DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE

Transcription

1 NELS 2, CUNY/NYU, October 19-21, 2001 DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE " Merge over Move (Chomsky 1995; 44ff): Winfried Lechner, University of Tübingen (1) a. There seems [ IP t to be someone in the room] Merge expletive in IP (and then move it) b. *There seems [ IP someone i to be t i in the room] Move full NP to IP GOAL: Determine whether economy conditions regulate Merge. (2) a. Merge " first: [ " $] ± [[" $] (] Merge " and $ ± Merge {", $} and ( b. Merge " last: [ $ (] ± [" [$ (]] Merge $ and ( ± Merge {$, (} and " EMPIRICAL DOMAIN: Phrase Structure Paradoxes (Pesetsky 1995, Phillips 199) and the interpretation of remnants in contexts of VP-Fronting or VP-Ellipsis. OUTLINE:! Remnant movement analysis of PS-Paradoxes " Puzzle: How to account for complex reconstruction properties of adjunct remnants (= " s in (2))?! Solution: Adverbs may be merged in any interpretable position. Economy chooses actual insertion point. COROLLARY: 1. PS-PARADOXES Economy conditions are not computed locally.! Pesetsky (1995): VP-Fronting in English yields conflicting evidence for the internal organization of the VP: () PESETSKY S PARADOX (Pesetsky 1995: 20; (570)c) John intended to give the books to the children, and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did on each other i s birthdays. (4) a. BINDING: Right-branching VP b. TOPICALIZATION: Left-branching VP VP VP1 NP VP VP-FRONTING L VP2 PP 5 the books PP V V PP on each other i s 5 5 birthdays to them i t V/ PP V/ NP to them i (LF)! 5 (overt syntax) on each other i s birthdays give the books 1.1. PHILLIPS (199) (5) INCREMENTAL MERGER ( IM ) (I) MERGE RIGHT: New items must be introduced at the right edge of a structure. (II) BRANCH RIGHT: Merge as low as possible. () a. {A,B} b. U {A,{B,C}} c. Y {{A,B}, C} A B A {B,C} {A,B} C 2 2 B C A B! IM analysis of Pesetsky s Paradox: The adjunct remnant is not part of the fronted VP ((7)a), but parsed low into the copy of the VP ((7)c), yielding the effect of reconstruction of the remnant into the VP. (7) PESETSKY S PARADOX John intended to give the books to the children, and... a. Build fronted VP: [ CP [ VP give [the books [to them]]]] b. Build copy: [ CP [ VP give [the books [to them]]] he did [ VP give [the books [to them]]]] c. Merge remnant: [ CP [ VP give [the books [to them]]] he did [ VP give [the books [to them i [on each other i s birthdays]]]]] 1.2. LOCALITY PROBLEM: Remnants cannot be linked to their interpretive positions across islands. (8) LOCALITY They wanted to assign each problem to a student who had slept during its presentation, and a.... [ VP assign each problem i to a student who had slept during its i presentation] they did. b. *... [ VP assign each problem i to a student [ CP who had slept]] they did during its i presentation. (9) Clause Constraint on VP-gaps (Phillips, to appear, (129)) In sequence [...Aux [ VP null] adverbial...] the adverbial is interpreted as a clausemate of the Aux. 1.. SCOPE FREEZING PROBLEM: Incremental Merger incorrectly predicts that remnants are merged in the same position in which they surface (low inside VP). SCOPE FREEZING: Quantifiers that overtly leave fronted VPs do not reconstruct for scope (Barss 198): (10) SCOPE FREEZING, DITRANSITIVES (Sauerland 1998a: 591) a. David planned to give every handout to one of the students œ > / > œ b.... and [ VP give every handout] David did to one of the students *œ > / > œ ASSUMPTIONS: Remnants (one of the students in (10)b) are merged low in the VP-copy. Remnants are base-generated in their surface positions. (11)... and [ CP [ VP...] [ IP David did [ VP give every handout [to L one of the students]]]] º Y Incorrectly predicts remnant QP (L) to take scope below every handout. CONCLUSION: Remnants reach their surface position by overt movement.

