating quantifiers, situating the analysis within the linguistic properties of Uzbek. Uzbek is a widely spoken language in Central Asia, with approximately 30 million speakers. It belongs to the Turkic branch of the Altaic language family and historically functioned as a regional lingua franca. Although the language includes numerous regional dialects, the Tashkent dialect forms the basis of the modern standard written language. The diversity of Uzbek dialects reflects long-standing contact with neighboring languages and cultures. In particular, Uzbek exhibits a substantial Persian lexical influence, especially in

written registers, resulting from centuries of interaction with Iranian cultures. From a historical perspective, Uzbek emerged relatively late as a standardized language. Prior to the 1920s, it was not recognized as the official language of a distinct national identity and was often treated as a regional variety of Turkic. Uzbek gained official status as the state language of the Republic of Uzbekistan in 1989. From a typological standpoint, Uzbek displays several features that distinguish it from many other Turkic languages. Notably, it lacks vowel harmony, a phonological process commonly found across the Turkic family. Northern Uzbek has a five-vowel system, and vowel length is contrastive, contributing to lexical distinctions. Long vowels do not occur wordinitially. The consonant inventory consists of approximately 25 phonemes, and primary stress typically falls on the final syllable. Grammatically, Uzbek is an agglutinative language, in which grammatical relations are expressed through the sequential addition of suffixes to lexical stems. Prefixes are absent, and suffixes generally exhibit a one-to-one correspondence between form and function. This agglutinative structure allows for complex word formation through the linear ordering of multiple morphemes. In addition, Uzbek employs postpositions rather than prepositions to encode grammatical relations, a property that has important implications for syntactic structure and quantifier distribution. Uzbek has the same word order with Korean that is Subject – Object – Verb, but other word orders are possible for marking topic and comment in the discourse, Men kitob yozdim. I book wrote. ‘I wrote a book.’ As a language where objects precede the verb, Uzbek has postpositions rather than prepositions, and relative clauses that precede the verb: (2) Biz non haqida gapirdik. We bread about talked ‘We talked about bread.’ Adjectives precede the nouns they modify. Many words can quantify the noun in the sentence in the Uzbek language too. It is obvious that we use these words in the position of determiners, and they are known as quantifying determiners. They express a relative and indefinite indication of quantity. We usually see the quantifiers before the noun, which is quantified, but they can appear as a pronoun as well. Most of the time they cannot show an exact number or number of things, but they can show what group they are in: Quantifiers in Uzbek Quantifiers in English Quantifiers in Quantifiers in Uzbek English Hamma, barcha All Yetarli Enough Oz, ozgina A few, few, very few Hech qaysi No/None Har (bir) Each Katta qismi, Most/More ko’plab Bir oz, bir qancha Some, a lot of, a great Ozroq, kamroq Less deal of, a great number of, several, several Oz miqdorda A little, little Ko’plab Planty of Serob, mo’l, ko’p Loads of, Tonnalab Tons of Birorta, qandaydir Any Ko’p, ancha, bir Many/Much talay Ikkalasi, ikkala Either, both Hech qaysisi, hech Neither biri Faqat Only

Quantifiers are usually classified in terms of the meaning that each has. Some quantifiers have a meaning of inclusiveness. Thus, they refer to an entire group. Ikkalasi, ikkala refers to two members of a group, Oz, ozgina carry to a subgroup of the entire group, and Hamma, barcha to the totality of members of a group of unspecified size. Har (bir) refers to single members of a group. The difference between hamma, barcha, oz, ozgina, and ikkalasi, ikkala, har (bir) is reflected in the subject-verb agreement. Other quantifiers have a meaning of non-inclusiveness and express the size and quantity. These quantifiers can be classified by the relative size they indicate. For instance, Ko’p, ancha, and bir talay refer to large quantities, bir oz, and bir qancha to a moderate quantity, and oz miqdorda and ozgina to small quantities. Conceptual theories on floating quantifiers: The phenomenon of floating quantifiers is described as follows by Thomas E. Payne:“One interesting property of all and both is that when the DP is a subject these predeterminer quantifiers “float” into the IP, either just before the inflected verb or between the first auxiliary (if there is a one) and the verb. This construction is often called quantifier float, does not occur other than all, and both (each), and it does not occur when the DP is modified by the predeterminer is functioning in any role other than subject of the sentence”. As E. Payne mentioned in his paper: “There are two syntactic properties that define a continuum from quantity noun to PDQ. 1. Optionality of the following preposition (of). 2. The ability to "float" from a subject DP into the I position on the verb (all, both, each). D. Bobaljik also stated the nature of floating quantifiers and differences and the relationship between the two sentences, which one has FQ and another has not. He gave these two example sentences: (3) a. All the students have finished the assignment. b. The students have all finished the assignment”. He analyses that both these two sentences involve the same collection of words and the meaning of them are obviously quite similar. Under this observation, some proposals were given that there is a transformational relationship between those two sentences, and thus a syntactic relation between the DP and the FQ, so-called since the earliest proposals took the quantifier to float rightwards, away from the DP. D. Bobaljik has also noted that there are two fundamental properties: The first is that the FQ quantifies over the DP in the (3b) in the same way it does in (3a) that the sentences are logically equal, or “quantificational properties” are “identical” (Sportiche 1988). Second, QF structures exhibit an agreement (case, number, and gender) with the DPs which they are combined with: (4) “a. Elles sont toutes/*tous allées à la plage. They-F is all-F.PL/*all-M.PL gone-F.PL to the beach. ‘They (the women) all went to the beach.’ (French, Doetjes 1997: 205) b. Diesen Studenten habe ich gestern. These-DAT.PL students have I yesterday allen/*alle geschmeichelt. all-DAT.PL/*-ø flattered. ‘I flattered all of these students yesterday.’ (German, Merchant 1996:4)”5 As we can see that agreement is a property of the nominal system and the agreement morphology created by FQs in both French and German is adjectival. Floating quantifiers in English are illustrated in:

