Verb Phrase Types and the Notion of a Phase

Transcription

1 Verb Phrase ypes and the Notion of a Phase Julie Anne Legate December 5, 998 Introduction his squib investigates the notion of a phase (Chomsky 998a,b) with respect to the categories vp and VP. Chomsky (998a,b) introduced the notion of a phase as a self-contained subsection of a derivation defined by the category v or C. According to this proposal, after construction of a phrase marker containing one of these categories (i.e. after construction of a vp or CP), spellout occurs, sending the phase to interpretation at the PF and LF components. At this point, the derivation may terminate, or an additional lexical subarray may be chosen such that the derivation continues to build upon the previous phase. owever, subsequent operations are limited in their referal to elements within the previous phase by the Impenetrability Condition. his condition allows visibility only within the edge of the phase, that is any adjuncts or specifiers of the highest v/c and the highest v/c itself. hus, a version of strict cyclicity is built into the computation. Chomsky s proposal explicitly makes a sharp distinction between unergative verbs, on the one hand, and passive and unaccusative verbs, on the other, since the former are presumed to consist of a VP dominated by a vp, while the latter are presumed to consist solely of a VP. hus, the unergative verb phrase would form a phase, while the passive or unaccusative verb phrase would not. It is this distinction that we will question today. he goal of this paper is thus not to question the existence of a phase at the level of the verb phrase, but rather to demonstrate that the tests supporting the notion of a vp phase do not make a crucial split between unergative verbs on the one hand and passive or unaccusative verbs on the other. he conclusion reached will be if there are vp level phases then either there are also VP level phases, or passive and unaccusative verb phrases are also dominated by a vp, albeit one that lacks an external argument. I would like to thank Charles Yang for comments and discussion. Although some have claimed that this should also be done (Pesetsky 998, for example).

2 2 ests for Phase-hood I: PF he tests for phase-hood suggested by Chomsky (998a,b) are all intended to identify some type of independence at the interfaces. Since a phase is sent to the PF and LF interfaces as a single unit, it is expected that the interfaces treat them as an independent unit, in some manner or other. At the PF interface, the possible tests cited are extraposition, (pseudo)clefting, islolation, and phrasal stress assignment through the Nuclear Stress Rule. Bresnan (972) discusses the Nuclear Stress Rule, arguing on the basis of contrasts like those in () that it applies cyclically. () Cyclic Application of Nuclear Stress Rule a. Mary liked the proposal that George b. Mary liked the c. George has plans to d. George has leave. proposal that George left. leave. plans to leave. (Bresnan 972:75) In (a) and (c) we see the normal application of the Nuclear Stress Rule, which assigns primary phrasal stress to the rightmost element in the VP capable of bearing it (indefinites, pronouns, and prepositions are not capable of bearing primary stress, as discussed below). In (b) and (d), on the other hand, the stress appears on an apparently non-vp-final constituent. Bresnan s intuition was that the Nuclear Stress Rule applies normally in these examples, but that its application is always cyclic. hus, assuming that proposal in (b) and plans in (d) are moved from the object position of the embedded clause, 2 these elements receive primary phrasal stress on the first application of the Nuclear Stress Rule, before they have moved from object position: (2) he First Cycle of Nuclear Stress Assignment 994. a. George leave b. George left the proposal c. PRO to leave d. PRO to leave plans 2 A controversial assumption at the time, but one recently brought into favour by Kayne 2