2 WINFRIED LECHNER DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE 4 2. REMNANT MOVEMENT! Remnant Topicalization (v.d. e.g. Haider 199; den Besten and Webelhuth 1990; Müller 1998): (12) a. Sie wollte [ VP einem Freund ein Kamel schenken] (German) she wanted a friend a camel give b. [ CP [ VP Einem Freund ein Kamel schenken] wollte sie] a friend a camel give wanted she c. [ CP [ VP t i Ein Kamel schenken] wollte sie einem Freund i ] a camel give wanted she a friend d. [ CP [ VP t i t k Schenken] wollte sie einem Freund i ein Kamel k ] give wanted she a friend a camel She wanted to give a friend a camel (as a present). ANALYSIS: Pesetsky s Paradox (()) manifests an instance of Remnant Topicalization. Binding relations are read off the lower copy of the adjunct. (1) John intended to [ VP give the books to the children], and (= ()) [ VP give the books to them i ] he did on each other i s birthdays. : 2. VP-FRONTING L! qo!... PP k < l z- VP! on each other s birthdays PF! give VP!! 7 1. MOVEMENT NP (...) VP! 5! the books PP V! 5! to them i t V/ PP k m on each other i s birthdays LF CONSEQUENCE I: LOCALITY! The remnant and its trace must not be separated by an island, as movement has to proceed locally: (14) They wanted to assign each problem to a student, (= (8)) a.... and [ VP assign each problem i to a student who slept during its i presentation] they did b. *... and [ VP assign each problem i to a student [who had slept K t k ]] they did [ PP during its i presentation] k CONSEQUENCE II: SCOPE FREEZING! The QP is moved out of fronted predicte overtly, and VP-Fronting with object remnants ((15)) therefore falls under the same generalization which covers (1) (vd. e.g. Sauerland & Elborne 1999): (15) SCOPE FREEZING (= (10)b) David planned to give every handout to one of the students and [ VP give every handout] David did to one of the students *œ> / >œ (1) SCOPE FREEZING: TRANSITIVES (Barss 198; Huang 199) a. Noone will teach every student. œ > / > œ b.... and [ VP t i teach every student], noone i will *œ > / > œ. VP-FRONTING VS. VP-ELLIPSIS.1. VP-ELLIPSIS AND INCREMENTAL MERGER Phillips (199): VP-internal categories may bind into remnants in VP-Fronting, but not in VP-Ellipsis. (17) VP-FRONTING John intended to give the books to the children, and (= ()) [ VP give the books to them i ] he did on L each other i s birthdays. (18) VP-ELLIPSIS (Phillips 199) *John [ VP gave the books to them i on each other i s birthdays] and Mary did - on K each other i s first day of school. (- = [ VP gave the books to them])! IM-Analysis of VP-Ellipsis: VP-Ellipsis licensed under syntactic parallelism. Parallelism is observed if the remnants are merged high, as in (19), but not if they are attached low, as in (20): (19) ANTECEDENT CLAUSE *John gave the books to them on each other s birthdays, a. XP VP PP V PP on each other s 5 birthdays V/ NP to them! give the books (20) a. give VP NP VP the books PP V 5 to them V/ PP on each other s birthdays ELLIPTICAL CLAUSE... and Mary did - on each other i s first day of school b. XP U VP-ELLIPSIS L VP PP (antecedent = ellipsis) V PP on K each other s 5 first day of school V/ NP to them! give the books b. give VP 7 Y VP-ELLIPSIS (violation of parallelism) NP VP the books PP V 5 to them V/ PP on each other s first day of school

3 5 WINFRIED LECHNER DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE.2. 2 ND VS. 1 ST CONJUNCT ASYMMETRIES PROBLEM: The antecedent VP of VP-Ellipsis is right-branching, and not left-branching.! Objects c-command remnants inside the antecedent clause ((21)b): (21) 2 ND VS 1 ST CONJUNCT, PRINCIPLE A (= (18)) a. *John [ VP gave the books to them on each other s birthdays] and Mary did - on K each other i s first day of school. b. John gave the books to them i on L each other i s birthdays and Mary did - on their first day of school. (- = [ VP gave the books to them i ]) " Phillips (199: p. 2, fn. 41): Names inside adjunct remnants induce disjoint reference effect only in the antecedent clause: (22) 2 ND VS 1 ST CONJUNCT, PRINCIPLE C a. (?)John gave the books to her at Christmas and Jill did - on L Mary i s birthday. b. *?John gave the books to her i on K Mary i s birthday and Jill did - at Christmas. (- = give the books to her i ) NEXT: 4. MERGING ADJUNCTS Accounting for binding properties of adjuncts (2) ASSUMPTIONS: Neo-Davidsonian semantics for VP/vP VP-Ellipsis is licensed by semantic (as opposed to syntactic) parallelism (modulo focus; vd. e.g. Fox 1999; Rooth 1992; Sauerland 1998b). The instruction to forgo phonetic interpretation may target vp or VP. Adjuncts can be merged in any position in which they are interpretable by the principles of type-driven interpretation. Movement and ellipsis operations only target maximal categories and do not operate on segments. (24) vp <,,t> vp denotes properties of events P vp <,,t> Adv-I <<,,t>,<,,t>> Subject is introduced P SUB vp by v/ (Kratzer 199) OBJ i v Object moves to the inner SpecvP Q v/ VP <,,t> VP denotes properties of events P VP <,,t> Adv-II <<,,t>,<,,t>>... t i... (,: type of eventualities) 4.1. VP-ELLIPSIS (NO ADJUNCT RECONSTRUCTION)! Adjunct does not reconstruct into the VP in the elliptical conjunct: (25) VP-ELLIPSIS, 2 ND CONJUNCT (= (18)) *John [ VP gave the books to them on each other s birthdays] and Mary did - on each other i s first day of school (- = [ VP gave the books to them i ]) ANALYSIS: High Merger of adjunct ((2)a) does not require adjunct movement. Merging adjunct low ((2)b/c) necessitates adjunct movement. ± Economy selects (2)a. º Adjuncts fail to display reconstruction effects because the lowest adjunct copy (in Adv-I) resides outside the c-command domain of objects. (2) ELLIPTICAL CLAUSE *... and Mary [ Ellipsis gave the books to them i ] on each other s first day of school a. U High Merger with vp (Adv-I) + VP-Ellipsis vp vp Adv-I vp OBJ i VP 7 VP-ELLIPSIS... t i... t SUB b. Y Low Merger with VP (Adv-II) + VP-Ellipsis + Adjunct Movement XP vp Adv-II PF <--l! 7 1. ADJUNCT t SUB vp! MOVEMENT! OBJ i VP 7 2. VP-ELLIPSIS! VP Adv-II LF... t i... c. Y Low Merger with VP (Adv-II) d. Y High Merger with vp (Adv-I) + vp-ellipsis + vp-ellipsis + Adjunct Movement + Adjunct Movement XP 2. VP-ELLIPSIS L vp Adv-II PF <-l! t SUB vp! 7 1. ADJUNCT! MOVEMENT OBJ i VP!! VP Adv-II LF... t i...

4 7 WINFRIED LECHNER DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE 8! The derivations in (2) are members of to the same reference set and potentially differ w.r.t. the position in which the adjunct originates: VP or vp. The economy metric can therefore identify the optimal candidate only once the derivation has reached the higher adjunct position vp; it must have the option of looking ahead in the derivation: (27) COROLLARY: Economy conditions cannot be computed strictly locally. The domain of evaluation for the metric needs to include at least vp (± phases). " Adjuncts in antecedent conjunct behave like adjuncts in simple clauses, and are merged low (Haider 199). Ellipsis is licensed, as focused XPs are disregarded for the computation of semantic parallelism: (28) VP-ELLIPSIS, 1 ST CONJUNCT (= (21)b) John gave the books to them i on each other i s birthdays and Mary did - on their first day of school. (- = [ VP gave the books to them i ]) 4.2. VP-TOPICALIZATION (OPTIONAL ADJUNCT RECONSTRUCTION)! Adjunct reconstruction for Principle A: (29) PESETSKY S PARADOX (= ()) John intended to [ VP give the books to the children], and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did on L each other i s birthdays. " Adjuncts do not reconstruct into fronted VPs for the computation of disjoint reference effects: (0) VP-FRONTING, PRINCIPLE C John promised to give the books to her, and [ VP give the books to her i ] he did on L Mary i s birthday. Adjuncts reconstruct optionally in contexts of VP-Fronting.! Huang (199): Fronted predicates fail to display Multiple Binding Domain Effects (Barss 198), because they include the trace of the subject: (1) a. [Which book about herself i ] does she i think he is reading b. *... and [ vp t k reading a book about herself i ] she i thinks he k is. VP-Fronting targets vp, and not VP, which excludes the subject. (Possibly due to Shortest Move/MLC, since vp is closer to C/ than VP.) ANALYSIS: Topicalization targets vp. Adjunct remnants therefore need to move, irrespective whether they are generated high or low. ± Adjuncts can be merged either in Adv-I or in Adv-II. º Adjuncts exhibit optional reconstruction effects. (2) : : VP-FRONTING L vp!!!! vp Adv-I _-m 7 PRINCIPLE C!... and [ vp give the books to her i ] he did t SUB vp! on Mary i s birthday! OBJ i VP!! VP Adv-II -----m 7 PRINCIPLE A (VARIABLE BINDING,...)... and [ vp give the books to them i ] he did... t i... on each other i s birthdays 4.. ABSENCE OF SHORTEST MOVE EFFECTS PROBLEM: Shortest Move should prefer high over low Merger, prohibiting reconstruction in (2). () ADJUNCT CONJECTURE: Adv-I and Adv-II are equidistant from higher attractors. " Adjuncts do not trigger Superiority violations among each other, in support of Adjunct Conjecture: (4) a. Where did you sleep when b. When did you sleep where! (4) does not yet conclusively demonstrate that Adv-I and Adv-II are equidistant from higher attractors, as where and when could either be both generated in Adv-I or both originate in Adv-II. (5) TEST CONTEXT FOR ADJUNCT CONJECTURE: VP-Fronting with two remnants Remnant-I contains a name which corefers with a pronoun in the fronted VP. º Remnant-I must be merged into Adv-I. Remnant-II contains an anaphor bound by the pronoun inside the fronted VP. º Remnant-II must be merged into Adv-II. () PREDICTION: Remnant-I and remnant-ii may undergo movement in any order. Thus, the remnants may surface either in order remnant-i^remnant-ii or in order remnant- II^remnant-I (assuming Richards 1997).

5 9 WINFRIED LECHNER DERIVING PS-PARADOXES BY CONDITIONS ON MERGE 10! VP-Fronting may strand two (adverbial) remnants: (7) John said he would give the books to them in one of the gardens,... and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did [ Remnant-II in the garden][ Remnant-I on each other i s birthday] Pesetsky (1995: 20, (570c)) " Nested paths (order reversing): (8) can be derived by right-ward remnant movement triggered by multiple attracting heads, but not by right-ward remnant movement triggered by single attracting head (which would lead to tucking-in in multiple specifiers; Richards 1997): (8) a.... and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did [ Remnant-II in the children i s garden][ Remnant-I on each other i s birthday] b.... and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did [ Remnant-II in John and Peter i s garden][ Remnant-I on each other i s birthday]! Crossing paths (order preserving): (9) can be derived by right-ward remnant movement triggered by single attracting head, but not by right-ward remnant movement triggered by multiple attracting heads: (9) a.... and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did [ Remnant-I on each other i s birthday] [ Remnant-II in the children i s garden] b.... and [ VP give the books to them i ] he did [ Remnant-I on each other i s birthday][ Remnant-II in John and Peter i s garden] CONCLUSION: (8) & (9) can be given a consistent analysis only on the assumption of the Adjunct Conjecture. (NB: Same conclusion obtains if remnant movement is assumed to proceed left-wards.) RESUME 9 Remnant movement analysis of PS-Paradoxes supported by º Locality ± Scope Freezing 9 Adjuncts can be merged with vp or with VP. 9 Choice of specific base position is determined by economy conditions. º Contrast VP-Ellipsis vs. VP-Fronting THEORETICAL CONSEQUENCE. Economy cannot be computed strictly locally (± Phases) APPENDIX: FURTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST LOW MERGER ACD in contexts of VP-Fronting supports conclusion that remnants move. (40) VP-FRONTING AND ACD a. Mary asked him to give a book to some of the boys, and [ VP give a book] he did to [ QP every boy Mary wanted him to -] b.... [[ QP every boy k Mary wanted him to give a book to t k ] i...[ VP give a book to t i ]] ASSUMPTION: ACD is resolved by covert movement (QR) of every boy Mary wanted him to. BIBLIOGRAPHY º Y Incorretly predicts ambiguity for (10)b (contra Scope Freezing). Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li Syntax of Scope. Cambridge: MIT Press. Barss, Andrew Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and its Implications. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: Chomsky, Noam The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: Cinque, Guglielmo Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fanselow, Gisbert Against Remnant Movement? Manuscript, University of Potsdam. Paper available at: Fox, Danny Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Freidin, Robert Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding. In B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Volume I, pp Dordrecht: Reidel. Haider, Hubert Deutsche Syntax - Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Huang, C.-T. James Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1: Kratzer, Angelika Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, pp Dordrecht: Kluwer. Larson, Richard On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.: Lebeaux, David Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Lebeaux, David Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation. Proceedings of NELS 20, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Lechner, Winfried Phrase Structure Paradoxes. Lecture notes for 7th Central European Summer School in Generative Grammar, Blagoevgrad - Bulgaria. Pesetsky, David Zero Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Phillips, Colin Order and Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Phillips, Colin. to appear in Linguistic Inquiry. Linear Order and Constituency. Paper available at: Rooth, Mats Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, Stuttgart. S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 40, University of Stuttgart/University of Tübingen. Sauerland, Uli. 1998a. Scope Reconstruction without Reconstruction. Proceedings of WCCFL 1, Sauerland, Uli. 1998b. The Meaning of Chains. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Sauerland, Uli and Paul Elbourne Total Reconstruction, PF-Movement and Derivational Order, Ms. University of Tuebingen/MIT.

6 11 WINFRIED LECHNER APPENDIX II: SUMMARY OF RECONSTRUCTION PROPERTIES! Arguments in VP-Ellipsis reconstruct according to Lebeaux/Freidin generalization: (41) VP-ELLIPSIS, PRINCIPLE C a. *While some believed him i everything, others did only the story that John i had met aliens. b. While some believed him i everything, others did only the story that John i had evidence for. (Sauerland 1998b: 114; (78)) (42) VP-ELLIPSIS,VARIABLE BINDING (ARGUMENTS) We will introduce every girl i to her i Spanish teacher, and you will to her i driving instructor. (4) VP-ELLIPSIS, PRINCIPLE A (ARGUMENTS) (?)We will introduce the girls i to each other i s supervisors, and you will to each other i s parents. Table 1: Properties of adjunct remnants in VP-Fronting (VP-F) and VP-Ellipsis (VP-E) REMNANTS RECONSTRUCT FOR 9IN CONTEXT OF VP-F VP-E, VP-E, 2 nd Variable binding, inside adjunct remnant T T Y Variable binding, inside argument remnant T T T BT-A, inside adjunct remnant T T Y BT-A, inside argument remnant T T T BT-C, inside adjunct remnant Y T Y BT-C, adjunct inside argument remnant Y Y Y BT-C, argument inside argument remnant T T T Scope Y T T