(5) a. The students have all finished lunch. b. The children have each eaten candy. c. My sisters have both got married. As illustrated in (3), in the English language, only three quantifiers (all, each, both) can float. However, other languages like Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and Thai have a wide range of quantifiers that have a permission to float, including numeral quantifiers. As quantifiers in other languages, certain quantifiers and numbers in the Uzbek language have the property of floatability and can change their position into different places. However, those that can float should obtain the suffix of genitive case –ning and morpheme complex –si which has two 3rd person possessive markers. Both markers in Uzbek make “of” together. The following examples show the above-mentioned changes: (6) a. Barcha odamlar Toshkentda yashaydi. All people in Tashkent live. ‘All people live in Tashkent’ Odamlar (ning) barchasi Toshkentda yashaydi. b. Ikkala talaba topshiriqlarni o’z vaqida yakunlashdi. Both students assignment PL ACC on-time finish PST. ‘Both the students have finished the assignments on time’. Talabalar (-ning) ikkalasi topshiriqlarni o’z vaqida yakunlashdi. c. O’nta shifokor bemorni tuzatishga harakat qilishdi. Ten doctors PL the patient get well try PST. ‘Ten doctors have tried to get well the patient’. Shifokorlar (ning) o’ntasi bemorni tuzatishga harakat qilishdi. On the other hand, certain quantifiers can float without –ning or –si additional markers, in that case, those quantifiers should change their scope onto the predicate: (7) a. Ikki arxitektor binoni qurishda faol ishtirok etishdi. (Subject scope) Both architects building the project actively have participated. 'Both architects have actively participated in the project of the building'Arxitektor ikki binoni qurishda faol ishtirok etishdi. (Predicate scope) b. Hamma bolalar shirinliklarni yeyishdi. (Subject scope) all the children candies have eaten. ‘All the children have eaten candies’. Bolalar hamma shirinliklarni yeyishdi. (Predicate scope) There are several approaches to the phenomenon of floating quantifiers which have been a topic of discussion for decades among linguistic scholars. In the paper by Z.Baskovich,it says that scholars were divided into several groups, however, the most prominent are Sportiche’s (1988) stranding analysis (see also “De´ prez 1989; Giusti 1990; Shlonsky 1991; Merchant 1996; Benmamoun 1999; Cinque 1999; McCloskey 2000”, among others), on which the elements FQ modifies is generated as a constituent with Q, Q subsequently being stranded under the movement of the element in question (see (2)), and the adverbial analysis (see, e.g., “Kayne 1975; Williams 1982; Dowty and Brodie 1984; Miyagawa 1989; Doetjes 1992; Baltin 1995; Bobaljik 1995; Torrego 1996; Brisson 1998”). The adverbial view was in existence before the proposing of the stranding view and many linguists followed this adverbial analysis for a long time. They assumed that quantifiers occupy