3 If true, this analysis supports the notion of a phase in that the phonology appears to operate on a syntactic structure that does not exist after completion of the computation. hus, spellout at intermediate steps in the derivation seems necessary. 3 Bresnan formulates the domains of application for the Nuclear Stress Rule as S and NP, following Chomsky s (970) claim that transformations apply cyclicly to each of these categories. Updating her results to the notion of phase, we discover that there is an argument for an application of the Nuclear Stress Rule at the level of the verb phrase, assuming, as Chomsky (998a,b) argues, that P is not a phase. Consider (3). (3) vp Application of the Nuclear Stress Rule a. he parable shows what (suffering men) can b. he parable shows (what create. suffering) men can create. (Bresnan 972:79) In (3a), what is the object of the embedded verb create. Bresnan shows that indefinites like what cannot bear primary phrasal stress even when final in the verb phrase. Instead, the primary stress lands on the rightmost element which can bear the stress. In the case of (3a), this is the verb create. In (3b), on the other hand, the object of the embedded verb is what suffering. Since suffering is capable of bearing primary stress, stress assigned to it. When the wh-phrase is moved to [spec, C] on the subsequent phase, suffering carries its primary stress with it. hus, the Nuclear Stress Rule seems to treat the vp as a domain of operation, i.e. a phase. his pattern can be duplicated with passive and unaccusative verb phrases. Consider (4). (4) VP Application of the Nuclear Stress Rule a. his story shows what can be b. his story shows what c. his story shows what created by suffering men. suffering can be created by men. suffering can ensue. (4a) shows the application of the Nuclear Stress Rule to the verb phrase final created. 4 In (4b), suffering receives the primary phrasal stress, demonstrating that the Nuclear Stress Rule applied while the wh-phrase what suffering was still final in the passive verb phrase headed by created. Similarly, in 3 he alert reader may have noticed an inconsistency between this proposal and the Impenetrability Condition. he issue will be discussed below. 4 Interestingly, the by-phrase seems invisible to the Nuclear Stress Rule. Clearly there is additional complexity here to be investigated. 3

4 (4c), suffering again receives primary phrasal stress, demonstrating that the Nuclear Stress Rule applied while it was still rightmost in the unaccusative verb phrase headed by ensue. herefore, the Nuclear Stress Rule seems to operate on passive and unaccusative VPs, just as it does on unergative vps, supporting the proposal that all three are phases. Before proceeding to the next test for phase-hood, however, an internal inconsistency must be acknowledged. he correct operation of the Nuclear Stress Rule in examples (3) and (4) requires the direct objects of these verbs to be in situ in order to be assigned primary phrasal stress as the rightmost element in the verb phrase. Chomsky s (998a,b) proposal of the phase, however, crucially involves the Impenetrebility Condition, mentioned in the Introduction. hat is, only the edge of a previous phase is visible to the computation. his condition is crucial in that it is the primary motivation for successive cyclic whmovement targetting the vp and CP. If the wh-phrase remained in situ, the logic goes, it would not be visible to further operations in the computation, including subsequent wh-movement. herefore, wh-phrases like what suffering that will be subject to further movement must move to the edge of their phase, i.e. adjoin to the vp(/cp) dominating them, 5 however, in this position they will no longer be rightmost in the verb phrase and thus should not receive primary phrasal stress. I have no solution for this apparent contradiction, but simply acknowledge it as a problem. he logic of three of the other tests for phase-hood extraposition, clefting, and pseudoclefting is to show that the phase behaved as a unit in movement-like structures that perhaps do not involve purely syntactic movement. 6 Extraposition and clefting do not apply to verb phrases, and thus cannot be used to compare the behaviour of ergative verbs with that of passive and unaccusative verbs. (5) Extraposition a. It suprised John CP [that he saw Mary in the grocery store]. b. *It suprised John vp [saw Mary in the grocery store]. c. *It surprised John V P [arrive early] d. *It suprised John V P [demoted to ensign] (6) Clefting 5 owever, the motivation for the movement of a wh-phrase to the edge of its phase is assumed to be feature checking requirements, as is all movement in the model. 6 Admittedly, the analysis of extraposition, cleft, and pseudocleft, as well as the verb phrase fronting and though movement considered below, is contentious. More generally, it is quite certainly the case that none of the arguments for phase-hood are unassailable. owever, my strategy in this squib will be to examine each possible argument in turn and show that it does not differentiate between unergative verbs and passive/unaccusative verbs. he logic is that it is much worse to ignore a potentially relevant test than to spend time on a test that later turns out to be irrelevant. 4