the position of adverbs when they float over DP. The assumption is based upon the observance that Qs' position when they float to is almost the same as the position that certain adverbs occupy, which suggests that FQs are adjunct to VP like adverbs. See the following sentences: (8) “a. The students all entered the classroom. b. The students probably entered the classroom. c. The students slowly entered the classroom. d. The students quietly entered the classroom. e. The students stupidly entered the classroom”.5 Scholars who worked on adverbial analysis claimed, such as Belletti (1982), Dowty, and Brodie (1984), FQs are seen in adverbial positions because they were base generated here, as adjuncts to VP. They also added that FQs seemed to be a sort of anaphoric adverbial that needed to be bound by an antecedent. These following examples illustrate this claim: (9) “a. Tous les enfants ont vu ce film. All the children have seen this film b. Les enfants ont tous vu ce film. The children have all seen this film”.6 The quantifier tous (all) in French is thought to be bound by DP Les enfants (the children). On the other hand, this analysis had its problematic issues when it was introduced. There are at least four but there might be more. The first one is that the vivid relationship between two sentences (9ab) is not accounted for. There is no discernable difference in the meaning between (9a) and (9b) and both quantifiers tous in two sentences take scope over DP Les enfants, not VP ont vu. (9a) and (9b) cannot be derived from a common base-structure, so it seems that a significant generalization is missing. One of the weaknesses of the adverbial approach is the fact that floating quantifiers cannot be adverbs, if they to be so, they must agree in Case and Ф-features with their associated NP or DP. In these examples from French, FQ is a subject to Ф-features agreement: (10) “Les femmes étaient toutes/*tous bien vêtues. the women were all all well dressed (fem.) (fem.) (masc.)” The example below in German exhibits that FQs are also subject to Case agreement: (11) “Den Studenten habe ich allen/*alle ein Buch gegeben. the students have I all all a book has given (dat.) (dat.) (acc.)” Another problem with the adverbial view is that it does not have any evidence to explain why FQs require a c-commanding and local antecedent. Sportiche (1988) have given example this in French: (12) “*Les enfants l’ont persuadé [de tous acheter ce livre]. the children him have persuaded to all buy this book” Finally, weakness of this approach is that if they are adverbs what kind of adverbs and how their positioning is determined. As we know, three types of adverbs are distinguished by Jackendoff (1972) and they are manner adverbs, sentential adverbs, and subject-oriented adverbs, being adjacent to the verbs. Those FQs do not behave like any of them. The abovementioned problematic aspects of Adverbial Analysis were noted by Sportiche in 1988 in his paper and he tried to develop a different approach to floating quantifiers, and it was named the Stranded Approach. He noted that “FQ was a nominal inside of NP that ended up adjacent to a VP because it had been left behind or stranded when its complement moved to [Spec

IP]. Sportiche referred to floating quantifiers as determiner quantifiers, implying that they select nominal phrases as their complement”.6 “The following diagram illustrates Sportiche’s analysis: (13)

(All)” (the children) First, Sportiche, one of the scholars who has worked on the stranding approach, proposed his theory according to the following four properties of FQs: “Salient: FQs appeared to modify DPs in the same way as DP-initial Qs. FQs in some languages display determiner-like agreement with the DP they modify. FQs surface is in the left periphery of (certain) maximal projections especially VP. The relationship between the FQ and the DP it modifies obeys an anaphor-like locality condition”.7 Sportiche`s theory on the QF structure has many attractive features. For example, it motivated freely the VP- Internal Subject Hypothesis because this theory was also developed simultaneously with Sportiche`s Stranding Analysis. Moreover, this view on QF has given solutions to the problems that adverbial view had and mentioned by Sportiche. The relationship between (9a) and (9b) is clear after introducing standing view. The two sentences can easily be derived from the same base structure. The issue of the so-called anaphoric nature of floating quantifiers is also resolved. As we can see from the diagram (14), floating quantifiers should not be treated as anaphora at all. They are simply stranded quantifiers that c-command the trace of the element that has stranded them. This explains why they keep the scope over their complement even after being stranded. Last, but not least, stranding analysis eliminated the view that presented the FQ as a type of adverb. Sportiche treated FQs as determiner-like adjuncts within a nominal phrase. Shlonsky (1991) proposed that a floating quantifier is a functional head that heads a quantifier phrase and selects a DP as its complement. According to this approach, “The complement DP can strand the quantifier in QP when it moves up to a higher position: (14) Prof. Dr. D.C. van den Boom mentioned that he used the term Stranded Analysis in which a quantifier heads a QP, selects a DP as its complement, and can be optionally stranded by that complement in QP when the complement moves to subject position. In this way, examples (1a) and (1b) are derived from a common source. Many linguists have adopted Stranding analysis, for instance, Giusti. (1990 and 1994), but since the mid-1990s there has been a strong tendency to