5 a. It s DP [Mary] that John saw in the grocery store. b. *?It s vp [see Mary in the grocery store] that John did. c. *?It s V P [arrive early] that John did. d. *?It s V P [demoted to ensign] that John was. Pseudoclefts, on the other hand, do target verb phrases. Consider (7). (7) vp Pseudoclefts a. What John did was [eat worms]. b.?what John was was [teaching physics]. he example in (7a) illustrates the pseudocleft construction with a regular transitive verb phrase. Example (7b), perhaps slightly degraded, provides a pseudocleft sentence with a be auxiliary for comparison with the passive. (8) VP Pseudoclefts a. What John did was [arrive early]. b.?what John was was [demoted to ensign]. As we see in (8), pseudoclefting is equally possible with unaccusative and passive verb phrases, although the passive in (8b) is perhaps less than perfect due to the be auxiliary. Furthermore, we may be able to use verb phrase fronting and though movement as similar movement-type tests that are more appropriate for verb phrases than clefting and extraposition. Consider (9). (9) vp Fronting a. John said he would eat worms, and vp [t i eat worms] he i did! b. John said he would be teaching physics (by the time he was 26), and vp [teaching physics] he i was! In (9a), the verb phrase vp [t i eat worms] has been moved as a unit to a position above P, possibly a topic projection. Since the construction seems slightly degraded when be rather than do is the stranded auxiliary, (9b) is included for comparison with the passive verb phrase below. Now consider (0) (0) VP Fronting a. John said he would arrive early, and V P [arrive t i early] he i did! b. John said he would be sent to Europe, and V P [sent t i to Europe] he i was! 5

6 (0a) involves fronting of the unaccusative verb phrase V P [arrive t i early], and is perfectly grammatical. (0b) with a passive verb, on the other hand, is perhaps slightly degraded, but no more so than (9b) which also involves stranding of the auxiliary be. he though movement construction also involves fronting of a verb phrase, as shown in (). () vp though Movement a. each physics though John may... b. Eating worms though John may be... (2) VP though Movement a. Arrive early though John may... b. Demoted to ensign though John may be... (2) illustrates that though movement also affects unaccusative and passive verb phrases on a par with unergative verb phrases. hus, we have seen that unaccusatives and passives behave identically to unergatives with respect to three movement-type tests for phase-hood: pseudoclefting, verb phrase fronting, and though movement. Another possible test for phase-hood, isolation, also groups unaccusatives and passives with unergatives. his test is built on the assumption that convergent derivations are minimally a phase. his assumption is plausible in the model in that the derivation begins by selecting a lexical subarray for the computation. If subarrays smaller than a single phase were allowed, the concept of a phase as a useful notion would be lost. Any phrase would then be able to be computed individually and sent to PF and LF as an independent unit, eliminating the special status of the phase in this regard. hus, if the notion of the phase is to make any predictions, we must limit the choice of subarrays to a phase, and thereby limiting the possible convergent derivations to phase-multiples. For verb phrases, the test of isolation involves so-called Mad Magazine sentences like those in (3). (3) vp in Isolation a. Me teach physics?! b. Me skipping class?! Although such sentences require a specific context ( John, I want you to teach physics next year, John, you wouldn t be skipping class, would you? ), they are grammatical, thus supporting their characterization as a phase. he data in (4) demonstrate that this is also true of unaccusatives, (4a), and passives, (4b). 6

7 (4) VP in Isolation a. Me arrive early?! b. Me demoted to ensign?! (Possible contexts for these sentences are John, for once I would like you to arrive early for class, and John, due to your misconduct, I am hereby demoting you to the rank of ensign.) 7 In this section, we have seen five potential arguments for the phase-hood of vp: the Nuclear Stress Rule, Pseudoclefting, verb phrase fronting, though movement, and isolation. All fail to distinguish between unergative verbs, on the one hand, and passive and unaccusative verbs, on the other, thus supporting the thesis that passive and unaccusative verb phrases also constitute a phase. In the next section, we consider arguments for the phase-hood of vp based on independence at LF. 3 ests for Phase-hood II: LF Chomsky (998a,b) suggested that the phase-hood of vp and CP is supported at LF by their status as a proposition, and by A-bar movement to these positions, both Quantifier Raising and successive cyclic wh-movement. I must confess to being unclear as to what is meant by proposition in this context that would distinguish unergative verb phrases from unaccusative and passive verb phrases. ype theory, for example, does not distinguish them, both being of type < t > (ignoring event, world, time, or other variables which both may or may not have, depending on the semantic theory assumed). Whether quantifier raising (henceforth QR) and successive cyclic wh-movement target passive and unaccusative verbs, however, can be tested. o do so, I will use antecedent contained ellipsis (henceforth ACE), parasitic gaps, and interactions between reconstruction and binding, as diagnostics. First, let s consider antecedent contained ellipsis. ACE constructions, like that in (5), are standardly assumed to require quantifier raising, either in order 7 It may be argued that the expected form of Mad Magazine sentences built on unaccusatives and passives would involve the object following the verb, as in *Arrive me early?! or *Demoted me to ensign?!. owever, there may be reason to expect the attested forms in (4) instead. Recall that the Impenetrability Condition states that only the edge of the highest phrase (i.e. its head, specifier(s), and adjunct(s)) is available to operations during a following phase. hus, for example, in a construction involving object wh-movement, a feature on v is posited which attracts the object to the edge of vp. hus, the object is a possible target for wh-movement to [spec, C] in the following phase. If VP is a phase, the same logic may apply to the object of passives and unaccusatives. In order for the object to be a possible target for movement to [spec, ], it would have to appear in the edge of VP. herefore, a feature on V must attract the object to its specifier, resulting in the attested word order of the object preceding the verb. he fact that no subsequent phase is constructed, the object receiving default case, is purely incidental, and cannot be known at the point a V with the relevant feature is chosen. 7

8 to create parallelism between the ellided verb phrase and its antecedent, or to avoid infinite regress when the antecedent verb phrase is copied into the empty verb phrase at LF (see Bouton 970, Sag 976, Chomsky & Lasnik 993, Fox 995, Kennedy 997, among others, for discussion of this construction). (5) Antecedent Contained Ellipsis Resolution hrough Quantifier Raising a. Dawn vp [ likes DP [ one of the books I do vp 2 [ e ]]]. b. Dawn likes DP [ one of the books I do vp 2 [ e ]] i vp [ likes t i ] he structure in (5b) allows both the ellided verb phrase, vp2, and its antecedent, vp, to consist of [likes t i ], thus satisfying parallelism/avoiding infinite regress. Notice, however, that all that is needed for ACE resolution is for the DP containing the ellided verb phrase to undergo quantifier raising. In order to test whether this movement can be to the verb phrase, we introduce other scope-bearing elements into the sentence. (6) Quantifier Raising to VP a. Mary wasn t V P [ introduced to DP [ anyone you were V P 2 [ e ]]]. b. Some woman was V P [ given DP [ every message you were V P 2 [ e ]]]. > c. he road didn t V P [ go past DP [ any of the scenic spots you expected it to V P 2 [ e ]]]. d. Some train V P [ arrived in DP [ every city you expected it to V P 2 [ e ]]]. > In (6a) and (6c), negative polarity items were used to diagnose the position of the moved DP. In order to be licensed, the DPs must have undergone QR to a position no higher than the negation, thus to adjoin to the passive verb phrase in (6a) and to the unaccusative verb phrase in (6c). 8 Similarly, in order to obtain the most salient reading of (6b) and (6d), in which the existential has scope over the universal, the DP must have undergone QR to a position below the subject, again to adjoin to the passive verb phrase in (6b) and to the unaccusative verb phrase in (6d). hus, we conclude that quantifier raising targets passive and unaccusative verb phrases equally to unergative verb phrases. Now let s consider the intermediate traces of wh-movement. he logic of this test is that in order for a wh-word to be visible to movement operations during a subsequent phase, it must move to the edge of its phase, in accordance with the Impenetrability Condition. hus, if CP and vp are both phases, then 8 Assuming that the licensing of NPIs happens at LF rather than S-Structure, the latter no longer a relevant notion in the theory. See Urribe-Etxebarria (996) for arguments that NPIs are licensed in the scope of negation at LF. 8