be back to Adverbial Analyses. Such as Baltin (1995), Doetjes (1997), Benmamoun (1999), Kobuchi-Philip (2003b), Bobaljik (2003), Boškoviü (2004), and Fitzpatrick (2006) have all argued for the Adverbial Analysis of floating quantifiers. Mainly because they wanted clear explanations of why floating quantifiers can or cannot appear in certain positions that should theoretically be available for stranding. Quantifier phrase in Uzbek. In Uzbek literature, the area of this topic has never witnessed any investigation so far. But in world literature, there are a few studies conducted on this topic of study. The most discussed part of quantifiers has been FQs and has done many types of research on them for decades. Two prominent approaches which are adverbial and stranding have been at the center of almost all this research. The following section considers the main properties of quantifiers and their floatability in Uzbek. Uzbek quantifiers examined in this study can be classified into three major types based on their morphosyntactic properties and case marking: adjectival quantifiers (AQ), genitive quantifiers (GQ), and double-case quantifiers (DCQ). Table 1 summarizes the key properties of each type. Type Structural Position Case Marking Floatability AQ Adjacent to NP No case Limited GQ DP - internal Genitive Restricted DCQ Split DP Genitive + Case High

Construction of quantifier phrase (QP). Uzbek language consists of three types of usage of quantifiers: (15) a. Hamma sigir (-lar)-ni Adjectival Quantifier. All cow PL ACC b. Sigirlar - ning hamma-si-ni Genitive Quantifier cow PL GEN all-3-ACC c. Sigirlar-ni hamma-si-ni Double Case Quantifier cow PL ACC all-3-ACC In the first sentence (15a), Q acts like adjectives (its position is before them, but after the possessor and the relative clause). In (15b), the quantifier comes after quantified genitive DP and possessive markers are attached to it just like the head of possessives does (GQ). We can call these genitive quantifiers. The last form (15c) is constructed through proposing a quantified DP to the quantifier and both cases are marked with affixes. The latter case also needs to take the morpheme complex –si which has two 3rd person possessive affix. Floating GQ and DCQ can float but AQ cannot: (16) a.*Guli sigirlar-ni kecha hamma sog`di. Guli cow PL ACC yesterday all milk PST b. Guli sigirlar-ning kecha hamma-si-ni sog`di. Guli cow PL GEN yesterday all-3 ACC milk PST c. Guli sigirlar-ni kecha hamma-si-ni sog`di. Guli cow PL ACC yesterday all-3 ACC milk PST ‘Yesterday, Guli milked all (the) cows’ Floating quantifiers vs. In-situ quantifiers. According to the transformational analysis of QFs by J. D. Bobaljik: a. “FQs quantify over the DPs in a way that adverb Qs cannot, b. FQs quantify over DPs in the way that (pre-) determiner Qs do”.7 Floating quantifiers quantify over DPs in the same manner as their non-floating counterparts. However, most of the interpretation of the cases for both pairs which have FQ in one

and their non-floating counterparts in another one is not exactly the same. Consider the interpretative differences between a pair of sentences: (17) a. Hamma basketbolchilar, volleybalchilar va suzuvchilar baland. All basketball players, volleyball players, and swimmers are tall. b. Basketbolchilar, volleybalchilar va suzuvchilar hammasi baland. Basketball players, volleyball players and swimmers are all tall. (18) a.Hamma studentlar, professorlar, and o'qituvchilar seminarda ishtirok etishdi. All students, professors and teachers have attended at the seminar. b. Studentlar, professorlar va o’qituvchilar hammasi seminarda ishtirok etishdi. Students, professors, and teachers have all attended the seminar. In the example of 17a, 'all' quantifies overall (basketball players, volleyball players, and swimmers) and it states that every basketball player is tall, every volleyball player is tall, every swimmer is tall. In the example of 17b, on the other hand, general meaning can be taken basketball players are generally tall, volleyball players are generally tall and swimmers are generally tall. The main difference between those two examples is that the second one has a generic term for sports athletes, but this reading is not available in 17a. Example 18a also shows the same contrast: all’ here quantifies over (students, professors, and teachers), asserting that almost every member of each three groups has attended the seminar. The example 18b means differently, namely each of the groups is represented at the seminar, but it does not require all students, all professors, and all teachers have been there. The second critical difference between FQs and Qs which part of the DPs constituent is a restriction of FQs that those do not manage to take scope in their surface position. Williams has already observed this discrepancy. Later, it was elaborated on by Dowty, Brodie (1984), and Déprez (1994). According to their studies, FQs are prevented from taking scope in their surface position, on the other hand, Qs which are not. They may undergo scope-changing operations, for example, Quantifier Raising and Reconstruction. We may apply these studies to Uzbek FQs. (Floating Quantifier: “Handle with care” by J.D. Bobaljik) See the following examples in Uzbek: (19) a. Barcha futbolchilar gol ura olishar edi. All football players could have scored a goal. b. Futbolchilar (ning) barchasi gol ura olishar edi. Football players all could have scored a goal. On the first reading 19a, the sentence confirms that the predicate (ura olishar edi) can be possible to all of the football players that any of them can score a goal. On the second reading, the FQ takes scope in its surface position and means: every one of football players can score a goal. Numeral quantifiers in Uzbek. Although English does not have (cardinal) numeral quantifiers (NQ) that are able to float over NP and modify its associated NP. In contrast to this, we can find out the existence of floating numeral quantifiers in several languages such as Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, and Germanic languages. Counting things in Uzbek is not tricky like Japanese or Korean. As it is known that they use two kinds of counting systems to count things: 1) native series 2) another series borrowed from Chinese. They count things with their numeral classifiers or classifiers for short. Classifiers (CL) refers to what things are being counted. Japanese and Korean have some classifiers like hon 'long,

thin thing', dai 'machine', wa 'bird' and gae 'thing', myong'person', gwan 'book' respectively, and so on. (20) Japanese: “ a. ninjin ni-satsu b. gakusei futa-ri carrots two CL students two CL ‘two carrots’ ‘two students’ Korean: c. chayk twu kwan d. sinbal han khyelley book two CL shoe one CL ‘two books’ ‘a pair of shoes’” The numbers and their classifiers are called numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. We may also see this kind of counting system in other different Asian languages such as Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Chol. This system of using classifiers makes word order free and NQs can be moved from DP they modify to other places where just before a noun or verb. The following examples are all grammatical and synonymous: (21) “a. Gakusei-ga Mary-ni hon-o ni-satsu ageta student NOM Mary DAT book ACC two CL gave ‘The student gave Mary two books’ b. Gakusei-ga hon-o Mary-ni ni-satsu ageta student NOM book ACC Mary DAT two CL gave ‘The student gave Mary two books’ c. Hon-o gakusei-ga Mary-ni ni-satsu ageta book ACC student NOM Mary DAT two CL gave ‘The student gave Mary two books’” Comparing to English, Uzbek numeral quantifiers need not always appear adjacent to the NP they are associated with and had already be treated as a Q-float phenomenon in literature. It is worth noting that NQ in Uzbek does have specific numeral classifiers like in Korean, Japanese, and other languages. Numeral classifiers in Uzbek can show the approximation, wholeness, distribution of a number, or amount. These following examples illustrate NFQ in Uzbek: (22) a. Beshtacha talaba bugun keldi. 5 CL students NOM today come PAST ‘About 5 students came today’ b. Talabalarning beshtachasi bugun keldi. Student PL GEN 5 CL.-3 today come PAST ‘About 5 students came today’ c. Talabalarning bugun beshtachasi keldi. Student PL GEN today 5 CL.-3 come PAST ‘About 5 students came today’ Observation shows that NQ occurring the right of the NP could be separated from that NP (22bc) to not only right after NP but also it could quantify NP between the adverb and verb as well. As Miyagawa proposed, the NQ must be in a relation of mutual c-command with the phrase it quantifies over. The presence of additional markers must be right after NQ which quantifies over its NP. The plural markers are not preferred with ordinary numerical noun phrases, but for GQ and DCQ constructions, the quantified DP must take them: (23) “a. Ikki qiz / ??qiz-lar AQ Two girl / girl PL b. qiz-lar-ning / ??qiz-ning ikki-si GQ Girl PL GEN / girl GEN two-3 c. qiz-lar / ??qiz-ning ikki-si DCQ Girl PL / girl GEN two-3” Additional markers (-ning and -(i) si) are in different contexts.

As we observed earlier that Uzbek Qs have apparently to undergo in a different way to be asserted as FQs. Additional markers (-ning and –(i) si) should be attached to the DP and FQs respectively. However, both additional markers in Uzbek could be used in various contexts: We usually use them as possessive pronouns in genitive cases. These pronouns show that something belongs to someone. Like English, in Uzbek there are also 2 types of such pronouns – partially possessive (my, your, etc) and full possessive (mine, yours, etc). Partially possessive pronouns are used along with the nouns with personal possessive endings. Consider the following examples below: (24) “Mening (noun) im Bizning (noun) imiz Sening (noun) ing Sizning (noun) ingiz Uning (noun)(s) i Ularning (noun)(s) i”9 If there is a genitive case marker –ning in a constituent, it always requires -(si) i right after a noun which belongs to pronouns. Sometimes, the affix (-si) i might be made a constituent with the noun along with the ablative suffix (-dan): (25) a. Mehmonlardan kattasi the oldest one of the guests b. Tanishlarimdan bittasi one of my acquaintances Another widely used way is that we could combine the marker (-si) i with the word in nominative case to make Nom + Modifier structure: (26) a. Zarafshon daryosi Zarafshon river b. Chet tillar instituti foreign language institution c. Sut kombinati milk factory When it is attached to certain words, its grammatical meaning would fade away and make adverbs and modals: (27) a. kechasi at night b. chamasi approximately, GQ and DCQ vs. Possessives In GQ and DCQ structure, we cannot eliminate the complex morpheme –si: (28) a. Guli sigir-lar-ning har bir-i-si-ga / *har bir-i-ga hashak berdi Guli cow PL GEN every. 3.3 DAT / *every.3 DAT fodder give PST b. Guli sigir-lar-ga har bir-i-si-ga / *har bir-i-ga hashak berdi Guli cow PL DAT every. 3.3 DAT / *every.3 DAT fodder give PST ‘Guli gave fodder to every cow’ The head nominal in the possessive noun phrase must have a possessive morpheme (only a single affix). (29) a. inson-ning qulog`-i / *quloq /*qilog`-i-si Person GEN ear 3 / *ear /*ear.3.3

Person`s ear The possessive marker which is attached to the possessors in possessive noun phrase may confront a deletion, on the contrary, DPs in GQ may not: (30) a. inson qulog`-i Person ear 3 ‘person`s ear’ b. *sigir-lar har bir-i-si cow-PL every.3.3 ‘All (of the) cows’ PRONOUNS There is no permission for AQ to float, but pronouns allow for GQ and DCQ to: (31) a. *Hamma u-lar ofis-ga kelishdilar. All he PL office DAT come PST PL b. U-lar-ning hamma-si ofis-ga kelishdilar. He PL GEN all.3 office DAT come PST PL c. U-lar hamma-si ofis-ga kelishdilar. He PL all.3 office DAT come PST PL ‘All (of) they came to the office.’ DP then quantifiers The quantifiers must be positioned after quantified DPs in GQ and DCQ structures: (32) a. *Guli har bir-i-si-ga sigir-lar-ning hashak berdi. Guli every.E.3 DAT cow PL GEN fodder give PST b. *Guli har bir-i-si-ga sigir-lar-ga hashak berdi. Guli every.E.3 DAT cow PL DAT fodder give PST ‘Guli gave fodder to all cows’ Unmarked direct object Other non-quantified noun phrases can come without the accusative marker, but GQ and DCQ cannot: (33) Guli sigir lar (-ni) yemladi Guli cow PL ACC feed PST ‘Guli fed (the) cows’ (34) a. Guli sigir-lar-ning hammasi *(-ni) yemladi Guli cow PL GEN all -3 (-ACC) feed PST ‘Guli fed all (the) cows’ b. Guli sigir lar- hammasi*(-ni) yemladi Guli cow PL GEN all -3 (-ACC) feed PST ‘Guli fed all (the) cows’ Derivation of genitive and double case quantifiers As we have the partitive double-DP analysis, proposed for Japanese QPs with genitives (Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2005), and the proposal made for English partitives in (Jackendoff 1977), they argue that noun phrases with the genitive marker (either on the nominal or on the classifier) arise to the partitive double-DP constructions: (35) all / three books of the books (Jackendoff 1977) (36) subete / san-satu hon-no hon

all three-CL book-GEN book ‘all / three books’ (Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2005) We slightly modified this proposal to Uzbek, and I argue that: i) AQ is derived as a single DP; ii) GQ is derived in Jackendoff’s fashion; iii) derivation of DCQ proceeds that of GQ but the superset DP occupies the SC subject position above the matrix DP. Topology of FQ As supposed both DCQ and GQ constructions in Uzbek languages originate as DP, but in the latter case this DP is merged inside the plain headless Small Clause (SC). However, the SC approach to FQ is not new, for example, it has been proposed for Korean double case FQs in (Kim 2004). In Korean either the whole QP, or both QP and its DP-associate receive case affixes, the following examples are all in (P.Grashchenkov) (37) “a. hakseng-dul-i chek-seke-lul / chek-ul-seke ilk-ess-ta student-PL-NOM book-3.CL-ACC/book-ACC-3.CL read-PST-DECL ‘The students read three books.’ b. hakseng-dul-i chek-ul seke-lul bo-ass -ta student-PL-NOM book-ACC 3.CL-ACC see-PST-DECL ‘The students, (as for) books, they read three (of them)’”.10 Korean DCQs resemble Uzbek DCQs in that they have a wider distribution than other FQs: (38) “haksayngh-i ecey wayn-ul sey-myengh-*(i) massi-ess-ta student-NOM yesterday wine-ACC 3-CL-NOM drink-PST-DECL ‘Three students drank wine yesterday.’ (Kim 2004)”11 Kim and Fitzpatrick assume that we cannot put DCQs in Korean together as a single DP. Compared to this, Uzbek DCQs, on some stage of derivation, form single DP. Examples in (Sauerland and Yatsushiro 2005) illustrate paradigm in Japanese: (39) a. hon-o san-satu book-ACC three-CL b. hon san-satu-o book three-CL-ACC c. san-satu hon-o three-CL book-ACC d. hon-no san-satu-o book-GEN three-CL-ACC Examples show that Japanese has FQs which originate as one DP. Fitzpatrick supposed that the existence of both abdominal and adverbial quantifiers can be seen in natural languages. But some of them have only abdominal FQs, others have adverbial. At the same time, we can see the presence of both types of them in a language. Adverbial FQs are combined with A-moved DPs, but Abdominal FQs – with A`. While abdominal FQs in Japanese show A`-movement, Korean DP-Case_..._Q structure is also abdominal A`-moved FQs (see Fitzpatrick 2005). But another construction in Korean (DCQ) is adverbial and under A-movement. FQs are not able to remove Weak cross over (WCO) in Japanese. The following example is (in Fitzpatrick 2005): (40) “*?Donna gakusei1-o rainen [pro1 osieta sensei]-ga t san-nin yatou no?

Which student-ACC next.year taught teacher]-NOM 3-CL hire Q ‘Which three students1 will the teacher who taught them1 hire next year?’” West Ulster English, contrary to standard English, QF allows for wh-extraction: (41) What did he say (√ all) that he wanted (√ all)? (McCloskey 2000) Basing on the conclusion in (McCloskey 2000) that QF in West Ulster English is A'. A`-nature of Uzbek floating quantifiers This section shows whether Uzbek has wh-movement and A-properties In Uzbek, it is grammatical wh-movement with FQs: (42) a. Kim-lar-ning kecha ikki-si ketdi. Who PL GEN yesterday two-3 go-PST b. Kim-lar kecha ikki-si ketdi Who PL yesterday two-3 go-PST ‘Who all went?’ (43) a. (Kim-lar-ning) Guli (kim-lar-ning) barcha-si-ni ko`rdi? Who PL GEN Guli Who PL GEN all-3 ACC see PST b. (Kim-lar-ni) Guli (kim-lar-ni) barcha-si-ni ko`rdi? Who PL ACC Guli Who PL ACC all-3 ACC see PST ‘Whom did Guli see all?’ Weak cross over in Uzbek Does Uzbek show A-properties? A-movement with adverbial FQs is illegitimate. Because of WCO, pro which is in adverbial quantifiers always causes ungrammaticality. We can see the WCO only if the raising of the associated DP is A`: (44) DPi … [QP proi] … ti √ A-movement, *A'-movement According to the proposed analysis, Uzbek does not exhibit this illegitimate configuration. If it is deemed both abdominal GQs and small clause DCQs originated in the Theta-position, no WCO effect should be seen. (45) a. DPi … [DP ti]k … tk GQ b. DPi … [SC ti [DP ti]]k … tk DCQ In my opinion, Uzbek does not witness WCO: (46) Qaysi bolanii uningi oyisi ti yaxshi kordi? which boy-ACC he-GEN mother-3 love PST? *”Whose boy does his mother love?” DISCUSSION Uzbek in Cross-Linguistic Perspective Research on floating quantifiers has largely focused on Indo-European languages such as English and French (Sportiche 1988; Bobaljik 2003), as well as East Asian languages including Japanese and Korean (Miyagawa & Arikawa 2017; Son 2020). These studies have shown that floating quantifiers are subject to language-specific constraints related to case marking, agreement, and word order.The findings of the present study indicate that Uzbek patterns more closely with Japanese and Korean than with English. Like these languages, Uzbek floating quantifiers exhibit strict sensitivity to case marking and positional constraints. In particular, quantifier float is possible only in genitive and double-case constructions, while adjectival quantifiers remain strictly DPinternal. This contrasts with English, where adjectival quantifiers such as all may freely float under

certain conditions. At the same time, Uzbek displays properties that are not fully parallel to previously studied languages. The availability of double-case quantifier constructions, in which the noun phrase bears genitive case and the quantifier receives structural case, distinguishes Uzbek from both Indo-European and East Asian languages. This finding supports earlier claims that Turkic languages contribute unique evidence to the study of quantification (Grashchenkov 2019), while also extending the typology of floating quantifiers. Implications for Adjectival, Genitive, and Double-Case Quantifiers The present analysis confirms a clear division among three types of quantifier constructions in Uzbek: adjectival quantifiers (AQ), genitive quantifiers (GQ), and double-case quantifiers (DCQ). Previous studies on quantification have often treated quantifiers as a uniform class (Barwise & Cooper 1981; Hackl 1995). However, the Uzbek data demonstrate that quantifier type plays a crucial role in determining floatability. Adjectival quantifiers in Uzbek behave similarly to attributive modifiers and cannot be separated from the noun phrase. This supports analyses in which adjectival quantifiers are DP-internal adjuncts, a view consistent with findings in other languages where adjectival quantifiers lack independent syntactic mobility. In contrast, genitive and double-case quantifiers show greater syntactic flexibility, allowing quantifier float under tightly constrained conditions. The observed interpretive differences between floating quantifiers and double-case quantifiers, particularly with respect to scope and specificity, further suggest that floatability is not merely a surface phenomenon. Rather, it reflects deeper structural differences in the derivation of quantifier constructions. These findings extend earlier observations by Gil and others regarding distributivity and scope, showing that such distinctions are also encoded morphosyntactically in Uzbek. Evaluation of Competing Analyses. Three major approaches have been proposed to account for floating quantifiers: the adverbial approach, the stranding approach, and hybrid analyses. The adverbial approach treats floating quantifiers as VP-level modifiers (Dowty & Brodie 1984; Baltin 1995). While this account can explain surface position, it fails to capture the strict dependence of Uzbek floating quantifiers on case marking and DP-related morphology. The requirement that numeral quantifiers carry the marker -si in quantifier float constructions, for example, is incompatible with a purely adverbial treatment. The stranding approach (Sportiche 1988; Bobaljik 2003), which assumes that quantifiers originate within the DP and are stranded as a result of DP movement, offers a more explanatory account of the Uzbek data. It naturally explains the restriction of floatability to genitive and double-case constructions, as well as the observed agreement and case dependencies. Hybrid approaches (Chocano & Torrego 2017; Son 2020) further refine this view by allowing quantifiers to undergo reanalysis at later stages of the derivation. Such analyses are particularly well suited to Uzbek, where floating quantifiers retain nominal properties while exhibiting surface positions reminiscent of adverbial elements. Overall, the Uzbek data strongly favor a stranding-based or hybrid analysis over a purely adverbial account. Movement Type and Theoretical Implications. The movement diagnostics discussed in this study support the conclusion that quantifier float in Uzbek is associated with A-movement rather than A′-movement. The absence of weak crossover effects and the compatibility of floating quantifiers with wh-extraction suggest that the relevant movement targets argument positions rather than operator positions. This aligns Uzbek with languages such as Japanese and Korean, where floating quantifiers are also analyzed as the result of DP movement within the

clause. The restriction of quantifier float to DP-associated constructions, together with the exclusion of adjectival quantifiers, reinforces the view that floating quantifiers are not freely generated elements but are structurally dependent on their nominal associates. These findings contribute to ongoing debates concerning the nature of quantifier float and provide new evidence from a previously underrepresented language. CONCLUSION This study examined the syntactic behavior of quantifiers and floating quantifiers in Uzbek, focusing on three construction types: adjectival quantifiers (AQ), genitive quantifiers (GQ), and double-case quantifiers (DCQ). The results reveal a clear asymmetry in quantifier float: while GQ and DCQ constructions permit quantifier float, adjectival quantifiers are strictly non-floatable and remain DP-internal. The analysis further shows that floating quantifiers and double-case quantifiers differ in their interpretation, particularly with respect to scope and specificity, indicating that floated quantifiers do not uniformly share the interpretive properties of their nonfloated counterparts. The study also demonstrates that numeral quantifiers in Uzbek may undergo quantifier float only under strict morphosyntactic conditions. Specifically, the associated noun phrase must bear genitive case, and the quantifier must carry the marker -si, which is obligatory in quantifier float constructions. In the absence of this marker, the construction becomes ungrammatical. In addition, certain morphological elements display limited optionality: the plural marker on the head noun may be omitted, and possessive markers as well as complex morphemes can be eliminated in specific nominal environments. These reductions, however, are tightly constrained. Pronouns were shown to license only genitive and double-case quantifier constructions, and quantifiers consistently follow their associated DPs, providing further evidence for a DP-internal origin of quantifiers in Uzbek. From a theoretical perspective, the findings argue against a purely adverbial analysis of floating quantifiers. The strict dependence on case marking, agreement, and DP-related morphology suggests that floating quantifiers originate within nominal structures. At the same time, the Uzbek data exhibit properties compatible with hybrid analyses, in which quantifiers are initially merged within the DP and later reanalyzed in the course of the derivation. Overall, the evidence supports a stranding-based or hybrid approach involving A-movement rather than A′- movement. By providing the first systematic account of quantifier float in Uzbek, this study contributes new empirical data to the cross-linguistic literature on quantification and syntactic movement. The findings highlight the importance of Turkic languages for refining theoretical models of floating quantifiers and point to several avenues for future research, including corpus-based investigations of quantifier distribution, experimental testing of scope and specificity effects, and comparative studies across Turkic languages.