9 successive cyclic wh-movement must leave copies at every intermediate CP/vP. Lebeaux (988) devises a diagnostic for intermediate copies in CP of successive cyclic wh-movement based on the interaction between binding and reconstruction, a diagnosis that Fox (998) extends to copies adjoined to the verb phrase. Consider (7). he relevant potential reconstruction sites are indicated by underlined asterisks/checkmarks (data from Fox 998: 57). (7) Reconstruction to vp a. [Which of the papers that he i gave Mary j ] did every student i ask her j to read carefully? b. *[Which of the papers that he i gave Mary j ] did she j ask every student i to revise? hese examples are interesting in that the wh-phrase contains both a pronoun, he, which must be bound by every student, and an R-expression, Mary, which must not be c-commanded by the coreferent pronoun her/she. hus, the wh-phrase must reconstruct to a position below every student and above her/she. In (7a), such a position is available, if we assume that the whphrase left an intermediate copy adjoined to the verb phrase [ask her to read], and indeed, the sentence is grammatical (if a bit awkward). In contrast, (7b) has no such position is available. In order for he to be bound by every student, the wh-phrase must reconstruct to its merged position, and yet in this position she c-commands Mary, violating binding Condition C. hus, the sentence is ungrammatical. Unfortunately, this test could not be applied to unaccusative verbs, due to the number of necessary internal arguments. owever, we can apply it to passives. In (8a) and (8b), the relevant situation is one in which Mary keeps being introduced to her own date at parties. In (8c) and (8d), one should think of a charity auction at which dates with bachelors are sold. (8) Reconstruction to Passive VP a. [At which of the parties that he i invited Mary j to] was every man i introduced to herj? b. *[At which of the parties that he i invited Mary j to] was she j introduced to every man i? c. [At which charity event that he i brought Mary j to] was every man i sold to herj? d. *[At which charity event that she j brought John i to] was he i sold to every woman j? Identically to (7), the sentences in (8) contain a wh-phrase which must reconstruct below every man/woman in order for he/she to be bound, and 9

10 above Mary/John for the construction to obey binding Condition C. Again, in the (a) sentences such a position exists, if one assumes that the wh-phrase left a copy adjoined to the verb phrase. 9 he fact that (8a) and (8c) are grammatical (although awkward), thus strongly supports the claim that successive cyclic wh-movement proceeds through passive verb phrases, as well as unergative ones. In (8b) and (8d), no reconstruction site exists that will satisfy both binding conditions at once, and the sentences are ungrammatical, as predicted. We thus have another potential argument for the phase-hood of passive verb phrases. Interestingly, when we turn to parasitic gap constructions, we fail to observe the now-familiar pattern of passive and unaccusative verb phrases patterning with unergative vps. Nissenbaum (998) argues for an analysis of parasitic gaps whereby a vp-level wh-trace is crucial for the interpretation of these constructions. (9) illustrates the normal composition between a vp-adjoined adjunct and its host vp, 0 using Predicate Modification to create a conjoined interpretation (see eim & Kratzer 998). (9) he Interpretation of vp-adjoined Aduncts John filed the paper [PRO without reading it] < t > < t > < t > (John) filed the paper without PRO reading it Given operator movement creating a lambda abstract in an adjunct containing a parasitic gap, however, the adjunct is unable to compose with its host vp: (20) ype Mismatch Created by Operator Movement in PG Adjuncts John filed the paper [OP [PRO without reading t OP ]] 9 his discussion assumes that the at DP phrases are merged as the lowest argument in the verb phrase. Pesetsky (995) argues for such a cascade structure for these adverbs based on binding and NPI licensing. Since it is binding that we are concerned with here, the assumption seems relatively unproblematic, particularly since the contrast in judgements between the (a) and (b) sentences in these examples would otherwise be difficult to explain. 0 Nissenbaum demonstrates that the tests which support a Kaynian, or cascade, structure for many adjuncts argue for a right-adjoined, or layered structure, for the adjuncts found in parasitic gap constructions. 0

11 <?? > < t > < e, t > (John) filed the paper OP without PRO reading t OP Nissenbaum s key insight is that the structure would be interpretable if: (i) a whphrase from the main vp moved to adjoin to vp, creating a lambda abstract; and (ii) the adjunct clause containing the parasitic gap merged counter-cyclicly just below the root. (See Nissenbaum for a demonstration that this analysis accounts for the familiar properties of parasitic gap constructions, as well as previously unaccounted for or unnoticed properties.) (2) ype Mismatch Resolved by Movement to vp and Counter-cyclic Merger Which paper did John file [OP [PRO without reading t OP ]] VP < t > which paper VP < e, t > VP < e, t > < e, t > λ < t > OP without PRO reading t OP (John) filed t wh herefore, the parasitic gap construction can serve as a diagnostic for a wh-trace adjoined at the level of the verb phrase. Applying this diagnostic to unaccusative verbs again proves impossible due to the number of internal arguments needed. Applying the test to passives requires use of an overt subject in the subordinate clause, since PRO in these Actually, short distance A-movement to vp also creates the relevant lambda abstract, thus the licensing of parasitic gap constructions by short distance scrambling in German, Dutch, and indi.

12 adjuncts, with or without a parasitic gap, seems to strongly resist being controlled by a passive subject, instead prefering to be coindexed with an external argument of the host verb phrase. his change makes the constructions with unergative verb phrases slightly marginal, however the corresponding examples with passive verb phrases are ungrammatical. 2 (22) Parasitic Gaps are Ungrammatical with Passive Verb Phrases a.?which house did John buy [OP [before we had a chance to clean t OP ]]? b. *Which house was John sold [OP [before we had a chance to clean t OP ]]? c.?which house did John buy [OP [without our having fixed up t OP ]]? d. *Which house was John sold [OP [without our having fixed up t OP ]]? e.?which book did John buy [OP [in order for his wife to have a look at t OP ]]? f. *Which book was John sold [OP [in order for his wife to have a look at t OP ]]? ere we find a genuine difference between passive and unergative verb phrases. If this difference is attributed to a lack of a wh-trace at the level of the passive verb phrase, the data considered in (8) above becomes quite mysterious. he only alternative explanation I can suggest, however, is that the difference be attributed to some yet ill-understood thematic requirements of the adjunct. Clearly more research needs to be done on this topic. 4 Conclusion In this squib, I have considered the possible status of the unaccusative and the passive verb phrase as a phase. I have demonstrated that, parasitic gap constructions aside, all applicable tests treat passives and unaccusatives on a par with unergatives. My conclusion is thus that if unergative verb phrases constitute a phase, then passive and unaccusative verb phrases do as well. One of Chomsky s motivations for claiming that passives and unaccusatives form phases is his desire for selection of a lexical sub-array to be computationally trivial. he intuition is that if a phase can be defined by a finite number of functional categories 3, than the selection of the lexical sub-array will be greatly simplified. One way to reconcile the evidence considered here with this goal is 2 I owe great thanks to Jon Nissenbaum for clarifying my understanding of parasitic gaps and for assistance with the examples. 3 Chomsky left open the possible phase-hood of DPs and PPs. 2

13 to argue that passive and unaccusative verb phrases are also dominated by a vp. Indeed, Baker, Johnson & Roberts have argued that passives contain an external argument, which they identify with the passive morpheme. Independently of their particular implementation, it is plausible that passives have an external argument, which in the Minimalist theory assumed would require presence of v to introduce this argument. Furthermore, Chomsky (998a,b) has suggested that v may be needed to account for the word order facts of the unaccusative verb seem. (23) Possible Evidence for v with Unaccusative Verbs John seems to me to be happier these days. hus, in (23) we see that seems has moved past its dative subject to me, plausibly to the head of vp. he claim that v dominates all verb phrases of course requires a distinction be made between two flavours of v, one that introduces an external argument and one that does not. his loses the original appeal of the v proposal which, by attributing to v the introduction of an external argument and checking of accusative case, allowed a neat statement (if not a true explanation) of Burzio s Generalization. Whether or not this appeal is empirically justified must be left to future research. References Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, & Ian Roberts Passive Arguments Raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: Bouton, Lawrence F Antecedent-Contained Pro-Forms. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Bresnan, Joan On Sentence Stress and Syntactic ransformations. In Michael Brame (ed), Contributions to Generative Phonology, Austin: University of exas Press. Chomsky, Noam Remarks on Nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English ransformational Grammar. New York: Ginn. Chomsky, Noam. 998a. Class lectures. Chomsky, Noam. 998b. Minimalist Inquiries: he Framework. Distributed by MIWPL. Chomsky, Noam & oward Lasnik Principles and Parameters heory. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternfeld, &. Vennemann (eds), Syntax: An International andbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fox, Danny Economy and Semantic Interpretation. MI dissertation. 3

14 eim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer Semantics and Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Lebeaux, David Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. UMass dissertation. Nissenbaum, Jon Movement and Derived Predicates: Evidence from Parasitic Gaps. In Uli Sauerland & Orin Percus (eds), MIWPL #25 he Interpretive ract. Cambridge, Mass.: MIWPL. Pesetsky, David Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MI Press. Pesetsky, David Class lectures. Urribe-Etxebarria, Myriam Levels of Representation and Negative Polarity Item Licensing. Proceedins of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics