Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification

ELLIPSIS This page intentionally left blank ELLIPSIS Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification A N N E LOBEC...

Author: Anne Lobeck

53 downloads 617 Views 8MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ELLIPSIS

This page intentionally left blank

ELLIPSIS Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification

A N N E LOBECK

New York Oxford OXFORD U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS

1995

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland Madrid and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright ©1995 by Anne Lobeck Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lobeck, Anne C. Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing, and identification/Anne Lobeck. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-509181-7 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Ellipsis. 2. Generative grammar. I. Title. P29I.3.L53 1995 415—dc20 94-32662

24689753 I Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Acknowledgments

This book has been part of my life for so long now that I am indebted to almost everyone I know in the field, as so many have taken the time to talk with me about my work. Those who have made particularly large contributions include Ed Battistella, Joe Emonds, Betsy Ritter, Peggy Speas, and Karen Zagona. Help from J-Marc Authier, Mark Baltin, Andy Barss, Josef Bayer, Norbert Corver, Julia Herschensohn, Arild Hestvik, Riny Huybregts, Ellen-Petra Kester, Shalom Lappin, Michael Rochemont, and Juergen Weissenborn has also been invaluable. For assistance with French and German examples and judgments, I thank Michael Gamon, Dorothee Beerman, Julia Herschensohn, Natalie Lefkowitz, and Walter Suess. I am of course responsible for any errors. I am also grateful to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a summer grant awarded to me in 1988, and to Western Washington University for a Bureau of Faculty Research Grant in 1991. My colleagues in the English Department at Western Washington University, in particular Rick Emmerson, Department Chair, also deserve thanks for their support of my research. Above all, I thank my family. My parents have always been supportive, and without them I would not be where I am now. My gratitude also to Charlie, Shellane, and Schuyler, for their patience and support throughout this project.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Introduction 1. 1.0 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

7

Introduction, 7 Two Theories of Licensing and Identification, 8 Chomsky (1986b): Barriers Theory, 8 pro in Barriers Theory, 14 Rizzi (1990): Relativized Minimality, 16 pro in Relativized Minimality Theory, 19 The Definition of 'Ellipsis,' 20 Ellipsis versus Gapping, 27 Ellipsis versus Stripping, 27 Ellipses as Empty non-NP Pronomials, 28 The Derivation and Identification of Ellipted Categories, 30 Deletion versus Interpretation, 30 Reconstruction and Identification, 32 Conclusion, 36 Notes, 36 2.

2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3

3

Strong Agreement, Licensing, and Identification

Introduction, 41 Ellipsis and X-bar Theory, 42 Ellipsis in NP, 42 Sluicing, 45 VP Ellipsis, 46

41

2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 2.4 2.5

An Alternative Theory of Phrase Structure, 50 Functional Categories and Strong Agreement, 57 Strong Agreement in DET, 52 Strong Agreement in INFL, 53 Strong Agreement in COMP, 54 Agreement in COMP in Bavarian German and Norwegian, 58 Sluicing, Pied Piping, and Preposition Stranding, 60 Ellipsis in DEGP, 62 Conclusion, 65 Notes, 66 3.

3.0 3.1 3.1.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

71

Introduction, 71 The Phrase Structure of English DP, 73 Rothstein (1988) and Ritter (1991), 74 DET and NUM in English DP, 80 Ellipsis in DP and NUMP: The 'Generalized' Government Transparency Corollary, 85 Ellipsis in English Quantified Noun Phrases, 93 Summary, 96 Notes, 96 4.

4.0 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3

Two Functional Heads in English DP

Ellipsis in German and French Noun Phrases: The Ellipsis Identification Parameter 707

Introduction, 707 Agreement and Ellipsis in German Noun Phrases, 702 Weak and Strong Endings, 702 Two Functional Heads in German DP, 709 Ellipsis in German DP and NUMP, 772 Ellipsis in Quantified Noun Phrases in German, 778 Agreement and Ellipsis in French Noun Phrases, 727 Agreement in French Noun Phrases, 722 Two Functional Heads in French DP, 724 Quantified Noun Phrases in French, 726 Ellipsis in French Noun Phrases, 730 The Ellipsis Identification Parameter, 133 Notes, 136

5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Introduction, 141 Verb Raising and Feature Checking in English, 143 Empty Heads and the ECP: Auxiliary Reduction and Subject Auxiliary Inversion, 757 NEG as a Licensing and Identifying Head, 154 VP Ellipsis in French and German, 158 Notes, 762 6.

6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.3.1 6.3.3.2

VP Ellipsis in English, French, and German Tensed Clauses 141

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

165

Introduction, 765 The Structural Position of Infinitives, 766 Infinitival to and Incorporation, 169 V-P Reanalysis as Incorporation, 777 Extensions of the Analysis: for and not, 172 Blocking Incorporation, 775 WH-Movement, 775 'Too/Enough' and 'Tough' Infinitives, 777 Infinitives in Noun Phrases and Infinitival Purpose Clauses, 183 Ellipsis in Infinitives in Noun Phrases, 183 Purpose Clauses, 185 Notes, 187

References, 193 Index, 203

This page intentionally left blank

ELLIPSIS

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

One focus of study in generative syntactic theory concerns the constraints on the distribution of 'empty categories,' syntactically empty positions, which are either derived through movement, as in (1), or are base-generated, as in (2). (1) (2)

Who do you think [e] left? [e] salio. 'He/she left.'

One of the goals of government-binding theory is to explain the distribution of both the empty non-pronominal, or 'trace,' in (1) and the empty pronominal, or pro, in (2) through general and universal principles. One such principle is the Empty Category Principle, or ECP, in (3). (3)

The Empty Category Principle [e] must be properly governed

The ECP is taken in current versions of government-binding theory to be a 'licensing' condition, a general syntactic constraint that restricts the distribution of empty categories. Empty categories are also subject to 'identification' conditions, conditions through which their referential content is recovered. While it has been widely argued that traces are subject to the ECP, it has been a subject of some debate as to whether pro also is. We might expect this to be the case, however, if the ECP is truly a universal principle. In this study, I elaborate a theory in which the distribution of not only trace and pro in (1 -2), but also the empty categories in (4), is explained through general principles of licensing, namely the ECP, and identification. (4)

a. VP Ellipsis Because [Pavarotti couldn't [e]], they asked Domingo to sing the part. IP

VP

b. Sluicing We want to invite someone, but we don't know [who [e]]. CP

3

IP

4

ELLIPSIS

c.

Ellipsis in NP Although [these [e]] were pretty good, those books will never be NP

bestsellers. Conditions on the phenomena in (4), which I define as 'ellipsis,' are typically taken to be quite distinct from those that constrain the empty categories in (1-2). Some notable exceptions include Zagona, 1982, 1988a, 1988b; Chao, 1987; and Contreras, 1989, although none of these approaches discusses unified constraints on ellipsis across all three categories in (4). In this study, I propose a theory in which 'ellipted' elements in all three cases in (4) are empty non-NP pronominals, a claim originally made by Wasow (1972) for empty VP, and by Chao (1987), for empty VP and IP. Further, I argue that ellipted categories are licensed and identified under the conditions in (5). (5)

Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and governed by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

Under (5), ellipted categories, like the empty pronominal in (2), must satisfy the ECP. Empty pronominals must also be identified through agreement features. I take agreement, however, to include not only Person, Number, Gender, and Case, but also a range of other agreement features for which functional categories are specified. Because nominal agreement features are the means by which the referential content of an empty NP pronominal such as in (2) is recovered, that ellipted categories are also subject to (5) is at first surprising. Ellipses are non-referential empty categories, whose content is typically argued in government-binding theory to be recovered through interpretive rules, or 'reconstruction.' I show, however, that (5) holds uniformly of both referential and non-referential empty pronominals, and is the means by which the empty element is made 'visible' to certain interpretative strategies. The theory developed here supports the claim that the ECP holds of both empty pronominal (pro) and nonpronominal (trace) categories, and that licensing in the form of the ECP is separate from identification. The analysis supports other independently motivated claims, including the idea that potential proper governors include not only lexical, but also functional heads, as proposed by Rizzi (1990). Here, I argue that the set of functional categories includes not only COMP and INFL, or more accurately, COMP, AGR, and Tense, but also two functional categories in noun phrases. Extending Ritter's (1991) analysis of Hebrew noun phrases to English, ellipsis data supports the idea that noun phrases in English contain two functional categories, DET and NUM, both of which are potential proper governors.

Introduction

5

Cross-linguistic evidence from ellipsis in noun phrases also supports the claim that Baker's (1988) Government Transparency Corollory, or GTC, in (6), is actually best expressed as the more 'generalized' version in (7). (6)

(7)

The Government Transparency Corollary A lexical category which has an item incorporated into it governs everything which the incorporated item governed in its original structural position. (Baker, 1988, p. 64) The Generalized Government Transparency Corollary An X-0 which is coindexed with and governs an empty head governs everything that head would govern.

(7) allows us to explain why a head can properly govern and identify an empty complement of a coindexed empty head, through, essentially, a 'chain' of proper head government. The Generalized GTC thus applies to empty coindexed heads in general, and is not restricted to applying only in incorporation structures. The account of VP Ellipsis in both tensed and infinitival clauses in English proposed here supports the Generalized GTC, as it arises in several contexts that a higher head licenses and identifies empty VP through a coindexed chain of empty heads under government. Also, the discussion of the lack of productive VP Ellipsis in French and German provides independent justification for a slightly revised version of Chomsky's (1992) theory of Verb Raising triggered by feature checking. I argue that the lack of empty VP in these languages follows from the level at which Tense features are checked, as only 'unchecked' features identify empty VP. Tense features are unchecked at the relevant level in English, but not in productive Verb Raising languages such as French and German. In addition to supporting different, independently motivated principles, the account of ellipsis proposed here also provides evidence in favor of some novel principles and parameters. The analysis of ellipsis in noun phrases in German, French, and English suggests that languages vary as to how 'rich' agreement must be to identify an empty nominal category. This variation is constrained by a parameter whereby the number of features needed to identify the empty complement of DET or NUM is proportional to the number of agreement features expressed in noun phrases in the language. This parameter explains why ellipsis in noun phrases in both English and German is very productive, even though Engish has a far less 'rich' agreement system than German. French falls in between, in having more agreement than English, but less than German. Not all DET and NUM allow ellipted complements in French, even though these X-0s appear to be specified for strong agreement. Another novel idea proposed here is that empty X-0s are not obligatorily subject to the ECP. Several paradigms involving both ellipsis in noun phrases

6

ELLIPSIS

and in tensed and infinitival clauses suggest that empty heads are subject to the ECP only if they are part of a chain of proper government through which another empty phrase must be properly governed. The ECP is thus not only argued here to constrain ellipses, but to apply obligatorily only to empty phrases, but not empty heads.

1 Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

1.0 Introduction In 1.1 I compare and contrast Chomsky's (1986b) 'barriers' theory with Rizzi's (1990) theory of 'Relativized Minimality.' I show that of the two, only Rizzi's (1990) theory can be extended, with a minimum of theoretical expense, to express the conditions under which both empty pronominal and non-pronominal categories are licensed and identified. Also, it is only in his theory that 'nonlexical,' or 'functional' categories, including COMP and INFL, are included in the class of potential proper head-governors without extra stipulation. Based on arguments in this and subsequent chapters that ellipses are non-NP pro, and that functional categories properly head-govern ellipses, Rizzi's theory is for this reason to be favored over Chomsky's, and is henceforth adopted. 1.2 is devoted to the definition of 'ellipsis,' and the issues that arise when we attempt to derive the constraints on this phenomenon from a theory of syntactic licensing and identification. I demonstrate that VP Ellipsis, ellipsis in NP, and Sluicing all form a natural class distinct from other, apparently similar 'anaphora' not derived by movement, namely Gapping and Stripping. In 1.3 I discuss the typology and derivation of ellipted categories, and adopt Chao's (1987) claim that ellipses in S and S' are typologically 'non-NP' pro, and extend this claim to include ellipsis in NP. 1.4 reviews the arguments for a deletion versus interpretation approach to the derivation of ellipted categories, and argues in favor of the claim that ellipses, or 'non-NP pro,' are generated empty in the base, with their content recovered through 'reconstruction.' 1.5 concludes the chapter.

7

8

ELLIPSIS

1.1 Two Theories of Licensing and Identification 1.1.1 Chomsky (1986b): Barriers Theory One central goal of Chomsky's (1981) government-binding theory is to explain the distribution of empty non-pronominals, or 'traces,' in terms of general, interacting principles. For example, in the following sentences, a WH-phrase has been moved out of an embedded clause to sentence-initial position, from object position in (la), and from embedded subject position in (lb): (1)

a. What did you think [Mary bought t at the store]? S'

b. Who do you think [t bought bananas]? S'

Movement is argued to result from application of 'Move alpha,' a rule that moves both phrasal and non-phrasal elements to other syntactic positions (Chomsky, 1981). Because Move alpha applies freely, any ungrammatical cases of movement must be explained by the interaction of this operation with independent principles, principles that restrict movement in the appropriate way. Now consider (2): (2)

a.

What do you think [that Mary bought t]? S'

b. *Who do you think [that t bought bananas]? S'

(2a-b) contrast with (1 a-b) above only by the addition of the complementizer that in the embedded clause. The presence of that does not appear to affect movement of the object, as we see in (2a), but it does in some way restrict movement of the subject, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (2b). To explain these and a range of other patterns involving traces, Chomsky (1981) proposes that empty categories derived by movement must be in a special structural, or 'government,' relation, what he refers to as a 'proper' government relation. This requirement is expressed by the Empty Category Principle, or ECP, in (3): (3)

The Empty Category Principle (ECP) [e] must be properly governed.

Government is, in general, defined in terms of structural relations determined by principles of a X-bar Theory (see Chomsky, 1970, and Jackendoff, 1977). One X-bar principle is that in head-initial languages such as English, X-0 heads project to intermediate (X') and maximal (X") projections. Further, specifiers (occurring to the left of the head in English), are immediately dominated by X", as illustrated in (4).

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

9

For Chomsky (1981), the set of X-0s include the lexical heads N, V, A, and P, and the non-lexical heads COMP and INFL. Government is defined in terms of maximal projections (with refinements discussed below), where a head governs all the constituents in its maximal projection, but does not govern into those constituents. One exception to this definition is that heads also govern the heads of their complements (Belletti and Rizzi, 1981). In later versions of the theory, heads are also argued to govern the specifiers of their complements (Chomsky, 1986b). X in (4) therefore governs its specifier SPEC(X), its complement Y", Y, and its specifier, SPEC(Y). X does not, however, govern Z". 'Proper' government of a trace is a more restrictive form of government that holds between the empty category and either its antecedent or a lexical head, N, V, A, or P. Therefore, non-lexical heads, namely INFL and COMP, govern, but do not properly govern, other constituents. In both (la) and (2a) above, bought properly governs the trace of its object, and the ECP is satisfied. The ungrammaticality of (2b), on the other hand, suggests that although t is governed by both embedded INFL and COMP, neither head properly governs t. Rather, t must be properly governed by an antecedent, a relation which holds in (1b), but is violated in (2b), presumably by the presence of the lexical complementizer that. The notion of 'lexical' government, or government by a lexical head, is further refined by Stowell (1981: Ch.6), who argues that lexical government is similar to what is currently referred to as 'theta-government' (Chomsky, 1986b: section 3). Defined informally, theta-government is the structural relation between a head and a sister to which the head assigns a 'theta' or semantic role. Requiring lexical government to entail theta-role assignment derives the result that only lexical heads, the set of heads which assign theta-roles, are potential proper governors. INFL and COMP, as non-lexical heads which do not assign theta-roles, are excluded from the class of proper governors. For Chomsky (1986a: Ch. 3), all elements in a derivation must be both 'licensed' and 'identified' to be wellformed. He does not explicitly separate licensing from identification of empty categories, but it follows from his approach that licensing entails the structural conditions under which an empty element is well-

10

ELLIPSIS

formed. Identification is the means by which the content of an empty category is recovered. Principles of Government, Case, Theta, and Binding Theories all interact to satisfy conditions on licensing and identification. For example, principles of proper government and the ECP express the structural conditions under which a trace is wellformed, and can thus be taken to be licensing conditions. Principle C of the Binding Theory in (5) describes the structural conditions under which, for example, an empty [-pronominal, -anaphor] category, or trace, is related to its antecedent. Principles of Binding Theory thus contribute to both licensing and identification. (5)

Binding Theory A. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category B. A pronominal must be free in its governing category C. An r-expression must be free

In Chomsky's (1986b) version of government-binding theory, government is defined in terms of barriers, where the definition of barrier crucially incorporates the notion of theta-government. (The definitions below are taken from Chomsky, 1986b: sections 3 and 4, with the exception of the definition of antecedent-government, which he implies but does not state explicitly.) (6)

(7)

(8) (9) (10)

Government1 a governs b iff a m-commands b and there is no y, y a barrier for b, such that y excludes a. Proper Government b is properly governed by a iff a theta-governs or antecedentgoverns b. a. Theta-Government a theta-governs b iff a is a zero-level category that theta-marks b, and a, b are sisters b. Antecedent-Government a antecedent-governs b iff a is coindexed with b and no barrier intervenes between a and b L-Marking a L-marks b iff a is a lexical category that theta-governs b Blocking Category y is a BC for b iff y is not L-marked and y dominates b Barrier y is a barrier for b iff (a) or (b) (a) y immediately dominates z, z a BC for b; (b) y is a BC for b, y not equal to IP

According to the above definitions, a blocking category, or BC, a notion upon which the definition of barrier depends, is a maximal projection which is not

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

11

theta-governed, and hence not L-marked. This implies that only the complements of lexical heads, namely N, V, A, and P, are potentially L-marked; therefore, only those projections can escape barrierhood. In contrast, the complements of the non-lexical heads COMP and INFL, IP and VP, respectively, are by definition not L-marked, and are thus blocking categories. IP, however, is 'defective,' and kept from being an inherent barrier by (10b). In addition to L-marking, barriers are also defined in terms of intervening X-0 heads—that is, in terms of the Minimality Condition in (11) (Chomsky, 1986b: p. 43). (11)

The Minimality Condition in... a . . . [ . . . b ... c. . . ] Y

a does not govern c if Y is a projection of b excluding a, and Y immediately dominates c According to (11), a governor, either a head or an antecedent, is blocked from governing into another phrase by the head of that phrase. From the Minimality Condition and the ECP, Chomsky derives the Head Movement Constraint in (12), originally formulated by Travis (1984). (12)

Head Movement Constraint (HMC) An X-0 can move only to a governing head position.

(12) expresses the generalization that movement of heads proceeds head-tohead; if not, illformedness results. The HMC thus constrains, for example, Verb Raising in various languages as movement of V to INFL and then possibly on to COMP, as illustrated in (13a). V cannot 'skip' INFL and move to COMP, as in (13b):

If we take head-movement to be constrained by antecedent-government, the HMC derives from the ECP; X-0 can only move into a position that governs it because it is only from that position that the trace of X-0 will be antecedentgoverned. Movement beyond that position violates the Minimality Condition, and induces an ECP violation.

12

ELLIPSIS

It follows from the above definitions and conditions that subjects, governed but not theta-marked by INFL, and adjuncts, which may be governed but are not theta-marked, are not theta-governed. A trace in subject or adjunct position must therefore be antecedent-governed if extraction is to be allowed. In this way, the theory derives the now familiar subject-adjunct versus object asymmetries first pointed out by Huang (1982). To illustrate how 'barriers' theory of government handles the basic paradigms that arise from movement, consider the following, where movement is to the SPEC(C) position, rather than to COMP, as assumed in earlier versions of the theory. (14) (15)

[What did [Mary [buy t at the store]]]?

CP

a.

IF

VP

[Who.did John think [t' [t saw Sue]]]?

CP

CP

IP

b. *[Who did John think [ [t saw Sue]]]? CP

CP IP

In (14), t is theta-governed by the verb buy, and the ECP is satisfied. In (15a-b), on the other hand, neither subject trace is theta-governed, and both must therefore be antecedent-governed. Embedded CP is L-marked, and is therefore not a barrier to government in (15a). IP is a BC but not a barrier, and CP inherits barrierhood from IP. The subject trace must therefore be antecedent-governed from inside CP, which it is by t'. In (15b), t has only who as a potential antecedent governor, but government of t is blocked by CP, a barrier by inheritance from IP, and the derivation is correctly ruled out by the ECP. We see from the discussion of (15) that one important tenet of the barriers theory of government is that IP is 'defective' in the sense that though it is not L-marked and is therefore a BC, it is not a barrier. Another basic assumption in barriers theory is that VP is also not L-marked, but differs from IP in being both a BC and a barrier. This predicts that extraction of a non-theta-marked element out of VP, such as in (16), should be ruled out; extraction crosses a barrier, the matrix VP, inducing an ECP violation. (16)

Why do you think [t' [John [fixed the car t]]]? CP

IP

VP

To avoid this result, Chomsky (1986b:p. 6) stipulates (17). (17)

Adjunction is possible only to a maximal projection (X") that is a nonargument.

(17) rules out adjunction to argument NP and CP, but allows adjunction to VP, a non-argument. The adjunct why in (16) can therefore adjoin to VP as in (18),

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

13

and t' antecedent-governs t. t' is itself antecedent-governed by t" in SPEC(C), and no ECP violation results. (18)

Why did you think [t" [John [t' [fixed the car t]]]? CP

IP

VP

VP

In order for the above analysis of VP as a barrier to go through, it is crucial that INFL not L-mark VP. However, Chomsky (1986b: section 11) maintains that INFL theta-marks VP, in order to account for the grammaticality of (19). (19)

John said he would leave, and leave he will [e].

In (19), the trace of the preposed VP is presumably properly governed by INFL, a non-lexical head that theta-marks and theta-governs VP, though INFL does not also assign a theta-role to VP in the standard sense.2 Turning attention now to the governing properties of COMP, when lexically filled, COMP is typically taken to govern, but not properly govern. Evidence for this assumption comes from sentences such as (20). (20) *Who do you think [t' [that [t left]]? CP

C'

IP

Although that in COMP may govern the embedded subject position in (20), it apparently does not theta-govern that position. Also, t' is apparently blocked from antecedent-governing t, though there are no obvious barriers between t' and t. As we saw in (15a), if that is absent in COMP, subject extraction is grammatical. (21) is therefore well-formed: (21)

Who do you think [t' [[e] [t left]]]? CP

C'

IP

Chomsky accounts for the contrast between (20-21) by proposing that the former is ruled out by a violation of the Minimality Condition; filled COMP blocks antecedent-government of t by t' and who. In (21), empty COMP does not create a minimality barrier, and t' antecedent-governs t. (22) illustrates that although for in COMP governs and assigns case to the embedded subject position, ruling out PRO in that position,for, like that, fails to theta-govern, and hence to properly govern, the trace of the embedded subject. (22)

a.

Mary arranged [for [Bill to visit the class]]. CP

IP

b. *Mary arranged [for [PRO to visit the class]]. CP

IP

c. *Who did Mary arrange [t' [for [t to visit the class]]]? CP

IP

In (22c) COMP filled with for blocks antecedent-government of t by t' just as that does in (20), and t violates the ECP.

14

ELLIPSIS

In barriers theory, then, a system in which proper government by heads is defined in terms of theta-government, COMP and INFL differ markedly with respect to their properties as governors and proper governors. Though both heads govern when lexically filled, neither L-marks its complement. INFL nevertheless theta-marks, and thus potentially theta-governs, VP. Lexically filled COMP, on the other hand, does not theta-mark its complement IP, and is therefore under no conditions a proper governor. 1.1.2 pro in Barriers Theory As we saw above, in barriers theory INFL properly governs VP, but not the subject position, at least in English. The theory of proper government, and in particular the role of INFL in government theory, must, however, be elaborated in certain ways if it is to account for patterns of data from languages other than English. One well-studied pattern involves the distribution of empty phrases governed, and apparently also properly governed, by tensed INFL. Some examples are given in (23-24): (23)

(24)

Spanish a. [e] salio. '(He/she) left.' b. Muchos estudiantes piensan que [e] son intelligentes. 'Many students think that (they) are intelligent.' Italian a. [e] voglio che nessuno venga. '(I) want no one come.' b. Chi [e] credi che partira? 'Who do (you) think will leave?'

In (23-24), the subject position of a tensed clause is empty, and interpreted as a non-arbitrary pronominal, or pro, constrained by Principle B of the Binding Theory. That is, [e] is free in its governing category, in this case its containing S, and refers to an antecedent in an A-position outside of S (see Chomsky, 1982: Section 5, for discussion of the typological differences between pro and trace). Two issues now arise. One is that pro subjects are not allowed in all languages, as the ungrammaticality of the English glosses of (23-24) indicates. The theory must therefore distinguish languages that allow empty pronominal subjects from those that do not. Second, we must determine whether empty pronominals, like other empty categories, are subject to the ECP, a supposedly universal principle. The barriers version of the ECP, defined in terms of antecedent- and thetagovernment, does not extend to constrain the pro subjects in (23-24) in any

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

15

obvious way; in each case, the empty subject is apparently properly governed by neither a theta-marking head nor an antecedent. No movement is involved, and governing INFL is a non-lexical head which does not theta-mark the subject position. Thus, if empty pronominals are subject to the ECP, proper government in (7) must be refined. It has been argued in the literature on empty, non-arbitrary pronominals that licensing and identification conditions are separate, and that licensing follows from the ECP. For example, for Rizzi (1982, 1986), licensing of non-arbitrary pro is under Case-government by a special set of X-0s which can vary across languages. Identification requires coindexing with 'strong' agreement. In his approach, the Case-government condition on pro, separate from conditions on identification, satisfies the ECP. Similarly, for Chomsky (1981) and Jaeggli (1982), licensing of pro, an empty category constrained by the ECP, is satisfied by a version of Case-government, and identification is satisfied through association with agreement features of Person, Number, and sometimes Gender in INFL.3 I assume that (25) expresses the licensing and identification conditions on pro. (25)

Licensing and Identification of pro A non-arbitrary, empty pronominal must be properly governed, and identified under government by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

I take the 'proper government' requirement in (25), discussed in more detail below, to be separate from identification, and to express the conditions under which pro satisfies the ECP. 'Strong' agreement is taken to mean productive, morphological realization of features from which a significant portion of the referential content of non-arbitrary pro is recovered. Non-arbitrary pro subjects are therefore identified in certain Romance languages, where features of Person and Number are overtly realized in tensed INFL. English INFL, on the other hand, does not productively realize such features morphologically, with the result that pro subjects in that language are not identified, and are ruled out.4 Because in barriers theory only non-pronominals are licensed under theta- or antecedent-government, (7) must be elaborated to also include licensing of empty pronominals. Assuming that such empty categories are licensed under head-government (by INFL, for example), (26) expresses the licensing conditions on not only trace, but also on pro. (26)

Proper Government b is properly governed by a iff a theta-governs, antecedent-governs, or head-governs b.

16

ELLIPSIS

Proper government is defined in (26) as a disjunction. If we take disjunctive definitions to be less explanatory than single, unified principles, an alternative to (26) is desirable.5 An alternative approach to licensing and identification is available if we extend Rizzi's (1990) theory of Relativized Minimality to include licensing and identification conditions on empty, non-arbitrary pronominals. Under this approach, the ECP is not stated disjunctively, and identification conditions vary depending on the typology and referential properties of the empty category to be interpreted. This elaboration of Rizzi's framework also provides a unified characterization of INFL and COMP in government theory, as both are potential proper governors.

1.1.3 Rizzi (1990): Relativized Minimality As we saw in the discussion of Chomsky's Minimality Condition in (11), government of a constituent by either a head or an antecedent is blocked by an intervening head. In contrast, in Rizzi's conception of Relativized Miniminality, the set of 'potential alpha-governors' includes heads, A specifiers, and A' specifiers, and government by one of these is blocked by an intervening XP or X-0 governor of the same type. This means that only intervening heads create minimality barriers to government by other heads, and only antecedents create minimality barriers to government by other antecedents. Rizzi's definitions of Relativized Minimality, head- and antecedent-government are given below (from Rizzi, 1990: pp. 6-7): (27)

(28)

(29)

Relativized Minimality X alpha-governs Y only if there is no Z such that (i) Z is a typical potential alpha-governor for Y, (ii) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X Head Government X head-governs Y iff (i) a. X is a head b. X m-commands Y (ii) X = {[±V, ±N], AGR, Tense} (iii) a. no barrier intervenes b. Relativized Minimality is respected Antecedent Government X W-antecedent governs Y (W = {A, A', X-0}) iff (i) a. X is in a W-position b. X c-commands Y (ii) X and Y are coindexed

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

(iii)

17

a. no barrier intervenes b. Relativized Minimality is respected

In Rizzi's definition of head-government, as in Chomsky's (1986b) definition of government, the set of possible governors includes the lexical heads N, V, A, and P. Rizzi departs from barriers theory in his treatment of the non-lexical heads COMP and INFL. He follows Pollock (1989) in taking 'INFL' to be actually characterized as the two functional heads AGR and TENSE, and includes both of these non-lexical, or 'functional' categories in the set of proper head-governors when specified for features. For example, Tense in both infinitives and tensed clauses is specified for features, and is thus a proper headgovernor. AGR in tensed clauses is as well, but AGR in infinitives lacks features, and fails to properly head-govern. (For the moment I retain the term 'INFL' for exposition.) Also in contrast to Chomsky, Rizzi proposes that COMP is specified for agreement features (AGR) under certain conditions, and that when this happens, COMP is a governor and proper head-governor. Non-lexical heads in his theory thus form a natural class of potential proper head-governors, in contrast to barriers theory, in which INFL, but not COMP, is a potential proper governor. In Rizzi's model, antecedent-government is defined in terms of c-command, barriers, and Relativized Minimality. Rizzi assumes that 'barriers' include any XPs that are not selected by a governing head, either N, V, A, P, COMP, or INFL (see also Cinque, 1990, and Baker, 1988). Under this formulation, VP and IP, complements of INFL and COMP, respectively, are not barriers. (See Rizzi, 1990, Ch. 1, Note 6 for discussion.) An element thus antecedent-governs a coindexed element it c-commands, as long as no barriers, either intrinsic or created by Relativized Minimality, intervene. Another striking distinction between Rizzi's version of government in (2729) and Chomsky's barriers approach is that the former eliminates reference to theta-government. Rather, Rizzi proposes the ECP as a formal licensing condition which all empty non-pronominals must satisfy, and maintains that this condition, given in (30), is satisfied by proper head-government: (30)

Formal Licensing: The Empty Category Principle A non-pronominal empty category must be properly head-governed. (Rizzi, 1990: p. 87)

Proper head-government is defined as head-government within the most immediate projection of the head (Rizzi, 1990: p. 74). Lexical heads, COMP, and INFL therefore potentially properly head-govern their complements. INFL is, however, blocked from properly head-governing the subject position by INFL', the most immediate projection of INFL.6

18

ELLIPSIS

The two possible ways for a non-pronominal empty category to be identified in Rizzi's theory are given in (31): (31)

Identification a. [e] with a referential index must be bound where: X binds Y iff (i) X c-commands Y (ii) X and Y have the same referential index b. [e] without a referential index must be antecedent-governed. (Rizzi, 1990: p. 87)

Elements assigned referential indexes include NP arguments, and non-referential elements include adjuncts and predicates. One prediction made by Rizzi's theory is that only referential elements will undergo long movement, as such elements, identified through binding, need only c-command their traces. Movement of adjuncts and predicates, on the other hand, is more constrained, as the traces of such elements must be antecedent-governed, a more restrictive constraint than c-command. Antecedent-government is blocked by barriers, including those created by Relativized Minimality. (32) illustrates one of Rizzi's reasons for favoring Relativized Minimality over Chomsky's definition of 'rigid' Minimality: (32)

How do you think [t' that [Bill [solved it t]]] CP

IP

VP

In (32), three heads, embedded V, INFL, and COMP, all intervene between t' and t, and therefore also between how and t. Under Chomsky's version of Minimality in (11), t should violate the ECP, as antecedent-government should be blocked by these intervening X-0 governors. That the derivation is licit, however, suggests that V, INFL, and COMP do not interfere with antecedent-government. The desired result is derived from Relativized Minimality; under this view no relevant governors, that is, no A' specifiers, intervene between t, t', and how. Antecedent-government obtains, and the derivation is correctly predicted to be grammatical. Some examples that illustrate Rizzi's proposed distinction between types of identification for referential and non-referential elements are given in (33-34) (from Rizzi, 1990: p. 88): (33)

?Which problem: do you wonder [howj [PRO to solve ti tj]] CP

IP

(34) *Howj do you wonder [which problem: [PRO to solve ti tj]] CP

IP

In (33), the object trace, bearing a referential index, is coindexed with its antecedent through binding, a relation immune to the presence of the intervening A'

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

19

specifier how. The object trace is also properly head-governed by solve, and is therefore both licensed and identified. The adjunct trace is also properly headgoverned by either INFL or V, depending on the position of adjuncts. The adjunct trace is not referentially indexed, but it is close enough to its antecedent how for antecedent-government to obtain, as neither VP nor IP are intrinsic barriers. Only Subjacency is violated by movement across CP, accounting for the sentence's mild deviance. In (34), on the other hand, the object trace is again wellformed, but an A' specifier, which problem, intervenes between the antecedent and the adjunct trace. Antecedent-government is consequently blocked, and although the adjunct trace is properly head-governed by INFL or V, it is not identified. (34) is thus ungrammatical. Leaving further details of Rizzi's theory aside, what is of interest here is that in his model, reference to theta-government is eliminated, allowing heads that do not assign theta-roles to be potential proper governors. Functional categories specified for features, in this case both INFL and COMP, are included in the set of potential proper head-governors, and like other X-0s, potentially properly head-govern their complements. Barriers are defined in terms of selection, from which it follows that X-0s govern and potentially properly head-govern their complements and the heads and specifiers of those complements. The theory need not stipulate that INFL theta-marks VP in order to derive the result that INFL properly head-governs VP. Nor is COMP excluded from the set of proper governors, as it is in Chomsky's (1986b) barriers theory. In the following section I show that the ECP in (30) can also be extended to express not only the licensing conditions on empty non-pronominal categories or traces, but on empty pronominals, or non-arbitrary pro as well.

1.1.4 pro in Relativized Minimality Theory Assuming that (25) is the means by which empty, non-arbitrary pronominals are licensed and identified, we incorporate this condition into Rizzi's (1990) theory without adopting a disjunctive ECP. It is possible to argue that within Rizzi's framework, empty pronominals satisfy the ECP in the same way as empty nonpronominals; that is, they must be properly head-governed. Licensing conditions on pro are therefore expressed by the ECP in (30), revised as (35) to apply to both empty pronominal and non-pronominal categories. (35)

The Empty Category Principle [e] must be properly head-governed.

We thus now revise (25) as (36), where proper government is defined explicitly as proper head-government.

20

(36)

ELLIPSIS

Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and governed by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

Under (36), pro subjects in Romance are licensed and identified in the following way. Rizzi (1990) argues that pro subjects in Italian, for example, are generated in post-verbal position. The pro subject is in this case properly headgoverned by V. As for identification, V may be specified for strong agreement features which identify pro, and pro moves to the subject position, possibly triggered by Case Theory. Alternatively, pro, moved to the subject position, is identified under government by INFL, a head which in Romance can be specified for strong agreement. Rizzi's theory of licensing and identification thus extends rather naturally to include conditions on licensing and identification of non-arbitrary pro arguments. Within his framework, it is also possible to characterize functional categories as potential proper head-governors. In the following section I turn to a definition of ellipsis, a phenomenon which I show in following chapters to also be constrained by (36).

1.2 The Definition of 'Ellipsis' Generative syntacticians have long been aware that anaphoric processes exist which do not involve movement, but rather 'omission' of a syntactic constituent under identity with an antecedent in the preceding discourse. A range of such processes is first identified by Ross (1967), and subsequent discussion of distinctions between and among various types of such phenomena appear in Jackendoff (1971), Wasow (1972), Hankamer and Sag (1976, 1984), Sag (1976), Williams (1977), Napoli (1983), Sag and Hankamer (1984), Lobeck (1987a, 1991a, 1993), Chao (1987), and De Vries (1992). One such phenomenon is what I will refer to as 'ellipsis,' illustrated in (37-39). (37)

VP Ellipsis Because [Pavarotti couldn't [e]], they asked Domingo to sing the part.

(38)

Ellipsis in NP Although John's friends were late to the rally, [Mary's [e]] arrived NP on time. Sluicing We want to invite someone, but we don't know [who [e]].

S

(39)

VP

-S r

Jackendoff (1971) outlines a range of ways in which VP Ellipsis and ellipsis in NP are syntactically distinct from another process, what Ross (1967) first

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

21

defines as Gapping. Below I present Jackendoff's criteria for this distinction, together with some additional proposals made by Hankamer and Sag (1976), Williams (1977), and Chao (1987). Using these combined criteria as diagnostics, I show that Sluicing, VP Ellipsis, and ellipsis in NP all clearly pattern together, distinct from Gapping. I then demonstrate that what might appear to be a related phenomenon, Stripping (Ross, 1967), is also distinct from ellipsis. I conclude that the empty categories that arise from 'ellipsis' form a natural syntactic class.7

1.2.1 Ellipsis versus Gapping Jackendoff's (1971) constraints on Gapping in NP and S are given in (40), with the corresponding restrictions on ellipsis listed in (41). (For other important discussions of Gapping, see Stillings, 1975, Neijt, 1980, Banfield, 1981, Pesetsky, 1982, and Goodall, 1984). (40)

(41)

Gapping a. A gap must be flanked by lexical material. b. A gap must occur in a coordinate, but not subordinate clause separate from that containing its antecedent. c. A gap cannot precede its antecedent. d. A gap need not be a phrase. Ellipsis a. An ellipsis can be phrase-final. b. An ellipsis can occur in a coordinate or a subordinate clause separate from that containing its antecedent. c. An ellipsis can precede its antecedent under certain conditions. d. An ellipsis must be a phrase.

Taking first Jackendoff's condition on Gapping in (40a), (42) illustrates that it does indeed appear that a 'gap' in S must be flanked by lexical material: (42)

Gapping a. Mary met Bill at Berkeley and Sue [e] at Harvard. b. *Mary met Bill at Berkeley and Sue [e].

That ellipsis has no such 'flanking' requirement, that is, that ellipsis can, but need not, occur phrase-finally, is illustrated in (43): (43)

VP Ellipsis a. John talked to Bill but Mary didn't [e]. b. John talked to Bill on Tuesday but Mary didn't [e] until Wednesday.

22

ELLIPSIS

As stated in (40b), a gap can occur only in a coordinate, but not subordinate, (adjunct or complement) clause. We see that this is the case by contrasting the grammatical (42a) above, in which the gap occurs in a coordinate clause separate from that containing its antecedent, with the following ungrammatical sentences, in which the gap is contained in a subordinate clause. (44)

Gapping a. *Mary met Bill at Berkeley although Sue [e] at Harvard. b. *Charlie thinks that Mary met Bill at Berkeley, and Sarah knows that Sue [e] at Harvard.

In contrast to Gapping, ellipsis is grammatical in either a coordinate or subordinate clause separate from that containing its antecedent, as exemplified in (45): (45)

VP a. b. c.

Ellipsis Mary met Bill at Berkeley and Sue did [e] too. Mary met Bill at Berkeley although Sue didn't [e]. Charlie thinks that Mary met Bill at Berkeley, but Sarah knows that Sue didn't [e].

(40c) holds in (46), which illustrates that the gapped constituent cannot precede its antecedent. (47) shows that in contrast, this restriction does not hold of ellipsis; the omitted element can precede its antecedent, but only under certain conditions. (46)

(47)

Gapping a. *Sue [e] meat and John ate fish. b. *Because Sue [e] meat, John ate fish. VP Ellipsis a. *Sue didn't [e] but John ate meat. b. Because Sue didn't [e], John ate meat.

The sentences in (47) illustrate that ellipses obey the Backwards Anaphora Constraint (Langacker, 1966): an ellipsis can precede, but not command, its antecedent. This is illustrated by the grammaticality of (47b), in which the ellipsis precedes its antecedent when contained in a subordinate clause, and the contrasting illformedness of (47a), in which the ellipsis preceding its antecedent is contained in a main clause. Finally, (40d) is exemplified by the contrasts in (48), which illustrate that a gap can, but need not, include the complement of the head. In fact, the complement must remain outside the gap if there is no other flanking material, in order to satisfy (40a).

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

(48)

23

Gapping a. Mary met Bill at Berkeley and Sue [e] at Harvard. b. Mary met Bill and Sue [e] *(Pete).

In contrast, VP Ellipsis is far more restrictive in this regard, operating on at least the verb and its complement, and optionally on a restrictive modifier. Crucially, ellipsis cannot operate on V alone, though Gapping can. (49)

VP Ellipsis a. *Mary will meet Bill at Berkeley because she didn't [e] John. b. Mary will meet Bill at Berkeley because she didn't [e] at Harvard. c. Mary will meet Bill at Berkeley because Sue didn't [e].

The differences between Gapping and VP Ellipsis illustrated above suggest several generalizations. First, Gapping can, but need not, operate on a phrasal constituent. Rather, what seems to be crucial for a gap to be wellformed is the presence of flanking material. VP Ellipsis, on the other hand, is restricted to operating on a projection of V, minimally (the lowest) V. Flanking material appears to play no crucial role in this process. Further, that Gapping is restricted to occurring only in parallel coordinate structures, and only if the gap follows its antecedent, suggests that Gapping is a type of 'across-the-board' phenomenon (Williams, 1978), as argued in detail by Goodall (1984). Ellipsis, in contrast, is not so restricted.8 I will now briefly demonstrate that both Sluicing and, as Jackendoff (1971) observes, ellipsis in NP, pattern with VP Ellipsis in obeying the restrictions in (41), rather than (40). First, the ellipted constituent in both ellipsis in NP and Sluicing can be phrase-final, and can occur in either a coordinate or subordinate clause. These phenomena therefore pattern with VP Ellipsis, and contrast with Gapping. (50)

Ellipsis in NP a. John calls on these students because he is irritated with [those [e]]. NP

b. We tasted many wines, and I thought that [some [e]] were NP extremely dry. (51) Sluicing a. We know someone bought the Van Gogh, even though we aren't sure [who [e]]. S'

b. Linda tells me she is going on vacation, but [when [e]] is still S unclear. In both ellipsis in NP and Sluicing, the empty element can follow its anteced-

24

ELLIPSIS

ent, as we see in the above sentences. It can also precede its antecedent in a subordinate clause, patterning with VP Ellipsis rather than Gapping (cf: 46). (52)

Ellipsis in NP a. Because the professor is irritated with [those [e]], she will only NP

b. (53)

call on these students. Even though Lee thought that [most [e]] were extremely dry, we NP

bought the Italian wines anyway. Sluicing a. Even though we aren't sure [who [e]], we know that someone S'

bought the Van Gogh. b. Although [exactly when [e]] is unclear, we heard that Linda was S'

going on vacation. Finally, as in VP Ellipsis, both ellipsis in NP and Sluicing operate on a phrase rather than a head, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (54) and (55). In both cases, complements are left outside the ellipsis. (Similar facts as in (54) involving one pronominalization in NP are discussed by Jackendoff, 1977 and Hornstein and Lightfoot, 1981 in a different context. See also 2.1.1.) (54)

Ellipsis in NP a. *Because the professor didn't like [those [e] of chemistry], she gave NP

only the students of physics achievement awards. b. *Lee thinks that [most [e] of Italy] are too dry, and that the wines NP

(55)

of France are the only ones worth drinking. Sluicing a. *Even though we aren't sure [who [e] the painting], we know that S'

someone bought the Van Gogh. b. *Although [exactly when [e] to Honolulu] is unclear, we heard S'

Linda was going to Hawaii. Summarizing, following the diagnostics in (40) and (41), it is possible to claim that VP Ellipsis, ellipsis in NP, and Sluicing form a natural class of phenomena distinct from Gapping. Williams (1977) proposes an additional syntactic criterion for distinguishing Gapping from ellipsis. He observes that ellipsis, but not Gapping, can apply across 'utterance boundaries.' That is, an ellipsis can be in a separate utterance than that containing its antecedent. In contrast, a gap and its antecedent must

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

25

occur in the same utterance. (This same distinction is also discussed by Hankamer and Sag, 1976.)9 (56)

(57)

Gapping A: John likes fish. B: *Yes, and Mary [e] meat. Ellipsis A: John caught a big fish. B: a. Yes, but Mary didn't [e]. (VP Ellipsis) b. Yes, but Mary's [e] was bigger. (Ellipsis in NP) c. Yes, but we don't know how [e]. (Sluicing)

Another difference between the two phenomena which Williams observes is that Gapping, but not ellipsis, obeys Ross's (1967) Complex Noun Phrase Constraint. This distinction is illustrated in (58) and (59). In (58), the ellipsis occurs in a complex NP. (59) shows that a gap cannot occur inside NP. (58)

a.

The man who likes meat met [the woman who doesn't [e]].

b.

Mary enjoyed Clinton's speech, but [a man who liked Perot's [e]] NP hated it. John is often late, but he never tells anyone [the reason why [e]].

c.

NP

NP

(59) *The man who likes meat met [the woman who [e] fish]. NP

Williams concludes from such evidence that ellipsis is 'unbounded' and Gapping 'bounded,' and that this difference is expressed by analyzing ellipsis as a rule of Discourse Grammar and Gapping as a rule of Sentence Grammar. Details of Williams' analysis aside, the two operations are clearly separate. Chao (1987) discusses constraints on VP Ellipsis and Sluicing, and presents additional evidence which suggests that ellipsis is a phenomenon distinct from Gapping. She argues, contra Hankamer and Sag (1976), that ellipses need not always have syntactic antecedents; they may also have pragmatic, or discourse antecedents. For example, the pronouns he, she, and it in (60) are all pragmatically interpreted (from Chao, 1987: p. 129). (60)

[John walks into the kitchen and finds milk spilled all over the floor, and two guilty looking kids. John:] a. All right, who did it? b. He did it. c. No, I didn't. She did it.

In contrast, a 'gap' does not allow a pragmatic antecedent; indeed, as we saw above, the antecedent of the gap must be contained in the previous coordinate clause. (From Hankamer and Sag, 1976):

26

(61)

ELLIPSIS

[Hankamer produces an orange, proceeds to peel it, and just as Sag produces an apple, says:] #And Ivan, an apple.

Both ellipted VPs and the ellipted constituent in Sluicing constructions can have pragmatic antecedents. For example, the sentences in (62) can all be uttered in contexts in which a syntactic antecedent is not required (Chao, 1987: p. 134).10 (62)

a. You shouldn't have [e]! b. Don't [e]. c. I will [e] if you do [e].

That this possibility also holds for Sluicing we see by the acceptability of (63) (Chao, 1987: p. 124): (63)

[John is in a used car lot, and the salesperson approaches with a sales pitch:] Salesperson: Look at this beautiful Mustang. John: OK, but first tell me how much [e].

Extending Chao's observation to ellipsis in NP, observe that ellipted nominal projections can also be pragmatically interpreted: (64)

[Sarah and Geoff have two sons, Charlie and Sam. The two boys are playing with their new toys. Charlie's breaks.] Sarah: Sam's [e] better not do that. Geoff: Some [e] are just poorly made, I guess.

Summarizing the above discussion of Jackendoff (1971), Williams (1977), and Chao (1987), ellipsis can be characterized as a distinct phenomenon which conforms to the criteria in (65). (65)

Ellipsis a. An ellipsis can be phrase-final. b. An ellipsis can occur in either a subordinate or coordinate clause separate from that containing its antecedent. c. Ellipsis obeys the Backwards Anaphora Constraint. d. Ellipsis operates on phrasal categories. e. Ellipsis occurs across utterance boundaries. f. Ellipsis violates the Complex NP Constraint. g. An ellipsis can have a pragmatic antecedent.

In the following section I turn to the distinction between ellipsis and what might at first appear to be a similar phenomenon, Stripping, an anaphoric pro-

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

27

cess first analyzed by Ross (1967). As I show, by using the diagnostics in (65) it is possible to claim that Stripping is a phenomenon separate from ellipsis. 1.2.2 Ellipsis versus Stripping Some examples of Stripping are given in (66): (66)

Stripping a. Jane gave presents to John, but not [e] to Geoff. b. Jane loves to study rocks, and [e] geography too. c. Jane loves to study rocks, and John [e] too.

Hankamer and Sag (1976) define Stripping as 'a rule that deletes everything in a clause under identity with corresponding parts of the preceding clause, except for one constituent, (and sometimes a clause-initial adverb or negative).'11 We see in (66a-b), that as in Gapping, in Stripping constructions the empty category is not phrase-final. Both (66c) and (67), however, illustrate that Stripping in some cases can be phrase-final, suggesting that Stripping patterns with ellipsis, rather than Gapping. (67) a. John studied rocks but not Jane [e]. b. Flowers grow well here and sometimes herbs [e]. Stripping is also similar to ellipsis in that it can occur across utterance boundaries (see Hankamer and Sag, 1976 for discussion). (68) (69)

A. B. A: B:

I heard that Jane likes to study rocks. Yeah, and [e] geography too. Jane always gives presents to John-. But seldom [e] to Geoff.

Stripping crucially differs from ellipsis, however, in several important ways. For example, like Gapping, Stripping fails in subordinate clauses, and the empty constituent cannot precede its antecedent. Stripping therefore does not appear to conform to the Backwards Anaphora Constraint. (70)

a. b. (71) a. b. (72) a. b. (73) a. b. c.

John studied rocks but not Jane [e]. *John studied rocks even though not Jane [e]. Jane gave presents to John, but seldom [e] to Geoff. *Jane gave presents to John, even though seldom [e] to Geoff. Jane loves to study rocks, and [e] geography too. *Jane loves to study rocks, and John says that [e] geography too. * Although not Jane [e], John studied rocks. *Even though seldom [e] to Geoff, Jane often gave presents to John. *Even though [e] geography too, Jane really loves to study rocks.

28

ELLIPSIS

Stripping, unlike ellipsis, clearly does not always involve a full phrasal constituent. By definition, one element of the 'stripped' sentence must remain, typically a negative or sentence adverbial. Also, Stripping fails in complex NPs, which suggests that unlike ellipsis, Stripping obeys the Complex NP Constraint: (74)

(75)

Jane knows lots of people who play the piano, a. but not very well. b. *but I know a man who not very well. This is the place where we grow flowers, a. and sometimes herbs. b. *and that is the place where sometimes herbs.

Based on the above evidence, it is reasonable to maintain that though Stripping shares certain properties with ellipsis, it fails to exhibit several other important characteristics which distinguish ellipsis from other operations. Stripping is thus distinct from ellipsis, a claim supported by both Williams (1977) and Chao (1987) (cf: Hankamer and Sag, 1976). In fact, both Williams and Chao take Stripping to be a type of syntactic operation similar to Gapping, an analysis which is also supported here.

1.3 Ellipses as Empty non-NP Pronominals From the data discussed in the previous section it should be evident that ellipsis is not derived by movement. The evidence that ellipsis is, in Williams' (1977) terms, 'unbounded,' suggests that ellipses are not A-bar bound, for example by an empty operator, nor are they A-bound to antecedents in their containing clauses. Ellipses are thus, under standard assumptions, neither variables nor anaphors. Ellipses do, however, obey the Backwards Anaphora Constraint, a property of pronouns, and appear to also be constrained by Principle B of the Binding Theory in (76); they are free in their governing categories (S, S', or NP), and are interpreted under identity with a syntactic or pragmatic antecedent. 12 (76)

Binding Theory A. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. B. A pronominal must be free in its governing category. C. An r-expression must be free.

Ellipses thus pattern with ordinary pronouns, elements that also satisfy the criteria in (65) discussed above. For example, as we have seen above in (60), pronouns can have pragmatic antecedents, and are NPs, and thus phrases. They

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

29

can also occur in coordinate or subordinate clauses separate from those containing their antecedents, as in (77): (77)

Sue eats fish because/and she hates meat.

Pronouns also occur across utterance boundaries, as in (78): (78)

A. B.

Does Sue eat fish? Yes, but she hates it.

Like ellipted categories, pronouns are subject to the Backwards Anaphora Constraint; they cannot precede their antecedents unless contained in a subordinate clause: (79)

a. Because she doesn't like meat, Sue ate fish. b. *She doesn't like meat because Sue hates killing animals.

Pronouns also freely violate the Complex NP Constraint, as we see in (80): (80)

Bill really likes his new car. I think that [the fact that it is an antique] NP was a big selling point.

Another characteristic of ellipsis which has been pointed out in the literature, and which supports the hypothesis that ellipses are empty pronominals, is that an ellipsis can be interpreted as having a 'split' antecedent, a property typically associated with pronouns. For example, in (81), the antecedent of the empty pronominal anaphor PRO includes both the matrix subject and object. (81)

Jack proposed to Jill [PRO to help each other].

The ellipted VPs in the following examples can also have 'split' antecedents: (These examples are from a talk by D. Hardt at the Ellipsis Workshop in Stuttgart. Thanks to A. Hestvik for useful discussion on this point.) (82)

a.

b.

c.

So I say to the conspiracy fans: leave him alone. Leave us alone. But they won't [e]. (From: "The Welcomat," Feb. 5, 1992, p. 25). I can walk, and I can chew gum. Gerry can [e] too, but not at the same time. (Webber, 1978) Wendy is eager to sail around the world and Bruce is eager to climb Kilimanjaro, but neither of them can [e] because money is too tight. (Webber, 1978)

Sluicing also allows 'split' antecedents, as does ellipsis in NP:

30

ELLIPSIS

(83) (84)

John wants to climb Kilimanjaro and Bill would like to scale Everest, but neither of them knows why [e]. John bought three books and Mary bought a few magazines. Six [e] were too boring to read all the way through.

It therefore seems to be the case that ellipted categories in many ways pattern with ordinary pronominal NPs. Wasow (1972) is in fact first to suggest that ellipses are pronominal; Chao (1987) investigates and justifies this idea in detail within a government-binding framework. That ellipses are typologically [±anaphor, ± pronominal] is not surprising, under the assumption that all empty categories presumably can be described in these terms. (See Chomsky, 1982 for discussion.)13

1.4 The Derivation and Identification of Ellipted Categories In this section I discuss an approach to ellipses within which it is indeed possible to argue that ellipted categories are base-generated empty categories, identified through a process referred to as 'reconstruction.' I discuss how we might integrate reconstruction into the theory of licensing and identification in a way in which the differences between NP and non-NP pro follow from independently motivated principles. 1.4.1 Deletion versus Interpretation Issues concerning the interpretation of ellipted categories have surfaced in various ways in the literature, in different grammatical theories. In generative models, discussion has revolved around two related sets of questions. First, what is the source of ellipted constituents? Are they base-generated empty categories, whose content is somehow supplied during the derivation, or are they derived transformationally by deletion? If so, does deletion leave an empty category? Second, how is the content of the ellipsis recovered, or put in more current terms, what are the identification conditions on ellipted categories, and how are these conditions formally expressed in the grammar? Such are the questions addressed by Ross (1967), Wasow (1972), Hankamer and Sag (1976), Sag (1977), and Williams (1977), and more recently by Lappin (1991, 1992), Lappin and McCord (1990), May (1985), Fiengo and May (1990, 1992), and Kitigawa (1991).14 With respect to the derivation of ellipted categories, Wasow (1972) is first to argue that ellipted VPs are base-generated empty phrases dominating empty terminal nodes. Williams (1977), drawing on work by Partee (1973), pursues

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

31

this idea, proposing that the identity of ellipted constituents is recovered by interpretive rules that apply to their logical forms. Hankamer and Sag (1976) argue for a different approach to the derivation of ellipted VPs. They claim that ellipted VPs are derived by deletion rules which delete VP only when it is appropriately 'identical' to an antecedent VP. (See also Ross, 1967 and Grinder and Postal, 1971 for earlier transformational deletion analyses of ellipted VPs.) This approach is further elucidated by Sag (1977), who proposes that deletion rules operate only on VPs that are identical in logical form to their antecedents (see also Sag and Hankamer, 1984).15 Though the above analyses crucially differ with respect to the source of ellipted categories, both Williams (1977) and Sag (1976) claim that the 'identity' requirement for ellipted categories is best stated in terms of 'alphabetic variants' expressed in terms of lambda expressions; the empty VP must be an 'alphabetic variant' of its antecedent in order for recoverability to be satisfied. Sag (1977) defines alphabetic variants as in (85), where L designates a lambda operator: (85)

For two L-expressions, Lx(A) and Ly(B), to be alphabetic variants, a. Every occurrence of x in (A) must have a corresponding occurrence of y in (B), and vice versa. e.g. Lx(x is happy) = Ly(y is happy) Lx(x is happy) Ly(y is sad) b. Any quantifier in A that binds variables (in A) must have a corresponding (identical) quantifier in B that binds variables in all the corresponding positions (in B). e.g. Lw(( y) [w likes y]) = Lz(( q) [z likes q]) Lw(( y) [w likes y]) Lz(z likes Mary) c. If there are any variables in A that are bound by some quantifier outside of Lx(A), then the corresponding variable in Lx(B) must be bound by the same operator in order for alphabetic variance to obtain. e.g. ( z) [John, Lx(x loves z) & Bill, Ly(y loves z)] ( z) [John, Lx(x loves z) & ( w) [Bill, Ly(y loves w)] John, Ly (y said [Mary, Lx(x likes y)]) & Bill, Lz (z said [Mary, Lw(w likes z)]) (Sag, 1977, pp. 72-73)

Under the assumption that semantic identity is defined in terms of alphabetic variants, and that alphabetic variants are themselves logical forms expressed in

32

ELLIPSIS

lambda notation, it follows that interpretation of ellipted VPs, under either the 'interpretive' approach or the 'deletion' analysis, must refer to the grammatical level at which such logical forms are represented. However, the 'interpretive' and 'deletion' approaches crucially differ with respect to the organization of the grammar, and, as I show below, if we are to explain how the content of an ellipted category is recovered within a government-binding framework, the interpretive approach is to be favored over a deletion analysis. For example, if we incorporate the deletion approach into a governmentbinding framework, ellipted categories are lexically filled at S-structure. Deletion rules are considered to apply at a post-S-structure level, Phonological Form, or PF. As Chao (1987) points out, within a current government-binding framework, the levels of PF and LF have no access to each other, and this makes a deletion approach untenable. It would require a PF representation, in which deletion has applied, to be the input to LF, where interpretive rules would then apply. Furthermore, if deletion is at PF, there is no empty category involved in ellipsis at the level(s) at which the ECP applies, namely S-structure and/or LF. This runs counter to the claim defended in the following chapters, that ellipses are constrained by the ECP. Within an interpretive model, on the other hand, ellipses are base-generated empty categories interpreted at either S-structure or LF. (See Lappin, 1991, 1992 and Lappin and McCord, 1990 for arguments that interpretation of ellipsis as at S-structure, and May, 1985 and Fiengo and May, 1990, 1992, for arguments that interpretations at LF.)16 Ellipses are therefore empty phrases at S-structure, and also at LF, depending on where reconstruction applies. Assuming, as I will henceforth, that the ECP applies at least at S-structure, the interpretive analysis is consistent with the central idea that ellipses are subject to the ECP. (For additional arguments in favor of an interpretive approach over a deletion account other than those presented here, see Williams, 1977.) 1.4.2 Reconstruction and

Identification

The central argument in favor of the claim that ellipted categories are interpreted through reconstruction involves sloppy identity and quantifier interpretation. I will briefly exemplify each of these processes below. I assume for exposition that reconstruction is best expressed in terms of lambda notation, although nothing hinges on this choice, as approaches to reconstruction vary with respect to representations of reconstructed categories. (For example, see Baltin, 1991 for arguments against reconstruction defined in terms of lambda notation.) I also take no stand on the level at which reconstruction applies. I claim only that ellipses are empty elements which must be licensed at S-structure. One final caveat is that for exposition I will discuss here only VP Ellipsis.17

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

33

First, consider the following: (86)

John visits his children on Sunday and Bill does [e] too. VP

The sentence in (86) can be interpreted as meaning Bill visits John's children, the 'strict' reading, or that Bill visits his own children, the 'sloppy' reading. The interpretation of the ellipted VP must allow for this kind of ambiguity. Assuming that the Binding Theory applies before reconstruction (at either S-structure and/or at LF) John and his in (86) can be coindexed. Simple copying of the antecedent VP into the ellipted VP would yield the strict reading. The sloppy reading, however, would not be derived, unless by some other mechanism. Williams (1977) adopts Partee's (1973) claim that the logical form of VP is represented in terms of lambda notation as a result of the Derived VP Rule. He goes on to propose that anaphors and pronouns are rewritten as variables at LF, and such representations are copied into the ellipted VP by his VP Rule. Under this approach, the derivation of (86), in which both strict and sloppy identity are allowed, is given in (87): (87)

a.

John visits his children on Sunday and Bill does [ [e] [e]] too.

b.

Derived VP Rule John [Lx (x visits his children)] and

VP V

NP

VP

Bill does [ [e] [e]] too. VP V

c.

NP

Variable Rewriting Rule John [Lx (x visits x's children)] and VP

Bill does [ [e] [e]] too. VP V

d.

NP

VP Rule John [Lx (x visits x's children)] and VP

Bill does [Lx (x visits x's children)] too. VP

The crucial step in (87) is (87c), in which the pronoun his is rewritten as a variable using lambda notation. When the antecedent VP containing this variable is written into the ellipted VP deriving (87d), the copied VP is an 'alphabetic variant' of its antecedent VP; for every occurrence of a variable bound by a lambda operator in the antecedent VP, there is a corresponding occurrence of a variable bound by a lambda operator in the copied VP. We thus derive the sloppy interpretation of (86), in which his in the ellipted VP is bound by Bill. If we follow Williams in assuming that rewriting of a pronoun as a variable is op-

34

ELLIPSIS

tional, then we can derive the strict interpretation as well; we need only omit step (87c). The copied VP will thus be as in (88). (88)

John [Lx (x likes his children)] and [Lx Bill (x likes his children)] too.

(88) represents the strict reading, in which the antecedent VP copied into the ellipsis contains the pronoun his, coindexed with John. Williams goes on to argue that the interaction of VP Ellipsis with Quantifier Interpretation is best accounted for if interpretive rules apply to logical forms of ellipted constituents. To illustrate, consider (89). (89)

a. b.

John saw everyone before Mary did [e]. Yes, and Bill did [e] before Sally did [e].

(89a) is two ways ambiguous, having either a group or individual interpretation. Williams represents the two readings in terms of scope differences at LF. In (90a), the universal quantifier does not have scope over the before clause, but in the individual reading, represented in (90b), it does. (90)

a.

[John [Lx ( x (x saw x))] before Mary did [e]].

b.

[

VP

VP

x (John [ x (x saw x)] before Mary did [e])]. VP

VP

Copying the logical form of the matrix VP in (90a) into the empty VP in the before clause derives (91): (91)

John [Lx ( x (x saw x))] before Mary did [Lx ( x (x saw x))] VP

VP

Copying the logical form of the matrix VP in (90b) into empty VP derives (92): (92)

[

x (John [Lx (x saw x)] before Mary did [Lx (x saw x)])] VP

VP

(91-92) are both wellformed logical forms; all variables are bound according to the conditions in (85). Now consider (93), where we have copied the antecedent VPs in (91-92) into the ellipted VP in (89b): (93)

a.

Yes, and Bill [Lx ( x (x saw x))] before VP

Sally did [Lx ( x (x saw x))]. VP

b.

Yes, and Bill [Lx (x saw x)] before VP

Sally did [Lx (x saw x)]. VP

(93a) represents the group interpretation, but (93b) is anomolous; it contains two

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

35

variables (x) that are not bound. Williams thus derives that there is only one interpretation for (89b), the group interpretation, which corresponds to the antecedent LF in (92). There appears, then, to be substantial evidence that ellipses are basegenerated empty rather than derived through deletion, and that the identification of an ellipsis depends, at least in part, on reconstruction. Reconstruction associates the ellipsis with an antecedent under a type of identity which cannot be expressed strictly in terms of 'copying.' It is therefore reasonable to posit that reconstruction is the means by which an ellipsis is 'identified.' From one perspective, the above claim is surprising, given the evidence that these empty categories are empty, non-arbitrary, non-NP pronominals. Recall that empty, non-arbitrary NP pronominals in certain of types of languages are identified through association with agreement features, features which allow the referential content of the empty pronominal to be recovered. It thus appears that empty non-pronominals are identified in two different ways, through reconstruction or through reference.18 The distinction between referential and non-referential categories has been formalized in a different grammatical model by Grinder and Postal (1971). They propose that proforms (lexical pronouns) are Identity of Reference Anaphora (IRA), and that ellipses, which they assume are derived by deletion, are Identity of Sense Anaphora (ISA). Here, we derive from independent principles the result that ellipted categories are not identified through reference if only individuals can refer. NPs are individuals, but VPs are properties, and the empty category in Sluicing might be argued to be a proposition. As for the ellipted category in NP, in this case the empty element is a projection which excludes the determiner/specifier position. Assuming that the referential properties of a noun phrase are determined at least in part by its determiner, the ellipted category in NP might also be argued to be non-referential.19 If we are to derive both the identification conditions on NP and non-NP pro, the condition in (36), repeated here as (94), must be revised. (94)

Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and identified by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

(94) does not include reconstruction as a possible identification strategy.20 Also, it remains unclear as to how ellipted categories are licensed. In particular, it remains to determine whether such empty elements are properly head-governed. (94) is refined in the following chapter, in which I address licensing and identification conditions on ellipted categories, and show that in fact, these empty elements are also, like empty NP pronominals, identified by strong agreement.

36

ELLIPSIS

1.5 Conclusion In this chapter I have outlined the basic tenets of government-binding theory relevant to the discussion of licensing and identification of ellipted categories. We have seen that there is reason to favor Rizzi's (1990) 'Relativized Minimality' theory over Chomsky's (1986b) 'barriers' theory. Rizzi's theory, in which the ECP is defined in terms of proper head-government, best expresses the licensing and identification conditions on both trace and (NP) pro. Another reason is that in Rizzi's approach, functional heads are potential proper headgovernors. I have also discussed in this chapter the definition of ellipsis, and have argued that such empty categories are typologically empty 'non-NP' pronominals, identified through reconstruction. In this way ellipses crucially differ from empty pronominal noun phrases, empty categories that are identified through strong agreement and reference.

Notes 1. In (6), the notion 'm-command' derives from the definition of c-command in (i): (i)

a c-commands b iff a does not dominate b and every y that dominates a dominates b Where y is restricted to maximal projections (following Aoun and Sportiche, 1983), we will say that a m-commands b. (Chomsky, 1986b, p. 8)

'Exclude' is defined as in (ii): (ii)

a excludes b if no segment of a dominates b (Chomsky, 1986b, p. 9)

2. It is not clear how VP can be both theta-governed and a non-argument, as arguments are typically defined as theta-marked elements. It is therefore not clear how adjunction to VP can go through under (17) without some additional stipulation. 3. Jaeggli and Safir (1989), on the other hand, argue that licensing conditions follow from principles of 'morphological uniformity' in a language. These morphological principles determine, for example, the conditions under which INFL in a language licenses a pro subject. In their framework, identification of non-arbitrary pro is under government by an X-0 specified for AGR that Case-governs the empty category. 4. Of course, (25) is a necessary but not sufficient condition on the occurrence of non-arbitrary pro, given the evidence from languages such as German, in which agreement is morphologically expressed fairly systematically, but in which non-arbitrary pro is nevertheless disallowed. See Jaeggli and Safir (1989) for an analysis of why this might be the case. I assume here that the requirement that nominal pro be Case-marked is either satisfied under (25) by taking Case to be a strong agreement feature, or that the requirement

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

37

follows from independent principles. See Rizzi (1982, 1986), Raposo (1989), Jaeggli and Safir (1989) for discussion. I also omit from the discussion arbitrary pro, and null objects. See Huang (1984), Cole (1987), Farrell (1990), and Authier (1989, 1992) for discussion of the latter. And finally, I also assume, following the works cited, that there exist strategies other than the 'agreement' strategy for licensing and identification of pro. 'Identification' of an empty category can also presumably involve, in addition to (25), principles of Binding, Theta, and Case Theories. 'Identification' in (25) refers only to those conditions which do not follow from these other modules. 5. Chomsky (1986b) himself suggests that a disjunctive ECP is unexplanatory, and proposes that it might be the case that all that is required for traces to satisfy the ECP is that they be both governed and antecedent-governed. The ECP, a condition on chains, would then have a conjunctive formulation. (See also Stowell, 1981, 1985; Jaeggli 1982, 1985; Aoun, Hornstein, Lightfoot, Weinberg 1987; Contreras 1986; Torrego 1985; Chomsky 1986b; Koopman and Sportiche 1986, 1988.) 6. In Rizzi's (1990) theory, empty subjects can be governed by COMP under certain conditions, or by V, in the event that the subject is generated in post-verbal position in VP. See 1.1.4 for further discussion. See also Contreras (1991). 7. Comparative Deletion in (i), and Comparative Subdeletion in (ii), discussed by Bresnan (1975) and Grimshaw (1985), are also included in the class of anaphora not derived by movement. (i) (ii)

Herbert is more understanding than Mathilda is [e]. Herbert is more understanding than he is [e] intelligent.

Williams (1977) provides several arguments that Comparative Deletion is distinct from what I define here as 'ellipsis.' I will also not discuss in any detail the phenomenon of Null Complement Anaphora, whereby a sentential complement of a verb is understood, but not syntactically present. (iii) (iv)

Someone had to let the dog out, and John volunteered [e]. Mary wanted to win the race and she succeeded [e].

Napoli (1985) and Hankamer and Sag (1976) argue that not only is NCA a phenomenon different from ellipsis, but that NCA does not involve an empty category at all. (Williams, 1977 also makes this claim, without argument.) I adopt their conclusions here, and view NCA as a phenomenon separate from ellipsis (cf: Chao, 1987). See also Barton (1990) for an interesting analysis of another type of 'empty' constituent distinct from the phenomena under discussion here. 8. In this same connection, Williams (1977) observes that ellipsis does not obey the Coordinate Structure Constraint, but that Gapping does. For example, an ellipsis can occur in a coordinate structure that does not contain its antecedent, but a gap cannot. (i)

John didn't immediately open the door. First he shut the window and then he did [e]. [e] = *shut/open the door

38

ELLIPSIS

(ii) *John didn't open the door. First he shut the window and Mary [e] the refrigerator, [e] = shut/*open This contrast supports the idea that Gapping, but not ellipsis, is an across-the-board phenomenon. 9. It is perhaps too strong to say that Gapping systematically fails across utterance boundaries. For example, as Hankamer and Sag (1976) observe, if the gapped sentence is clearly interpreted as coordinated with a previous utterance, Gapping is allowed. (i)

A: B:

Ivan is now going to peel an apple. And Jorge, an orange.

One reason for this might be that such utterances actually involve coordination. When coordination is clearly interrupted, as in (56), or unavailable, as in (ii), the claim that Gapping fails across utterance boundaries is maintained. (ii)

Ivan is now going to peel an apple. *Jorge, an orange.

10. See also Schachter (1977) for discussion of pragmatic interpretation of ellipted VP. Hankamer and Sag (1976) take the evidence that VP Ellipsis can in restricted contexts be pragmatically interpreted to be exceptional. Hankamer (1978) suggests further that perhaps there are two types of VP Ellipsis, ellipsis that is derived by deletion rules under syntactic identity, and a small class of null VPs that are deep anaphors, generated in the base and pragmatically interpreted. None of these authors adresses the evidence that ellipsis in NP and Sluicing can also be pragmatically interpreted, evidence which we see below supports the claim that pragmatic interpretation for ellipted categories, though restricted, is a viable means of interpetation for which the theory must account. 11. Williams (1977 note 6) proposes that Stripping is derived by (i): (i)

Strip

sentence adverb constituent

12. Of course, there is one crucial exception to the claim that ellipses are free in their containing sentence, namely 'antecedent contained' VP Ellipsis, as illustrated in (i): (i)

John ate everything Mary did [e].

In (i), [e] is contained in a quantified NP contained in the matrix VP, the antecedent of [e]. [e] is thus not 'free' in the S containing it, though it might be argued to be free in a containing NP. I leave aside further discussion of such cases. See Haik (1987), Baltin (1987), and May (1985), Larson and May (1990), Fiengo and May (1990, 1992), Lappin and McCord (1990), and Lappin (1991, 1992) for discussion. 13. Observe that another way in which ellipses pattern with empty pronouns is that both might also be able to be 'arbitrary' in reference. Chao claims that instances of pragmatic interpretation such as in (62) above might be explained by analyzing [e] as referring to a 'generically interpreted' VP. If this is the case, we would then have a

Ellipsis in Government-Binding Theory

39

pairwise distinction between types of empty pronominals: empty arbitrary and nonarbitrary NP pro, and empty arbitrary and non-arbitrary non-NP pro. 14. Some other approaches to the derivation of ellipted categories in grammatical models other than government-binding include Partee (1973, 1984), for a Montague grammar approach, and Klein (1984) for an analysis within Discourse Representation Theory. See also Webber (1978), Dalrymple (1992), Dairymple, Shieber, and Pereira (1991), Gardent (1992), Hardt (1992), and Rooth (1992). 15. To formalize this distinction, Hankamer and Sag (1976) differentiate two types of anaphora: 'surface' anaphora, which require syntactic antecedents and are derived by deletion rules, and 'deep' anaphora, which can have either syntactic or pragmatic antecedents, and which are base-generated elements such as pronominals. Under their view, Gapping, Stripping, VP Ellipsis, and Sluicing are all types of 'surface' anaphora, and therefore in a different class of anaphora than pronominals, cases of 'deep' anaphora. Chao (1987) counters their claim, and argues that VP Ellipsis and Sluicing are instances of 'deep' anaphora, and as such are distinct from Gapping and Stripping. 16. Arguments for reconstruction applying at LF seem to hinge on the question of whether Quantifier Raising is required for interpretations of ellipted VP to be derived. Lappin and McCord (1990), and Lappin (1991, 1992) argue that in certain cases QR makes the wrong predictions and that reconstruction is therefore at S-structure rather than LF. Fiengo and May (1990, 1992) argue, on the other hand, that Quantifier Raising plays a crucial role in deriving the interpretations of certain ellipted VPs (see also Fiengo and May, 1993). I will not choose between these options here. 17. Both Williams (1977) and Chao (1987) present arguments that the ellipted constituent in Sluicing constructions requires reconstruction. Williams extends the same argument to ellipsis in NP (his 'One's Deletion'). See Williams (1986) for analysis of what appear to be violations of the variable binding conditions in (85) in Sluicing constructions. 18. This leaves open the possibility, however, that NPs can in theory undergo reconstruction, which is exactly what Chao (1987:Ch. 4) points out, citing Kempson (1986), who observes that the pronoun them in (i) probably requires reconstruction: (i)

John always gives his profits to overseas aid, but Sam uses them to expand his business.

In (i), the pronoun them may be interpreted as Sam's profits, the 'sloppy' reading of the antecedent his profits. This reading is presumably unavailable without reconstruction, suggesting that reference alone is inadequate in this case for interpretation of the pronoun. 19. For additional evidence that VP is non-referential, see Rizzi's (1990) discussion of VP Preposing, where he argues that VP in this case patterns with other non-referential categories with respect to movement. Another argument in favor of the claim that ellipses do not refer is that, as pointed out by several researchers, ellipted categories do not share the same distribution as their lexical pronominal counterparts, elements which presumably do refer. For example, Hankamer and Sag (1976), Chao (1987), Dalrymple (1991), and Lappin (1992) all

40

ELLIPSIS

observe that the 'pronominal VP' do it occurs in places in which an empty VP is not acceptable. (This example is from Dalrymple, 1991.) (i)

The presentation of this material in a fairly informal and accessible fashion is possible, and often I do it /*[e].

In (i), VP apparently can only occur in its lexically filled pronominal form, and refers back to a NP antecedent the presentation of this material. This might suggest that only the lexical pronominalization of VP, as do it, can refer (Cf: Hardt, 1991). 20. To formally express the options for identification of empty anaphoric elements including referential and non-referential pronouns, Chao (1987: p. 161) proposes the following condition: (i)

Recoverability Condition The 'descriptive content' of missing material must be recoverable in some explicity stated way (a) by means of syntactic reconstruction (b) by coindexation or binding (c) by processes of discourse interpretation

According to (i), both syntactic and discourse representations are available for identification of empty elements. Chao proposes that, taking Logical Form as the 'interface' between syntax and discourse, logical forms can be viewed as the input to discourse processes. See also the model proposed by Zribi-Hertz (1984) to account for some facts about the identification of pro objects of French prepositions.

2 Strong Agreement, Licensing, and Identification

2.0 Introduction We saw in the previous chapter that the empty categories that arise from VP Ellipsis, ellipsis in NP, and Sluicing are best analyzed as non-arbitrary, non-NP pro, identified through reconstruction. Non-arbitrary NP pro, on the other hand, is licensed under proper head-government, and identified through association with strong agreement features. We expect ellipted categories to also be licensed under proper head-government, assuming that the ECP is a universal principle. In this chapter I discuss the phrase structure of ellipsis, and show that ellipted categories can be analyzed as properly head-governed only by adopting a theory of phrase structure which incorporates both the lexical categories N, V, A, and P, and the functional categories COMP, INFL, and DET. Within this framework, ellipses are analyzed as the complements of, and are properly head-governed by, the functional categories COMP, DET, and INFL. I also demonstrate that a range of contrastive ellipsis data is explained by proposing that non-arbitrary, non-NP pro must be identified by strong agreement. Both NP and non-NP pro are therefore constrained by (1). (1) Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and governed by an X-0 specified for strong agreement. I argue that (1) is the means by which empty referential and non-referential pronominals are made 'visible' to interpretive processes of, respectively, reference and reconstruction. (1) is therefore a general principle which holds of pro, 41

42

ELLIPSIS

regardless of categorial type. Licensing and identification conditions on ellipses thus follow from the independently motivated principles which also constrain NP pro arguments, and thus need not be stipulated ad hoc.'

2.1 Ellipsis and X-bar Theory In this section I discuss the syntactic constraints on ellipsis across categories in English as they are expressed within the X' schema originally advanced by Chomsky (1970), and elaborated by Jackendoff (1977). This schema, assumed in much current work in government-binding theory, gives rise to structures of the basic form in (2):

X = lexical: N, V, A, P X = non-lexical: INFL, COMP In (2), X is a head, either lexical or non-lexical, which projects to an intermediate projection X', the level immediately dominating X and its complements. Specifiers occur outside of X', to the left of the head in English, immediately dominated by a maximal projection, XR When we examine the phrase structure of ellipsis, (2) allows for certain generalizations, but makes several undesirable predictions as well. For example, ellipted categories are not in all cases uniformly empty projections of the same bar-level, nor do they appear across categories to be properly head-governed.

2.7.7 Ellipsis in NP Consider first (3-5), involving ellipsis in NP: (3) (4)

The students attended the play but [most/some/all/each/two [e]] NP went home disappointed. Although she might order [these [e]], Mary won't buy

(5)

those books on Egyptian art. The fact that [John's [e]] was poorly presented made

NP

NP

the committee adopt Mary's analysis instead.

Strong Agreement

43

As Jackendoff (1971, 1977:5.3.2) points out, grammatical sentences like those above contrast with the ungrammatical ones in (6-8), in which the complement of N is not included in the ellipsis.2 (6) *Few students of foreign languages attended the play but [all [e] of chemistry] showed up. NP

(7) *Although she might order [these [e] of poems] Mary won't order any NP

collections of short stories. (8) *The fact that [John's [e] of the situation] was poorly presented made NP

the committee adopt Mary's analysis of the problem instead. Jackendoff concludes from such evidence that ellipsis in NP must include the projection immediately dominating N and its complements. According to (2), this generalization is captured by assuming that ellipsis in NP operates on the intermediate projection N', schematically illustrated in (9):

As pointed out in Lobeck, (1987a: Ch. 1), Jackendoff's generalization mus be elaborated, based on evidence that restrigtive modifiers in NP can be op tionally included in the ellipted constituent. Examples in (10) illustrate that ; relative clause can either be included in the ellipsis or can remain outside it (10)

a.

Even though these cards that her students sent her were funny, Mary enjoyed [those [e]] even more. NP

b.

[e] = cards (that her students sent her) Even though these cards that her students sent her were funny, Mary liked [those [e] that her parents gave her] even more. NP

[e] = cards The same generalization holds of certain PP modifiers of N: (11)

a.

John's presentation on urban development was virtually ignored because [Mary's [e]] was so much more interesting. NP

[e] = presentation on urban development

44

ELLIPSIS

b. John's presentation on urban development was virtually ignored because [Mary's [e] on arms control] was so much more NP

N'

interesting. [e] - presentation We explain the data in (10-11) by proposing that restrictive modifiers are immediately dominated by an intermediate projection, N", a projection above the lowest N' immediately dominating N and its complements. Alternatively, we might assume, following Hornstein and Lightfoot (1981: Ch.1), that N' is recursive, and that restrictive modifiers are adjoined to a N' higher than that immediately dominating N and its complements. Under either approach, ellipsis in NP can be said to operate on intermediate projections, namely on the circled nodes in (12).3

A second constraint on ellipsis in NP is that the ellipted constituent must be introduced by what according to Jackendoff is a specifier. This requirement is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (3-5) when the specifier, either a numeral or quantifier, a plural demonstrative, or a possessive NP, is absent. However, not all specifiers of N can equally well introduce ellipted intermediate projections. For example, ellipsis is possible in NP when SPEC(N) is filled with either a numeral or a quantifier from the set including all, each, both, some, many, and few. The ungrammaticality of (13-15), on the other hand, illustrates that the definite and indefinite articles, and singular demonstratives in English cannot introduce an ellipted N'. 4 (13) *A single protester attended the rally because [the [e]] apparently felt NP N' it was important. (14) *Mary toyed with the idea of buying a windsurfer, then decided she didn't want [a [e]] after all. NP

N'

(15) *Although John doesn't like [this [e] that he bought at Sears], he NP

N'

likes that new air conditioner that Mary got at K-Mart. Similarly, unlike other quantifiers, every cannot introduce an ellipted category inNP.

Strong Agreement (16)

45

John called out the children's names, and [many/few/each/all/both/some/ *every [e]] answered. NP

N'

Finally, prenominal adjectives, which for Jackendoff are also specifiers, do not allow ellipted complements.5 (17) *Although she might buy [these bestselling [e]] Mary probably won't NP

purchase those less popular novels. (18) *Susan wanted the Mexican beer, but Dennis chose [the German [e]]. NP

N1

(19) *Because [his new [e]] hurt his feet, Nick had to wear his old Reeboks NP

N'

to the party. The above data suggest that ellipted constituents in NP can only be introduced by certain members of the set of SPEC(N), either a possessive NP, a quantifier other than every, a numeral, or a plural demonstrative. I turn next Sluicing, to determine whether or not the constraints on ellipsis in that category are parallel to those which hold of ellipsis in NP. Given the independent evidence from Chapter One that ellipsis in NP and Sluicing involve the same type of operation, we would expect the syntactic restrictions on their distribution to be the same. That is, we might expect Sluicing to involve an empty intermediate projection introduced by a filled specifier. This appears to be the case.

2.1.2 Sluicing As first pointed out by Ross (1967), Sluicing involves an empty constituent introduced by a WH-phrase. The 'sluiced' phrase can occur in either a main or subordinate clause (see also Ross, 1969 for discussion). Some examples of Sluicing are given in (20-23): (20) (21)

Even though Mary's not sure [who [e]], she knows someone is S' speaking tonight. Sue asked Bill to leave, but [why [e]] remains a mystery.

(22)

Although [how [e]] is still unclear, Sue thinks that John made it

(23)

to work on time. A: Do you want to come with me to visit Sue? B: Sure. [When [e]]?

S'

S'

S'

46

ELLIPSIS

A 'sluiced' phrase cannot, however, be introduced by a lexical complementizer for or that, nor by the WH-complementizers whether or if: (24) *Even though Mary hopes [that [e]], she wonders if anyone interesting is speaking tonight. (25) *Sue asked Bill to leave, but [for [e]] would be unexpected. S'

S'

(26) *Although [whether/if [e]] is unclear, Sue thinks John made it to work on time. S'

Chomsky (1986a:Ch. 3) argues for independent reasons that clauses have the phrase structure in (27), where COMP heads CP:

He proposes that WH-movement is to the SPEC(C) position, and that lexical complementizers are generated in COMP. Under (27), it is possible to argue that the ellipted constituent in (20-23) is an intermediate projection, C', introduced by SPEC(C) filled with a WH-phrase, as illustrated in (28).

Analyzing Sluicing as in (28), we exclude (24-26), and are able to claim that the phrase structure of Sluicing is parallel to that of ellipsis in NP. We now inquire whether it is possible to maintain that VP Ellipsis also involves an empty intermediate projection introduced by a filled specifier. As I show below, this is not the case. 2.1.3 VP Ellipsis Jackendoff (1971) observes that, as in ellipsis in NP, VP Ellipsis must include an intermediate projection, here, V. This requirement is illustrated in (29).

Strong Agreement

(29)

a.

47

Because she shouldn't [[e] (*cigars)], Mary doesn't smoke them. vp

b. Dennis rarely plays his violin, but Susan often does [[e] (*her guitar)]. VP

c.

Pete isn't signing the petition even though most of his friends are [[e] (*this important document)]. VP

Sag (1976, 1.2) also points out that restrictive adverbial and PP modifiers can optionally be included in VP Ellipsis. (30)

(31)

a.

Even though she shouldn't [e], Mary will visit John tomorrow. VP [e] = visit John tomorrow b. Even though she shouldn't [[e] tomorrow], Mary will visit John. VP [e] = visit John a. Mary isn't bringing wine to the office party because John is [e]. VP [e] = bringing wine to the office party b. Because Mary is bringing wine to the office party she won't [[e] to the reception]. VP

[e] = bring wine The above evidence suggests that VP Ellipsis, like ellipsis in NP and Sluicing, operates on an intermediate projection. Like ellipsis in NP, VP Ellipsis also operates on higher projections which dominate modifiers. I will assume that the internal structure of VP is as in (32), and that ellipsis operates at least on V, allowing a modifier to remain outside the ellipsis. VP Ellipsis can also operate on VP, in which case the modifier is included in the ellipted constituent.

Another constraint on VP Ellipsis is that the ellipted verbal projection must be introduced by INFL, filled with an auxiliary element. (This requirement is originally discussed by Bresnan, 1973.) As illustrated in (33), VP Ellipsis is ungrammatical when INFL is empty. (33)

a.

Because she *(shouldn't) [e], Mary doesn't smoke. VP

b. Dennis rarely plays the piano, but Susan often *(does) [e]. VP

48

ELLIPSIS

c.

Pete isn't signing the petition even though most of his friends *(are) [e]. vp

The sentences in (34) illustrate that the VP complement of a main verb cannot be empty. This again suggests that filled INFL must introduce an ellipted verbal projection. (34)

a. *Because Mary continued V[e], John also started speaking French. P 1 0 b. *Fire began pouring out of the building, and then smoke began [e]. (from Bresnan, 1973) c. *Even though she should make John [e], Mary never tells him to clean his room. d. *Although we saw John dance, we couldn't watch Mary [e]. e. *Although we came to see [e], we couldn't watch Mary dance.

In (34a-b), the complements of temporal aspect verbs, what Emonds (1985: Ch. 2) argues in detail are VPs, are empty with an ungrammatical result. Similarly, the empty VP complement of causative make is ungrammatical in (34c). (34d) illustrates that what we might analyze as the VP complement of the perception verb watch can also not be ellipted (see again Emonds, 1985: Ch.2). If we take the complement of the perception verb to be a VP small clause, then ungrammatically of the empty complement of see in (34e) is also explained if V fails to allow an ellipted VP complement. The above evidence from VP Ellipsis suggests that ellipsis in this case crucially differs from ellipsis in NP and Sluicing. VP Ellipsis appears to operate on either maximal or intermediate projections, and to be introduced by a filled X-0 head rather than a specifier. Given this lack of cross-categorial parallelism, we might expect ellipsis in other categories to be allowed when the empty category is introduced by a filled specifier or head. We might expect to find, for example, that P, V or A might license an ellipted complement, or that the specifiers of P, V, A, or ADV might introduce ellipted complements. Both of these predictions are incorrect, however. For example, ellipted complements of the lexical heads V, P and A are ungrammatical in English as we see in (35-37). (35)

a. *Mary doesn't expect Bill to win, but she [wants [e]]. VP

CP

b. *Even though Mary [said [e]], John knows that Bill isn't vp CP going to be there. c. *Mary seems happy but Bill doesn't [appear [e]]. VP

AP

Strong Agreement (36)

(37)

49

a. *Though John doesn't brush his teeth [before [e]], he always

PP IP combs his hair when he goes to work, b. *Because Mary hates to watch TV pp[while jp[e]], she turns it off when she is eating dinner. a. *Mary is crazy about the idea, and Bill is also [happy [e]]. AP

PP

b. *John is anxious to leave, and Mary is [eager [e]] too. AP

CP

Similarly, the adverbs in (38), argued by Jackendoff (1977) to fill SPEC(V), fail to introduce ellipted verbal projections. (See Jackendoff, 1971 and Sag, 1978 for additional discussion.) (38)

a. *Because Jane [suddenly [e]], Mary also quickly left. VP

V

(cf: Because Jane did [e], Mary also quickly left.) V

b. *Bill could never avoid rush hour, but Sally [could often [e]]. VP

V

(cf: Bill could never avoid rush hour, but Sally could [e].) V

The specifiers of P in (39), of A in (40), and of ADV in (41) also fail to introduce ellipted complements. (I adopt Jackendoff's, 1977, and Emonds', 1985 analyses of elements that fill the SPEC position.) (39)

a. *John wanted to get to New York in a hurry, so he drove [clear [e]] in one day. PP

P'

b. *Although it ran [right [e]], the squirrel didn't run up the tree P'

PP

(40)

fast enough to escape. a. *Mary usually gets very nervous, and she was [so [e]] this time AP A' that she couldn't go on stage, b. *Because John was [very [e]], his friend also got upset about AP

(41)

A'

the President's speech. a. *Because John grew tall [so [e]], he expects his son to grow up ADVP ADV quickly too. b. *Mary walks slowly, but John doesn't walk [as [e]]. ADVP ADV

The above evidence suggests that if we adopt (2), we must conclude that empty constituents that arise from ellipsis in NP, VP Ellipsis, and Sluicing are not all properly head-governed. Rather, this appears to be the case only in VP Ellipsis contexts, in which the empty category is introduced by filled INFL. In

50

ELLIPSIS

certain other categories, namely NP and CP, specifiers, rather than X-0 heads, introduce ellipses. Why specifiers of categories other than NP and CP, and X-0s other than INFL fail to allow ellipted complements remains to be explained, and is not what we expect in a theory in which empty categories are presumably licensed under proper head-government.

2.2 An Alternative Theory of Phrase Structure Fukui and Speas (1986) argue that maximal projections are projected by either lexical X-0s N, V, A, and P, or 'functional' categories, DET, COMP, and INFL.6 Functional categories are distinguished from lexical ones in that at least one member of each functional category licenses a single specifier (to its left in English) by assigning 'function' features, or 'Kase,' to that specifier. Kase includes not only case assignment in the traditional sense, (nominative case assigned by tensed INFL, genitive case assigned by [+Poss] in DET, realized as 's in English), but Kase is also assigned to a specifier by COMP [+WH]. Some non-Kase assigning members of functional categories include demonstratives, articles, numerals and quantifiers in DET, infinitival to in INFL, and the lexical complementizers that, for, whether, and if in COMP.7 Within this version of phrase structure, the set of wellformed ellipted categories in English are analyzed as the complements of the functional heads COMP, INFL, and DET, as in (42).

In (42a), empty IP is governed by COMP [+WH], and in (42b), INFL governs empty VP. In (42c), the empty NP complement is governed by DET [+Poss]. DET in (42c) can also be filled with a plural demonstrative, a quantifier, or a

Strong Agreement

51

numeral. (42) therefore characterizes the basic grammatical distribution of ellipted categories discussed in previous sections. Certain issues remain to be addressed. First, the theory must derive that functional, but not lexical heads allow ellipted complements. Second, it must be determined why some, but not all, members of DET and COMP, for example, allow ellipted complements. Recall that SPEC(N) filled with an adjective, a singular demonstrative, an article, or the quantifier every fails to allow an ellipted complement. Fukui and Speas (1986) suggest that prenominal adjectives fill SPEC(N). They are not X-0s, and thus not potential licensing heads for ellipsis. (This idea is discussed further in Chapter Four. See also Cinque, 1992, 1993.) Singular demonstratives, articles, and the quantifier every are, however, analyzable as members of DET, and apparently fail to license empty NP complements. Empty IP is ungrammatical when governed by COMP filled with a lexical complementizer, a fact for which the theory must also account. In the following section I argue that ellipted categories are licensed by functional X-0s specified for features. I also show that these X-0s must be specified for strong agreement, and therefore that ellipses appear to be subject to the same identification condition which holds of empty NP pronominals.

2.3 Functional Categories and Strong Agreement Recall from the discussion of empty pronominals in Chapter One that agreement features include the nominal features Person, Number, and Gender. Typically, agreement features are those which an X-0 'shares' with another X-0 or XP under government, where government is defined by Rizzi (1990) (see 1.1.3). Agreement is defined in (43). (43)

Agreement An X-0 is specified for agreement iff its features must be 'shared' with those of another X-0 or XP under government.

Under (43), heads govern and can therefore 'agree' with their specifiers (through SPEC-head agreement as proposed by Chomsky, 1986b), or complements, and also with the heads of their complements. I define 'strong' agreement as (44): (44)

Strong Agreement An X-0 is specified for 'strong' agreement iff X-0, or the phrase or head with which X-0 agrees, morphologically realizes agreement in a productive number of cases.

According to (44), a head is specified for strong agreement if the head itself

52

ELLIPSIS

realizes these features, or if agreement features are realized on the element with which the head agrees, namely, a specifier, complement, or the head of that complement. As discussed in Chapter One, strong nominal agreement features are the means by which NP, or now more accurately DP, pro is identified under (45). (45)

Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and governed by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

Given that functional heads properly head-govern only when specified for features, such heads also potentially identify an empty pronominal they license under (45). If it can be argued that the features for which a functional head is specified are morphologically realized agreement features, the functional X-0 is specified for strong agreement under (44). In the following sections I discuss the preliminary conditions under which DET, COMP, and INFL are specified for strong agreement, and license and identify pro complements. 2.3.1 Strong Agreement in DET As we saw above, DET [+Poss], can have an empty NP complement. DET filled with a singular demonstrative, an article, or the quantifier every cannot. According to Fukui and Speas (1986), DET [+Poss] is specified for a Kase feature. Abney (1987) argues that [+Poss] is an agreement feature, and that for this reason DET [+Poss] assigns genitive case to a phrase in SPEC(DET). DET [+Poss] can therefore be argued to be specified for SPEC-head agreement, and for agreement under (43). Recall that in Rizzi's (1990) theory of government, functional categories COMP and INFL license their empty complements when specified for features. Extending his analysis to DET, when specified for features, this functional category, along with COMP and INFL, is included in the set of proper headgovernors. DET specified for the SPEC-head agreement feature [+Poss] therefore licenses empty NP. We have two possible analyses of the means by which DET [+Poss] is specified for strong agreement. DET itself may morphologically realize s, which would then be affixed to a DP in SPEC(DET) at some point during the derivation, presumably PF. Alternatively, the phrase in SPEC(DET) may realize 's when governed by DET [+Poss]. DET [+Poss] would then not itself morphologically realize agreement, but would be coindexed with a phrase which morphologically realizes this feature. DET would in either case be specified for strong agreement under (44).8

Strong Agreement

53

Turning next to plural demonstratives, quantifiers, and numerals, analyzing these DET as specified for an agreement feature under (43) is fairly straightforward. DET filled with any of these elements is specified for Number, specifically, for the feature [+Plural], a feature shared with the N head of its complement, and generally realized on N by -s (these/all/six books/*book). DET is thus a potential proper head-governor when specified for the agreement feature [+Plural]. When [+Plural] is morphologically realized, DET is according to (44) specified for strong agreement. DET filled with a singular demonstrative, an indefinite article, or the quantifier every, on the other hand, is [-Plural], and N governed by DET [-Plural] does not morphologically realize agreement (this/ a/every book/*books). We might assume that a head that is negatively specified for agreement lacks agreement, and that DET in this case is not a proper headgovernor. Alternatively, DET [-Plural] might be analyzed as specified for agreement, and a proper head-governor. DET is in neither case, however, specified for strong agreement, as [-Plural] is not overtly realized on N. Under either of these analyses DET [-Plural] is not specified for strong agreement under (44).9 DET filled with the is not specified for Number, as the N with which DET occurs can be either singular or plural (the book/books). This suggests that DET and N are not in an agreement relation, and that DET consequently lacks agreement and strong agreement. Based on the above evidence, it appears that in English, DET only allows an ellipted NP complement when specified for strong agreement as defined in (44). In all of these cases it follows that DET licenses empty NP, as DET is specified for features. One might argue, then, that the distribution of empty NP in DP is derived from the ECP alone, rather than from (45). Evidence from VP Ellipsis discussed in the following section, however, indicates that empty VP must satisfy (45). It is therefore plausible to assume that DET must also both license and identify its empty NP complement. 2.3.2 Strong Agreement in INFL In tensed clauses in English, ellipted VP is allowed only when governed by INFL [+Tense, +AGR], filled with an auxiliary element. Tensed INFL specified for features is a proper head-governor, and licenses empty VP. VP thus satisfies the ECP. Licensing alone, however, fails to explain the ungrammaticality of ellipsis in the sentences repeated below, in which empty VP is properly headgoverned and licensed by V. (46)

a. *Because Mary continued [e], John also started speaking French. VP

b. *Fire began pouring out of the building, and then smoke began [e]. VP

54

ELLIPSIS

We explain the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (46) if empty VP is licensed and identified under (45). Nominal AGR features are presumably not strong in English INFL, as they are not productively morphologically realized, and English consequently fails to allow non-arbitrary pro subjects. Furthermore, as first pointed out by Zagona (1982), features of Person and Number do not contribute in any obvious way to the identification of empty VP (see also Zagona, 1988a, 1988b). The feature [+Tense] in English INFL, on the other hand, contributes to the identification of empty VP, and is an agreement feature under (43), if we broaden the definition of agreement features to include more than the nominal features of Person, Number, Gender, and Case. [+Tense] is realized in INFL by an auxiliary element, and is productively 'shared' with V through Verb Raising or Affix Hopping. Also, in all the wellformed cases of ellipsis in tensed IP in English, [+Tense] is morphologically realized by have or be, a modal, or do in INFL. Filled INFL [+Tense] is therefore specified for strong agreement under (44).10 Evidence from VP Ellipsis therefore supports the claim that ellipted categories are licensed and identified under (45)."

2.3.3 Strong Agreement in COMP As we have seen in 2.1.2, empty IP in 'Sluicing' constructions is grammatical when COMP [+WH] is coindexed with a WH-phrase in SPEC(C). (47)

Even though Mary's not sure [who [e]], she thinks someone

(48)

interesting is speaking tonight. Sue asked Bill to leave, but [why [e]] remains a mystery.

(49)

Although [how [e]] is unclear, Sue thinks that John made it to

(50)

work on time. A: I'd like to leave now. B: With who(m) [e]?/ Why [e]?/ How (come) [e]? IP IP IP

CP

CP

CP

IP

IP

IP

According to the definition of agreement in (43), COMP [+WH], coindexed with a WH-phrase in SPEC(C), is specified for SPEC-head agreement, and is therefore a proper head-governor. COMP is also under (44) specified for strong agreement, as it agrees with a phrase in SPEC(C) which morphologically realizes the feature [+WH]. Empty IP in (47-50) is therefore properly headgoverned by COMP specified for strong agreement, and is both licensed and identified under (45).12 Consider now the ungrammatical empty IP in (51).

Strong Agreement (51)

55

a. *Even though Mary hopes [that [e]], she doubts that anyone CP

IP

interesting is speaking tonight. b. *Sue asked Bill to leave, and [for [e]] was unexpected. CP

IP

c. *Although [whether/if [e]] is unclear, Sue thinks John made it CP

IP

to work on time. The ungrammaticality of (51a) suggests that COMP filled with that fails to both license and identify empty IP. COMP filled with the lexical preposition for in (51b), on the other hand, presumably licenses empty IP. For is not, however, specified for agreement, and hence lacks strong agreement. Empty IP is therefore not identified, and is ruled out. In (51c), COMP is filled with a lexical [+WH] complementizer. Again, ellipsis is ungrammatical, which leads us to suspect that [+WH] is here not a strong agreement feature. Incorporating Rizzi's (1990) theory of agreement in COMP into the theory of licensing and identification developed so far, we explain the data in (51) by independently motivated principles.13 In order to explain a range of data involving extraction, Rizzi (1990) proposes that COMP must properly head-govern a trace in the embedded subject position in order for the trace to satsify the ECP. Further, only COMP specified for SPEC-head agreement, that is, COMP coindexed with a phrase or trace in SPEC(C), is specified for agreement and a potential proper head-governor for a subject trace. In his framework, neither COMP filled with that nor COMP filled with for is specified for agreement, as neither COMP tolerates a trace or phrase in SPEC(C). The embedded subject trace in the following examples therefore violates the ECP.14 (52)

a. *Who do you think [t' [that [t left]]]? CP

IP

b. *Who did you arrange [t' [for [t to see Mary]]]? CP

IP

The same analysis can be extended to COMP filled with whether or if. Extraction of an object in a clause headed by COMP that is filled with one of these elements violates only Subjacency, but extraction of a subject is ungrammatical. (53)

a. *Who do I wonder [t'[whether/if [t met Mary]]]? CP C

b.

IP

?Who do I wonder [t'[whether/if [John likes t]]]? CP

IP

This suggests that though COMP in (53) may realize the subcategorization feature [+WH], [+WH] here is not a SPEC-head agreement feature, and thus

56

ELLIPSIS

COMP in this case is not specified for strong agreement. The subject trace in (53a) consequently violates the ECP, while the object trace in (53b) is licensed by the verb likes, and extraction violates only Subjacency. Adopting Rizzi's analysis of agreement in COMP, COMP filled with that, whether, or if fails to license empty IP, and is in these cases not specified for SPEC-head agreement. COMP is therefore not a proper head-governor, nor is it specified for strong agreement to identify empty IP. COMP filled with the lexical preposition for, on the other hand, may license empty IP, but fails to identify it, as for is not specified for strong agreement. In light of the above analysis, consider (54): (54)

I know someone likes Mary, but a. *who do you think [t [AGR [e]]]? CP

IP

b. who do you think [t [AGR [likes her]]]? CP

c.

IP

I wonder [who [AGR [e]]. CP

IP

In both (54a-b), COMP is specified for agreement, and properly head-governs empty IP in (54a). COMP in (54a-b) contrasts with COMP in (54c) in that in the former, agreement is not [+WH], nor is agreement 'strong' in the sense discussed above, as COMP is not coindexed with a lexical WH-phrase in SPEC(C). Empty IP is therefore licensed in (54a) by a head specified for agreement, but is not identified. The derivation is consequently ruled out. Empty IP in (54c), on the other hand, is both licensed and identified by COMP, and ellipsis is grammatical. This account also rules out empty IP in (55-56). (55)

(56)

a. *Even though Mary doesn't believe [e], Sue expects Hortense IP IP crazy. to be b. *John appears to be smart, and Mary also seems [e]. IP c. *Mary doesn't expect Bill to win, but she wants [e]. IP a. *John talked to Bill, but before [e], Mary called. IP b. *Mary ate peanuts during the game, and while [e], the home team IP made four runs.

The ungrammaticality of ellipsis in (55-56) follows only if ellipted IP must be both licensed and identified. In these sentences empty IP is properly headgoverned by V or a subordinating P, yet these lexical X-0slack agreement. IP is therefore not identified, and is ruled out.

Strong Agreement

57

The account also explains the lack of Sluicing in tensed relative clauses. Here, we might expect empty IP to productively occur, as in such constructions, embedded SPEC(C) is filled with a WH-phrase. This is not the case, however, as we see in (57). (57)

a. *Someone wants to talk to Mary, but [the person [who [e]] DP CP IP is too shy to approach her. b. *Although the place [where [e]] is unclear, the time when the CP

IP

meeting is to be held is posted on the door. COMP in relative clauses is coindexed with a WH-phrase in SPEC(C), and is specified for SPEC-head agreement. COMP therefore can properly head-govern both an embedded subject trace and empty IP. I assume with Rizzi (1990) that COMP in relative clauses is [-WH], and therefore that manifestations of agreement in COMP in such clauses are also [-WH]. Therefore, although COMP in relatives is specified for SPEC-head agreement, agreement is not [+WH], nor is agreement lexically realized in COMP or on the phrase with which COMP is coindexed. Agreement in COMP in tensed relatives is therefore parallel to agreement in COMP in (54a-b). In both cases, COMP licenses, but fails to identify, empty IP, and Sluicing is ruled out. The analysis can be extended to other languages in which, like English, subject extraction is allowed in indirect questions, and in which COMP [+WH] is specified for SPEC-head agreement, morphologically realized by a coindexed phrase. We correctly predict, for example, that in French and German, Sluicing in indirect questions such as those in (58-59) is grammatical. (58)

(59)

Marie savait que quelqu'un avail vole le livre, mais Marie knew that someone had stolen the book, but elle n'avail pas devine qui/quand [e]. IP she NEG-had not found out who/when [e]. 'Marie knew that someone had stolen the book, bul she hadn't found oul who/when.' Ich moechte Jemanden einladen aber ich weiss nicht wen/warum/wie. I wanted someone invite but I know not who/why/how. 'I wanted to invite someone, but I don't know who/why/how.'

[+WH] COMP in French and German can also be lexically filled by an equivalent of English whether, si, and ob, respectively. Extraction of subjects out of such clauses is blocked, as illustrated in (60-61):

58

ELLIPSIS

(60) *Qui te demandes-tu [t' [si [t aime Marie]]]? CP

IP

Who CL ask-you if [e] likes Marie 'Who did you ask if likes Mary?' (61) *Wer fragte Hans [t' [ob [t die Rechnung bezahlen will]]]? CP

IP

Who asked Hans if [e] the bill pay 'Who did Hans ask if would pay the bill?'

will

The ungrammaticality of subject extraction in (60-61) suggests that COMP filled with a lexical [+WH] complementizer in French and German is, as in English, not specified for SPEC-head agreement, and thus lacks strong agreement. (62-63) show that as predicted, Sluicing is blocked in such clauses: (62) *Elle croit

vouloir partir

mais elle ne

sait

pas si [e]. IP She believes to want to leave but she NEG know not if [e]. 'She wants to go out, but she doesn't know if.' (63) *Hans behauptet er liebe seine Frau. Ich frage mich allerdings ob [e]. H. pretends he loves his wife. I ask myself rather if [e]. 'Hans pretends he loves his wife. I wonder though if.' The evidence examined here suggests that empty IP must not only be licensed, but also identified by strong agreement. Empty IP therefore is constrained by (45). We have also seen that the SPEC-head agreement feature [+WH] is a strong agreement feature, and that this explains why only COMP [+WH], in a SPEC-head agreement relation with a phrase in SPEC(C), both licenses and identifies empty IP.15 2.3.3.1 Agreement in COMP in Bavarian German and Norwegian. Recent studies have shown that COMP [+WH] in languages other than those discussed so far can manifest agreement features of, for example, Person and Number. We must therefore determine whether COMP that is so specified licenses and identifies empty IP. Bayer (1984) argues that in Bavarian German, COMP [+WH] can realize agreement features of Person and Number, features which 'copy' those of embedded INFL. As a result, the embedded subject can be omitted, and presumably interpreted as a pro argument, identified through strong agreement. (64)

Du woidd-st doch kumma, owa mia wissn ned wann-st (du) you wanted come, but we know not when-(2sg) (you) kumma woidd-st. come wanted-(2sg). 'You wanted to come, but we don't know when you wanted to come.'

Strong Agreement

59

According to the analysis of Sluicing above, we might expect empty IP in (64) to be allowed, since IP would be properly head-governed by COMP specified for the the SPEC-head agreement feature [+WH]. Bayer (personal communication) points out, however, that although Sluicing is generally allowed in indirect questions in Bavarian German, the nominal agreement features in COMP exemplified in (64) can never be overtly realized when IP is empty. (65)

Du woidd-st doch komma, owa mia wissn ned wann (*-st) [e].

In fact, the appearance of morphological agreement features in COMP in Bavarian appears to be contingent on the cooccurence of the same features in INFL. Bayer (1984) illustrates this fact with evidence that when part of IP is empty in comparatives such as (66), agreement features in COMP cannot be lexically realized: (66)

a.

Der Hans is gresser (als) wia-st du bi-st the Hans is taller than what-(2sg) you are-(2sg). 'Hans is taller than you are.' b. *Der Hans is gresser (als) wia (*-st) du [e]. the Hans is taller than what you 'Hans is taller than you.'

Extending Bayer's analysis of (66b) to (65), COMP fails to agree with INFL, as IP is generated empty. Empty IP will thus never be compatible with lexically realized nominal agreement features in COMP. The same point is made in a different way when we consider the following data involving agreement in COMP in Norwegian (from Rizzi, 1990: p. 57). (67)

a.

Vi vet [hvem som [t snakker med Marit]]

b.

'We know who that talks with Mary' Vi vet [hvem (*som) [Marit snakker met t]]

CP

CP

IP

IP

'We know who that Mary talks with' Relative clauses aside, Norwegian som is possible only in indirect questions in which the subject, but not the object, has been extracted. Under Rizzi's (1990) account, this suggests that COMP filled with som obligatorily agrees not only with its WH specifier, but also with its IP complement, and therefore also with INFL, the head of IP. INFL is in a SPEC-head agreement relation with the subject position, and som is therefore coindexed with and properly head-governs the embedded subject position, licensing a trace there. Som is blocked from occurring in sentences with object extraction, as in these cases COMP is not coindexed with both SPEC(C) and IP.

60

ELLIPSIS

As the account of Sluicing outlined above predicts, Sluicing is grammatical in cases in which COMP in indirect questions in Norwegian is [+WH], and specified for SPEC-head agreement. Interestingly, however, Sluicing is ungrammatical if COMP is also filled with som (thanks to A. Hestvik for useful discussion). To illustrate, consider (68): (68)

Vi vet at noen snakket med Marit, men vi vit ikke hvem (*som) [e]. 'We know that someone talked with Mary, but we don't know who.'

The impossibility of Sluicing with som suggests that, as in Bavarian German, the appearance of morphologically realized agreement in COMP in Norwegian is contigent on agreement with embedded INFL. Agreement is blocked from appearing when IP is empty, barring (68). The evidence that COMP in languages such as Bavarian German and Norwegian fails to realize nominal agreement in Sluicing constructions supports the claim that ellipses are base-generated empty categories, with agreement between COMP and embedded (empty) INFL blocked. This suggests in turn that in Sluicing constructions, IP is generated empty, though WH-phrases are presumably generated in SPEC(C), coindexed with COMP through SPEC-head agreement. Allowing WH-phrases to be base-generated in, rather than moved to, specifier position is not problematic in government-binding theory, as in such a theory elements are generated and/or moved freely. Provided that conditions on chains are checked after reconstruction, a WH-operator in SPEC(C) can be in a coindexed chain at the relevant level(s) (S-structure and/or LF, depending on where reconstruction applies), and will be licit. 2.3.3.2 Sluicing, Pied Piping, and Preposition Stranding. Another interesting Sluicing construction, exemplified in (69-70), is analyzed in detail by van Riemsdijk (1978) (see also Ross, 1969). (69) (70)

a. b. a. b.

Mary Mary Mary Mary

left with someone, but we don't know left with someone, but we don't know took some pictures, but we aren't sure took some pictures, but we aren't sure

with who(m) [e]. who with [e]. of what [e]. what of [e].

The (a) sentences in (69-70) appear to involve WH-Movement of PP whose object is a WH-phrase. The (b) sentences involve a type of 'inverted' Pied Piping, in which the prepositional object precedes, and therefore 'strands,' P. Van Riemsdijk argues that the (b) sentences are derived from the (a) sentences.

Strong Agreement

61

In his analysis, no ellipsis is involved in such cases; PP is generated as the complement of V, and the prepositional object may optionally front to SPEC(P), 'stranding' P. A sample schematic derivation is given in (71):

We explain the patterns in (69-70) in the current framework by proposing that the structure of (69a) is (72), rather than (71), where PP is generated in SPEC(COMP) position:

Following van Riemsdijk, I assume that who(m) can optionally move to SPEC(P), as in (73):

62

ELLIPSIS

Whether the prepositional object is fronted into SPEC(P) or not, SPEC-head agreement between COMP and the PP in SPEC(C), a WH-element by percolation, obtains (see van Riemsdijk, 1978: Ch. 6, for discussion). COMP in (69-70) is thus specified for strong agreement, and licenses and identifies ellipted IP, satisfying (45).

2.4 Ellipsis in DEGP In this section I discuss ellipsis in the functional category DEGP, and argue that the failure of ellipsis in this category follows from (45). Abney (1987) and Corver (1990a, 1990b) argue for the existence of a functional category DEG, which can be filled with a degree modifier so, too, more, or less, and which heads DEGP (see also Grimshaw, 1991). According to Abney, DEG can take either an ADVP, AP, or what he calls a 'QP' complement. Some examples of the failure of ellipsis in these types of DEGP are given in (74): (74)

a. *Even though John is never [too [e]], Bill is always late. DEGP

AP

b. *Although Hortense is still [quite [e]], she is becoming less DEOP

AP

excited about winning the lottery. c. *John ate quickly but Mary didn't eat [as [e]]. DEGP ADVP

d. *Mary studies too much, and yesterday she studied [so [e]] DEGP QP that she got a terrible headache. DEG is not in any obvious way specified for agreement features in English. One way this is illustrated is by the evidence that adjectives or adverbs governed by DEG do not change form depending on the element in DEG. This differentiates DEG from DET, an X-0 which agrees in plurality with N, and changes its morphological shape accordingly. Also, in (74), SPEC(DEG) is empty, and DEG

Strong Agreement

63

presumably lacks SPEC-head agreement. DEG thus fails, predictably, to license and identify an empty pronominal complement.16 One case in which we might consider DEG to agree with the head of its complement in English is when the adjectival or adverbial head of the complement of DEG is affixed with comparative -er or superlative -est. These agreement morphemes, argued to fill the SPEC(A) position by Selkirk (1977), Jackendoff (1977), Hendrick (1978), and Emonds (1985), are under Abney's and Corver's approaches instances of DEG, and as illustrated in (75), in complementary distribution with more/most. (75)

a. *a more smarter dog/a smarter dog b. *the most smartest dog/the smartest dog

According to a DEGP phrase structure analysis, -er/-est must either downgrade to A during the derivation, or A must move to DEG to be affixed:

Regardless of whether movement of -er/-est is to A, or if A must raise to DEG, ellipsis of AP is predictably ruled out in (76). Ellipsis would require AP to be generated empty. Although DEG might be specified for strong agreement, affixation of agreement to empty A would be blocked. Ellipsis in (76) is thus ruled out for independent reasons. Another environment in which we might expect ellipsis in DEGP to be grammatical is illustrated in (77), in which SPEC(DEG) is filled with a measure phrase (see Abney, 1987: Ch.4, and Corver, 1990a: Ch.3 for discussion). (77)

a.

Mary bought a rope that was two feet long, and then returned it for one that was [three times [as [long]]]. DEGP

D'

AP

b. Mary thought the dress was a bit too long, but her friends said it was at least [an inch [too [short]]]. DEGP

D'

AP

In (77), both DEG and SPEC(DEG) are filled, and we might expect DEG to be specified for SPEC-head agreement, and possibly for strong agreement. DEG

64

ELLIPSIS

does not, however, morphologically agree with a phrase in SPEC(DEG). In fact, few cooccurence restrictions between DEG and a measure phrase seem to hold. This is exemplified in (78), which illustrates that a range of DEG are compatible with the measure phrase in SPEC(DEG). (78)

six miles [e]/as/too/ /less/more long

As expected, ellipsis of AP in (77) is ungrammatical, as we see in (79). (79)

a. *Mary bought a rope that was two feet long, and then returned it for one that was [three times [as [e]]]. DEGP

D'

D'

AP

b. *Mary thought the dress was only a bit too long, but her friends said it was at least [an inch [too [e]]]. DEGP

D'

AP

Observe that when DEG is empty and SPEC(DEG) filled, ellipsis is unacceptable, but perhaps not completely ungrammatical. (80)

a.

?Mary bought a rope that was two feet long, and then she returned it for one that was [three feet [[e] [e]]].

b.

?This wall is six inches thick, but that one is only [four DEGP inches [[e][e]]].

DEGP

D'

D'

AP

AP

Observe further that the sentences in (80) improve when ellipsis appears to involve not only AP, but also a portion of the measure phrase in SPEC(DEG): (81)

a. Mary bought a rope that was only two feet long, and then returned it for one that was [three [e]]. DEGP

AP

b. Mary thought the dress was only one inch too long, but her friends said it was at least [two [e]]. DEGP

c.

AP

This wall is six inches thick, but that one is only [four [e]]. DEGP

AP

Assuming that measure phrases in SPEC(DEG) are DP, ellipsis in (81) has the phrase structure illustrated schematically in (82):

Strong Agreement

65

(82) is not a possible ellipsis structure, as the ellipsis does not form a constituent. Furthermore, although empty NP might be licensed and identified by DET [+Plural] in (82), empty D' is not licensed and identified by a specifier, as specifiers are not proper head-governors. Suppose, however, that speakers analyze DEGP in (81) as DP, as in (83):

The unacceptability of the sentences in (80) might follow from the categorial clash of interpreting DEGP as DP. Under this hypothesis, we interpret the sentences in (81) in the same way as we interpret those in (84).l7 (84)

a.

The red rope stretches six feet but the blue one only [five [e]]. DP

b. The wall extends six inches now, but after the remodeling it will only extend [four [e]]. DP

c. John ran six miles and Bill ran [seven [e]]. DP

The sentences in (81) are also DEGP interpreted as DP, but differ from those in (80) in being syntactically 'closer' to the configurations in (84). They are thus more acceptable than those in (80). In any case, we can continue to assume that DEG does not license or identify it empty complement, and that acceptability of ellipsis in this category is a result of analyzing DEGP as DP.

2.5 Conclusion In this chapter I have argued that the distribution of ellipted constituents across categories in English supports a theory of phrase structure which incorporates both lexical categories and the functional categories DET, COMP, INFL, and DEG. Under this approach, ellipted constituents, or non-arbitrary, non-DP pro, are analyzed as the empty complements of X-0 heads, empty categories which must be licensed and identified. I have argued that ellipses are licensed and identified under (45), conditions which also hold of non-arbitrary DP pro.18 Recall from Chapter One, however, that ellipses, or non-DP pro, are presumably identified through reconstruction, the means by which the content of an ellipsis is recovered. The content of DP pro, on the other hand, is recovered

66

ELLIPSIS

through association with agreement features which allow the empty pronominal to refer to a (pragmatic or syntactic) antecedent. It is surprising, then, that nonreferential, empty non-DP pronominals are also subject to (45), as reconstruction, rather than reference, is the means by which the content of the ellipsis is recovered. I propose, however, that (45) holds of ellipses for basically the same reason that it holds of non-arbitrary DP pro, namely that agreement features designate an empty pronominal as 'visible' to the processes by which their content is recovered. That is, agreement features of Person and Number, and possibly also Gender and Case, designate referential DP pro as 'visible' to whatever (discourse and/or syntactic) processes which link it with an antecedent. An empty DP pronominal which is not associated with such features is arbitrary in reference. Similarly, features in DET ([+Plural], [+Poss]), INFL ([+Tense]), and COMP ([+WH]), make empty, non-referential, pronominal NP, VP, and IP, respectively, 'visible' to reconstruction. Strong agreement features thus 'identify' both empty, referential and non-referential pronominals in a similar way.

Notes 1. Others have argued that ellipted constituents in functional categories are licensed by the ECP, but none of these studies has made this claim for all three processes of VP Ellipsis, Sluicing, and ellipsis in NP, nor have they incorporated this claim into Rizzi's (1990) theory of Relativized Minimality, as I do here. Contreras (1989) asserts that the ellipted constituent in DP is properly governed by DET, and Zagona (1982, 1988a, 1988b) is first to argue that INFL properly governs empty VP. Chao (1987) argues that INFL properly governs empty VP, and that COMP properly governs empty IP in Sluicing constructions. She does not, however, extend her analysis to account for the asymmetrical distribution of ellipses within these categories which I address here and in subsequent chapters. None of the above analyses makes the claim that ellipses must be identified by strong agreement. (Some of the ideas discussed in this chapter are also presented in Lobeck, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1993.) 2. I leave aside here the issue of what exactly constitutes a 'complement,' or a thetamarked sister of N. What is relevant here is not whether the 'of-NP' sisters of N are also arguments theta-marked by N, but rather that, as Jackendoff (1977) argues in detail, they form a constituent with N, what he analyzes as N'. 3. I assume here that specifiers of N are immediately dominated by NP. To account for certain ordering differences, Jackendoff (1977: Ch.5) proposes that certain specifiers are immediately dominated by N" and others by N'" (NP). I leave aside the issue of specifier order, as it is resolved in Chapter Three, where I extend Ritter's (1991) analysis of NP as DP dominating two functional heads, DET and NUM, to English. 4. I assume here, following Postal (1966), that determiner elements followed by empty N are not functioning as pronouns.

Strong Agreement

67

5. One might argue that prenominal adjectives introduce ellipses, based on examples such as the following: a. I like the red skirt, but Pam likes the blue. b. In with the new and out with the old.

(i)

That these adjectives are not nominalized is illustrated by evidence that they do not felicitously pluralize, nor do they take a range of determiners. These adjectives are also unable to be modified. (ii)

a. *The red skirts were pretty, but the blues seemed out of style. b. *In with the new that we voted for, and out with the old that was part of the earlier agenda. c. *I like the red skirt, but Pam only likes Sue's blue.

Other examples, including the rich, the poor, and the elderly might be analyzable as adjectives followed by a 'human generic,' or arbitrary, pro. I will not pursue the discussion of such examples further here, but only note that in more unambiguous cases of prenominal adjectival modifiers of nouns such as those in (17-19), ellipsis of N' is clearly impossible. (Thanks to M. Speas for useful discussion on this point.) I discuss prenominal adjectives again in Chapters Three and Four. 6. Other theories of functional categories have been proposed. For example, Pollock (1989) argues that AGR, NEG, and Tense are all functional heads, and Abney (1987:Ch. 4), Corver (1990a, 1990b Ch.3), and Grimshaw (1991) claim that degree modifiers, or DEG, head the functional category DEGP. I discuss Pollock's analysis in Chapter Five, and the analysis of DEG as a functional head in 2.4. 7. Fukui and Speas (1986) do not discuss DET other than DET filled with the or [+Poss]. They also do not address lexical complementizers other than that. I extend their analysis to other members of DET and COMP. 8. DET [+Poss] in gerunds (Abney, 1987) is also specified for strong agreement, and as might be expected, allows an ellipted complement. (i)

John's singing of the Marseillese was skillful, and Bill's [e] was even more so.

9. The numeral one is [-Plural], but allows an ellipted complement. (i)

The candidates came in and one [e] sat down.

Strong agreement in DET is discussed in more detail in Chapter Three, where I refine the analysis proposed here to derive the grammaticality of (i). 10. Both Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989) assume that modals are [+Tense], and base-generated in INFL. Emonds (1985: Ch.5) proposes, however, that modals are [-Tense, ±Past], while tensed auxiliaries are [+Tense, ±Past], and infinitives are unspecified for these features. In Emonds' system, it is more accurate to say that the feature [±Past], rather than the feature [+Tense], is the relevant strong agreement feature that designates INFL as a licensing and identifying head for ellipted VP. Here I designate modals as [+Tense] for exposition. See Chapter Five for further discussion. 11. Recall from 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 that both ellipsis in DP and VP Ellipsis operate on

68

ELLIPSIS

projections of N and V, respectively. This suggests that INFL and DET govern intermediate projections of the heads of their complements, as illustrated below. (i)

Because Mary is bringing wine to the office party she won't [[e] to the reception].

VP

(iii)

John's presentation on urban development was virtually ignored because [Mary's [e] on arms control] was so much more interesting.

DP

NP

That ellipsis of the intermediate projections in (ii) and (iv) is grammatical suggests that neither VP nor NP is a barrier to proper head-government by, respectively, INFL or DET. This follows under Rizzi's (1990) theory, presented in Chapter One, in which barriers are defined in terms of selection rather than L-marking. See also Fukui and Speas (1986), who argue that lexical heads project to X', and that for this reason projections of N and V are not barriers. Both Fukui (1986) and van Riemsdijk (1988) propose that the NP complement of DET is not a maximal projection, and is thus not a barrier. 12. Chomsky (1992) suggests for independent reasons that [+WH] is a 'strong' agreement feature, and therefore must be 'checked' prior to PF SPELLOUT. Checking occurs with overt movement of a WH-phrase into SPEC(C). In languages with overt WH-Movement such as English, [+WH] is 'strong.' In languages in which WHMovement is at LF, [+WH] is 'weak.' If we take 'strong' [+WH] to be 'strong' in our sense, we predict, correctly, that an empty pro IP is allowed only in languages with overt WH-Movement, as it is only in such languages that COMP will be specified for a strong agreement feature. 13. See also Haegeman (1983), den Besten (1983), Bennis and Haegeman (1984), Chung and McCloskey (1987), and Carstens and Kinyalolo (1989) for other discussions of agreement in COMP.

Strong Agreement

69

14. Rizzi's (1990) claim is even more precise; COMP only properly head-governs an element it both governs and is coindexed with. In this way, he rules out the ungrammatical sentence in (i): (i) *This is the student that I wonder [whati [AGR [t bought ti] CP

IP

In (i), SPEC(C) is filled with a WH-phrase extracted from other than the subject position. AGR in COMP is therefore not coindexed with the subject trace, and does not properly head-govern it. Rizzi does not discuss whether COMP is coindexed with, and is a potential proper head-governor of IP. It is reasonable to assume, however, that heads are coindexed with their complements (through selection and/or theta-role assignment). Under this analysis COMP would potentially properly-head govern IP even if also coindexed with a subject trace. 15. Notice also that the feature [+WH] is not limited to identifying empty IP; it appears that DET [+WH] is also a possible identifying head for ellipted NP: (i)

John wants to buy a book but we don't know [which [e]]. DP

NP

16. That DEG lacks agreement may be supported by Grimshaw's (1991) analysis of DEG as category neutral. In her approach, a phrase headed by DEG with an AP complement is adjectival, and a phrase in which DEG takes an ADVP complement is adverbial. DEG is essentially 'transparent' as far as categorial features go, allowing the features of a lexical head to project through it to a higher projection. It seems reasonable to propose that category neutral heads are not specified for features (agreement or other), and thus are not potential proper head-governors or identifying heads. 17. Not all measure DEGP productively allow this type of ellipsis. For example, in (ia-iia), ellipsis of AP is grammatical, but DEGP cannot be "reanalyzed" as DP. Hence, (ib-iib) are ungrammatical. (i)

(ii)

a. This baby is only two months (old), and that one is six months (old). b. *Although the baby is only two [e], she acts like she's six months old. ([e] = months) a. John is six feet (tall), but Bill is only five feet (tall). b. *Though John is only five [e], Bill is six feet tall.

It might be that certain measure phrases such as in (ia-iia) are lexicalized forms. I will not pursue this further here. 18. So far in this framework, both licensing and identification of empty, non-DP pronominals are by the same X-0, namely a functional head specified for strong agreement. (45) is thus satisfied in a different way for ellipses than it is for empty DP pronominal subjects. In the latter case, pro are subjects for example, properly headgoverned and licensed by V, assuming with Rizzi (1990) that subjects are generated in post-verbal position. (See 1.1.4 for discussion.) Identification of a pro subject, however, can be under government by INFL specified for strong agreement, after pro fronts to SPEC(I). Licensing and identification under (45) can therefore be taken as separate principles, although in the case of ellipsis, these conditions are satisfied by the same X-0.

This page intentionally left blank

3 Two Functional Heads in English DP

3.0 Introduction In the previous chapter, the phrase structure of DP in English was taken to be (1), in which [+Poss] or [+Plural] in DET were potential strong agreement features.

DET specified for strong agreement licenses and identifies empty NP under (2). (2)

Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-governed, and governed by an X-0 specified for strong agreement.

This analysis accounts for certain ellipsis patterns in DP, but as I demonstrate in this chapter, it fails to explain why more than one determiner element can apparently precede a nominal projection, as we see in (3). (3)

a. John's many books b. The six women c. These few articles

The analysis of ellipsis in DP as it stands also fails to account for ellipsis patterns involving what appear to be two determiners, as in (4). (4)

a.

My sister's two boys are wild, but [John's two [e]] are really DP quite well-behaved. 71

72

ELLIPSIS

b. Many students enrolled in the class, but [the few [e] who DP

c.

dropped it later] said it was too difficult. Although [all twelve [e]] did well in the class, only two DP

students got As. To account for the data in (3) and (4) I argue here, following Rothstein (1988) and Ritter (1991), that noun phrases have two determiner positions. I extend Ritter's analysis of Hebrew DP, in which DP dominates the functional categories DET and NUM, to English. DP under this hypothesis has the phrase structure in (5):

(5) accounts not only for the ordering facts presented above in (3), but also for certain PP modification facts in noun phrases consistent with current, independently motivated theoretical assumptions. We also explain the distribution of ellipted NP introduced by what appear to be two determiners in (4), by proposing that DET heads DP, a category which in turn dominates the functional category NUMP. Also in this chapter, I argue that in certain cases, DET properly head-governs empty NP under a revision of Baker's (1988) Government Transparency Corollary in (6). (6)

The Government Transparency Corollary (GTC) A lexical category which has an item incorporated into it governs everything which the incorporated item governed in its original structural position.

By generalizing the GTC to apply not only to 'incorporated' heads, but also base-generated empty heads, we explain ellipsis patterns in which DET is specified for strong agreement, and licenses and identifies the empty NP complement of empty NUM. Finally, I propose here that in addition to the features [+Poss] and [+Plural],

Two Functional Heads in English DP

73

the feature [+Partitive], (following an extension of Sportiche, 1988), is a strong agreement feature. This analysis explains the difference between the singular quantifier each and the singular numeral one, on the one hand, and the singular quantifier every on the other. As we see in (7), only the former heads license and identify ellipted complements: (7)

The candidates came in and each/one/*every [e] sat down.

Each, one, and every are all [-Plural], but only the former two heads are also [+Partitive], and specified for strong agreement.

3.1 The Phrase Structure of English DP As mentioned above, although (1) seems at first to adequately characterize the phrase structure of noun phrases, certain patterns are problematic for the analysis as it stands, some of which are independent of ellipsis. For example, an analysis of DP in which all quantifiers, numerals, and determiners are generated in the single position DET fails to account for the fact that the NP complement of DET can be preceded by (ordered) strings of what in the present analysis must be analyzed as more than one DET, as in (3). (1) also fails to explain why ellipsis in (4) is grammatical, where empty NP appears to be introduced by two determiners. Jackendoff (1977) derives the order of determiner elements from phrase structure rules, in terms of a hierarchy of SPEC positions, as in (8-9): (8)

SPEC (N") NP/ART/Q [John's/these/all/both [books]] N'"

N'

[the/a/this/that/each [book]] N"'

(9)

N'

SPEC (N') NUM/Q/ADJ [John's/these/all [six [books]]] N"

N"'

Nr

[John's/these/the [many/few/red [books]]]

N'"

N"

N'

We might assume that under the DP hypothesis in (1), Jackendoff's SPEC(N") are analyzed as SPEC(DET), with his SPEC(N') as DET. This is the approach taken by both Karimi (1989) and Drijkoningen (1990) to explain the order of definite and indefinite determiners in DP.1 This analysis is problematic, however, when we consider ellipsis in DP. For example, consider the sentences in (10). (10)

a.

[These [e]] don't usually give students much trouble, but

DP

the rest of the exercises seem to be very difficult for them.

74

ELLIPSIS

b.

Because [Lee's [e]] are so well cared for, the other cars on the

c.

block usually look rather shabby. Because [all/both [e]] are so popular, these wines will probably

DP

DP

be very expensive. An account in which definite determiners fill SPEC(DET) requires that in (10), empty NP is licensed and identified by a specifier, rather than a head. This approach runs counter to the claim defended so far, namely, that ellipses are properly head-governed and identified by an X-0. Furthermore, adopting an analysis in which definite determiners, presumably the heads of definite DP, are generated in specifier rather than head position is inconsistent with principles of X-bar theory. Both Rothstein (1988) and Ritter (1991) argue for independent reasons that noun phrases contain two determiner positions. There is thus evidence outside that presented in (3-4) that (1) is inadequate, and must be revised. I briefly outline some of these authors' arguments below.

3.1.1 Rothstein (1988) and Ritter (1991) Rothstein (1988) argues that Jackendoff's (1977) structure of NP as N'" in (11) is more accurately a structure in which there are two determiner positions, with adjectives analyzed as specifiers of N (see also Rothstein and Reed, 1987, and Lyons, 1986). Rothstein's proposed structure of noun phrases is given in (12).

Two Functional Heads in English DP

75

Rothstein proposes that the first determiner position in noun phrases is reserved for definite elements, and the second for indefinite elements. She bases this distinction in part on evidence from the interaction of various determiner types with prepositional modifiers. Rothstein observes that at least two different kinds of PP modifiers can be distinguished; those in which PP expresses a temporal or locative relation of the head N ('restrictive' PP), and PPs in which P (usually with or from) has a copular-type function, expressing some simple attribute ('adjectival' PPs). An example of a restrictive PP modifier is given in (13a), and of an adjectival PP in (13b): (13)

a. b.

the glass on/under the table the glass with a gold rim

As she points out, the differences between these PPs are observed in copular constructions and in the options for prenominal, adjectival synonyms. For example, restrictive PPs occur in copular constructions, but have no prenominal adjectival counterpart. Adjectival PPs, on the other hand, are ungrammatical in copular constructions, but do have prenominal adjectival synonyms: (14) (15)

a. the glass was on/under the table, b. *the on/under the table glass a. *the glass was with a gold rim. b. the gold-rimmed glass

Also, N must agree in number with the prepositional object in an adjectival PP, but not in a restrictive PP. (16)

a. b.

the glasses on the table/the glass on the table the glasses with the gold rims/the glass with the gold rim (*s)

Rothstein also points out that restrictive PPs can occur within only definite noun phrases. Adjectival PPs are not so restricted; they may modify N in both definite and indefinite NPs: (17) (18)

a. He brought me b. *He brought me a. He brought me b. He brought me

every/the glass on the table. some/(a) few glasses on the table. the/every glass with a gold rim. some/(a) few glasses with gold rims.

To explain this contrast, she proposes that restrictive PPs are immediately dominated by N", with definite determiners immediately dominated by N'". Adjectival PPs are immediately dominated by N', with indefinite determiners immediately dominated by N". She follows Rothstein (1983) in proposing that all

76

ELLIPSIS

predicates must be bound, and adopts Higginbotham's (1983) claim that a determiner must bind a variable in the open position in a nominal predicate, a syntactic sister. Under this analysis, in (19) the definite determiner binds N", a projection dominating both restrictive and adjectival PPs.

The indefinite determiner, on the other hand, binds only N', and thus does not also bind the restrictive PP. From this Rothstein derives that restrictive PPs will be properly bound, and thus grammatical, only within definite NPs, while adjectival PPs will be grammatical in either definite or indefinite noun phrases. Rothstein (1988) thus provides evidence independent of ellipsis that noun phrases contain two different determiner positions. Ritter (1991) proposes a version of the DP hypothesis based on evidence from Hebrew, in which noun phrases contain two different functional heads. Some of her arguments for this claim are given below. (See also Cinque, 1992, 1993, who argues for more than one functional head position in DP in Romance.) Ritter (1991) discusses the word order in the Hebrew construct-state (CS) DPs given in (20): (20)

a. beyt ha-mora house the teacher 'the teacher's house' b. prat ikar cow farmer 'the farmer's cow' c. axilat dan et ha-tapuax eating Dan of the apple 'Dan's eating of the apple'

As she points out, the word order of the CS DPs in (20) is NSO. She also shows that the subject of a CS DP can bind its anaphoric object, but that an object cannot bind an anaphoric subject: (21)

a.

ahavat dan et acmo love Dan of himself 'Dan's love of himself

Two Functional Heads in English DP

77

b. *ahavat acmo et dan love himself of Dan This leads her to posit the following structure for CS DPs, one in which N raises to DET, deriving the NSO order. Also, this structure predicts that subjects of CS DPs c-command and can therefore bind their objects, but that the converse does not hold.

In (22), N in DET assigns case to the genitive DP in SPEC to its right. As Ritter observes, we do not expect to see DET in (22) filled with a determiner in CS DPs, if N must move to DET to assign case rightward. This prediction seems to hold, as demonstrated by the following paradigm: (23)

a. beyt ha-mora house the teacher 'the teacher's house' b. *ha- beyt ha- mora the house the teacher c. *ha- beyt mora the house teacher

As (23a), compared with (23b-c) shows, though the subject DP may be definite, indicated by the determiner ha, the noun head of a CS construction cannot be preceded by this determiner element. This is exactly what we expect if N fills DET, and is thus in complementary distribution with the definite marker ha.2 Ritter goes on to discuss another kind of Hebrew genitive DP, namely the 'free' genitive, or FG, illustrated in (24): (24)

a.

ha- bayit shel ha- mora the house of the teacher 'the teacher's house' b. bayit shel ha- mora house of the teacher 'a house of teacher's'

78

ELLIPSIS

c.

ha- axila shel dan et ha- tapuax the-eating of Dan ACC the-apple 'Dan's eating of the apple'

These examples illustrate that in contrast to CS DPs, FGs contain an overt genitive case marker shel preceeding the possessor, and the definite determiner ha may occur in initial position.3 FGs are similar to CS DPs, however, in that word order in both is NSO. Also, Ritter points out that as in CS DPs, subjects c-command their objects in FGs: (25)

a.

ha- ahava shel dan et acmo the-love of Dan ACC himself 'Dan's love of himself b. *ha-ahava shel acmo et dan the-love of himself ACC Dan

Ritter proposes that the presence of ha in FGs indicates that DET is filled. As a result, NSO order cannot be derived through movement of N to DET. Also, there appears to be no evidence that N must fill DET in order to case-mark the possessor; the possessor is case-marked by the overt case-marker shel. The subject-object asymmetry in (25) indicates, however, that surface order is nevertheless derived by N movement, although this movement does not appear to be to the head of DP. To explain the above differences between CS and FG DPs, Ritter posits another head position in DP, namely the head NUM, which heads NUMP, and takes NP as its complement. Under this approach, movement of N in FGs is as in (26), where axila moves to NUM, rather than DET:

In (26), the subject of the FG c-commands its object, and shel case-marks the subject. DET can be filled with ha, and order is NSO. Summarizing, Ritter motivates a structure of DP in which DP contains two functional categories, DET and NUM. N-Raising proceeds head-to-head to

Two Functional Heads in English DP

79

NUM and sometimes DET, and is triggered in some cases by Case assignment. DET is the locus of the definite determiner ha, and NUM is the locus of Number, and can be filled with numerals or quantifiers. Ritter also argues, for reasons I will not go into here, that NUMP can be a maximal projection, as in (27): every boy

In (27), the quantifier kol ("every") selects an NP complement. NUMP is maximal, and in such cases is not embedded in DP. (See also Ritter, 1992 for discussion of NUMP that is not embedded in DP.)4 Because Ritter's analysis is formulated within a version of phrase structure which incorporates DP headed by DET, I will adopt her analysis over Rothstein's. We translate Rothstein's (1988) arguments for PP modification in NP into a phrase structure model of DP dominating two functional heads simply by analyzing restrictive PPs as daughters of NUMP, and adjectival PPs as constituents of NP. Under this approach, definite DET governs and binds a variable in NUMP, the projection dominating both restrictive and adjectival PP modifiers. NUM, on the other hand, the locus of indefinites, neither governs nor binds a projection containing a restrictive PP modifier. This proposed analysis of modifying PPs in DP is illustrated in (28) below:

80

ELLIPSIS

In the following section I extend the analysis of DP proposed here to English. As I show, this analysis allows us to capture a variety of facts.

3.2 DET and NUM in English DP First, reconsider (29), which shows that nouns can be introduced by what in the standard 'DP Hypothesis' approach is an ordered sequence of DET. (29)

a. b. c.

John's many books The six women These few articles

We explain the appearance of such sequences by proposing that definite elements in English, including demonstratives, the definite article the, and definite quantifiers such as all/both/each/every, fill DET. NUM, on the other hand, is the position of the indefinite article a, numerals, and indefinite quantifiers, including few/many/some/several. Prenominal adjectives are analyzed as SPEC(N). Further, I adopt Ritter's claim that while all DP contain NUMP, not all NUMP must be dominated by DP. Definite noun phrases are DP, and indefinites are simply instances of NUMP. In Ritter's approach, NUM is the locus of Number specification, what I assume here to be the feature [±Plural]. It must be explained why DET in some cases also expresses plurality in English. Chomsky (1992) proposes that 'agreement' is an operation which involves 'checking' of the features of one element with those of another. For example, in his approach both INFL and V are fully specified for agreement and tense features. Through Verb Raising, the features of V are 'checked' against those of INFL. When checking occurs, the derivation 'converges,' and is wellformed in this respect. If checking is blocked, the derivation 'crashes,' and is ruled out. Extending this approach to agreement to DP, I assume that DET, NUM, and N are all specified as [±Plural], and that at PF, these features are 'checked.' Furthermore, checking can occur under government between coindexed elements, and thus need not necessarily involve movement. I will assume that DET is coindexed with NUM, and NUM with N through selection, following Emonds (1985), who argues that theta-role assignment is by heads to the heads of their complements (see also van Riemsdijk, 1988, for discussion of a similar approach in DP). Under this extension of Chomsky's approach, coindexed DET, NUM, and N must 'match' in specification for plurality in order for DP to be wellformed. Therefore, NUM can still be taken to be the 'locus' of plurality, just as INFL (or the functional category

Two Functional Heads in English DP

81

Tense) is the 'locus' of tense features in IP. DET and V are also specified for features which are checked against those of, respectively, NUM and INFL. That DET, NUM, and N must agree in plurality is illustrated schematically in (30-32).

(30)

(31) (32)

DET these/all this/that NUM many/few/six DET these/all this/that each/every

[e] [e]

N *candidate/candidates candidate/*candidates

N *book/books NUM six *six [e]

N candidates/*candidate *candidates/candidate *candidates/candidate

NUM

In Chapter Two I proposed that DET filled with a definite article the is unspecified for plurality, and thus cooccurs with either a plural or singular noun (the book/books). I assume here that heads unspecified for features are basically 'invisible' to checking, and thus do not cause the derivation to 'crash.' NUM in DP headed by DET filled with the is specified for features which must be checked only with those of N. Under the above approach, definite DPs have the following schematic phrase structures. First, consider (33), in which DET is filled with a plural demonstrative or quantifier.

DET, (empty or filled) NUM, and N are coindexed in (33) through selection, and all must agree in specification for [+Plural]. The definite quantifiers each and every differ from DET in (33) in being [-Plural], as in (34).

82

ELLIPZIZ

Definite DP in which DET, NUM, and N are [-Plural] is illustrated in (35).

Definite DP headed by DET filled with the is illustrated in (36), where NUM can be [±Plural], and either filled or empty.

Consider now the English possessive DPs in (37): (37)

her/Mary's dog

(37) suggests that DET [+Poss] can be realized either by 's or by a possessive

Two Functional Heads in English DP

83

determiner such as her. Like DET filled with the, DET [+Poss] is unspecified for Number, with the result that N can be either singular or plural. (38)

her/Mary's dog/dogs

This suggests that as in (36) above, in possessive DPs, NUM is specified as [±Plural], a feature specification checked with N, but not with DET [+Poss]. However, as we see in (39), possessive determiners are 'inherently' singular or plural, and express (natural) Gender, and Person. The N with which such DET occur, however, are not required to agree in these feature specifications with the determiner. (39)

her/their son(s)

N, but not DET in (39) determines the plurality of the maximal DP. This is illustrated by evidence from subject-verb agreement in (40). (40)

a. b.

their dog was/*were running around the yard, her dogs *was/were running around the yard.

The 'inherent' features of DET filled with a possessive determiner thus do not appear to be 'agreement' features in the sense that they are 'shared' with another head or phrase. I will thus assume that 'agreement' features are only those features which must be 'checked' at some level with those of another head or phrase. Inherent features of Gender, Number, and Person of possessive determiners are therefore not agreement features, in contrast to the feature [+Poss], a SPEC-head agreement feature shared between DET and a specifier. Only in this latter case is DET thus specified for agreement. Some possessive DPs are illustrated in (41-42), in which only agreement features, which must be 'checked,' are represented. Therefore, NUM is specified for Number, but only DET in a SPEC-head agreement relation with a phrase in SPEC(DET) is [+Poss].

84

ELLIPSIS

Turning next to indefinite noun phrases, or NUMP, NUM in this case can be filled with an indefinite quantifier or a numeral specified as [+Plural], as illustrated in (43):

The features of NUM are checked with those of N, and determine the number specification of maximal NUMP. NUM in (44), filled with the indefinite article a or the numeral one is [-Plural], and consequently occurs only with singular N.5

Ritter's analysis of DP dominating two functional heads thus extends quite

Two Functional Heads in English DP

85

naturally to English, and provides a principled way to account for a variety of syntactic facts. In the following section I discuss how this analysis also accounts for the distribution of empty NP in definite and indefinite noun phrases, and is therefore further supported.

3.3 Ellipsis in DP and NUMP: The 'Generalized' Government Transparency Corollary In (45), DET in a definite DP is filled, but NUM is not morphologically expressed. (45) a. Mary likes those books but I like [these [e]]. DP

b. The books were new, and [all [e]] were on syntax. DP

In a theory in which DP dominates two functional heads, ellipsis in (45) has the phrase structure in (46).

Only DET in (46) is specified for strong agreement, as only DET morphologically realizes the agreement feature [+Plural], Though NUM is specified for agreement, and properly head-governs and licenses empty NP, it does not also identify NP. For DET to identify empty NP, however, satisfying (2), DET must also govern NP. Government of NP by DET should be blocked by Relativized Minimality, as the X-0 NUM intervenes between DET and NP. One possible analysis of ellipsis in (46) is that it is empty NUMP, and not empty NP, which is licensed and identified by DET. This approach would require analyzing ellipsis in noun phrases as involving two different categories. For example, when NUM is filled, NP is empty, but when NUM is empty in definite noun phrases, NUMP is empty. We derive the result that ellipsis in both DP and NUMP is structurally paral-

86

ELLIPSIS

lei, involving empty NP, and that DET does in fact license and identify empty NP in (46), by integrating into the theory of ellipsis Baker's (1988) independently motivated Government Transparency Corollary (GTC) in (47). (47)

The Government Transparency Corollary A lexical category which has an item incorporated into it governs everything which the incorporated item governed in its original structural position. (Baker, 1988: p. 64)

Baker proposes the GTC to account for cases of 'incorporation,' in which an X-0 moves into, and 'incorporates' with a head that governs it, leaving a coindexed trace. An example of noun incorporation in Mohawk is given in (48) (from Baker, 1988: p. 65). (48)

a.

Ka-rakv ne [sawatis hrao-nuhs-a?]. 3N-white DET John 3M-house-SUF 'John's house is white.' b. Hrao-nuhs-rakv ne [sawatis t]. 3M-house-white DET John 'John's house is white.'

The unincorporated sentence in (48a) has the S-structure in (49a), and the incorporated sentence in (48b), the S-structure in (49b).

In (49), the verb -rakv 'white' is Y, the noun -nuhs- 'house' is X, and the NP sawatis 'John' is ZP. The noun -nuhs- is incorporated into the verb -rakv in (49b), leaving a trace. Under the GTC, the verb Y governs ZR, the complement of X. As stated in (48), the GTC allows a head to govern the complement of an empty, coindexed head that it governs. With this in mind, reconsider (46). Here, DET properly head-governs empty NUM, and is coindexed with empty NUM through selection. (46) thus differs from the incorporation structure in (49b) only with respect to the means by which the head 'X' comes to be empty, and coindexed with a higher head. In the incorporation case in (49b), X (in this case

Two Functional Heads in English DP

87

N) is empty and coindexed with a higher head through movement. In (46), X (in this case NUM), is base-generated empty, and coindexed with DET through selection. Therefore, if we revise the GTC to apply to empty, coindexed heads, we derive that V governs the complement of empty N in noun incorporation constructions, and that DET governs the complement of empty NUM in (46). DET also properly head-governs that complement, as both DET and NP are contained in the same immediate projection, D'. DET licenses and identifies empty NP, satisfying (2). Based on the above evidence from ellipsis, the GTC is more accurately defined as the 'Generalized' GTC in (50). (50)

The Generalized Government Transparency Corollary An X-0 which is coindexed with and governs an empty head governs everything that head would govern.

'Empty' in (50) is taken to mean void of phonological content, but not necessarily features. Heads are coindexed either through movement or selection, from which it follows that under the Generalized GTC, a head governs any complements of the empty head of its complement. Now consider ellipsis in a definite DP in which NUM is filled, rather than empty. (51)

a.

Mary bought some new books, and I like [these six [e]] the best.

b.

The books were new, and [all six [e]] were on syntax.

DP

DP

In (52), NUM lexically realizes the strong agreement feature [+Plural], and licenses and identifies empty NP. Ellipsis in DP headed by a singular DET, is, as we see in (53), ungrammatical.

88

ELLIPSIS

(53) * Although John doesn't like [this [e] that he got at K-Mart], DP

he likes that new air conditioner that Mary bought at Sears.

In (54), empty NUM is not specified for strong agreement, and therefore fails to license and identify empty NP. DET is lexically filled, but is specified for a negative agreement feature, and thus lacks strong agreement (see 2.3.1 for discussion). Depending on the status of negative agreement features, for the purposes of government, DET may or may not govern empty, coindexed NUM, and license empty NP under the GTC. In any case, DET lacks strong agreement, and empty NP is not identified, and is ruled out.6 A similar situation arises when we consider ellipsis in DP headed by the, DET that is unspecified for agreement. Here, DET fails to properly head-govern and license empty NP through the Generalized GTC. DET also fails to identify empty NP, and ellipsis is correctly ruled out. (55) *A single protester attended the rally because [the [e]] apparently DP felt it was important.

Two Functional Heads in English DP

89

When NUM is [+Plural], NP is properly head-governed. If NUM is also lexically filled, it is specified for strong agreement, and identifies empty NP. (57)

Both students attended the rally, and *[the [e]]/ [the two [e]] DP DP felt it was important.

Now consider ellipsis in possessive DPs in which both NUM and NP are empty. (59)

Mary likes Chomsky's book(s) but Bill likes [Halle's [e]]. DP

In (60), NUM can be either [+Plural] or [-Plural], with NP interpreted as either singular or plural. NUM lacks strong agreement, as it is not lexically filled. DET [+Poss], however, is specified for strong agreement, and licenses and identifies empty NP under the Generalized GTC. Now consider the possessive DP in (61), in which NUM is lexically filled. (61)

My sister's two boys are wild, but [John's two [e]] are quite DP well-behaved.

90

ELLIPSIS

In (62), both DET and NUM are specified for strong agreement. DET is blocked from licensing and identifying empty NP by NUM, a filled head which intervenes between DET and NP, creating a minimality barrier. NUM, however, licenses and identifies empty NP, and ellipsis is grammatical. As we saw above, DET is [+Poss] when specified for SPEC-head agreement. Possessive determiners, on the other hand, lack agreement features, and are thus not specified for strong agreement. Ellipsis in DP headed by possessive determiners is thus predictably ruled out, as in (63a). Observe, however, that ellipsis is grammatical (and in fact, required), when a possessive determiner is affixed with the morpheme s, as we see in (63b). (63)

a. Mary likes your book but Bill likes their/her/our book(s)/*[e]. b. Mary likes your book but Bill likes theirs/hers/ours *book(s)/[e].

The contrasts in (63) suggests that a possessive determiner is specified for strong agreement when affixed with the possessive -5 (or is otherwise morphologically distinguished as in my book/mine). I will assume that such 'affixed' determiners are specified for an agreement feature [+Poss], and are thus specified for strong agreement in the same way as DET [+Poss], morphologically realized as -s. DET in (64) is therefore not specified for strong agreement, but DET in (65) is:

Two Functional Heads in English DP

91

Empty NP is licensed and identified only in (65), where DET specified for strong agreement governs empty NP through the Generalized GTC. Ellipsis is now predictably grammatical in (66), even though the possessive determiner lacks strong agreement. (66)

Because [her two [e]] were sick, Melissa didn't take the children DP

to swimming lessons that week.

In (67), NUM is specified for strong agreement, and licenses and identifies empty NP. Turning finally to ellipsis in indefinite noun phrases, or NUMP, observe that empty NP is predictably grammatical when NUM [+Plural] is lexically filled. NUM is specified for strong agreement, and licenses and identifies empty NP. (68)

The students attended the play but [many/few/six [e]] left NUMP NP disappointed.

92

ELLIPSIS

NUM [-Plural], filled with a, lacks strong agreement, and ellipsis is ruled out. (70)

Though [a [e]] would certainly be nice, a vacation at this time NL'MP

is unthinkable.

I now turn to a set of patterns which are not explained by the theory developed so far. For example, NUM in (71) is lexically filled, but [-Plural], and fails to license and identify empty NP. NUM has this same status in (72), but ellipsis is grammatical. (72)

Though [one [e]] would certainly be nice, a vacation at this time NUMP

is unthinkable.

Also, ellipsis is grammatical in DP headed by each, but not in DP headed by every.

Two Functional Heads in English DP (74)

93

The women came in and [each/*every [e]] sat down. DP

NUM in (73) and DET in (75) both presumably lack strong agreement, and we expect, contrary to fact, ellipsis to be ungrammatical in all cases. I propose a possible analysis of these contrasts below.

3.4 Ellipsis in English Quantified Noun Phrases Addressing first the distinction between each and every, observe that these quantifiers seem alike in many respects. They are both singular and definite, and thus fill DET, preceding prenominal adjectives. (76)

a. each/every red apple b. *red each/every apple c. each/every *two people/one

The two quantifiers differ, however, in at least one crucial way. As is wellknown, each, but not every, can occur in partitive constructions, and can undergo Quantifier Float.7 (77)

a. b.

each man/each of the men/the men each every man/*every of the men/*the men every

Sportiche (1988) observes that 'floated' quantifiers form a subset of the quantifiers that can occur in partitive constructions.8 In fact, it is possible to claim that every differs not only from each, but from all other English quantifiers in being the only quantifier that cannot occur in a partitive construction. Every is therefore also excluded from the subset of quantifiers that 'float.'

94

ELLIPSIS

To illustrate, consider the following: (78)

a. all/both/each of the men b. the men all/both/each

(Partitive) (Q Float)

(79)

a. many/few/several/some/six/one of the men b. *the men many/few/several/some/six/one

(Partitive) (Q Float)

The contrast between (78-79) illustrates that definite quantifiers other than every can occur in partitives, and can also undergo Quantifier Float. Indefinite quantifiers and numerals, including one, can occur in partitive constructions, but cannot 'float.' We can therefore claim that every is distinct from all other quantifiers in English, both definite and indefinite, in failing to occur in partitive constructions. Suppose, then, that [+Partitive] is a feature for which quantifiers can be specified, and that every, but not, for example, each, lacks the feature. Suppose further that [+Partitive] is a strong agreement feature when lexically realized by a quantifier. Each would then be specified for strong agreement, even though [-Plural]. Every, on the other hand, would be both [-Partitive] and [-Plural], and would lack strong agreement. Each, but not every, would therefore license and identify empty NP in (75) through the Generalized GTC. One, in contrast to a, would also be specified as [+Partitive], as illustrated by the contrast in (80). (80)

a. one/a woman b. one/*a of the women

One would therefore be distinguished from a in being specified for the strong agreement feature [+Partitive]. Though one is [-Plural], it would nevertheless license and identify empty NP. The possible phrase structures of ellipsis in DP and NUMP headed by each, every, one, and a are given in (81-82):

Two Functional Heads in English DP

95

Only in (81b) and (82b) is a head specified for strong agreement which can license and identify empty NP.9 According to the above analysis, we expect [+Partitive] to be an agreement feature, a feature which is 'shared' between two heads or a head and a phrase. There is in fact evidence that this is the case. For example, consider (83). (83)

Every two months we get a utility bill, and [every four [e]] we get a DP bill from the recycling company.

In (83), NUM [+Plural] is filled, and specified for strong agreement. Ellipsis of NP is predictably grammatical, even though DET filled with every lacks strong agreement. We might also expect, however, for NUM to be [+Partitive], given the evidence in (79a) that numerals can be so specified. A partitive interpretation of (83) is, however, impossible: (84)

Every two months we get a utility bill, and [every four [e]] we get a DP bill from the recycling company. [e] = months/*four of the months

We explain the interpretation of (84) by proposing that in order for a noun phrase to be interpreted as partitive, DET and NUM must 'agree' in specification for the feature [±Partitive]. DET filled with every is [-Partitive]; therefore, NUM in (84) is also [-Partitive].10 That DET and NUM must agree in specification for the feature [± Partitive] is further illustrated by the sequences in (85-86). (85)

a. these four boys b. *these four of the boys

(86)

a. the six students b. *the six of the students

96

ELLIPSIS

(85-86) show that when DET is filled with a [-Partitive] plural demonstrative or definite article, NUM must also be [-Partitive], excluding a partitive interpretation of the complement of NUM." It is therefore possible to argue that [+Partitive] is an agreement feature, as DET and NUM must 'match' with respect to this feature specification. It follows that lexically realized [+Partitive] is a strong agreement feature, and that DET or NUM that is so specified licenses and identifies empty NP.

3.5 Summary In this chapter I have argued that there is reason to analyze DP in English as dominating two functional categories, DET and NUM. DET is filled with definite elements, and NUM with indefinites. Both heads can be [+Plural], a potential strong agreement feature which is 'checked' at some point in the derivation. DET [+Poss] is also a strong agreement feature in the form of an -s or - s affix. I have also argued that Baker's (1988) independently motivated Government Transparency Corollary, 'generalized' here to apply to empty heads other than those derived by incorporation, provides a principled explanation for the grammaticality of empty NP in DP in which DET is specified for strong agreement, but NUM is empty. Finally, evidence from contrastive patterns involving ellipsis in DP headed by the quantifiers each and every and the numeral one suggests that the lexically realized feature [+Partitive] is a strong agreement feature which allows singular DET or NUM to license and identify empty NP.

Notes 1. Karimi (1989) discusses interesting evidence from Persian subject-object asymmetries between definite and indefinite DPs which suggests that indefinite DPs can occur only in postverbal position, while the distribution of definite DPs is not so restricted. She reasons that definite elements fill SPEC(D), and that in indefinites, this position is empty. SPEC(D) must be properly governed, from which it follows that indefinite DPs will occur only in postverbal position, where they are properly governed. Definite DPs, on the other hand, occur in non-properly governed positions. Karimi's analysis fails to explain why such an ECP effect is not also observed in English, where presumably SPEC(DET) would be empty in indefinite, but not definite DPs. 2. As Ritter points out, another option, namely (i), is also grammatical: (i)

ha- bayit the house 'the house'

Two Functional Heads in English DP

97

She suggests the alternation between the nouns in (i) and those in (23) might be an example of a genitive affix that attaches to a phonological host, comparable to morphemes in some tone languages. 3. Ritter takes shel in (24) to be a dummy case-marker, adjoined to DP in SPEC, rather than a full preposition, given the evidence that it does not appear to affect the c-command relations between its NP complement and other arguments of a derived nominal. 4. Another possible advantage of analyzing definite noun phrases as DP and indefinites as NUMP is that it eliminates the category QP. The set of functional categories is thus limited to DEC, DET, NUM INFL (Tense and AGR), and COMP. See Abney (1987), Sportiche (1988), Contreras (1989), and Guisti (1991) for discussion of QP. 5. One might argue that a is generated in DET rather than NUM, given the evidence that a precedes the indefinite quantifier few. (i)

a few good linguists

Such a proposal is inconsistent with the claim that DET is reserved for definite elements. It might be that NUM can be 'doubly-filled' with a and few, and that a is in this case a clitic on the X-0 few. In this way, ellipsis in (ii) would be analyzed as empty NP licensed and identified by NUM [+Plural]. (ii)

Many good linguists were invited, but only [a few [el] decided to attend. NUMP

NP

Consistent with this hypothesis, we see by the plurality of N in (i), and by subject-verb agreement in (iii), that few, but not a, 'heads' NUMP. (iii)

a few good linguists are/*is going to the conference.

6. I leave aside sequences such as the colloquial 'this one man,' in which it might be that NUM [-Plural] is lexically filled. Ellipsis in this case is grammatical. (In the appropriate reading, stress in on one, not this.) (i)

Some guys came to the door, and this one [e] asked to see Mary.

I discuss the categorial status of one in 3.4. 7. There are other distinctions between each and every as well. For example, DP headed by each typically takes maximally wide scope relative to other operators, while the same does not seem to be true of DP headed by every. (See May, 1985, for discussion.) To illustrate, consider (i): (i)

a. Some student believes every professor is a deconstructionist. b. Some student believes each professor is a deconstructionist.

It seems more difficult to interpret every professor as taking wide scope relative to some student in (ia), but a wide scope reading of each professor is available in (ib). Another difference between the two quantifiers is that each seems more strongly distributive than every, as illustrated in (ii): (ii)

a. Mary spoke to every student simultaneously, b. ??Mary spoke to each student simultaneously.

98

ELLIPSIS

(iia) is better than (iib) because (iia) has a more natural reading on which there is a single event in which Mary spoke to a group of students. For (iib), the strongly preferred reading requires that for each student there be a distinct event in which Mary spoke to him/her. (Thanks to Shalom Lappin and Andy Barss for useful discussion on this point.) A further difference between everv and other quantifiers must be accounted for. In certain cases, every can take a NUMP complement in which NUM is filled. (iii)

a. every two days/hours/months b. *every two bills/students/women

Each, in contrast, does not seem to be grammatical in either of the contexts in (iii). (iv)

a. *each two days/hours months b. *each two bills/students/women

This distinction between each and everv may follow from independent evidence that every has a less 'distributive' interpretation than each, and is thus able to quantify over understood temporal periods. 8. Sportiche (1988) argues that 'floated' quantifiers originate in VP with a full NP sister, and that NP moves to the subject position by NP-Movement. (i)

The men [ [all t] left] VP QP

When a quantifier occurs in subject position as in (ii), QP has fronted to SPEC(I), and governs an empty category. (ii)

[ [all [e] [t left]]

IP QP

VP

Sportiche suggests that in (ii), the empty category is pro, an analysis consistent with that proposed here. 9. I will not address the negative quantifiers no or none here, although consider the following contrasts: (i)

a. I have no books. b. I have none/*none books. c. Because I had *no [e]/none, John gave me some books.

It appears that the quantifier no does not allow an ellipted complement, which in English might follow from the evidence that no is unspecified for plurality, and is [-Partitive]. (ii)

a. no books/book b. *no of the books

It is therefore like the, lacking strong agreement to identify empty NP. 10. Every appears to be [+Partitive] in one unique case, namely when it is followed by NUM filled with one.

Two Functional Heads in English DP (i)

99

Every one of the bills we owe came in the mail today, and every one [e] is past due.

This may be an exceptional case, or it might be that every one in (i) is acceptable because every + one is elsewhere lexicalized as everyone, (i) might therefore involve a kind of pronominalization rather than ellipsis. 11. Another possible reason to analyze [+Partitive] as an agreement feature is that it would explain the categorial difference between partitive complements (DP), and nonpartitive complements (NP). (i)

a.

all (of) [the men] DP

b. all [men] NP

It might be that NUM selects a DP or NP complement depending on its specification as [±Partitive], if NUM must agree in this feature specification with the (DET or N) head of that complement.

This page intentionally left blank

4 Ellipsis in German and French Noun Phrases: The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

4.0 Introduction We expect the licensing and identification conditions on ellipsis in English noun phrases motivated in Chapter Three to extend cross-linguistically, under the assumption that such conditions are universals rather than language particular principles. In this chapter I show that this claim can in fact be substantiated for both German and French noun phrases, though the agreement systems in noun phrases in these languages differ in certain ways from English. We also find that in these languages there is reason to believe that definite noun phrases are best analyzed as DP, with indefinite noun phrases as NUMP. I discuss in some detail the agreement system of German noun phrases, in which two inflectional patterns, 'strong' and 'weak,' are distinguished. I show that there is no correlation between 'strong' and 'weak' inflectional patterns expressing Gender, Case, and Number, and 'strong' agreement for identification of ellipted NP. What we do find is that a wider range of German DET and NUM license and identify empty NP than in English, a result predicted by the theory developed in Chapter Three. Ellipsis in German noun phrases also provides interesting support for the claim that lexical X-0s are potential licensing and identifying heads for empty NP, provided that they are specified for strong agreement. We find that prenominal adjectives, specified for Case, Number, and 101

102

ELLIPSIS

Gender, allow ellipted NP complements. This is expected, if we analyze such elements as X-0s, following Travis (1988). French noun phrases offer an interesting test case, as the agreement system in this language falls between those of English and German. French noun phrases express more agreement than in English, but less than in German. The distribution of ellipted complements of DET and NUM in French is more restricted than in both English and German, which is not what we expect. Specifically, though both DET and NUM can be argued to be specified for various combinations of strong agreement features (Gender, Plural, and Partitive), not all such heads license and identify empty NP. To explain the difference between English, German, and French, I propose the parameter in (1), which determines what combinations of features designate an X-0 as specified for strong agreement. (1)

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter (EIP) The number of strong agreement features in DET or NUM that is required to identify an empty, pronominal NP is proportional to the number of possible strong agreement features in the agreement system of noun phrases in the language.

According to the EIP, in a language like English, with few strong agreement features in noun phrases, empty NP will be identified by an X-0 specified for a single feature. In a language such as German, with a 'richer' agreement system in DP and NUMP, X-0 must be specified for three features. In French noun phrases, whose agreement system falls between those of German and English, X-0 must be specified for two agreement features to be 'strong.' The EIP thus explains the correct distribution of empty NP in French.

4.1 Agreement and Ellipsis in German Noun Phrases 4.1.1

Weak and Strong Endings

According to traditional grammar, the German determiner system is divided into two basic classes of elements, der words and ein words. These two classes are distinguished by patterns of inflectional endings, and not, for example, by definiteness. For instance, der words include the definite article der, the demonstrative dieser, the quantifier jeder ('each'), and welcher ('which'). Ein words include the indefinite article ein, the negative element kein ('not a/no'), and the definite, possessive pronouns listed in (2):

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

(2)

Possessive Pronouns mein 'my' dein 'your' sein 'his' ihr 'her' sein 'its'

unser euer ihr Ihr

103

'our' 'your' 'their' 'your' (polite)

Der words take what in traditional German grammar are considered to be 'strong' endings, endings which express Gender, Case, and Number ([±Plural]). (There is no direct correlation between 'strong' endings and 'strong' agreement in the sense relevant to identification of ellipses, a point which becomes clear later.) These endings are not, however, all uniquely distinguished, but rather overlap to some degree. This agreement paradigm is illustrated below in (3) by the forms of the singular demonstrative dieser. (3)

Der Words: Strong Endings Masculine Nom dieser Wein Ace diesen Wein Dat diesem Wein Gen dieses Wein(e)s

Neuter dieses Bier dieses Bier diesem Bier dieses Bier(e)s

Feminine diese Suppe diese Suppe dieser Suppe dieser Suppe

(3) also shows that singular nouns in German are morphologically unmarked, except for the Masculine and Neuter Genitive. (4) is a list of the plural forms of the der words. (4)

Der Words: Plural, All Genders Nom diese Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher Ace diese Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher Dat diesen Weinen, Bieren, Suppen, Buechern Gen dieser Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher

Observe that Gender is not marked on plural determiners. Also, (4) shows that nouns in German can morphologically express plurality by an affix: -e or -en, or er. Case is not marked on plural nouns except in the Dative, where nouns are affixed with -n. Finally, not all plural der word endings are morphologically unique. The ein words have a slightly different paradigm of endings when they immediately precede nouns. These words take the strong endings in (3) just as der words, except in three cases: in the Masculine and Neuter Nominative and the Neuter Accusative, ein words take no endings at all. This pattern is illustrated below with the indefinite quantifier kein ('no'):

104

(5)

ELLIPSIS

Ein Words: Strong Endings Masculine Nom kein Wein Ace keinen Wein Dat keinem Wein Gen keines Wein(e)s

Neuter kein Bier kein Bier keinem Bier keines Bier(e)s

Feminine keine Suppe keine Suppe keiner Suppe keiner Suppe

In the plural, ein words take the same strong endings as der words when they immediately precede the noun. Plural determiners of this class therefore express Case and Number, but not Gender. (6)

Ein Words: Plural, All Genders Nom keine Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher Ace keine Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher Dat keinen Weinen, Bieren, Suppen, Buechern Gen keiner Weine, Biere, Suppen, Buecher

As is the case with nouns preceded by der words, nouns preceded by ein words morphologically reflect Number, and Genitive Case in the Masculine and Neuter singular. Dative plural nouns are also marked with the affix -n. Turning now to prenominal adjectives, these elements are also inflected for strong endings if they are the only element preceding N. For example, consider (7). (7)

a.

b. c.

Frisches Brot esse ich gern. (Neut., Ace., Sg.) Fresh bread, eat I gladly. 'Fresh bread, I eat gladly.' Ich esse die Suppe mit frischem Brot. (Neut., Dat., Sg.) 'I eat the soup with fresh bread.' Das sind frische Brote. (Nom., Plural) Those are fresh breads.'

In contrast, prenominal adjectives preceded by another determiner element with strong endings must take the weak endings listed below in (8). (8)

Weak Endings

Nom Ace Dat Gen

Masculine -e -en -en -en

Neuter -e -e -en -en

Feminine -e -e -en -en

Plural (all genders) -en -en -en -en

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

105

As (8) illustrates, weak adjectival endings are -en and -e; different Cases, Numbers, and Genders, though marked, are not uniquely morphologically distinguished. Some examples of adjectives with weak endings, which follow der words with strong endings, are given in (9): (9)

a.

Das frische Brot esse ich gern. (Neut., Ace., Sg.) The fresh bread eat I gladly. 'I eat the fresh bread gladly.' b. Ich esse die Suppe mit dem frischen Brot. (Neut., Dat., Sg.) 'I eat the soup with the fresh bread.' c. Das sind die frischen Brote. (Nom., Plural) These are the fresh breads.'

Interestingly, adjectives that follow ein words which lack endings, namely ein words in the Masculine and Neuter Nominative and the Neuter Accusative, take strong endings. (10)

a. Ein alter Freund hat mir einen Brief geschrieben. (Masc., Nom., Sg.) An old friend has me a letter written. 'An old friend wrote me a letter.' b. Ich sah gestern ein altes Auto. (Neut., Ace., Sg.) I saw yesterday an old car. 'I saw an old car yesterday.'

This suggests that at least in the German data discussed so far, one prenominal element in the noun phrase must take strong endings if it can. All other prenominal elements that follow must take weak endings. Der words take strong endings and ein words do so as well, the latter in all cases except three. From this it follows that any prenominal adjectives following der or ein words take weak endings, except in the three exceptional cases, when the adjectives take strong endings. It also follows from this generalization that adjectives that are not preceded by der or ein words will always take strong endings. Turning now to quantifiers, as mentioned above, jeder, interpreted as each/ every, acts as a singular der word. It therefore takes strong endings, and any adjective that follows it takes weak endings. (11)

a.

Ich lese jedes neue Buch gern. (Neut., Ace., Sg.) 'I read each/every new book gladly.' b. Helfen Sie jedem alten Herrn! Help you each/every old gentleman. (Masc., Dat., Sg.) 'Help each/every old gentleman.'

106

ELLIPSIS

The universal quantifier alle also acts as a der word, and as we now might expect, adjectives following this quantifier have weak endings. (12)

a.

In dieser Stadt sind alle schoenen, alten Haeuser. (Norn., PI.) In this city are all beautiful, old houses. b. Ich habe mich waehrend aller guten Feste amuesiert. (Gen., PI.) I have myself during all good parties amused. 'I have had fun at all the good parties.' c. Ich habe das Buch alien guten Studenten gegeben. (Dat. PI.) I have the book to all good students given. 'I have given the book to all good students.'

The indefinite quantifiers wenige/einige/mehrere/viele, interpreted as few/ some/several/many respectively, are, like alle, invariably plural, and take strong endings when they introduce a noun phrase. (13)

a.

wenige Maedchen (Nom. PI.) 'few girls' b. wenigen Maedchen (Dat. PI.) 'few girls' c. weniger Maedchen (Gen. PI.) 'of the few girls'

Indefinite quantifiers differ from alle in the following way. When an indefinite quantifier is inflected for strong endings, any following adjective also has strong endings. (14)

a.

wenige gute Maedchen (Nom. PI.) 'few good girls' b. wenigen guten Maedchen (Dat. PI.) 'few good girls' c. weniger guter Maedchen (Gen. PI.) 'of the few good girls'

This is also the case with strings of adjectives, as illustrated in (15). (15)

a.

gute alte Weine (Nom. PI.) 'good, old wines' b. guten alten Weinen (Dat. PI.) 'good old wines' c. guter alter Weine (Gen. PI.) 'of the good old wines'

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

107

Indefinite quantifiers also pattern with adjectives in that they can be preceded by a der word. Here, indefinite quantifiers act as we might expect; because the preceding determiner element is inflected for strong endings, indefinite quantifiers, like adjectives, take weak endings. (16)

a. b. c.

die wenigen guten Maedchen (Nom. PI.) den wenigen guten Maedchen (Dat. PI.) der wenigen guten Maedchen (Gen. PI.)

Indefinite quantifiers therefore pattern with adjectives in taking strong endings when they are the only prenominal element in the noun phrase, and weak endings when preceded by a word that takes strong endings. Indefinite quantifiers also behave like adjectives in that in the strings [indefinite Q + Adj + N] and [Adj + Adj + N], both prenominal elements take strong endings. Indefinite quantifiers are therefore not possibly classified as der or ein words, as they do not trigger weak agreement on following adjectives. They are, however, semantically distinct from adjectives, and syntactically occur before them. This suggests that though indefinite quantifiers and adjectives share the same inflectional pattern, they differ syntactically in being in different positions. The inflectional patterns of two other determiner elements, numerals and possessives, must still be considered. Numerals in German pattern with neither indefinite quantifiers and adjectives, nor with der or ein words. That is, they are inflected for neither weak nor strong endings, regardless of the preceding word. They thus do not affect the inflectional patterns of following prenominal elements. For example, an adjective that follows a numeral must take strong endings, unless the numeral is preceded by a word with a strong ending. In this case, the adjective takes weak endings. (17)

a.

b.

c.

In dieser Stadt sind fuenf schoene, alte Haeuser. (Nom., PI.) 'In this city are five beautiful, old houses.' Ich habe mich mil den Freunden der fuenf alien Leute unterhalten. (Gen., PL) I have myself with the friends of the five old people entertained 'I entertained myself with the friends of the five old people.' Ich habe das Buch sechs guten Studenten gegeben. (Dat. PL) I have the book to six good students given. 'I have given the book to six good students.'

Turning now to the German possessive, as we have seen above, possessive determiners are ein words. They therefore take strong endings, except in the

108

ELLIPSIS

three exceptional cases in (5). Any adjectives that follow possessive determiners inflected for strong endings take weak endings, and adjectives following determiners with no endings must take strong endings. This is illustrated in (18). (18)

a.

In dieser Stadt ist ihr schoenes altes Haus. (Neut., Norn., Sg.) In this city is her beautiful, old house. 'Her beautiful, old house is in this city.' b. Ich habe mich waehrend euerer guten Feste amuesiert. (Gen., PI.) I have myself during your good parties amused. 'I have had fun at your good parties.' c. Ich habe das Buch meinen guten Studenten gegeben. (Dat. PI.) I have the book to my good students given. 'I have given the book to my good students.'

As in English, possessive deteminers in German can precede not only adjectives, but indefinite quantifiers and numerals as well, as illustrated in (19). As expected, any indefinite quantifier in this position takes weak endings, while a numeral remains uninflected. (19)

a.

In dieser Stadt sind ihre fuenf/vielen Haeuser. (Norn., PI.) In this city are her five/many houses. 'Her five/many houses are in this city.' b. Ich habe das Buch meinen sechs/wenigen Studenten gegeben. (Dat. PL) I have the book to my six/few students given. 'I have given the book to my six/few students.'

German also allows possessive noun phrases of the form in (20), in which the possessor precedes the possessed noun phrase as in English. In German, the Genitive Case is marked by the morpheme -s on the possessor: (20)

a. Marias Buch 'Mary's book' b. Johanns Lehrer 'John's teacher'

I assume that, as is the case when DET is filled with a possessive determiner in English, DET in (20), but not (19), is specified for the agreement feature [+Poss], realized as -s, either in DET or affixed to the phrase in SPEC.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

109

Interestingly, adjectives that follow DET [+Poss] in (20) take strong, rather than weak endings. Therefore, in contrast to possessive pronouns, which are ein words that trigger weak endings on following adjectives, DET [+Poss], realized as -s, patterns with neither der nor ein words with respect to inflection. (21)

a. Marias alte Buecher (Nom. PI.) b. Marias wenigen alten Buechern (Dat. PI.)

DET [+Poss] in (21) thus falls together with numerals as a determiner which takes neither weak nor strong endings, and triggers strong inflection on following elements. Based on the above evidence, we can make the following generalizations about the inflectional system of prenominal elements in German. (22)

(23)

Inflectional Classes of Prenominal Elements in German a. Der and ein words take only strong endings (except in the three exceptional cases). b. Adjectives and indefinite quantifiers (other than kein) take weak or strong endings. c. Numerals and DET [+Poss] take neither weak nor strong endings. The Distribution of Inflection in German DP The first prenominal element in German must take strong endings if it can. All others must take weak endings if they can, unless: (i) the first element is one of the three exceptional ein words or (ii) the first element is one of the elements in (22b-c). Then the following element must take strong endings if it can.

I turn below to the the phrase structure of German DP, and demonstrate that the order of prenominal elements is accounted for by analyzing DP as dominating the two functional heads DET and NUM.

4.1.2

Two Functional Heads in German DP

Definite quantifiers in German cannot be preceded by other determiner elements, a result which follows if definite elements fill DET, the initial head position in DP. As in English, definite quantifiers in German are also in complementary distribution with definite demonstratives and the definite article, which is what we expect if these elements also fill DET. Support for the claim that definite quantifiers and determiners fill DET comes from evidence that they can be followed by numerals and prenominal adjectives, as we have seen above, and as illustrated in the additional examples in (24) below:

110

(24)

ELLIPSIS

a.

Die fuenf schoenen Madchen 'the five beautiful girls' b. Alle fuenf schoenen Madchen 'all five beautiful girls' c. Diese zwei guten Buecher 'these two good books' d. Jedes gute Buch 'each good book'

German numerals and indefinite quantifiers, on the other hand, can be preceded by definite elements, and followed by prenominal adjectives. This is again what we expect, if definite elements fill DET, and indefinites fill NUM. (I discuss the position of prenominal adjectives in German momentarily.) (25)

a.

Die wenigen guten Studenten 'the few good students' b. Die sechs huebschen Maedchen 'the six pretty girls' c. Die vielen alien Dinge 'the many old things'

Both the indefinite article ein and the indefinite quantifier kein also fill NUM, assuming NUM is the locus of indefinites. These ein words can be followed by prenominal adjectives, as we saw above in (10). Further support for a distinction between head positions in DP in German comes from PP modification. As we saw in Chapter Three was the case for English, following Rothstein (1988), restrictive PPs must be bound by a definite determiner, while adjectival PPs can be bound by either a definite or indefinite determiner. This also seems to be the case in German; the restrictive PP in (26a) must occur in a definite DP, while the adjectival one in (26b) can occur in either a definite or indefinite DP: (26)

a. Er brachte mir jedes/*ein Glas auf dem Tisch. 'He brought me every/*a glass on the table.' b. Er brachte mir jedes/ein Glass mit dem Goldrand. 'He brought me every/a glass with the gold rim.'

This leads us, as in the English case, to posit that in German, DET binds restrictive PP and NUM adjectival PP. As a result, both types of PPs can occur in definite DPs, but restrictive PP will not occur in indefinite noun phrases.' Turning now to possessive DP in German, recall that I suggested that the feature [+Poss] in DET is realized as an affix -s, affixed (at some point) to DP in SPEC(DET).

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

(27)

111

a.

Marias Buch 'Mary's book' b. Johanns Lehrer 'John's teacher'

Possessive determiners, which are ein words, can also precede N. These determiners are specified for inherent features of Person, Gender, and Number (in 28, Buch is Neuter, and Brueder is masculine). (28)

a.

sein Buch 'his book' b. ihr Brueder 'her brother'

Definite determiners are incompatible with either of these DET, a complementary distribution that follows if possessive determiners and the feature [+Poss], realized as -s, fill DET. This incompatibility is illustrated in (29-30):2 (29)

(30)

a.

Marias (*dieses) Buch 'Maria's (*this) book' b. Johanns (*dieser) Lehrer 'John's (*this) teacher' a. (*das) sein Buch '(*the) his book' b. (*dieser) ihr Brueder '(*this) her brother'

As shown in (31), DET [+Poss] can be followed by indefinite quantifiers and numerals, and also prenominal adjectives. The same holds for DET filled with a possessive determiner, as in (32). (31)

(32)

a.

Marias wenige gute Buecher 'Maria's few good books' b. Johanns viele gute Lehrer 'John's many good teachers' a. seine wenigen guten Buecher 'his few good books' b. ihre vielen guten Brueder 'her many good brothers'

This evidence supports the claim made above that possessive determiners and the affix -s fill DET, the locus of definite elements in German noun phrases. Finally, consider prenominal adjectives in German. As has already been pointed out above, prenominal adjectives in this language are inflected for Case

112

ELLIPSIS

and Gender when [-Plural], and Case when [+Plural]. They take strong or weak endings depending on the preceding element, as expressed in (22-23). Adjectives follow all other determiner elements, both definite and indefinite, and in this way parallel their English counterparts. I therefore assume that prenominal adjectives in German fill SPEC(N), as they do in English, but crucially differ from their English counterparts in expressing agreement features also expressed on NUM and DET. I discuss agreement features of adjectives in more detail below. Based on the above discussion, the phrase structure of German DP is analyzed as (33).

Notice that it is not possible to correlate strong and weak agreement with structural position in (33). Elements in both DET and NUM take strong endings. Der words occur in DET, but certain ein words, namely kein and ein, fill NUM, and can also take strong endings. NUM is also the locus of indefinite quantifiers that can take either strong or weak endings, and of numerals, elements that take no endings at all. The inflectional patterns described by the generalizations in (22-23) are therefore not fully predictable on the basis of syntactic position or definiteness of the determiner element. 4.1.3

Ellipsis in German DP and NUMP

Turning now to ellipsis in German noun phrases, consider (34). (34)

a. Hans sagt der Mann war gestern nicht hier, aber den [e] Hans said the man was yesterday not here, but the [e] habe ich gestern gesehen. have I yesterday seen. 'Hans said the man wasn't here yesterday, but I saw him yesterday.'

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter b.

113

Peter und ich haben die Maenner gesehen, und ich habe Peter and I have the men seen, and I have einen [e] sogar fotografiert. a [e] even photographed. 'Peter and I have seen the men, and I have even photographed one.'

(34) illustrates that both der and ein words with strong endings license and identify an empty complement in DP. Furthermore, though den in (34a) fills DET, einen in (34b) fills NUM.3 This suggests that ellipsis in German DP occurs in the constructions illustrated schematically in (35-36) (where Case inflection is represented as [+C], Gender as [+G]).

In (35), DET licenses and identifies empty NP under the Generalized GTC, which is not what we might expect, given evidence from English that singular definite determiners do not allow empty NP complements. German DET in these cases differs from English DET, however, in also being specified for the morphologically realized agreement features Case and Gender.4 Singular DET in (35) in German is thus specified for two strong agreement features English DET lacks, and is coindexed with empty NUM. DET properly head-governs and identifies the empty complement of NUM. NUM in (36), on the other hand, filled with a morpheme that realizes both Case and Gender, is also specified for

114

ELLIPSIS

strong agreement. NUM licenses and identifies empty NP, and ellipsis is grammatical.5 Consider now a case in which an ein word lacks strong endings. Ellipsis is ungrammatical: (37)

Peter hat ein altes Auto gekauft. Peter has an old car bought. *Hat Maria auch ein [e] gekauft? Has Maria also a [e] bought? 'Peter had bought an old car. Has Maria also bought one?'

Here, NUM filled with ein is [-Plural], and lacks strong agreement features of Case and Gender. We expect it to fail to license and identify empty NP, and it does. Consider now ellipsis in the plural noun phrase in German in (38), illustrated schematically in (39): (38)

Marias Autos und Peters Autos sind in der Werkstatt. Maria's cars and Peter's cars are in the shop. Der Mechaniker hat ihre [e] schon repariert. The mechanic has hers [e] already repaired. 'Maria's cars are in the shop. The mechanic has already repaired hers.'

Notice that the possessive determiner in DET in (39) differs from its English counterpart, a determiner which is specified for strong agreement only when affixed with -s. (40)

a. I like Bill's books but yours/hers/ours [e] are better researched, b. *I like Bill's books but your/her/our [e] are better researched.

Though German possessive determiners (see the list in (2)) also have 'inherent' features of Person, Number, and Gender, they do not morphologically change

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

115

when NP is empty. This is illustrated by the fact that the form of the possessive determiner in (39) remains the same whether NP is empty or filled. Possessive determiners in German thus do not appear to express a strong agreement feature comparable to English -s, yet they apparently license and identify empty NP, as in (39). Possessive determiners in German differ from those in English, however, in being classified as ein words, and morphologically expressing Number, Case, and Gender agreement with N. German (singular) possessive determiners therefore are specified for strong agreement features of Case and Gender, and plural possessive DET are specified for strong features of Number and Case. Possessive determiners in German, but not English, therefore license and identify empty NP. Consider next the indefinite quantifiers in NUM in (41). (41)

Er hat zwei/wenige Artikel gelesen heute, und ich will He had two/few articles read today, and I will morgen drei/viele/mehrere [e] lesen. tomorrow three/many/several [e] read. 'He read two/few articles today, and I will read three/many/several [e] tomorrow.'

These quantifiers are [+Plural], and also specified for Case. That ellipsis is grammatical is expected, as NUM in this case is specified for strong agreement. That a numeral also licenses and identifies empty NP is also predicted; NUM morphologically realizes the feature [+Plural], a strong agreement feature. These cases of ellipsis are illustrated in (42-43):

116

ELLIPSIS

Turning now to ellipsis in the possessive DP, (44) is illustrated in (45). (44)

a.

Er las Marias Artikel, und ich will Johanns [e] lesen. He read Maria's article, and I will John's [e] read. 'He read Maria's article, and I will read John's [e].'

DET t+Poss] in (45) is specified for and morphologically realizes SPEC-head agreement (as -s), and is thus specified for strong agreement. Through coindexed empty NUM, DET licenses and identifies empty NP under the Generalized GTC. So far, we have discussed ellipsis in DP and NUMP in which DET or NUM, filled with either a der or an ein word, is specified either for strong endings, or for neither weak nor strong endings (e.g. ein without endings, DET [+Poss] realized as -s, and numerals). I turn now to the question of whether prenominal elements with weak endings license and identify empty NP. To make this determination, we must address ellipted NP introduced by combinations of determiner elements, as weak endings occur only when preceded by strong ones. According to (22-23), adjectives and indefinite quantifiers that follow determiners with strong endings have weak endings. As we see in (46), such elements, inflected for weak endings, license and identify empty NP. (46)

a.

Ich traf einige Studenten, und die jungen [e] wollen I met some students, and the young [e] wanted mit mir sprechen. (Nom. PI.) with me to speak. 'I met some students, and the young ones wanted to speak with me.' b. Die Buecher hier sind sortiert, aber die vielen [e] dort The books here are sorted, but the many [e] over drueben sind durcheinander. (Nom. PL) there are in a jumble.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

117

The grammatically of (46b) is accounted for, as NUM filled with an indefinite quantifier is [+Plural] and [+Case], and is therefore specified for strong agreement. Empty NP is therefore licensed and identified. In (46a), on the other hand, it appears that a prenominal adjective, specified as [+Plural] and [+Case], licenses and identifies empty NP. This is rather surprising, under the assumption that prenominal adjectives fill SPEC(N), and thus are not under standard assumptions X-Os. We do not expect prenominal adjectives to be governors and proper head-governors. Travis (1988) argues in detail, however, that prenominal adjectives are X-0 heads, adjoined to a projection of N. Evidence from ellipsis seems to support this analysis, and I will adopt it here.6 Furthermore, as we expect under an analysis in which prenominal adjectives are X-Os, adjectives with strong endings license and identify empty NP, as we see in (47). (47)

Peter hat viele gebrauchte Autos angesehen und schliesslich Peter has many used cars looked at and finally ein neues [e] gekauft. a new [e] bought. 'Peter has looked at many used cars and finally bought a new one.'

In (47), the adjective takes strong endings, and realizes both the feature [+Gender] and [+Case]. It is specified for strong agreement, and under an analysis of adjectives as X-Os, licenses and identifies.empty NP. (Cf: (37), in which ein without endings fails to license and identify empty NP.) It appears, then, that DET, NUM, and prenominal adjectives in German can all be specified for strong agreement under the definitions motivated earlier for English. Also, both 'strong' and 'weak' endings can be analyzed as strong agreement features that identify ellipted NP. A head can also be specified for strong agreement when it lacks 'strong' or 'weak' endings, for example, when DET is specified for the SPEC-head agreement feature [+Poss] or when NUM is [+Plural]. In addition to [+Plural], both [+Case] and [+Gender] appear to be strong agreement features in German. The distribution of ellipted NP in German is what we might expect, in an analysis in which empty, non-DP pronominals must be identified by strong agreement in order to be visible to reconstruction. A single strong agreement feature in German, as in English, suffices to identify empty NP, as do certain combinations of features. The actual content of the empty category, however, must be recovered through some other process, namely reconstruction. In the next section I consider ellipsis in quantified DP and NUMP in German in some detail, and show that it is possible to argue that in German, all quantifiers and numerals are specified for the strong agreement feature [+Partitive].

118

ELLIPSIS

We thus expect all such elements to license and identify empty NP, and this is in fact the case. 4.1.4

Ellipsis in Quantified Noun Phrases in German

Consider first alle, and the partitive constructions it can occur in (48). (48)

a.

alle Maenner all men b. alle ihrer Buecher all her books 'all of her books' c. alle der Maenner all the men 'all of the men'

In (48a), we see that alle can occur in non-partitive constructions. (48b-c) show that alle can also occur with a DP complement. The quantifier jeder, interpreted as either each or every as we see in (49), can also occur in both partitive and non-partitive constructions, as illustrated in (50). (49)

(50)

a. b. c. d. a.

jeden zweiten Tag 'every other day' jedenfalls 'at all events, in any case' jedesmal 'each/every time' jedermann 'everyone/everybody' jeder Mann each man b. jedes ihrer Buecher each her books 'each of her books' c. jeder von ihnen each of them d. jeder der Maenner each the men 'each of the men'

The data in (50) suggest that jeder patterns with each rather than with every, and is, like each, [-Plural] and also [+Partitive]. Indefinite quantifiers and numerals in NUM in German can also be ^Partitive], as illustrated in (51): (51)

a.

zwei/wenige/viele/einige/mehrere Maenner two/few/many/some/several men 'two/few/many/some/several men'

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

119

b. zwei/wenige/viele/einige/mehrere ihrer Buecher two/few/many/some/several her books 'two/few/many/some/several of her books' c. zwei/wenige/viele/einige/mehrere von ihnen two/few/many/some/several of them 'two/few/many/some/several of them' d. zwei/wenige/viele/einige/mehrere der Maenner two/few/many/some/several the men 'two/few/many/some/several of the men' We conclude from the above data that in German, as in English, plural, indefinite quantifiers, and numerals can be [+Partitive], as can plural definite quantifiers. German differs from English in that plural quantifiers morphologically reflect Case, and singular jeder expresses both Case and Gender. Finally, consider the numeral ein and the quantifier kein. As illustrated in (52), these heads can be [+Partitive], and are also specified for Gender and Case, except in the three exceptional cases illustrated in the table in (5). (52)

a. ein/kein Mann 'one/no man' b. eines/keines ihrer Buecher one/none her books 'one/none of her books' c. einer/keiner von ihnen one/none of them 'one/none of them' d. einer/keiner der Maenner one/none the men 'one/none of the men'

Ellipsis headed by any of the German quantifiers or numerals discussed above is grammatical, as illustrated in (53). This is what we expect, as DET filled with a quantifier is specified for at least the strong agreement feature [-(-Partitive]. The same is true of NUM, filled with either an indefinite quantifier or a numeral. (53)

Ich sah viele ihrer Buecher, und I saw many (of) her books, and a. alle [e] waren sehr teuer. all [e] were very expensive. b. jedes [e] war sehr teuer. each was very expensive. c. zwei/wenige/viele/einige/mehrere [e] waren sehr teuer. two/few/many/some/several were very expensive.

120

ELLIPSIS

d.

eines/keines [e] war sehr teuer. one/none [e] was very expensive.

In (53a), DET is filled with alle specified for strong agreement features of [+Plural], [+Case], and [+Partitive]. Under the Generalized GTC, DET properly head-governs and identifies empty NP, as in (54).

In (53b),jedes, specified as [+Partitive], [+Case], and [+Gender], is also specified for strong agreement, and through the Generalized GTC, licenses and identifies emotv NP as in (55):

In (53c), NUM realizes the strong agreement features [+Plural] and [+Partitive]. NUM is also specified for Case when filled with an indefinite quantifier rather than a numeral.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

121

NUM licenses and identifies empty NP, and ellipsis is grammatical. Finally, in (53d), NUM is [-Plural] but [+Partitive], and also specified for Case and Gender. As expected, ellipsis is grammatical:

In (57) ein must have an -es affix, even though ein is Neuter, Nominative, and typically takes no endings, as we saw in 4.1.1. This is consistent with the idea that agreement features must be overtly realized in order to identify an ellipted category. It is thus reasonable to assume that -es is the overt realization of Neuter, Nominative, and Partitive. Summarizing, ellipsis in quantified noun phrases in German has a distribution similar to that in English, as quantifiers and numerals in both languages can be [+Partitive]. German differs from English in having no counterpart of [-Partitive] every, a quantifier distinguished from each. Rather, jeder patterns with English each, and can be [+Partitive]. German also differs from English in having quantifiers that are specified for strong agreement features of Case, and when singular, for Gender as well. Plural quantifiers in German can therefore be analyzed as all being specified for at least the strong agreement features ^Partitive], [+Plural] and [+Case]. Singular quantifiers and numerals which allow ellipsis are specified for the strong agreement features [+Partitive], [+Case] and [+Gender]. Plural numerals are [+Plural, +Partitive], and also specified for strong agreement.7

4.2

Agreement and Ellipsis in French Noun Phrases

In French, as in English and German, ordered strings of determiner elements precede the noun. Noun phrases in French differ from English and German ones in certain significant ways, however. For example, though [+Plural] is a productive agreement feature of French determiners, determiners in this language lack [+Case] specification, and are only sometimes [+Gender]. Also, certain quantifiers are only [+Partitive], others are only [-Partitive], and still others are [±Partitive]. French thus crucially differs from German, a language in which quantifiers and numerals can all be [-(-Partitive], and in which determiners express Case, Gender, and Number. French also differs from English, a language

122

ELLIPSIS

in which all quantifiers and numerals other than every can be [+Partitive], and determiners express Number, but neither Case nor Gender. The agreement system of French noun phrases is thus less 'rich' than that of German, but 'richer' than that of English.

4.2.1 Agreement in French Noun Phrases As in both German and English, nouns in French can be preceded by singular definite or indefinite articles, demonstratives, or possessive determiners. These prenominal elements are specified as [-Plural], and for (Masculine or Feminine) Gender.8 [+Plural] articles, demonstratives, and possessive determiners in French are specified for neither Gender nor Case. The above generalizations for French are schematically illustrated in (58-61): (58) (59)

(60)

(61)

un garfon/une fille a boy/a girl a. le gar?on/la fille the boy/the girl b. les garcons/filles the boys/the girls a. ce gar9on/cette fille this boy/this girl b. ces garcons/filles these boys/these girls a. mon garcon/ma fille my boy/my girl b. mes gar£ons/filles my boys/my girls

[-Plural, +Gender] [-Plural, +Gender] [+Plural] [-Plural, +Gender] [+Plural] [-Plural, +Gender] [+Plural]

The indefinite article un(e) ('a') in (58) is homophonous with the numeral un(e) ('one'). French is thus distinct from English, in which the indefinite article a contrasts with singular one, but is like German, a language in which the indefinite article and the singular numeral are both expressed by a single word (in German, ein(e)). N in French can also be preceded by a definite or indefinite quantifier, which, as in German and English, agrees in Number with N. French quantifiers differ from German ones, and are like their English counterparts, in lacking Case. As for Gender, recall that in German, singular quantifiers (jeder, kein) can express Gender, but plural ones (alle/viele/wenige/einige/mehrere) cannot. In English, this feature is not expressed by quantifiers at all. French seems to fall between German and English in this respect; certain singular and plural quantifiers express Gender.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

123

To illustrate, consider the following:9 (62)

(63)

(64)

a.

quelques/plusieurs some/several b. beaucoup de/peu de many of/few of a. quelque/chaque some/each b. aucune not a single c. aucun not a single a. tous all b. toutes all

filles/garcons girls/boys filles/garfons girls/boys fille/garfon girl/boy fille girl garfon boy les garcons the boys les filles the girls

[+Plural] [+Plural] [-Plural] [-Plural, +Gender] [-Plural, +Gender] [+Plural, +Gender] [+Plural, +Gender]

As (62-64) illustrate, there is no obvious way to predict which quantifiers in French are specified for Gender; both plural and singular quantifiers can be [+Gender], as can both definite and indefinite ones. Turning next to numerals in French, the numeral and indefinite article un/une, like German ein/eine, is inflected for Gender, as we saw above in (58). French un/une differs from its German counterpart in lacking Case. Other French numerals pattern with German and English numerals in lacking both Case and Gender, and being specified as [+Plural] (leaving aside the feature [+Partitive] for the moment). (65)

deux/six/neuf filles/gargons [+Plural] two/six/nine girls/boys

French also differs from English and German in the formation of the possessive. French possessive determiners, such as in (61), precede N, and are specified for 'inherent' features of Number, Person, and Gender (in some cases. See Note 8). They also agree in Number with plural N, and also in Gender when N is singular. There is no equivalent in French, however, of possessives formed by affixation, such as in John's book/Johanns Buch, in which a DP possessor precedes the possessed noun phrase. Rather, French possessives are formed either as in (61) above, or as in (66) below: (66)

a.

le professeur de Jean the teacher of John 'John's teacher'

124

ELLIPSIS

b.

le livre de Marie the book of Mary 'Mary's book'

I will not further discuss possessives of the form in (66), and will concern myself here only with possessive determiners in (61). Finally, prenominal adjectives in French, inflected for both Gender and Number, are sisters to N, and follow any determiners, quantifiers, or numerals. (67)

a. b.

les cinq belles filles the five beautiful-Fem-Pl girls tous les grands amis all the great-Masc-Pl friends

Adjectives can also occur postnominally in French, and in this position are also inflected for Number and Gender: (68)

a. b.

les hommes intelligents/les femmes intelligentes the men intelligent-Masc-Pl/ the women intelligent-Fem-Pl rhomme anglais/la femme anglaise the man English-Masc-Sg/ the woman English-Fem-sg

Adjectives in French are another type of element whose inflectional pattern falls between those of English and German. French prenominal adjectives are specified for Gender and Number, while in German, adjectives can be specified for these two features, and also sometimes for Case. English prenominal adjectives lack specification for any of these features. When we consider different sequences of determiners in French, it is possible to claim that in this language, as in German and English, DP dominates two functional heads, DET and NUM.

4.2.2

Two Functional Heads in French DP

In French, as in German and English, the definite article, possessive determiners, and demonstratives can all be followed by numerals and adjectives. (69)

les/mes/ces the/my/these

cinq five

belles filles pretty girls

Definite quantifiers are in complementary distribution with the definite determiners in (70):

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

(70)

(71)

125

a.

tous les cinq belles filles all the five pretty girls b. *les/*ces tous les cinq belles filles the/these all the five pretty girls a. chaque belle fille each pretty girl b. *ma/*la chaque belle fille my/*the each pretty girl

Such evidence suggests that definite elements in French fill DET, the highest head position in DP.10 Indefinite quantifiers in French cannot be productively embedded under definite determiners. French thus contrasts in this way with German and English. (72)

a. the several/many/few girls b. die mehreren/vielen/wenigen Maedchen c. *les plusieurs/beaucoup/peu (de) filles the several/many/few (of) girls

Based on (72), we might propose that in French, indefinite quantifiers are in complementary distribution with definite elements in DET. We would then lose the distinction, motivated in Chapter Three for both Hebrew and English, and in 4.1.2 above for German, that DP dominates two functional categories DET and NUM, with DET as the locus of definite elements and NUM of indefinite ones. Evidence from PP modification in French supports the structural distinction between definite and indefinite determiners. Observe first that, as in both German and English, restrictive PPs in French are possible only in definite noun phrases, while adjectival PPs can occur in either definite or indefinite noun phrases. (73) (74)

II m'a apporte chaque/*un verre sur la table. He brought me each/a glass on the table. II m'a apporte chaque/un verre avec un bord dore. He brought me each/a glass with a gold rim.

The evidence that DET binds restrictive PPs, and NUM adjectival PPs suggests that French noun phrases contain two different determiner positions, one of which is reserved for definite elements, and the other for indefinites.'' Assuming that adjectives fill SPEC(N) and occur to the right of all definite and indefinite determiner elements, we are now able to propose that the internal structure of French noun phrases is as schematically illustrated in (75):

126

ELLIPSIS

We further refine our assumptions about the internal structure of French DP and NUMP when we examine partitive quantifiers and numerals in that language. I turn to this below.

4.2.3

Quantified Noun Phrases in French

We have seen that in English and German, both definite and indefinite quantifiers, and also numerals, can be specified for the feature [+Partitive], with the exception of English every, which is always [-Partitive]. French also has an array of quantifiers which are optionally [+Partitive], designated below as [±Partitive], and is similar to English in also having quantifiers that are only [-Partitive]. French differs from both German and English in also having quantifiers that are only [+Partitive].12 As in English and German, plural numerals in French can occur in both partitive and non-partitive constructions. As in German, the singular numeral un/une in French can be partitive, and is also specified for Gender. (76)

a. b.

(77)

a. b.

un garfon/une fille [+Plural, ±Partitive, +Gender] 'one boy/one girl' un de mes gar£ons/une de mes filles 'one of my boys/one of my girls' trois/six amis [+Plural, ± Partitive] 'three/six friends' trois/six de mes amis 'three/six of my friends'

French tous ('all') occurs only in construction with a definite DP, that is, it is obligatorily [-(-Partitive]. Tous is also specified for Gender and is [+Plural].

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

(78)

127

toutes *(les) (six) filles [+Plural, +Prt, +Gender] all *(the) (six) girls

Chaque ('each') differs from English each, but is similar to every in being [-Plural, -Partitive]. (79)

a.

chaque each b. *chaque each

gar5on/fille boy/girl de/de mes of/of my

[-Plural, -Partitive] garcons boys

Chaque does, however, have a partitive counterpart, chacun(e). This quantifier occurs only in partitive constructions, and is specified for Gender. (80)

a. chacune *(de mes) filles [-Plural, +Partitive, +Gender] each of my girls b. chacun *(de mes) garcons each of my boys c. *chacun(e) fille/garcon each girl/boy

Quelque(s) ('some') patterns with chaque in being obligatorily [-Partitive], but differs in being [±Plural]. Quelque(s) is also similar to chaque in having a partitive counterpart, quelques un(e)s: a. quelquefille/gar9on [-Plural, -Partitive] 'some girl/boy' b. *quelque de mes nlles/garfons 'some of my girls/boys' (82) a. quelques filles/garcons [+Plural, -Partitive] 'some girls/boys' b. *quelques de mes filles/garfons 'some of my girls/boys' (83) a. quelques unes de mes filles [+P1, +Prt, +Gender] some ones of my girls 'some of my girls' b. quelques uns de mes garcons some ones of my boys 'some of my boys' c. *quelques un(e)s filles/garjons some ones girls/boys 'some girls/boys'

(81)

Beaucoup ('many') and peu ('few') are similar to quelque(s) un(e)s and

128

ELLIPSIS

chacun(e) in occuring only in partitive constructions. Both of these quantifiers lack Gender. (See Note 9.) (84)

a.

beaucoup/peu many/few b. *beaucoup/peu many/few

de filles/gar9ons [+P1, +Prt] of girls/boys filles/garcons girls/boys

Finally, plural plusieurs ('several') and singular aucun(e) ('no', 'not a single') differ from the quantifiers discussed above in being able to occur in both partitive and non-partitive constructions. Plusieurs lacks Gender, but aucun(e) is specified for this feature. (85) a. plusieursfilles/garcons [+Plural, ±Partitive] 'several girls/boys' b. plusieurs de mes filles/gar5ons 'several of my girls/boys' (86) a. aucune fille/aucun garfon [-P1, ±Prt, +Gender] 'no girl/boy' b. aucune de mes filles/aucun de mes garcons 'none of my girls/none of my boys' Summarizing briefly, in French, quantifiers express a three-way distinction between [+Partitive], [-Partitive] and [±Partitive]. In French, chaque and quelque(s) are only [-Partitive], while tous, beaucoup, peu, quelques un(e)s and chacun(e) are all only [+Partitive]. French also allows certain quantifiers to be [±Partitive], namely aucun(e) and plusieurs. Before continuing the discussion, consider once again the quantifier pairs chaque/chacun(e) and quelque(s)/quelques un(e)s. Chacun(e) might be argued to be lexicalized in a way similar to everyone (see Note 10, Chapter Three). Chacun(e) might be analyzed as cliticization of chaque + un(e), illustrated in (87) (leaving aside the actual adjunction site of de).

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

129

When cliticization occurs, chacun(e) is [-Plural, +Partitive, +Gender], assimilating the feature specification of un/une. Alternatively, we might assume that chaque and chacun(e) are listed separately in the lexicon, and that the former is [-Plural, -Partitive], and the latter [-Plural, +Partitive, +Gender]. Either quantifier would be generated in DET, the locus of definite elements. DP headed by DET dominating chacune would then be as in (88).

As I show below, both (87) and (88) are compatible with the account of ellipsis in noun phrases proposed below. I assume for exposition that both chaque/chacun(e) are generated in DET, and that DP headed by chacun(e) has the phrase structure in (88). A similar analysis can be extended to quelque(s) versus quelques un(e)s. We might assume that indefinite quelque(s) fills NUM, as in (89).

To derive quelques un(e)s, both quelques and un(e)s must be generated in NUM, either as a single full form or as two lexical items that undergo cliticization, as in (90). Crucially, un(e)s in NUM has the effect of designating NUM as [+Gender, +Partitive], and thus distinct from NUM in (89).

130

ELLIPSIS

I will assume that quelques un(e)s is listed in the lexicon as a single lexical item, inserted into NUM as a single head. As with chaque and chacun(e), we make the correct predictions about ellipsis in NUMP headed by quelques un(e)s, leaving open the role of cliticization in the derivation of the quantifier. Below, I turn to ellipsis in quantified noun phrases, and demonstrate that although we might expect French to show a wide distribution of ellipsis in this category, we find that in fact, ellipsis is quite restricted.

4.2.4

Ellipsis in French Noun Phrases

Leaving quantifiers and numerals aside for the moment, [+Plural] is as productively realized in French as in English and German, by definite and indefinite articles, demonstratives, and possessive determiners. [-Plural] in French, as in English and German, is not morphologically expressed on nouns, leading us to believe that when lexically realized, [+Plural], but not [-Plural], is a strong agreement feature with respect to identification of empty NP in French. Gender is also productively realized by certain determiner elements in French, and again, we expect Gender to be a possible strong agreement feature. What we find when we investigate these predictions is, however, that the distribution of ellipsis in French noun phrases headed by elements specified as [+Plural] or [+Gender] does not conform to these expections. For example, DET in (91) is [-Plural], but [+Gender], and therefore might be expected to be specified for strong agreement. Ellipsis of NP in such cases is, however, ungrammatical. (91) J'ai achete un livre hier, mais I bought one book yesterday, but a. *le [e] n'est pas interessant. the [e] isn't interesting. b. *ce [e] est plus interessant. this [e] is more interesting. c. *son [e] est plus interessant. his [e] is more interesting.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

131

(91) suggests that in French, DET [-Plural] and [+Gender] is not specified for strong agreement. This is surprising, under the assumption that a single strong agreement feature should suffice to identify empty NP. This is also surprising given the evidence that the indefinite article un/une in (92) allows an ellipted complement, and is [-Plural], but [+Gender]. (92)

J'ai achete deux livres hier, mais I bought two books yesterday, but seulement un [e] est interessant. only one [e] is interesting.

Now consider the plural determiners in (93): (93)

J'ai achete deux livres hier, mais I bought two books yesterday, but a. *les [e] ne sont pas interessants. the [e] aren't interesting. b. *ces [e] sont plus interessants. these [e] are more interesting. c. *ses [e] sont plus interessants. his [e] are more interesting.

The determiners in (93) are all [+Plural], and should, under the analysis developed so far, be specified for strong agreement. Empty NP is ruled out, however, which suggests that this is not the case. That the determiners in (91) and (93), but not un(e) in (92), fail to license and identify empty NP seems to suggest that French DET must be specified for more than one agreement feature to be considered specified for strong agreement. I leave this hypothesis aside for the moment, and return to it below. In French, as in German, prenominal adjectives can be specified for agreement features, and can apparently in some cases license and identify empty NP. (The following are taken from Herschensohn, 1978, who argues that such cases involve ellipsis.)13 (94)

a. J'ai vu les garcons dans la cour. Les grands [e] jouaient avec les petits [e]. 'I saw the boys in the courtyard. The big ones were playing with the little ones.' b. II y avait de grands ganjons et de petits [e] aussi. 'There were big boys and little ones too.'

The adjectives in (94) are both [+Plural] and [+Gender]. Singular adjectives also allow ellipsis, as we see in (95).

132

ELLIPSIS

(95) J'ai vu les garcons dans la cour. Le grand [e] jouait avec le petit [e]. 'I saw the boys in the courtyard. The big one was playing with the little one.' French thus appears to pattern as we might expect in this case, under the assumption that adjectives are X-Os which can be specified for strong agreement features. Consider now ellipsis in noun phrases headed by quantifiers and numerals. We expect ellipsis in DP headed by [+Partitive] and/or [+Plural] quantifiers or numerals to be grammatical, as these heads are presumably specified for strong agreement. Conversely, we also predict that ellipsis in quantified noun phrases headed by [-Partitive] and/or [-Plural] quantifiers to be ruled out. Both of these predictions appear to be correct. (96)

J'achetais beaucoup de livres, et I bought many books, and a. tous [e] sont interessants. all [e] are interesting. b. *chaque [e]/chacun [e] est interessant. each [e] is interesting.

(96) illustrates that ellipsis in DP headed by tous, a quantifier that is [+Plural, +Partitive, +Gender], is grammatical. Ellipsis in DP headed by chaque, on the other hand, is ruled out, as this head lacks positive agreement specification. Ellipsis is grammatical in DP headed by chacun(e), a predictable result as this quantifier is [-Plural, +Gender, -(-Partitive]. Consider now (97): (97)

J'achetais beaucoup de livres, et I bought many books, and a. plusieurs [e] sont interessants. several [e] are interesting. b. aucun [e] n'est interessant. none [e] is interesting. c. beaucoup/un peu [e] sont interessants. many/a few [e] are interesting. d. six [e] sont interessants. six are interesting.

We expect ellipsis to be grammatical in these cases, as the [+Plural] quantifier plusieurs is also [+Partitive], as are both beaucoup and peu. Aucun, though [-Plural], is [+Gender, +Partitive], and is also specified for strong agreement.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

133

The numeral in (97d) is [+Plural, +Partitive], and presumably also specified for strong agreement. A final case of ellipsis in the quantifier system of French is given in (98): (98)

J'achetais beaucoup de livres, et I bought many books and *quelques [e]/quelques uns [e] etaient interessants. some [e] were interesting.

(98) illustrates that, contrary to the predictions the theory makes, ellipsis in an indefinite NUMP headed by quelques is ruled out, though NUM here is specified for what we expect to be a strong agreement feature, [+Plural]. Ellipsis is grammatical when the 'partitive' form of the quantifier, quelques un(e)s is used, as NUM is [+Plural, +Gender, +Partitive].14 The question now arises; why is ellipsis ungrammatical in (98), even though NUM is presumably specified for strong agreement? The same question arises in (91) and (93): why is ellipsis ruled out, though DET is either [+Gender] or [+Plural]? In the following section I present a possible answer to these questions.15

4.3

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

The data presented from English, German, and French noun phrases suggests that the three languages have different types of agreement systems in this category. More specifically, it appears that English agreement in noun phrases is less 'rich' than that of German noun phrases, and that the French agreement system falls somewhere in between. The following lists of features for DET and NUM which allow ellipted complements across these three languages illustrate the relevant differences. (99)

Strong Agreement in English DP/NUMP a. definite and indefinite determiners: plural: [+Plural] other: [+Poss] b. quantifiers: plural: [+Plural, -(-Partitive] singular: [-(-Partitive] c. numerals: plural: [+Plural, +Partitive] singular: [+Partitive]

134

(100)

(101)

ELLIPSIS

Strong Agreement in German DP/NUMP a. definite and indefinite determiners: plural: [+Case, +Plural] singular: [+Case, +Gender] other: [+Poss] b. quantifiers: plural: [+Case, +Plural, +Partitive] singular: [+Case, +Gender, +Partitive] c. numerals: plural: [+Plural, +Partitive] singular: [+Case, +Gender, +Partitive] d. adjectives: plural: [+Case, +Plural] singular: [+Case, +Gender] Strong Agreement in French DP/NUMP a. definite and indefinite determiners: one feature specification (e.g. +Gender or +Plural) is not strong agreement b. quantifiers: plural: [+Plural, +Gender, +Partitive] (tous, quelques un(e)s) [+Plural, +Partitive] (beaucoup/peu/plusieurs) singular: [+Gender, +Partitive] (chacun, aucun) c. numerals: plural: [+Plural, +Partitive] singular: [+Gender, +Partitive] d. adjectives: plural: [+Gender, +Plural] singular: [+Gender]

Taking first a comparison between determiners and quantifiers across the three languages, we find that in French, determiners and quantifiers specified for a single agreement feature (le/ce/mon and quelques) are not specified for strong agreement. It is possible to argue, however, that quantifiers specified for at least two strong agreement features are specified for strong agreement. In German, on the other hand ([+Poss] aside), determiners specified for at least two agreement features are specified for strong agreement. German quantifiers are specified for at least three features when specified for strong agreement. In English, a single agreement feature suffices to designate both determiners and quantifiers as specified for strong agreement.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

135

We explain the failure of ellipsis in French noun phrases headed by determiners that are either [+Gender] or [+Plural], and by NUM filled with [+Plural] quelques by proposing the following parameter. (102)

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter (EIP) The number of strong agreement features in DET or NUM that is required to identify an empty, pronominal NP is proportional to the number of possible strong agreement features in the agreement system of noun phrases in the language.

Simply put, the EIP expresses the generalization that in a language such as English with a relatively 'poor' agreement system, a single morphologically realized feature constitutes 'strong' agreement. In a language such as German, on the other hand, with a much richer agreement system, determiners must be specified for two agreement features, and quantifiers for three, to be specified for strong agreement. In French, determiners must be specified for two features, and quantifiers for two, to be specified for strong agreement. The EIP thus explains why determiners and quantifiers specified for a single strong agreement feature in French fail to identify empty NP. Consider now numerals and adjectives in the three languages. Plural numerals appear to fall outside the EIP, as in all the languages under discussion these elements are specified for two strong agreement features, namely [+Partitive] and [+Plural]. This may be because numbers are 'inherently' specified for strong agreement in some way. Consider, however, the singular numerals one, ein(e), and un(e). In English, this element is specified for a single feature, and in German for three, and French for two. It is thus possible to argue that singular numerals fall under the EIP. A similar argument might be made concerning prenominal adjectives. In English these have no features at all, and do not identify empty NP. In German, adjectives must be specified for at least two features, and in French, at least one, in order to license and identify empty NP. Several unanswered questions concerning the EIP remain. First, the feature [+Poss] seems anomolous with respect to the EIP. In particular, we might not expect a single feature to designate DET in German as specified for strong agreement, given the above evidence that under the EIP, German DET and NUM require more features than their English counterparts to be specified for strong agreement. Another issue that must be addressed is the role of cliticization of determiners in French. The clitic status of le/ce/son might undermine the claim that DET specified for a single agreement feature in French fails to identify empty NP (see Note 15).16 Observe, however, that even if this is the case, the theory must nevertheless explain the fact that quelques, a [+Plural] quantifier, fails to identify empty NP, a fact that is explained if we adopt the EIP. Finally, it remains to determine the status of the EIP in other categories. For

136

ELLIPSIS

example, the EIP does not appear to be relevant in the analysis of Sluicing, as in English, French and German COMP [+WH] is specified for a SPEC-head agreement feature which designates COMP as specified for strong agreement. Similarly, as I show in the following chapter, the distribution of empty VP in English, French, and German tensed clauses is explained by independent principles other than (some version of) the EIP. I thus leave the EIP as an interesting possibility which must be further investigated, but which provides a possible explanation for the asymmetrical ellipsis patterns in noun phrases in English, French, and German.

Notes 1. The other tests for the distinction between adjectival and restrictive PPs proposed for English in Chapter Three also hold of their German equivalents. For example, restrictive PPs cannot occur prenominally, while adjectival PPs can. Restrictive PPs can, however, occur in copular constructions where adjectival PPs are ungrammatical: (i)

a.

Das Glas war auf/unter dem Tisch. The glass was on/under the table, b. *das auf/unter dem Tisch Glas *the on/under the table glass (ii) a. *Das Glas war mit dem Goldrand *The glass was with the gold rim b. das goldgeraenderte Glas the goldrimmed glass Also, adjectival PPs are more acceptable if they agree in Number with the modified noun, while restrictive PPs do not seem to be so constrained. (iii)

a. *das Glas/die Glaeser the glass/the glasses b. das Glas/die Glaeser the glasses/the glass

mit den Goldraendern with the gold rims auf/unter dem Tisch on/under the table

2. There is a construction in which DET can precede a possessive determiner (or possibly in this case a possessive pronoun), as in (i): (i)

a. seine Schwester die seine [e] b. seine Buecher die seinen [e] c. sein Auto das seine [e] I have been told by native speakers that these constructions are stylistically marked, and not often used in modern colloquial German. I leave them aside here. 3. It has been pointed out to me that ellipsis in definite DP in German headed by der/die/das or dieser/diese/dieses is grammatical only with contrastive stress.

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

137

4. Recall from Chapter Two that for a feature to be a strong agreement feature, it must be productively morphologically realized, and distinct from other values of the same feature. [-Plural] in German DET appears, as in English, to be the unmarked case, as no morphological marker of singular appears on N. In contrast, all three Genders (Masculine, Feminine and Neuter) are in the singular all distinguished from one another on DET, which suggests that [+Gender] is a 'strong' agreement feature which we expect to identify empty NP. 5. Van Riemsdijk (1989) discusses a different type of empty category in German DP, and suggests further that such empty categories are derived through movement and 'regeneration.' (i)

Einen Wagen hat er sich noch keinen [e] leisten koennen. A car has he refl yet none afford could (As for cars, he has not been able to afford one yet.)

Van Riemsdijk argues that in (i), N' is topicalized, and the features of the head of N' (Count, Gender, Number, Case) determine the lexical form of the determiner 'regenerated.' There is thus a type of 'strong' agreement requirement involved in regeneration, and a possible interesting connection with ellipsis which I will not be able to pursue here. 6. Notice that analyzing prenominal adjectives as X-Os is consistent with the evidence from English that prenominal adjectives create minimality barriers to proper head-government of NP by DET or NUM. (i) *John has always worn Reeboks, but these new [e] hurt his feet, (ii) *Because Mary's blue [e] was ripped, she wore her red coat. See Chapter Two, Note 5 for discussion of the status of prenominal adjectives as proper head-governors in English. 7. As we might by now expect, adjectives embedded under partitive quantifiers can license and identify empty NP. (i)

Ich sah alle der Maenner gestern, und alle der aelteren [e] waren zufrieden. I saw all of the men yesterday, and all of the old [e] were content.

This is not surprising, if prenominal adjectives are X-Os, and can be specified for strong agreement features in German. 8. Not all possessive determiners in French express Gender. For example, notre ('our') and votre ('your') and leur do not change form in the singular with respect to Gender. 9. I leave aside row? ('every'), as it is unclear to me whether this quantifier should be analyzed as a determiner or as the equivalent of English 'everything.' Also, beaucoup and peu can be singular, when in construction with mass nouns. (i)

Chaque matin mon pere prend beaucoup de cafe, et un peu de jambon. Each morning my father takes much of coffee and a little of ham. 'Each morning my father has a lot of coffee and a little ham.'

I will not discuss singular beaucoup/peu further here.

138

ELLIPSIS

10. Cf: Vergnaud and Zubizarretta (1992), who argue that definite determiners son and le occur in different positions. Possessive son heads DP, and le NP. 11. French also parallels English and German in allowing adjectival, but not restrictive PPs to occur (postnominally) in adjective position, and in allowing only restrictive PPs to occur in copular constructions. (i)

(ii)

a.

Le verre etait sur la table The glass was on the table b. *le sur la table verre *the on the table glass a. *Le verre etait avec un bord dore b. le verre au bord dore

Restrictive PPs need not agree in Number with the N they modify, but adjectival PPs must: (iii)

a.

Les verres/le verre sur la table the glasses/the glass on the table b. *les verres/le verre avec le bord dore the glasses/the glass with the gold rim

12. The use of the term 'partitive' here should not be confused with some other uses in traditional French grammar, or, for example, with Belletti's (1988) analysis of 'partitive' to describe a Case. Partitives here mean only a portion of a group (for count NPs), or of a mass NP, which can be either definite or indefinite. (Thanks to Julia Herschensohn for pointing this possible confusion out to me.) 13. Herschensohn (1978) presents convincing arguments that contexts such as (9495) involve ellipsis rather than nominalization of pre- and postnominal adjectives (contra the analysis proposed by Gouet, 1976). She shows that such constructions do not allow pragmatic antecedents, consistent with the discussion of ellipsis in Chapter One, in which I showed that ellipses typically (but not always) take syntactic antecedents. She also demonstrates that evidence from the form of the article with which the ellipsis occurs suggests the presence of an empty N, rather than nominalization of an adjective. See also Bernstein (1993) for discussion of ellipsis involving a governing adjective in Romance, and Sleeman (1993) for discussion of prenominal adjectives and ellipsis in French noun phrases. See also Kester (1994) for discussion of the role of adjectival inflection and the licensing of pro in noun phrases in both Germanic and Romance. 14. As we might expect, ellipsis of the complement of singular quelque is ungrammatical, as the quantifier is specified for no strong agreement features. (i) *J'ai vu les garjons dans la cour, et quelque [e] m'a appellait. 'I saw the boys in the courtyard, and some [e] called me.' 15. Authier (1991) argues that possessive determiners are clitics, an analysis which might be extended to other articles and demonstratives. Julia Herschensohn has also suggested to me that determiners and certain prenominal adjectives might be clitics, as both manifest distinctive morphological and phonological behavior, like preverbal clitic

The Ellipsis Identification Parameter

139

pronouns. Their clitic nature is evidenced in sandhi alternations (liaison, elision) and in suppletive forms (e.g. ce/cet, nouveaulnouvel, etc.) and in their obligatory unstressed nature. Even if we analyze these determiners as clitics, and suggest that ellipsis is ruled out in (91) and (93) because cliticization to N is blocked, the theory must still account for the failure of ellipsis with quelques, a head which is [+Plural], and presumably specified for strong agreement. The theory must also still explain why ellipsis is grammatical in (92) and (94), where [e] is governed by an article in the former, and a prenominal adjective in the latter. 16. Some additional interesting issues arise when we consider (i), which involves what might appear to be the pronominal counterparts of the determiners in (91) and (93). (i)

J'ai achete deux livres hier. a. Lequel est-ce que tu veut voir? 'Which one do you want to see?' b. Celui(-ci) est le plus interessant. 'This one is the most interesting.' c. Le sien est plus interessant. the his is more interesting. 'His is more interesting.'

One possible analysis of (i) is that ellipsis is involved, and that the determiners differ from those in (91) and (93) in being 'doubly' specified for features, and thus specified for strong agreement under the EIP. Lequel/laquelle, celuilcelle, and le sien/la sienne are essentially 'combinations' of two determiners, both of which are specified for Gender. For example, lequelllaquelle can be analyzed as [le/la+ quel/quelle], a definite determiner plus an interrogative one, both of which are specified for Gender. Similarly, celuilcelle might be argued to derive from [ce/cette + lui/elle], and to again be 'doubly' specified for Gender. Le sien/la sienne is also specified for Gender, essentially twice. The plural forms of the elements in (i) can also be argued to be 'doubly' specified for features. These elements, if analyzable as determiners, also appear to license and identify empty NP. (ii) J'ai achete deux livres hier. a. Lesquels [e] est-ce que tu veux voir? Which [e] do you want to see? b. Ceux [e] sont les plus interessants. These [e] are the most interesting. c. Les siens [e] sont plus interessants. His [e] are more interesting. Plural lesquelsllesquelles, ceux/celles, and les siens/les siennes can again be analyzed as combinations of determiners that are t+Plural], plus pronouns that are both [+Plural, +Gender].

140

(iii)

ELLIPSIS

a. b. c.

[les + quels/quelles] [ces + eux/elles] [les + siens/siennes]

The 'compound' determiners illustrated schematically in (iii) are thus possibly analyzable as specified for more than one strong agreement feature, and specified for strong agreement under the EIP.

5 VP Ellipsis in English, French, and German Tensed Clauses

5.0 Introduction As is well-known, VP Ellipsis in English is possible when INFL is filled with an auxiliary verb, modal, or pleonastic do. Ellipsis is blocked, however, when introduced by a main verb. This is illustrated by the contrast between (1) and (2). (1)

John isn't leaving town but Mary is/will/has/did [e]. VP

(2) *First fire began pouring out of the building, and then smoke began [e]. VP

(from Bresnan, 1976) It has been argued that empty VP in (1) is constrained by the ECP (Zagona, 1982, 1988a, 1988b, Lobeck, 1987a, 1990, 199la, 1993; Chao, 1987), and that INFL properly governs empty VP. Ellipted verb phrases have not yet been analyzed, however, within current government-binding analyses of tensed clauses as projections of AGR or Tense. For example, Chomsky (1992) argues that IP is AGRP, as illustrated in (3).

142

ELLIPSIS

Modals and do are generated in Tense, and have and be in V. These auxiliary elements raise to Tense and AGR through Verb Raising, a movement which Chomsky (1992) argues is triggered by 'feature checking.' If we adopt (3), it is no longer possible to analyze 'INFL' as the proper governor of empty VP. Rather, the question arises as to whether it is AGR or Tense that licenses and identifies empty VR Further, in the event that an auxiliary verb raises out of VP, the matrix VP is an empty category derived by Verb Raising. Licensing and identification of empty VP in constructions which involve both raising of Tense to AGR, or of V to Tense to AGR must therefore be clarified. I argue here that the grammaticality of empty VP in (1) follows straightforwardly from the interaction of Verb Raising and the Generalized GTC. Principles of feature checking intervene to rule out the sentences in (2), and also account for the failure of VP Ellipsis in French and German, illustrated in (4-5). (4) *Claudine est une bonne etudiante, et Marie est [e] aussi. VP

Claudine is a good student, and Mary is [e] too. VP

(5) *Hans wird heimfahren und Maria wird [e] auch. VP

Hans will drive home, and Maria will [e] too. VP

The theory of VP Ellipsis developed here also supports the novel claim that empty heads are not obligatorily subject to the ECP. In particular, I argue that the Head Movement Constraint, or HMC, a condition argued to follow from the ECP, does not in fact always hold in grammatical constructions involving head movement. (6)

The Head Movement Constraint An X-0 can move only to a governing head position.

I base this claim on evidence from the interaction of VP Ellipsis, Auxiliary Reduction (AR), and the Generalized GTC in sentences such as those in (7). (7)

a. John is leaving and Mary's leaving too. b. *John is leaving and Mary's [e] too.

In (7b), V raises to Tense and AGR, and AGR subsequently adjoins to the subject DP. From this position AGR fails to properly head-govern its trace. AGR also fails to properly head-govern and identify empty VP through the Generalized GTC. The grammaticality of AR in (7a), on the other hand, suggests that the trace of AGR need not be properly head-governed, and that this requirement must be satisfied only in order for empty VP to be licensed. Finally, the analysis proposed here supports the claim that NEG is an X-0

VPE in English, French, and German

143

head in English which heads NEGP. For example, observe that the ungrammatical (7b) is grammatical when not is present. (8) John is leaving but Mary's not [e]. In (8), AGR again fails to properly head-govern both its trace and empty VP. NEG, however, intervenes to properly head-govern and identify empty VP. That NEC licenses empty VP suggests that NEG is an X-0, and thus a member of the set of proper head-governors.

5.1 Verb Raising and Feature Checking in English As we saw above, auxiliary, but not main verbs, can introduce empty VP in English. To determine why this is the case, we must first investigate other syntactic differences between main and auxiliary verbs, and the internal structure of tensed clauses. Auxiliary verbs differ from main verbs in various well-known ways. For example, only auxiliaries undergo Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI), and occur to the left of, and can contract with, negative not. (9)

(10)

a. b. c. d. a. b. c. d.

Did John leave? Is John leaving? Will John leave? Has John left? John did not/didn't leave. John is not/isn't leaving. Mary will not/won't leave. Mary has not/hasn't left.

Main verbs, on the other hand, do not undergo SAI, and occur to the right of not. (11)

a. *LeftJohn? b. *John left not/John did not leave.

In early generative analyses, the syntactic differences between main and auxiliary verbs are explained by proposing that main verbs head VP, and auxiliaries occur in AUX, or more currently, INFL, the head of IP. (For discussions of AUX see Chomsky, 1957, 1965; Emonds, 1976, Akmajian, Steele, and Wasow, 1979.) It has also recently been argued that 'INFL' is separable into two distinct functional categories, AGR, and Tense. For Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991), for example, IP is analyzed as TP, the projection of Tense. Tense takes the complement AGRP, and VP is the complement of AGR.

144

ELLIPSIS

Both Rizzi (1990) and Chomsky (1992), on the other hand, claim that IP is best analyzed as AGRP, with TP as the complement of AGR, and VP as the complement of Tense.1 It has also recently been argued that not in English is the (functional) head of NEGP (Pollock, 1989, Zanuttini, 1990, and Laka, 1990, Chomsky, 1991, 1992). Assuming that NEGP is the complement of AGR, the S-structure of a tensed clause under these assumptions is schematically (13).

Tense dominates the feature [±Past] in tensed clauses, and AGR is specified for the selection of Person, Number, and Gender features the particular language allows. In what follows I will adopt (13) over (12) as the structure of tensed clauses, as it ultimately best characterizes certain generalizations about ellipsis which I discuss below. Both Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991, 1992) argue that modals and pleonastic do are base-generated in Tense, where they realize the feature [±Past].2 In Chomsky's (1992) analysis, V, AGR, and Tense are generated with their full inflectional feature specifications. At some point during the derivation, main verbs, have and be must raise to Tense and then on to AGR, where the features of V are 'checked' against those of AGR and Tense.3 Modals and do in Tense must also raise to AGR for feature checking. Checking must occur for a derivation to 'converge.' If checking fails, the derivation 'crashes.' Feature checking can occur at any level, and triggers Verb Raising. In order to

VPE in English, French, and German

145

account for various differences between the English and French verbal systems, which I discuss in more detail below, Chomsky proposes that auxiliary elements in English must raise prior to LF, as they are 'semantically vacuous,' and invisible to LF operations. English main verbs, on the other hand, raise at LF, constrained by 'procrastinate,' a principle which blocks movement until necessary. This approach explains the differences between English main and auxiliary verbs discussed above; auxiliary elements, raised either from V or Tense to AGR, occur to the left of NEG, and can undergo further overt head-to-head movement to COMP, triggered by SAL Main verbs, on the other hand, do not raise overtly to Tense, and consequently at what I will assume to be S-structure, occur to the right of NEG and cannot front to COMP.4 Adopting Chomsky's basic framework, consider the (non-negative) tensed AGRP in (14), in which the matrix VP is generated empty (leaving aside features of AGR, and assuming that movement of Tense entails movement of the feature [±Past]). Raising of a modal or do in Tense to AGR leaves a trace.5

Chomsky (1991, 1992) argues that head-to-head movement involves adjunction rather than substitution, and that adjunction of a head X to another head Y does not block X from antecedent-governing its trace. Under this approach, Tense actually adjoins to AGR in (14), and antecedent-governs its trace. I assume that adjunction of Tense to AGR leaves AGR coindexed with empty Tense, and that providing no barriers intervene, AGR properly head-governs empty Tense. Assuming with Rizzi (1990) that barriers are defined in terms of selection, TP, selected by AGR, is not a barrier. AGR therefore properly head governs empty Tense in (14). Within this framework, the grammaticality of verb phrase ellipsis in (15) follows straightforwardly from independently motivated principles. (15)

a. John didn't leave but Mary did [e]. b. Mary should leave and John should [e] too.

In these sentences, Tense dominates the trace of a modal or do raised to AGR as in (14). Empty VP is properly head-governed by AGR, under the Generalized

146

ELLIPSIS

GTC in (16) (indeed, under Baker's 1988 original formulation of this principle, discussed in Chapter Three). (16)

The Generalized Government Transparency Corollary An X-0 which is coindexed with and governs an empty head governs everything that head would govern.

AGR is coindexed with empty Tense through movement, and under (16) governs and properly head-governs the empty complement of Tense, VP. Furthermore, when Tense raises to AGR, AGR is specified for the feature [±Past], a feature which I analyzed in Chapter Two to be an agreement feature, as it is realized either by an element in INFL or by V. In current terms, [±Past] is an agreement feature which must be 'checked' through Verb Raising. Therefore, when [±Past] is realized by an auxiliary element in AGR, AGR is specified for strong agreement, and coindexed with empty Tense. AGR licenses and identifies empty VP under the Generalized GTC in (16).6 Next consider the grammatical sentences in (17), in which auxiliary have or be introduces empty VP. (17)

a.

Mary is leaving and John is [e] too.

b.

Mary hasn't left but John has [e].

VP

VP

In this case, Verb Raising derives the S-structure in (18). (I designate Tense as [±Past] regardless of actual tense, for exposition.)

In (18), the matrix VP is not generated empty; rather, it is empty through a combination of Verb Raising and base-generation of an empty VP complement

VPE in English, French, and German

147

of have or be. The matrix VP is in this case what I will refer to as a 'derived' empty category. The empty category in sentences such as those in (19) can also be argued to be a 'derived' empty matrix VP. (I assume that indefinite predicate nominals as in (19b) are NUMP, consistent with the analysis of noun phrases in Chapter Three.) (19)

a.

John is tall and Mary is [e] too. AP

b. John isn't a very good tennis player, but Mary is [e].

NUMP

In (20), the AP/NUMP complement of be is generated empty, and with Verb Raising, the matrix VP is again a 'derived' empty category at S-structure, licensed and identified under the Generalized GTC by AGR. The sentences in (17) and (19) thus are both analyzed as involving (matrix) VP Ellipsis. We are now in a position to explain the failure of ellipsis (21), in which the predicate NUMP or AP complement of a main verb is empty. (21)

a. *John appeared tired and Mary seemed [e] too. AP

(cf: John is tired and Mary is [e] too.) AP

b. *John and Mary got to be friends, but they didn't remain [e] , NUMP very long. (cf: John and Mary got to be friends, and they still are [e].) NUMP

The schematic S-structure of such constructions, in which the verb has not yet raised, is (22):

148

ELLIPSIS

We rule out ellipsis in (21) if the main verb, specified for the feature [±Past], a feature which must be checked against features of Tense, fails to identify empty XP. This seems intuitively correct, as the feature [±Past] contributes to the grammatical, but not actual semantic content of VP, but is perhaps not expected to identify a predicate of some other category, such as AP or NUMP.7 We must refine this analysis, however, if we are to account for the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (23). (23)

a. *Because Mary continued [e], John also started speaking French. b. *First fire began pouring out of the building, and then smoke began [e]. VP

c. * Although we came to see [e], we couldn't watch Mary , VP dance. d. * Although we saw John dance, we couldn't watch Mary [e]. VP

e. *Even though she should make John [e], Mary never tells him VP

to clean his room. In (23), the main verb is again presumably specified as [±Past]. The ungrammaticality of VP Ellipsis in such cases suggests that this feature fails to identify embedded VP. (See Chapter Two for discussion of the phrase structure of these sentences.) This is surprising, given the above evidence that [±Past] identifies VP, but not some other category. Consider, however, (24), which is the schematic LF of sentences such as those in (23), after Verb Raising of the main verb.

VPE in English, French, and German

149

In (24), the matrix VP is empty. If we assume that a feature can identify only one empty category during a derivation, the feature [±Past] of V identifies empty embedded VP at S-structure, prior to Verb Raising. [±Past] is thus blocked from also identifying the matrix VP at LF, after Verb Raising. The restriction that a feature identify only a single empty category seems justified, on the ground that (24) does not contain two tensed VPs. We thus rule out VP Ellipsis in (23) through the interaction of identification with Verb Raising. Finally, consider the sentences in (25), in which the VP complement of a nonfinite auxiliary verb can be empty, with a grammatical result.8 (25)

a. Mary might have been writing, and John might have been [e] too. VP

b. Mary might have written and John might have [e] too. VP

The phrase structure of ellipsis in (25) is schematically (26):

In (26), a modal in Tense has raised to AGR, and VP is headed by a non-finite

150

ELLIPSIS

auxiliary. Non-finite auxiliaries are presumably not specified for the feature [±Past], and under the current analysis should not identify empty VP. That ellipsis in (25) is grammatical is thus so far unaccounted for. As we have seen, tensed have and be in English differ from main verbs in undergoing Verb Raising prior to LF. Suppose that this is also the case with nonfinite auxiliaries. Raising could in this case plausibly be triggered by checking of aspectual (e.g. perfective and progressive) affixes, and would apply prior to LF only to semantically vacuous (auxiliary) verbs, excluding main verbs. Under this approach, the sentence in (25a), for example, would have the schematic S-structure in (27), specifics of adjunction aside.

In (27), both have and be adjoin to Tense and then to AGR. Assuming, following Chomsky (1991, 1992), that adjunction of one head to another does not block antecedent-government, the heads in adjoined position antecedent-govern their traces, as movement is head to head and crosses no barriers. Thus AGR, coindexed with empty Tense which is coindexed with empty V, heads a 'chain' of properly head-governed traces. AGR properly head-governs empty Tense, and by the Generalized GTC, also properly head-governs empty VP. AGR is also specified for and realizes [±Past], a strong agreement feature, and identifies empty VP. We thus explain the grammaticality of (25) without positing that nonfinite verbs license and identify their VP complements. Rather, in such sentences, the matrix VP is empty through overt Verb Raising, and AGR licenses and identifies empty matrix VP through the Generalized GTC. Summarizing, in this section I have argued here that the distribution of ellipted VPs in tensed clauses in English is explained by the interaction of licensing and identification, the Generalized GTC, and Chomsky's (1992) theory of Verb Raising triggered by feature checking. These interacting principles account for the evidence that VP Ellipsis in tensed clauses must be introduced by an auxiliary verb, and that a wide range of ellipsis constructions in tensed clauses all involve an empty matrix VP.

VPE in English, French, and German

151

5.2 Empty Heads and the ECP: Auxiliary Reduction and Subject Auxiliary Inversion In this section, I show that the analysis of VP Ellipsis proposed above is further supported by evidence from the interaction of ellipsis with Auxiliary Reduction (AR) and Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI). I also argue here that empty heads are not obligatorily subject to the ECP. Consider the following sentences, in which SAI and AR, respectively, have applied. (28) (29)

a. b. a. b. c.

John John John John *John

is is is is is

leaving leaving leaving leaving leaving

but is Mary leaving? but is Mary [e]? and Mary is leaving too. and Mary's leaving too. and Mary's [e] too.

In (28), SAI adjoins AGR (filled with either a raised modal, do, have or be), to (empty) COMP, deriving the S-structure in (30). The matrix VP is in this case a derived empty category.

In (29), on the other hand, AGR adjoins to the subject DP, (and undergoes what I assume is phonological reduction at PF).9 This gives rise to (31), and again to a chain of traces created by movement.

152

ELLIPSIS

Comparing (30) to (31), we must question why empty VP is licit in the former, but not the latter, particularly given that in each case AGR appears to be in a coindexed chain with empty Tense. Under the Generalized GTC, we expect AGR to license and identify the empty matrix VP. It is possible to argue that AGR properly head governs empty VP after SAI, but not after AR. In (30), movement of V to Tense to AGR and on to COMP creates a coindexed chain of empty heads. After adjunction of AGR to COMP, COMP is coindexed with both empty AGR and empty Tense through movement. Under the Generalized GTC, COMP governs empty AGR, and all that AGR governs, including empty Tense. COMP also properly head-governs empty Tense, as no barriers between COMP and Tense intervene, and COMP and Tense are both dominated by the immediate projection dominating COMP, C'. COMP consequently properly head-governs the VP complement of Tense, through the Generalized GTC. Under the Generalized GTC, a head is thus able to properly head-govern the complement of a lower head through a coindexed chain of properly governed X-Os. Also, after adjunction of AGR to COMP, COMP lexically realizes the feature [±Past], and identifies the empty VP complement of Tense under government. In (31), on the other hand, AGR adjoins to DP. This adjunction operation crucially differs from adjunction of the verbal complex to COMP, as it involves adjunction of X-0 to XP. Adjunction in this case violates of the Head Movement Constraint in (32), originally formulated by Travis (1984). (32)

The Head Movement Constraint (HMC) An X-0 can move only into a governing head position.

Chomsky (1986b) proposes that the HMC follows from the ECP, as it is only under the conditions in (32) that the trace of a moved head will be antecedentgoverned. This view is consistent with Chomsky's (1991, 1992) approach to adjunction assumed here, in which adjunction of X-0 to Y-0 does not block X-0

VPE in English, French, and German

153

from antecedent-governing its trace. However, given the HMC, if X-0 adjoins to YP, X-0 will fail to antecedent-govern its trace. Therefore, in (31), AGR adjoined to DP fails to antecedent-govern its trace, and thus also fails to be in a coindexed chain with empty Tense. AGR does not properly head-govern empty VP under the Generalized GTC, and empty VP is neither licensed nor identified. Notice, however, that AR in (29b) is acceptable when VP is non-empty. This suggests that the empty heads in (31) do not violate the ECP. Rather, it appears that the empty heads AGR and Tense need to be properly head-governed only if VP is empty, as it is only under these conditions that VP is licensed under the Generalized GTC. We thus explain the wellformedness of (29b), and at the same time preserve the spirit of the HMC, by proposing that empty heads need not necessarily be properly governed. However, it is only when this is the case that a head can properly govern the complement of an empty head under the Generalized GTC. It follows that the HMC must be maintained only in cases in which the complement of an empty head must satisfy the ECP. In this way, we explain the ungrammaticality of AR constructions in which VP is empty, and the corresponding grammaticality of AR when VP is filled. This approach also accounts for the grammaticality of sentences in which SAI has applied, and VP is empty.10 One possible objection to the above analysis is that by not requiring heads to be subject to the ECP, head movement will be unconstrained. Observe, however, that in the typical cases of head-to-head movement, movement is restricted by principles independent of the ECP. (See Lema and Rivero, 1989, for evidence that the HMC is not derived from the ECP.) For example, consider Verb Raising. We have seen that Verb Raising involves head-to-head movement, which follows if Verb Raising is triggered by feature checking. If V raises to a position other than to Tense and then AGR, for example, checking will be blocked, and the derivation will 'crash.' We thus derive, without invoking the ECP, the result that Verb Raising as described above must be head-to-head.11 Chomsky (1991) argues, in fact, that the trace of AGR can delete under certain conditions at LF, as it is no longer necessary. We capture this same generalization here, without positing deletion, by proposing that empty heads are not obligatorily subject to the ECP.12 Another case of head movement to consider is Verb Second in Germanic languages, another type of Verb Raising. It has been argued that Verb Second in main clauses is motivated by Case Theory; the head of head-final VP must move to a governing head position, argued to be COMP, from which it can govern and case-mark the subject. (Movement is argued by some to be to INFL rather than COMP, a distinction which is immaterial to us here. See Koopman, 1984, and Travis, 1984.)13

154

(33)

ELLIPSIS

Die Frau hat [das Buch gelesen t] VP

the woman has the book read 'The woman has read the book.' As with Verb Raising discussed above, there are independent principles, namely principles of Case Theory, which trigger head-to-head movement in 'V-2' languages. Finally, reconsider SAL Tense must move to AGR for feature checking, barring, for example, movement of Tense to COMP over AGR. Movement of [AGR+Tense] to COMP can be argued to be triggered by lexicalization of a question operator in COMP, and/or by a constraint that requires an auxiliary verb in COMP to bind a variable in Tense, as suggested by Chomsky (1992). That the chain COMP-AGR-Tense (and possibly also V) is wellformed with respect to the ECP is thus possibly derived through principles of operator-variable binding. Alternatively, head-to-head movement of Tense to AGR to COMP might be motivated by feature checking and the lexicalization of a question operator rather than by the ECP.

5.3 NEG as a Licensing and Identifying Head As mentioned in 5.1, it has recently been argued that not in English is the (functional) head of NEGP. The argument that not is a specifier rather than a head has also been advanced (Rizzi, 1990, Baker, 1991, Ernst, 1991, Baltin, 1993). In this section I show that evidence from ellipsis in negative, tensed clauses supports the analysis of not as a head, NEG, as it can be argued to license and identify empty VP under the Generalized GTC. As we saw above, in tensed clauses in English, not occurs to the right of the first auxiliary, either a modal, auxiliary have or be, or pleonastic do. Not can also typically contract with the auxiliary element to its left. (34)

a. b. c. d.

Mary Mary Mary Mary

will not/won't leave. is not/isn't leaving. did not/didn't leave. has not/hasn't left.

Ellipsis of VP in negative tensed sentences is grammatical when empty VP is preceded by either contracted or uncontracted not. (35)

a.

Mary will leave but John will not/won't [e].

b. John is leaving but Mary is not/isn't [e]. VP

VP

VPE in English, French, and German c.

John left but Mary did not/didn't [e].

d.

John has left but Mary has not/hasn't [e].

155

vp

VP

The grammaticality of empty VP in the above sentences is at first surprising, if we assume that it is AGR, filled with a raised auxiliary element as illustrated schematically in (36), which licenses and identifies empty VP.

In (36), Tense, filled with either a modal, do, have, or be, moves to AGR over not, a movement which is presumably blocked by the Minimality Condition; not blocks proper head-government of Tense by AGR. Empty Tense violates the ECP, and empty VP is consequently not properly head-governed by AGR through the Generalized GTC.14 In the previous section, however, I argued that empty heads are not necessarily subject to the ECP. Empty Tense in (36) is thus licit. However, because empty Tense is not properly head-governed by AGR, AGR still fails to properly head-govern empty VP through the Generalized GTC. It thus remains to explain why ellipsis in (35) is grammatical. A possible analysis of the sentences in (35) is that not selects TP, and therefore properly head-governs both TP and its head, Tense. Not is also coindexed with Tense through complement selection. Therefore, under the Generalized GTC, not properly head-governs the empty VP complement of empty Tense in (36). Now consider cases in which VP is empty, and not contracts with a preceding auxiliary. NEG Contraction is schematically illustrated in (37), in which not adjoins to AGR. (As with AR, I assume that phonological reduction of not occurs at PF.)

156

ELLIPSIS

In (37), not properly head-governs its trace under the Generalized GTC, as adjunction of a head to a head does not block government. Not is also in a coindexed chain with empty Tense, a head it governs under the Generalized GTC, as no barriers between not and Tense intervene. Not thus properly headgoverns empty VP. Alternatively, we might assume that when not adjoins to AGR, AGR, coindexed with empty NEG as a result of adjunction, antecedentgoverns the trace of not. Because NEG is also coindexed with empty Tense, AGR also properly head-governs empty Tense through a coindexed chain of empty heads. AGR thus also properly head-governs empty VP under the Generalized GTC. Either of these analyses explains why VP Ellipsis is compatible with both SAI and NEG Contraction, both of which involve adjunction of the proper head governor of empty VP to a higher head. It also explains the incompatibility of empty VP with AR, as AR adjoins AGR, the proper head-governor of empty VP, to an XP. Adjunction in this case blocks AGR from properly headgoverning empty VP. The analysis is further supported by evidence that not 'saves' empty VP from ungrammatically in sentences in which AR has occurred. (38)

a. John is leaving and Mary's leaving too. b. *John is leaving and Mary's [e] too. VP

c. John is leaving but Mary's not [e]. VP

The contrasts in (38) illustrate that, as the above analysis predicts, AR blocks AGR from properly head-governing empty VP. When not is present, however, not properly head-governs empty VP. Recall that functional categories must be specified for agreement features in order to be proper head-governors. They must also be specified for strong agree-

VPE in English, French, and German

\ 57

ment to identify an ellipted category. The above evidence suggests that when present, uncontracted not, rather than AGR, both licenses and identifies empty VP. Therefore, not must lexically realize strong agreement, or be coindexed with an X-0 or XP which does. There is reason to believe that NEG filled with not is specified for SPEC-head agreement, and that it is therefore also specified for strong agreement in the sense relevant to identify empty VP. Rizzi (1990: pp. 15-19) argues that not creates certain opacity effects. For example, he points out that WH-movement of adverbial as in (39a), but not of argument which in (39b), is blocked by negation, suggesting that negation in some way creates a barrier to A' movement. (39)

a. *Bill is here, as they (*don't) know. b. Bill is here, which they (don't) know.

Similarly, in (40) the clefted adverbial can be construed with either the main or embedded clause. (40)

It is for this reason that I believe that John was fired.

In (41), on the other hand, the adverbial is unambiguously construed with the lower clause: (41)

It is for this reason that I don't believe that John was fired.

Rizzi argues that not must therefore be an A' specifier, an operator which blocks movement of another operator under Relativized Minimality. He also maintains, in support of his claim that not is a specifier, that analyzing not as a head fails to explain why auxiliary verbs can move over it, as the HMC should be violated in such cases.15 As we have seen, in the present framework auxiliary verbs can move over not without violating the ECP, as empty heads are not obligatorily subject to this principle. We also explain the data in (39-41) by analyzing not as a head in a SPEC-head agreement relation with an (empty) A' operator in SPEC(NEG). Movement of an operator over not thus entails movement over an A' specifier, creating the opacity effects in (39-41). Analyzing not as coindexed with an operator in SPEC position also allows for an independently motivated means of analyzing not as specified for strong agreement. Not is specified for SPEC-head agreement, and assuming that it lexically realizes this feature, it is also specified for strong agreement. As a result, not both licenses and identifies empty VP. This is consistent with conditions on identification of ellipsis in other categories. Recall that agreement features serve only to make such empty categories 'visible' to reconstruction. Crucially, the identifying head does not provide the semantic content of an ellipsis,

158

ELLIPSIS

but it must in some way be associated with the ellipted category. NEG is clearly associated with VP, whether in constituent or sentential negation contexts, and is thus an appropriate identifying head for VP. Evidence from the distribution of empty VP in tensed negative sentences thus supports the idea that not is a head coindexed through agreement with its specifier, and that not properly head-governs and identifies empty VP. Evidence presented in this section also supports the claim that empty heads are not obligatorily subject to the ECP, as movement of Tense to AGR over NEG is licit.

5.4 VP Ellipsis in French and German In this section I extend the above analysis of VP Ellipsis in tensed clauses to French and German. The unproductivity of verb phrase ellipsis in these languages is shown to follow from the interaction of licensing and identification with the level at which features of Tense, AGR, and V are checked. As the following examples show, the VP complements of auxiliary verbs and modals in French and German cannot be empty. (42)

a. *Claudine est une bonne etudiante, et Marie est [e] aussi. VP

Claudine is a good student, and Mary is [e] too. VP

b. *On a demande si ils ont deja mange, et ils ont [e]. VP

We asked if they had already eaten, and they had [e]. VP

c. *On peut demande si ils ont deja mange, et on doit [e]. VP

One can ask if they have already eaten, and one should [e]. (43)

a. *Hans wird heimfahren und Maria wird [e] auch.

VP

VP

Hans will drive home, and Maria will [e] too. VP

b. *Hans hat geschlafen und Peter hat [e] auch. VP

Hans has slept and Peter has [e] too. VP

c. *Maria ist ins Kino gegangen und Peter ist [e] auch. VP

Maria is to the theater gone and Peter is [e] too. VP

'Maria has gone to the movies and Peter has too.' The ungrammaticality of (42-43) is at first surprising, as we might expect modals and the auxiliary verb equivalents of have and be to license and identify empty VP. French and German differ from English, however, in a crucial way. The former two languages have overt Verb Raising of both auxiliary and main verbs, while in English, only auxiliary verbs raise overtly.

VPE in English, French, and German

159

To illustrate, consider the French sentences in (44-45), analyzed by Kayne (1975) and Emonds (1978), and more recently by Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1991, 1992). (In the following I leave aside modals and auxiliary etre for exposition.) (44)

(45)

a. Jean ne mange pas. John NEG eats not. 'John doesn't eat.' b. *Jean ne pas mange. John NEG not eats. 'John doesn't eat.' c. Mange-t-il? Eats he? 'Does he eat?' a. Jean a mange. 'John has eaten.' b. Jean n'a pas mange. John NEG-has not eaten. 'John has not eaten.' c. A-t-il mange? 'Has he eaten?'

Assuming that the negative morpheme pas, like English not, heads NEGP, (44a-b) and (45a-b) suggest that both main and auxiliary verbs raise from V to Tense and AGR in French. (44c) and (45c) illustrate that both main and auxiliary verbs undergo SAI into COMP. French thus differs from English in having overt Verb Raising of both main and auxiliary verbs, while English has overt raising only of auxiliary verbs, as we see in the contrasts in (9-11). A possible S-structure in French is thus (46), where an auxiliary or main verb has raised to Tense and AGR.

160

ELLIPSIS

Although German and French differ in many ways, German can also be argued to have overt Verb Raising of both main and auxiliary verbs. Confining the discussion to tensed clauses, main and auxiliary verbs head verb-final VP, and overtly raise to a head position, deriving 'Verb Second' order illustrated in (47).16 (47)

a.

Maria liest das Buch. Maria read the book. 'Maria reads the book.' b. Maria hat das Buch gelesen. Maria has the book read. 'Maria has read the book.' c. Maria ist nach Hause gegangen. Maria is to home gone. 'Maria has gone home.' d. Maria kann nach Hause gehen. Maria can to home go. 'Maria can go home.'

Both main and auxiliary verbs can also be fronted in yes/no questions. (48)

a. Liest Maria das Buch? Read Maria the book? 'Does Maria read the book?' b. Hat Maria das Buch gelesen? Has Maria the book read? 'Has Maria read the book?' c. Ist Maria nach Hause gegangen? Is Maria to home gone? 'Has Maria gone home?' d. Kann Maria nach Hause gehen? Can Maria to home go? Can Maria go home?'

Travis (1984) argues that Verb Raising in German is to medial INFL, or in current terms medial Tense and AGR. Verb Raising therefore derives the S-structure in (49).

VPE in English, French, and German

161

Others argue that Verb Raising in German is from V to S-final INFL to COMP. The subject occurs in TOPIC position. Verb Second under this approach has the schematic representation in (50), under present assumptions.

We expect empty VP in (46), (49), and (50) to be licensed and identified by filled AGR or COMP, through a chain of coindexed heads under the Generalized GTC. In all these S-structures, the matrix VP is a 'derived' empty category, and either AGR or COMP is coindexed with and governs empty Tense through a wellformed chain. Either AGR or COMP therefore also governs, and properly head-governs, empty VP, the complement of Tense.17 We explain the failure of VP Ellipsis in French and German by exploiting the differences between these languages and English with respect to feature checking. Pursuing Pollock's (1989) original idea, Chomsky (1992) argues that French is a language with 'strong' agreement, and that English has 'weak'

162

ELLIPSIS

agreement. ('Strong' agreement in Chomsky's terms bears no relation to 'strong agreement' for identification of ellipted categories.)18 'Strong' agreement must be checked prior to PF, as strong features are 'visible' at that level, and if unchecked, cause the derivation to 'crash.' Weak agreement features, on the other hand, must be checked at some level, but are 'invisible' to PF, and thus do not cause the derivation to crash if checking occurs as late as LF. French, and by extension German, are thus languages with 'strong' agreement in Chomsky's sense, and have overt Verb Raising of both main and auxiliary verbs. English, on the other hand, is a language with 'weak' agreement and has overt raising of auxiliary verbs, with main verbs raising at LF. Assuming that feature checking of 'invisible' features is at either PF or LF, suppose that only unchecked features can identify empty VP at S-Structure. French and German are languages in which features are checked prior to or at S-structure, the level at which licensing and identification conditions on ellipted categories must be met. The feature [±Past] is unavailable to identify empty VP, and ellipsis is ruled out. In English, on the other hand, features are not checked at S-structure, and f±Past], lexically realized by a raised auxiliary verb, modal or do, is available to identify empty VP at that level. Features are subsequently checked at PF or at LF, in case of main verb raising. We thus explain the failure of VP Ellipsis in French and German, and at the same time preserve the basic tenets of Chomsky's analysis of Verb Raising and feature checking.19

Notes 1. Chomsky (1991, 1992) also suggests that Tense can govern an AGRP complement. In his approach clauses therefore actually contain two AGR positions, AGRS(ubject) and AGR-O(bject). 2. Both Pollock (1989) and Emonds (1985, Ch. 5) argue that modals realize Tense but not AGR. In Chomsky's account, both AGR and Tense are specified as [±Past], and modals must presumably raise to AGR for feature checking. 3. For earlier discussion of (different variants) of Have/Be Raising, see Chomsky (1957), (1965), Emonds (1976, 1985), Jackendoff (1977), Iwakura (1977), Akmajian, Steele, and Wasow (1979), Akmajian and Wasow (1975), and Lasnik (1981). 4. Chomsky (1992) presents arguments that S-structure as previously defined may not exist. I continue to use the term S-structure for a syntactic level which is the input to both LF and PF. 5. Given (14), one might argue that it is TP, rather than VP, which is actually the empty category in 'VP' Ellipsis contexts. We might expect TP to have to be properly governed and identified, presumably by AGR. One reason to reject this idea is that, as I show in Chapter Six, Tense, a head which does not raise to AGR in infinitives, identifies an empty matrix VP. If we assume TP is the empty category in tensed clauses, we

VPE in English, French, and German

163

would then be forced to conclude that 'VP Ellipsis' involves empty TP in tensed clauses, and empty VP in infinitives. 6. One might argue that [-Past] is not a potential strong agreement feature, given the analysis of [-Plural] in Chapter Three. Because [-Plural] is not lexically realized on N, it differs from [+Plural] in not being 'strong.' [-Past] differs from [-Plural], however, in being differentiated from not only its positive counterpart [+Past], but also from [+Future] in English sentences such as 'John will go home.' The specification [-Past] may therefore not be the unmarked case, as [-Plural] might be. 7. Both Williams (1984) and Baltin (1991) propose that predicates of categories other than VP (namely NP and AP) can be empty, and that sentences such as those in (19) involve a type of 'predicate' rather than 'VP' ellipsis. 8. There are parallelism constraints on ellipsis of complements of non-finite auxiliaries which I will not discuss here. For example, as pointed out in Lobeck (1987a) and Zagona (1988a, 1988b), (i-ii) are ungrammatical. (i) *Mary might have been writing and John might [e] too. (ii) *Mary might have been writing and John might have [e] too. It is plausible that these are ruled out by some constraint on reconstruction. 9. See Zagona (1982, 1988), Kaisse (1983, 1985), Whitney (1984), and Lobeck (1987a) for arguments that AR is a syntactic rule involving adjunction, (c.f. Selkirk, 1984:Ch. 7, who argues that AR involves rhythmic restructuring at a post-syntactic level.) 10. The idea that empty heads are not obligatorily subject to the ECP is first proposed by Whitney (1984), and discussed in Lobeck (1987a, 1987b) as the separate constraint in (i). (i)

The Empty Head Condition An empty head must be properly governed only if it must properly govern another empty category.

11. It might also be that Pollock's (1989) analysis, in which Tense must bind a variable, head-to-head movement of AGR to Tense, and of V to AGR to Tense is required for the operator-variable chain to be wellformed at LF 12. Chomsky (1991) proposes that the trace of raised AGR can delete when movement of AGR to Tense is over NEG to form [do+Tense+AGR], deriving the wellformed (i). (i)

John didn't write books.

In his account, 'deletion' of the trace of AGR means that empty AGR is still maintained as a position, but has no content. It is thus not subject to the ECP (more specifically, the HMC), at LF. 13. For other discussions of Verb Second, see Koster (1975), Thiersh (1978), Evers (1981), den Besten (1983), Haider and Prinzhorn (1986), Schwarz and Vikner (1989), among others. Verb Second in German is discussed again briefly in 5.4. 14. I assume here that NEGP itself is not a barrier, as it is selected by AGR.

164

ELLIPSIS

15. Another reason for Rizzi's proposal that not is an operator rather than a head is that movement of main verbs over not is blocked. (i) *John left not. He suggests that tensed verbs at LF are operators which must undergo LF raising. Movement over not, another A' operator, is blocked by Relativized Minimality. The ungrammaticality of (i) follows naturally in the present analysis if, following Chomsky (1992), main verbs in English raise at LF. At PF, no main verb will ever precede not, blocking (i). 16. As is well-known, word order in German subordinate clauses is SOV, as illustrated in (i). (i)

Ich glaube. dass die Frau das Buch gelesen hat. I believe that the woman the book read has. 'I believe that the woman has read the book.'

'Verb Second' order is derived in main clauses when the inflected verb moves from final position to a COMP/INFL position, as discussed below. For references, see Note 13. 17. Of course, if the matrix VP is generated empty, we block VP Ellipsis, as there would be no main verb to raise to Tense and AGR. The analysis under discussion here applies only to cases in which VP is a derived empty category through Verb Raising of a main or auxiliary verb. 18. For Pollock (1989), Tense is an operator which must bind a temporal variable in VP, triggering Verb Raising. (See Note 11.) AGR in French is 'strong,' or 'transparent' to theta-role assignment, while AGR in English is 'weak,' or 'opaque' to it. A verb that amalgamates with AGR in French is therefore able to assign a theta-role to its complement through a chain. In English, 'opaque' AGR blocks theta-role assignment, restricting Verb Raising to auxiliary verbs which are not theta-assigners. 19. Another possible analysis is that feature checking of all English verbs is at LF. Auxiliary verbs would still raise prior to LF, the only level at which they are 'visible' to raising. Main verbs would raise at LF, where features would be checked. Features which 'survived' to PF would be invisible, and would not cause derivations to crash. This might be viewed as an example of Chomsky's (1992) principle "Procrastinate," under which feature checking in a language such as English happens as late in the derivation as possible.

6 VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

6.0 Introduction As Zwicky (1981) is first to point out, VP Ellipsis in English infinitives is not always allowed. For example, consider the following contrasts: (1)

a.

Even though he doesn't like to [e], Ron jogs every day.

(2)

b. *Even though he could jog to [e], Ron doesn't do anything VP to stay in shape. a. You shouldn't play with rifles because its dangerous to [e].

VP

VP

b. *You shouldn't play with rifles because to [e] is dangerous. VP

These contrasts are surprising in the context of the theory of verb phrase ellipsis developed in the previous chapter, where we have seen that empty VP in tensed clauses is licensed by a lexically filled head at S-structure, and identified by the strong agreement feature [±Past]. In English infinitives, Tense can be argued to be lexically filled with the preposition to, and to therefore license empty VP. Tense in infinitives, however, presumably lacks the feature [±Past]. It is therefore unclear why empty VP in the grammatical cases in (1-2) is not ruled out, as it should in such cases not be identified. In this chapter I demonstrate that a wide set of contrasts involving ellipsis in English infinitives, including but not limited to those in (1-2), are explained by proposing that empty VPs in infinitives are licensed and identified under somewhat different conditions than those which hold of tensed VPs. These conditions nevertheless follow from the Generalized GTC when we extend Baker's (1988) account of 'incorporation without incorporation' to infinitival to. Under this 165

166

ELLIPSIS

approach, to is coindexed with a higher V under certain conditions, and through the Generalized GTC, V licenses the empty VP complement of to, deriving the correct distribution of empty VPs in English infinitives.

6.1 The Structural Position of Infinitives The above patterns illustrate that VP Ellipsis in infinitives is grammatical in infinitival complements as in (la), and in 'extraposed' infinitives as in (2a). Ellipsis is apparently ruled out in infinitival subjects as in (2b), and in 'rationale' clauses with an 'in order to' interpretation, as illustrated in (Ib). Based on various structural tests, it is possible to argue that the following descriptive generalization holds: (3)

VP Ellipsis in infinitives in English is grammatical only if the infinitive is properly head-governed by V.

First, observe that infinitival complements, extraposed infinitives, and rationale clauses can all be included in the constituent that undergoes verb phrase ellipsis. (4)

a.

Bill would like to get in shape and Mary would [e] too. VP

b. John thinks it is smart to get in shape, and it is [e]. VP

c.

Bill would run five miles a day to get in shape, and Mary would [e] too. VP

If we assume, as is plausible, that ellipsis operates only on constituents, then the above evidence suggests that the infinitives in question are dominated by some projection of V. There also exists evidence, however, that rationale clauses are dominated by a projection of V outside that which dominates both complements and extraposed infinitives. For example, only a rationale clause can also occur outside an ellipted verbal projection. This is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (5), where an infinitival complement remains outside the ellipted projection. (5) *Mary would like to get in shape and she also would [e] to lose weight. (6) is also ungrammatical, where an extraposed infinitive occurs outside the ellipted verbal projection. (6) *John thinks its smart to get in shape, and it is [e] to stay fit.

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

167

(7), on the other hand, is grammatical, where a rationale clause remains outside the ellipted category.1 (7)

Bill would run five miles a day to lose weight, but Mary would [e] just to get in shape.

Another property which distinguishes rationale clauses from extraposed infinitives and infinitival complements is that only the former can prepose (see Faraci, 1974). (8)

a. *To get in shape, Mary wanted. b. *To get in shape, it's smart. c. To lose weight, Bill runs five miles a day.

Again, we have evidence that rationale clauses are distinct from extraposed infinitives and infinitival complements.2 Assuming that verb phrase ellipsis operates on projections of V, minimally V, it is possible to argue, based on the above evidence, that both infinitival complements and extraposed infinitives are immediately dominated by V, and thus must be included in the ellipted verbal projection. Rationale clauses, on the other hand, are dominated by a higher projection of V, for example VP. Ellipsis operating on V or VP generates the grammatical (4) and (7), and excludes (5) and (6). Although it is perhaps uncontroversial that infinitival complements are dominated by V, the assumption that extraposed infinitives are also dominated by this projection raises certain questions about the nature of extraposition. Given Rosenbaum's (1967) original analysis of this operation, extraposed infinitives originate in the subject position and move to adjoin to a position to the right of V. If we assume adjunction is only to maximal projections, we might expect adjunction to be to VP (or perhaps IP), but not to V. Suppose, however, that 'extraposed' infinitives are in fact base-generated as complements of V. This is plausible on the ground that these infinitives are theta-marked by and part of the argument structure of V and can alternate with a pleonastic subject without violating the Theta Criterion (Chomsky, 1981). Binding facts also support this idea. As (9) illustrates, a pronoun in the matrix VP cannot be bound by an r-expression in either an infinitival complement or an extraposed infinitive. That is, him cannot be bound by Fred (thanks to Mark Baltin for useful discussion on this point). (9)

a. John wants him to convince Fred to buy the car. b. It bothered him to convince Fred to buy the car.

168

ELLIPSIS

In (10), however, him can be bound by Fred in a rationale clause: (10)

John called him to convince Fred to buy the car.

According to principles of Binding Theory in (11), a pronoun must be free in its governing category. (11)

Binding Theory A. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. B. A pronominal must be free in its governing category. C. An r-expression must be free.

If we take the governing category of him to be VP in all the above cases, we fail to explain why binding is allowed only in (10), as the pronoun is presumably bound in its governing category in all three sentences. If, however, we assume that the governing category for a pronoun is defined in terms of the first branching node dominating it, following Reinhart (1976), we have a possible explanation for the facts. Assuming that both infinitival complements and extraposed infinitives are dominated by V, and rationale clauses by VP, the governing category of him in (9) is V, a projection which also contains Fred. Binding is consequently blocked. Binding is allowed in the rationale clause, however, as the governing category of the pronoun is V, a category which does not also contain the rationale clause containing Fred. Based on the above arguments concerning the structural position of infinitives in V and VP, it is now possible to argue that, as stated in (3), VP Ellipsis in infinitives in English is possible only if the infinitive is properly head-governed by V. Infinitives immediately dominated by V allow ellipsis, as only such infinitives are properly head-governed by V Infinitival subjects and adjuncts, both of which are outside of V, are not properly head governed by V, and ellipsis is ruled out. (3) suggests a subject-adjunct versus object asymmetry similar to that involving WH-Movement first discussed by Huang (1982). Extraction of subjects and adjuncts is more restricted than extraction of objects, an asymmetry attributed to principles of proper government. In general terms, objects are 'lexically' governed by an X-0, but subjects and adjuncts are not, and must be antecedentgoverned. Because barriers can intervene between an antecedent and its trace, but typically not between a lexical head and its complement, movement requiring antecedent-government is more restricted than movement sanctioned by lexical government. Because the sentences in (1-2) reflect a similar asymmetry,

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

169

and given the independent evidence that ellipted categories are subject to the ECP, it is reasonable to assume that (3) derives from the ECP. I argue that this is in fact the case in the following section.3

6.2 Infinitival to and Incorporation Consider the phrase structure of an infinitive with a non-lexical (PRO) subject in (12).

Rizzi (1990) assumes that Tense is present in infinitives, and is a head governor specified for features. He bases this conclusion on the claim that infinitives must show some kind of tense interpretation, an idea supported in work by Bresnan (1972), Stowell (1982), and Motapanyane (1988). Rizzi also assumes the presence of AGR in infinitives, proposing that in such clauses AGR lacks features, and is thus in contrast to Tense, 'inert' for government. PRO in (12) is therefore ungoverned by AGR. Furthermore, AGR blocks Tense from governing the subject position by creating a minimality barrier. Tense does, however, properly head-govern VP, its sister in T'. Under Rizzi's approach we might assume that in the sentences in (1-2), empty VP is licensed by Tense filled with to, and identified by whatever features Tense is specified for. This account fails, however, to explain the ungrammaticality of empty VP in the rationale clause in (Ib), and in the infinitival subject in (2b). In both of these cases, Tense is filled with infinitival to, and empty VP would also presumably be both licensed and identified. Observe, however, that Tense in infinitives seems to behave in certain ways as an empty head with respect to the Generalized GTC. To illustrate, consider (13), in which the infinitive contains the empty heads COMP—AGR—Tense.

170

ELLIPSIS

In (13), V properly head-governs and selects CP, which is not a barrier. V therefore also properly head-governs COMP. COMP is in turn coindexed with AGR through selection, as COMP selects AGRP. Similarly, AGR is coindexed through selection with Tense. The heads COMP—AGR—Tense thus form a 'proper government chain' of coindexed empty heads, headed by the lexical X-0, V. Under the Generalized GTC, V properly head-governs the complement of Tense, VP. V is coindexed with Tense through a chain of coindexed heads, and no barriers between V and Tense intervene. Proper head-government of VP in (13) is thus comparable to proper head-government of empty VP by COMP in SAI constructions in tensed clauses, discussed in Chapter Five. There, we saw that COMP, through the coindexed chain of empty heads AGR—Tense (coindexed in this case by movement in addition to selection), properly head-governs the VP complement of Tense.4 In contrast, infinitival subjects in SPEC(AGR) are not selected, and are thus barriers to government, blocking the formation of a chain of coindexed heads including embedded Tense. A similar analysis accounts for the ungrammaticality of VP Ellipsis in rationale clauses. To illustrate, consider (14).

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives 171 In (14), Tense selects its VP complement, a projection which is thus not a barrier. V also properly head-governs CP, but CP is a barrier to government, as it is not selected. Therefore, neither the matrix V nor matrix Tense governs into CP, and neither head forms a chain with embedded COMP, AGR, and Tense. Empty VP in a rationale clause is therefore not licensed, and is ruled out by the ECP. It appears then, that assuming that Tense is an empty X-0, we derive the generalization in (3). Only in infinitives that are properly head-governed and selected by V does V head a 'proper government chain' of coindexed heads, COMP—AGR—Tense, through which embedded VP in an infinitive is licensed. However, if we assume that Tense in infinitives is empty, it is not also possible to argue that to realizes a strong agreement feature and identifies empty VP. Notice also that the matrix V is not a possible identifying head for empty VP. At S-structure, the [±Past] feature of tensed V is unchecked, and V potentially identifies an empty tensed VP. VP in infinitives, however, is untensed, ruling out V [±Past] as a possible identifying head. This leads us again to the conclusion that it is infinitival to that identifies empty VP. We thus reach a paradox; Tense in infinitives acts as an empty head with respect to the Generalized GTC, but as a filled X-0 specified for strong agreement with respect to identification.

6.2.7

V-P Reanalysis as Incorporation

A possible analysis of the licensing and identification of embedded VP in infinitives, which I will defend here, is that the matrix verb and embedded Tense filled with to undergo 'Verb-Preposition Reanalysis' in the way proposed by Baker (1988). For example, consider first examples of V-P Reanalysis discussed by Hornstein and Weinberg (1981): (15) Who did you talk to t? (16) * Which lecture did you leave during t? In (15), the object of a preposition has been extracted with a grammatical result, but such extraction is apparently impossible in (16). Assuming that P is not a proper governor in English, following Kayne (1983), we explain the contrast if the head of a PP argument of V in (15) can 'reanalyze' with V, with the result that V, not P, properly governs the object of P. Reanalysis is blocked between V and the head of the adjunct PP in (16). V-P Reanalysis is therefore argued to be restricted to PP assigned a theta-role by V, with the consequence that the prepositional object acts syntactically like a direct object of V and can be extracted, as in (15). The object of P cannot be extracted from an adjunct PP, ruling out (16). Baker argues that 'V-P Reanalysis' is in languages such as English 'incor-

172

ELLIPSIS

poration without incorporation,' and results in the head of PP selected by V being analyzed as equivalent to the trace of a head that has incorporated with V Under his GTC, the government domain of V includes that of P, explaining why complements of grammatical formative P in 'reanalysis' constructions behave syntactically as direct objects, and can be extracted, as in (15). This 'incorporation without incorporation' is blocked in (16), where PP is not selected by V, and thus cannot incorporate with V. V fails to properly govern the extracted object, and ungrammaticality results. Pursuing Baker's idea, suppose that coindexing of V and Tense filled with to in infinitives through a proper government chain including empty COMP and AGR is 'incorporation without incorporation.' Under such circumstances, V properly head-governs the VP complement of Tense under the Generalized GTC, just as V in (15) properly head-governs the complement of P. More specifically, suppose that P is not a proper head-governor, contrary to what Rizzi assumes. This would follow if we analyze P as lacking both lexical content and features, and behaving, therefore, as 'empty' with respect to the Generalized GTC.5 When V 'incorporates' with P under proper head-government (excluding incorporation with adjunct P outside of V), however, V, a head with lexical content, properly head-governs the complement of P, deriving the grammaticality of extraction in (15), and the ungrammaticality of extraction in (16). As for infinitival to in Tense, to in this case also lacks lexical content, but differs from other grammatical formative P in being specified for features. To in Tense is thus comparable to empty COMP specified for AGR, at least with respect to the Generalized GTC. Like COMP specified for AGR, to properly head-governs and licenses its complement, but fails to identify it, as agreement features in Tense, a head lacking lexical content, are not strong. Suppose, however, that the result of 'incorporation' of to in Tense with V is to lexically realize the features in Tense, and for Tense in this case to be specified for strong agreement. This would explain why ellipsis in infinitives is possible only when the infinitive is properly head-governed by V, as it is only under these circumstances that 'incorporation without incorporation' can occur. We also explain why to seems to act like an empty head with respect to the Generalized GTC, if grammatical formative P lack lexical content unless incorporation occurs.

6.2.2 Extensions of the Analysis: for and not Extending the above analysis, we make some additional interesting predictions. First, notice that it is possible to argue that what I will refer to as 'incorporation' of V and P is possible with more than one preposition, as illustrated in (17-18). (17)

Which store did you drive over to t today?

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives (18)

173

Which notebook did you write the address down in t?

Now consider the infinitival complements and adjuncts in (19), both with lexical subjects case-marked by the preposition for in COMP. (19)

Mary wants to get a raise, and a. her boss arranged for her to get one next month. b. but her boss will have to evaluate her performance for her to get one.

As we see in (20), ellipsis is grammatical in the infinitival complement in (19a), but not in the infinitival adjunct in (19b). (20)

Mary wants to get a raise, and a. her boss arranged for her to [e]. VP

b. *her boss will have to evaluate her performance for her to [e]. VP

The grammaticality of (20a) suggests that COMP filled with for does not block incorporation of V and to in infinitival complements, which is what we expect, given independent evidence in (17-18) that incorporation of V with other sequences of prepositions is allowed. That ellipsis is ungrammatical in the infinitival adjunct in (20b) is also predicted, as incorporation between V and P, and hence between V-P-P is in this structural configuration blocked.6 Finally, consider a slightly different case of incorporation of infinitival to. Observe that ellipsis in infinitives in which the negative morpheme not precedes to is grammatical not only in infinitival complements, but also in infinitival subjects and adjuncts: (21)

a.

a.

Mary wants to try to get a raise, because not to try to get one would be silly. The boss arranged not to give her employees any raises. Mary wants to get a raise, and for her not to get one she'd have to refuse to be evaluated. Mary wants to try to get a raise, because not to [e] would be silly.

b.

The boss hates to give raises, so she arranged not to [e].

c.

Mary wants to get a raise, and for her not to [e], she'd have to VP refuse to be evaluated.

b. c. (22)

VP

VP

The grammaticality of ellipsis in the infinitival adjuncts and subjects in (22) is at first surprising, given the claim that the matrix V must incorporate with to (and with for as well in the relevant cases) for proper government of embedded empty VP to be satsified. In infinitival complements, not intervenes between V

174

ELLIPSIS

and to, and should create a minimality barrier to government, blocking incorporation. In infinitival adjuncts, such as (22c) and infinitival subjects as in (22a), we expect incorporation between V and to to be blocked, as CP is a barrier in both cases to government by V. That ellipsis is grammatical, however, suggests that not, rather than V, incorporates with to. This is reasonable, given the evidence from Chapter Five that not is a proper head governor of and also identifies empty VP in tensed clauses. This analysis explains the following contrasts. (23)

a. John's leaving and *Mary's/Mary is [e] too. VP

b. John's leaving but Mary's not/Mary is not [e]. VP

(23a) illustrates that a contracted auxiliary fails to properly head-govern and identify empty VP. (23b) shows that not 'saves' the structure, and that it must therefore license and identify empty VP. As illustrated in (24), in tensed clauses not properly head-governs and is coindexed with empty Tense through selection. Under the Generalized GTC, not properly head-governs empty VP. Not is also specified for what I argued to be a SPEC-head agreement feature, and can therefore also identify empty VP in (24).

Extending this analysis to infinitives, suppose that not, a proper head governor, incorporates with infinitival to, the head of the TP complement selected by not. Empty VP in infinitives containing not is therefore licensed and identified regardless of the status of the infinitive as a subject, adjunct, or complement. Now, consider the sentence in (25), where not follows to. Ellipsis in the infinitive is ungrammatical in this case. (25)

a. John would like to not have to talk to Mary.

(25)

b.* John prefers to talk to Mary, but Bill would like to not fe], if he VP can help it.

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

175

We do not expect this to be the case if not heads NEGP, and is therefore an X-0 governor and potential licensing head for empty VP. To account for the order of to and not in (25), Pollock (1989) suggests that in a phrase structure in which NEGP is the complement of Tense, and AGRP the complement of NEG, to in infinitives moves from AGR to Tense around not. Such a movement rule is otherwise unmotivated, and as Baltin (1993) points out, violates Chomsky's (1989) 'last resort' principle of economy, where movement only happens if required. Within the framework assumed here, there is no reason why Tense filled with to should optionally move to AGR, a head which has no feature specification. I follow Baltin (1993) in assuming that not in (25) involves 'constituent' negation, in contrast to the examples of 'sentential' negation given above. Not in each case occurs in different structural positions. I assume that in the examples of sentential negation, not heads NEGP, while not in constituent negation is a specifier of V This is a reasonable assumption on the ground that constituent negation has the effect of negating only VP, rather than the entire sentence. (See also Zanuttini 1990, for arguments for two NEG position in Romance.) Under this approach, not as a specifier in (25) fails to properly head-govern empty VP, and VP is ruled out by the ECP.7

6.3 Blocking Incorporation I now discuss a different set of cases, in which V is blocked from properly headgoverning an empty embedded VP. The evidence presented in this section supports the claim that infinitival to incorporates with V in the way discussed above. 6.3.1 WH-Movement Consider the sentences in (26), in which WH-Movement has applied. (26)

a. *We wanted to invite someone, but we couldn't decide who/which person to [e]. VP

b. *Mary was told to bring something to the party, so she asked Sue what/which dish to [e]. VP

c. *We might go on vacation if we can ever figure out when/where to [e]. VP

d. *Ron wanted to wear a tuxedo to the party, but Caspar couldn't decide whether to [e] (or not). VP

176

ELLIPSIS

The sentences in (26) illustrate that ellipsis of VP in an infinitival complement is apparently blocked when SPEC(C) is filled with a WH-phrase, or COMP is filled with a WH-word (e.g. whether/if).8 As Zwicky observes, ellipsis in infinitives in which SPEC(C) dominates a trace of WH-movement from the subject position is also ungrammatical. (27)

a.

Who do you want to tell Mary? *I don't know, who do you want to [e]? VP

b. Who do you want [t' [t to [e]]]. CP

IP

VP

Notice also that ellipsis is ungrammatical in infinitives in which extraction is from object position, and the trace in SPEC(C) therefore binds a variable in the empty VP. (28)

Who do you want Mary to tell? a. *I don't know, who do you want Mary/her/that woman to [e]? b. who do you want [t' [Mary/that woman/her to [. . . t]]] CP

IP

VP

(28), taken together with (26), suggests that the generalization the theory must capture is (29): (29) VP Ellipsis is blocked in infinitives whose SPEC(C) or COMP position is filled with a WH-element or trace. We immediately explain the failure of ellipsis in at least some of the above sentences by invoking conditions on variable binding in ellipted categories. Recall from Chapter One that both Sag (1977) and Williams (1977) argue that ellipsis is blocked when the empty constituent contains a variable which is (i) bound to an operator outside of the ellipsis or (ii) bound to an operator which does not also bind a corresponding variable in the antecedent of the ellipsis. VP Ellipsis is therefore blocked in infinitives when an operator in the local SPEC(C) position binds a variable in the ellipted embedded VP, as both variable binding conditions are violated. (26a-b) and (28), and possibly also (26c), depending on the status of adjuncts as inside or outside VP, are thus ungrammatical. Variable binding conditions fail, however, to explain the ungrammaticality of (26d), in which whether fills COMP, and the ungrammaticality of the 'subject gap' sentence in (27). In these cases, empty VP does not contain a variable, and conditions on variable binding are presumably not violated. 'Incorporation without incorporation' between the matrix V and to is not blocked, and V licenses empty VP under the Generalized GTC. VP is presumably also identified by to, as above.

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

177

The ungrammaticality of (26d) is explained under Relativized Minimality, as a head, namely COMP filled with whether, intervenes between V and embedded Tense. V does not govern embedded AGR or Tense of the infinitive. 'Incorporation without incorporation' between V and Tense is blocked. We explain the failure of ellipsis in subject gap infinitives such as (27) by invoking independently motivated principles of government and proper government. In Rizzi's (1990) theory of Relativized Minimality, the matrix V, an X-0, is not blocked from properly head-governing embedded COMP by a phrasal operator in SPEC(C). Because V and the phrase in SPEC(C) are different types of governors, no minimality barrier intervenes. The WH-trace in SPEC(C) in (27) thus does not block V from governing COMP, and through a coindexed chain, from head-governing Tense. Rizzi argues, however, that empty COMP in constructions in which WH-movement from the embedded subject position has taken place is specified for SPEC-head agreement, as it is coindexed with a WH-phrase or trace in SPEC(C). Empty COMP, specified for agreement, in turn properly head-governs a coindexed trace in the embedded subject position, as in (i). (i)

Who do you want [t' [AGR [t to tell Mary]]] CP

C'

AGRP

Rizzi (1990: p. 53) observes that COMP specified for SPEC-head agreement is restricted to properly head-governing only the phrase with which it is coindexed. In this way, he predicts the impossibility of sentences such as (30). (30) *This is the student that I wonder [what: [AGR, [t bought t]]]. CP

C'

AORP

In (30), COMP is coindexed through SPEC-head agreement with what in SPEC(C). COMP is therefore not coindexed with, and thus fails to properly head govern the subject trace. Exploiting Rizzi's line of argument, I propose that when COMP in infinitival 'subject gap' constructions is a proper head-governor for a coindexed subject trace, it is blocked from also properly head-governing another constituent, empty AGR. Empty AGR is thus not coindexed with COMP in these cases, and no coindexed proper government chain between the matrix V, embedded COMP, AGR, and Tense is formed. Incorporation between V and to fails, and V consequently fails to properly head-govern empty embedded VP. Empty VP is therefore ruled out in (27) by the ECP. 6.3.2 'Too/Enough' and 'Tough' Infinitives The above analysis makes certain interesting claims about the syntax of other infinitival constructions. First, consider the 'too/enough' infinitives and the infinitival complements of the 'tough' predicates in (31-33).

178

(31)

(32)

ELLIPSIS

a.

Peter is too stubborn [[e] to talk to Mary].

b.

Peter is too stubborn [PRO to talk to [e]].

a.

Mary is strong enough [[e] to teach aerobics].

b.

Mary is strong enough [PRO to hire [e] [PRO to teach aerobics]].

CP

CP

CP

CP

(33)

a.

John is anxious [[e] to help Bill].

b.

John is difficult [PRO to deal with [e]].

CP

CP

In the too/enough infinitives in (31-32), the 'subject gap' is controlled by the matrix subject. In the (b) cases, the matrix subject controls an object gap in the embedded VP. The same generalization can be extended to the 'tough movement' infinitives in (33); John controls the subject of infinitive position in (33a), and is coindexed with the (prepositional) object position in (33b). VP Ellipsis in the above infinitives is grammatical in the (a) sentences, but not in the (b) cases. (34)

a.

Peter is too stubborn to talk to Mary, and John is too shy to [e]. VP

b. *Peter is too stubborn to talk to, and John is too shy to [e]. VP

(35)

a.

Mary is strong enough to teach aerobics, but John isn't athletic enough to [e]. VP

b. *Mary is strong enough to hire to teach aerobics, but John isn't athletic enough to [e]. VP

(36)

a.

John is anxious to help Bill and Mary is also eager to [e]. VP

b. *John is difficult to deal with and Mary is never easy to [e]. VP

The illformedness of empty VP in the (34b-36b) cases is explained straightforwardly by independent principles. Following Chomsky (1981, 1982), the object gap is a variable bound by an empty operator in the local SPEC(C) (see also Williams, 1977, for an approach in which empty operators in such constructions are derived as a result of interpretive rules). Too/enough infinitives thus have the S-structure in (37), and 'tough' infinitives the S-structure in (38). (37)

(38)

a.

Peter is too stubborn [ [PRO to talk to Mary]].

b.

Peter is too stubborn [OR [PRO to talk to L]].

a.

John is anxious [ [PRO to help Bill]].

CPAGRP

CP

AGRP

CPAGRP

b. *John is difficult [OP; [PRO to deal with tj]]. CP

AGRP

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

179

When VP is empty in (34b-36b), variable binding conditions are violated, as the empty VP in this case contains a variable bound to an operator outside the ellipsis which does not also bind a corresponding variable in the antecedent VP. Furthermore, SPEC(C) is filled with a phonologically empty operator coindexed with COMP, a head specified for SPEC-head agreement. COMP thus fails to properly head-govern embedded AGR, and neither the matrix V nor A properly head-governs empty embedded VP under the Generalized GTC as neither head forms a chain with embedded COMP—AGR—Tense. The ellipted VPs are thus ruled out for two reasons: they violate both variable binding conditions and the ECP. Taking now the grammatical cases of ellipsis in ( 34a-36a), we need only assume that the infinitives in question are properly head-governed, for example by A, and that A forms a coindexed chain with embedded COMP, AGR, and Tense. A incorporates with to, and licenses empty VP under the Generalized GTC. This analysis depends on assuming that too/enough and 'tough' infinitives are complements of A. This is not necessarily the case for too/enough infintives. For example, Emonds (1985: Ch. 7) points out that such infinitives appear to be exterior to A', based on evidence that they must follow complements of A (see also Hendrick, 1978). For example, in (39-40), the infinitive must follow the PP complement of A: (39) (40)

a. b. a. b.

John is strong enough in the arms to do chin-ups. *John is strong enough to do chin-ups in the arms. Mary is too shy about socializing to invite to the party, *Mary is too shy to invite to the party about socializing.

Another problem with analyzing too/enough infinitives as complements of A is that they must cooccur with these degree words. (41) (42)

a. b. c. a. b. c.

Mary is strong enough. Mary is strong enough to climb the mountain. *Mary is strong to climb the mountain. Bill is too shy. Bill is too shy to talk to Mary. *Bill is shy to talk to Mary.

We do not expect this to be the case if A selects the infinitive. In Chapter Two I followed Abney (1987), Corver (1990a, 1990b), and Grimshaw (1991) in taking AP to be the complement of the functional head DEG. Under this analysis, too/enough fill DEG. (I leave aside how enough occurs in post-adjective position. See Baker, 1990.) We might argue, then, that

180

ELLIPSIS

too/enough infinitives are selected by DEG, and that as illustrated in (43), they are dominated by (an iteration of) DEG'. Through the Generalized GTC, DEG would then properly head govern empty VP.

This analysis is appealing as it not only explains the grammaticality of ellipsis in (34a-35a), but also the evidence that too/enough infinitives must cooccur with degree words, and that they follow complements of A.9 We have independent evidence, however, that DEG is not a proper headgovernor, and thus that it should not properly head-govern empty VP. Recall that DEG filled with a degree word fails to license and identify empty AP. (44)

a. *John is strong, but he isn't too [e]. AP

b. *Mary told me she was afraid of dogs, and she is so [e] that she can't be in the same room with one. c. Even though his father is extremely [e], Pete isn't very tall. AP

I argued that filled DEG is not specified for agreement, and thus fails to be a licensing (and also identifying) head for empty AP. If this is the case, then we do not expect DEG in (43) to license empty VP under the Generalized GTC. Suppose that it is not DEG that selects an infinitival complement, but rather DEG 'combined' with A, that does so. Such 'combining' of heads is independently motivated by Di Sciullo and Willams (1987) to explain certain properties of the argument structure of predicates such as seem and sick in (45). (45) John seems sick.

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

181

They argue that in order for sick, a 1-place predicate, to assign a theta-role to an argument, sick must 'compose,' through function composition, with the 0-place predicate seem. Sick can then project its theta-role outside of VP headed by seem and assign it to an argument in the subject position. This is illustrated schematically in (46).

Extending Di Sciullo and Williams' argument, suppose that the head of the AP complement of DEG filled with too/enough is specified for an optional argument which is satisfied only if A 'composes' with DEG, and can then project its theta-role external to a projection dominating both DEG and AP, namely DEG'. CP adjoined to DEG' as in (47) would then be assigned a theta-role.

One result of this function composition would be to extend the government domain of A to DEGP, allowing A to properly head-govern CP. Alternatively, function composition could designate DEG as a proper head-governor by virtue of its composition with A. In either case, CP in (47) would be properly headgoverned, and COMP, AGR, and Tense dominated by CP would form a chain of proper government through which empty VP would be licensed. This analysis

182

ELLIPSIS

would also predict the ungrammaticality of ellipsis in DEGP in (44), assuming [DEG + A] is a proper head governor through composition. When A is empty, composition is blocked. The empty category in (44) is neither licensed nor identified by DEG alone, and ellipsis is ruled out. Turning now to the infinitives in the 'tough movement' constructions in (36), both Jackendoff (1977) and Oehrle (1979) argue that such infinitives are complements of A. This claim is supported by evidence that these infinitives must occur inside too/enough infinitives, as we see in (48), (where (48c) is not synonymous with (48b)). (48)

a. John is anxious to leave. b. John is too anxious to leave to help Bill. c. *John is too anxious to help Bill to leave.

This is what we expect if 'tough' infinitives are immediately dominated by A' as in (49).

Assuming that 'tough' infinitives are complements of A, A heads a chain of proper head-government including embedded empty COMP and AGR, and Tense filled with to of its infinitival complement. A licenses empty VP under the Generalized GTC, and ellipsis of VP is grammatical in the subject gap 'tough' infinitive in (36a). As we saw above, the ungrammaticality of ellipsis in (36b) follows from violations of conditions on variable binding. If the above analysis is correct, we might expect to find independent evidence that A can undergo reanalysis, or 'incorporation without incorporation' with P other than infinitival to. This in fact is the case, as demonstrated by the grammaticality of extraction in (50). (50)

a. Who is John proud of t? b. What is Mary happy about t?

It appears then that the analysis of ellipsis in infinitives can be extended to infinitives in construction with predicates other than V, deriving the correct distribution of empty VP in DEGP and AP.

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

183

6.3.3 Infinitives in Noun Phrases and Infinitival Purpose Clauses Evidence from ellipsis of infinitives in noun phrases provides further support for the analysis proposed here. The evidence discussed below also allows us to make some interesting claims about the internal structure of purpose clauses. 6.3.3.1 Ellipsis in Infinitives in Noun Phrases. Infinitives in noun phrases typically occur as complements of N or as restrictive relative clauses, as illustrated in (51-52), respectively. (51)

a.

[John's [decision [PRO to run]]] was unexpected.

(52)

b. The committee discovered [Mary's [attempt [PRO to cheat on , ]]] DP NP IP the exam]]]. a. The governor thinks that Initiative 602 is [the [issue [PRO DP NP IP to worry about]]]. b. [The [person [PRO to show us how to use the computers]]]

DP

DP

NP

NP

IP

IP

just came in. Recall from Chapter Two that ellipsis in noun phrases operates on N', and can include higher projections of N. As expected, the infinitival complements of N in (51) must be included in the ellipted category, while infinitival relatives, adjoined outside N', can remain outside the ellipsis. (Recall from Chapter Three that the ellipsis in noun phrases is NP, properly head-governed either by filled NUM, or by DET through the Generalized GTC.) (53)

(54)

a.

George's decision to run was unexpected, but [Bill's [e]] didn't DP NP surprise anyone. b. *George's decision to run was unexpected, but [Bill's [[e] to enter DP NP the race]] didn't surprise anyone. a. Mary's attempts to cheat on the exam were discovered, and [both [e]] are now a matter of public record. DP

NP

b. *Mary's attempts to cheat on the exam were discovered, and [both [[e] to get better grades]] are now a matter of public record. DP

(55)

NP

There are several tax initiatives on the November ballot. a. [Three [e]] will be defeated. NUMP

b.

NP

[Three [[e] to worry about]] are Initiatives 602, 601, and 108.

NUMP

NP

184

(56)

ELLIPSIS

Some new staff members just got hired, and a. [six [e]] will be here tomorrow. NUMP NP

b.

[those [[e] to show us how to use the computers]] will be here

DP

NP

tomorrow. We make the correct predictions about ellipsis in infinitives contained in noun phrases if we assume that infinitival complements of N are dominated by N', and relative clauses by NP, as in (57).

Ellipsis operates on either NP or N', from which it follows that infinitival relatives can be either included in the ellipted constituent, or can remain outside it. Infinitival complements, on the other hand, must be included in the ellipsis. Turning now to VP Ellipsis in infinitives contained in noun phrases, we see that ellipsis is ungrammatical in infinitival relatives, as illustrated in (58-59). (58) *The governor thinks that Initiative 602 is the issue to worry about, but I think [the real issue to [e]] is the environmental protection bill. DP

VP

(59) *Someone needs to show us how to use the computers, and Mary is [the person to [e]]. DP

VP

Ellipsis in infinitival relatives is ruled out for at least two, and in some cases three reasons. Chomsky (1981, 1982) suggests that infinitival relatives contain empty operators in SPEC(C), coindexed with a governing N. They are thus structurally parallel to tensed relatives, which have overt WH-phrases in SPEC(C). Under this assumption the relelvant S-structures for (58-59) are (60-61). (60) (61)

[the issue [OPi [PRO to [. . .t i . . .]]]]

DP

CP

AGRP

VP

[the person [OR [ti to [e]]]]

DP

CP

AGRP

VP

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

185

In (60), in which empty VP contains as trace, variable binding conditions are violated. In both (60-61), COMP is specified for SPEC-head agreement, and coindexed with an empty operator in SPEC(C). COMP thus fails to properly head-govern empty AGR, and to form a chain of proper head-government with AGR and embedded Tense. Further, CP in (60-61) is not selected by N, and is a barrier. No proper government chain headed by N, and including embedded COMP—AGR—Tense, is possible, blocking incorporation of N with embedded to. Empty VP in such cases violates the ECP. Observe that ellipsis of VP in infinitival complements of N is, as we might now expect, grammatical. (62) (63)

John's decision to run was unexpected, but [Bill's decision to [e]] was VP DP completely predictable. Mary wanted to cheat on the exam, but she failed in [her attempt to [e]]. [e]]

to

DP

VP

In the infinitival complements in (62-63), no operator fills SPEC(C), and no variable binding conditions are violated. CP is selected by N, and is thus not a barrier. N therefore heads a proper government chain of coindexed heads including COMP, AGR, and Tense, and under the Generalized GTC, properly head-governs empty VP. VP Ellipsis is consequently grammatical.10 6.3.3.2 Purpose Clauses. Another construction which, as Jones (1985, Ch. 1) points out, superficially resembles an infinitival relative clause, is a 'purpose' clause, illustrated in (64-65). (64)

The New Yorker hired someone without experience [[e] to edit CP their magazine]. b. Ray brought the New Yorker [PRO to read [e]] on the train.

(65)

a. Bill ended up choosing Sally [[e] to play on the team].

a.

CP

CP

b. Mary bought a futon [PRO to sleep on [e]]. CP

Jones characterizes purpose clauses as infinitives which must contain either a subject or object gap, a gap which is controlled by a VP-internal noun phrase.11 He argues that though purpose clauses are VP-internal (following Faraci, 1974), they are not strictly subcategorized complements of V, and are thus classifiable as 'VP-internal adjuncts.' 12 Emonds (1985: Ch.7), on the other hand, proposes that purpose clauses are dominated V, and are subcategorized complements Of V.

13

186

ELLIPSIS

Observe that purpose clauses must be included in the ellipted constituent in VP Ellipsis constructions. This is consistent with an analysis in which purpose clauses are dominated by V. (66)

The New Yorker hired someone without experience to edit their magazine, and a. Esquire will [e] too. VP

b. *Esquire will [e] to do their movie reviews. VP

(67)

Ray brought a book to read on the train, and a. Mary did [e] too. VP

b. *Mary did [e] to enjoy while she waited for the bus. VP

(68)

Bill chose a good athlete to play first base, and a. Sally did [e] too. VP

b. *Sally did [e] to be the pitcher. VP

(69)

Mary bought a futon to sleep on, and a. Brian did [e] too. VP

b. *Brian did [e] to set his books on. VP

As for verb phrase ellipsis within purpose clauses, note that as in both infinitival relatives and rationale clauses, VP Ellipsis is blocked in both subject and object gap purpose clauses, as illustrated in (70-71). (70)

a. *The New Yorker hired someone without experience to edit their magazine, and Esquire hired a professional to [e]. VP

b. *Ray brought the New Yorker to read on the train, and Mary brought War and Peace to [e]. VP

(71)

a. *At first, Bill wanted Mary to play on the team, but he ended up choosing Sally to [e]. VP

b. *Mary bought a futon to sleep on, and Brian got a waterbed to [e]. VP

We have two ways to account for the ungrammaticality of verb phrase ellipsis in purpose clauses. We might assume that such clauses, though in V, are not selected by V, and are barriers. V fails to govern into the infinitive, and to form a chain with heads inside the infinitive. This is consistent with Jones' analysis of purpose clauses as VP-internal adjuncts. Alternatively, we might argue that purpose clauses are arguments of V and selected by V, following Emonds. Suppose,

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

187

however, that purpose clauses contain empty operators coindexed with a VPinternal noun phrase, as illustrated schematically in (72). (72)

a.

We bought John a puppy [OP [PRO to play with [e]]]

b.

We brought John along [OP [[e] to show us the way]]

CP

CP

IP

IP

Ellipsis would then be uniformly ruled out by violations of variable binding conditions and/or the failure of COMP coindexed with SPEC(C) to form a coindexed chain with embedded AGR and Tense.14

Notes 1. Rationale clauses, like infinitival complements, can also be included in the projection of V pronominalized by do so, as we see in (i). (Do so pronominalization is difficult with extraposed clauses for independent reasons because of the types of predicates involved, so I leave them aside here.) (i)

a. Mary wanted to get in shape and she did so. b. Bill jogs every day to get in shape, and Mary does so too.

Rationale clauses differ from infinitival complements in optionally remaining outside the pronominalized projection of V. We see this in (ii). (ii)

a. *Mary wanted to get in shape and she did so to stay fit. b. Bill likes to jog, and he does so to stay fit.

2. Evidence from VP Proposing might suggest that rationale clauses are not in fact constituents of VP, based on the awkwardness of sentences such as (i): (i)

?John said he would jog to stay fit, and jog to stay fit he did.

Notice, however, that any sentence with an 'heavy VP' is equally awkward if VP Proposing applies: (ii)

?John said he would ask to talk to Mary, and ask to talk to Mary he did.

I therefore leave aside sentences involving VP Proposing as evidence for or against the argument being presented here. 3. Zwicky (1981) proposes an analysis of the data in (1-2) based on morphological readjustment, where to followed by an empty VP must adjoin to an adjacent constituent to its left. Readjustment must be within to's 'own S,' a condition which is not met, for example, when to is contained in a rationale clause. For arguments against a readjustment analysis see Lobeck (1987a, 1987b). Zagona (1982) is first to argue that to properly governs empty VP in infinitives, discussing many of the contrasts also addressed here in a different framework. Her analysis, and also that of Zagona (1988a), is based on the interaction of 'To-Movement,' readjustment, and theta-government of VP. Zagona (1988b) argues that to fails

188

ELLIPSIS

to 'tense-identify' empty VP and that for this reason ellipsis in certain cases is ruled out. 4. Observe that under the Generalized GTC, it might be that V governs embedded PRO, as V governs everything that coindexed AGR governs. We avoid this result, however, by stating the Generalized GTC in terms of proper head-government, rather than government. Under this definition, V properly head-governs only what AGR properly head-governs. V thus properly head-governs Tense, but fails to govern PRO. 5. This analysis is further supported by Emonds' (1985) theory of subcategorization. He argues in detail that grammatical formative P in English are for purposes of subcategorization 'empty' heads, and that complements of such P are in fact subcategorized not by P but by a higher V. P is filled post S-structure, and the presence of empty P is 'induced' by independent principles of X' Theory. In Emonds' theory, untensed INFL parallels other grammatical formative P in also being generated empty, with its VP complement subcategorized by a higher verb. To is inserted later. In his theory, both grammatical formative P and to in INFL are actually empty heads at S-structure. In terms of the present framework, a higher V properly head-governs the complements of these empty heads through the Generalized GTC. 6. It might be that the addition of 'in order' improves rationale clauses with empty VPs. (i)

Mary wants to get a raise, a. and in order to [e], she must work extra hours. b. and she must work extra hours in order to [e]. c. and in order for her to [e], she must work extra hours.

If the sentences in (i) are acceptable, their grammaticality is accounted for under the analysis proposed here if we take 'in order' to be a (complex) preposition which takes an infinitival complement. P ('in order') in this case incorporates with to, and also/or if present, and properly head-governs empty VP. Alternatively, if the sentences in (i) are ungrammatical, we can assume that 'in order' is not a proper head governor, and fails to incorporate with embedded to. I leave aside discussion of infinitival subjects with lexical subjects, as judgments seem to be unclear as to whether ellipsis in (ii) is grammatical or not. (ii)

For John to win the race was annoying. ?For Bill to [e] would have been much more exciting.

It has been suggested to me that such sentences are grammatical only if the lexical subject is focused. Under the present analysis we expect (ii) to have the same ungrammatical status as ellipsis in the rationale clause in (20b), as incorporation of to with V is presumably blocked. 7. Baltin (1993) also discusses ellipsis in subjunctive sentences such as (i), and points out that ellipsis is grammatical only if not is present. (i)

a. b.

John would prefer that Fred leave, and Bill would prefer that he *(leave) as well. John would prefer that Fred leave, and Bill would prefer that he not [e].

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

189

He analyzes subjunctives as having a null INFL, with not as a specifier of V. Not moves into INFL, and properly governs empty VP. Under my analysis, not in (i) heads NEGP, and licenses and identifies the empty VP complement of empty Tense under the Generalized GTC. What remains to be explained is the ungrammaticality of ellipsis in (ii). (Thanks to Mark Baltin for pointing this out to me.) (ii)

a. *John wants to leave, but Mary wants not *(to) [e].

If we assume that not can license and identify empty VP in tensed clauses and in subjunctives, we might therefore also expect not to license and identify empty VP in infinitives, in the absence of infinitival to. The ungrammaticality of (ii) follows, however, if we consider the empty category in (ii) to be TP rather than VP, as in (iii).

Suppose that not can license and identify empty VP, but not empty TP. Ellipsis in (ii) is thus ruled out. 8. Both Zwicky (1981) and Zagona (1988a, 1988b) claim that, in the terms under discussion here, ellipsis is grammatical when SPEC(C) is filled with a monosyllabic WH-proform. They assume that 'when to [e]' is acceptable, as is (i). (i)

I know I should feed the goldfish, but could you explain to me how to [e]? (cf: *how often to [e])

This might be because [how to] is lexicalized, and thus not necessarily counterevidence to the generalization made here. 9. Corver (1990a: p. 48) discusses similar examples of what he argues are infinitival complements of the degree words so. He suggests such infinitives are dominated by DEG' or perhaps an iteration of DEG', depending on whether phrase structure is strictly binary branching. See also the related discussion in Corver (1990a: 244-5). 10. Observe that this analysis depends on assuming that N can 'incorporate' with a preposition. This claim can be independently justified by the following sentences. (i)

a. What did you read a book about t? b. Which famous linguist did you see a talk by t?

Though Subjacency might be violated in these cases, they do not seem sufficiently bad to also involve ECP violations. This suggests that t is properly head-governed as a result of incorporation of P with N. 11. As Jones (1985: Ch. 1) points out, the gap in a purpose clause is in fact not always controlled by a VP-internal noun phrase. For example, consider (i). (i)

The wine is [[e] to complement the cheese]. CP

190

ELLIPSIS

He provides an account of control into purpose clauses based on theta roles as well as syntactic position which accounts for such cases. 12. Some of Faraci's (1974) arguments that purpose clauses are constituents of VP include evidence that such infinitives fail to prepose, in contrast to rationale clauses. (i)

a. *To read on the train, John brought a book. b. To read on the train, John brought along his reading lamp.

He also notes that purpose clauses must occur inside rationale clauses, further supporting his claim that the two types of infinitives have different structural positions. (ii) a. Ray brought a book to read on the train (in order) to keep from getting bored. b. *Ray brought a book (in order) to keep from getting bored to read on the train. 13. Emonds (1985: p.294) demonstrates that verbs which take indirect objects often also take purpose clause complements. (i)

(ii)

a. b. c. a. b. c.

John may John may John may Mary has Mary has Mary has

buy a book for you. buy you a book. buy a book for you to glance through, found a house for John. found John a house. found a house for John to store books in.

Non-dative verbs do not take purpose clause complements as productively. (iii) (iv)

a. b. c. a. b. c.

John could lick stamps for you. *John could lick you stamps. *John could lick the meat to get a taste of. Mary burned the gloves for John. *Mary burned John the gloves. *Mary burned the gloves to destroy before the police arrived.

Emonds argues, based on principles of subcategorization, that these contrasts are evidence that purpose clauses are subcategorized complements of certain V, and are thus constituents of V. 14. I will not discuss ellipsis in infinitives in German and French, though infinitives in these languages contain what might be argued to be equivalents of infinitival to, zu, and alde, respectively. Ellipsis is nonetheless ungrammatical, where these prepositional elements are 'stranded.' I illustrate here with examples from French. (i)

a. *Elle n'a pas decide de travailler cette ete, mais il a She NEG had not decided to work this summer, but he had decide de [e]. decided to [e].' 'She hadn't decided to work this summer, but he had decided to.'

VP Ellipsis in English Infinitives

191

b. *I1 n'a pas commence a faire ses devoirs, mais He NEG had not started to do his homework, but elle a commence a [e]. she had started to [e]. 'He hadn't started to do his homework, but she had started to [e].' As noted by Kayne (1983), prepositions in French are not proper head-governors, nor can they undergo V-P Reanalysis. Extraction of prepositional objects is thus ruled out. 'Incorporation without incorporation' is therefore blocked in French, from which it follows that ellipsis in infinitives will also be ruled out. A similar approach can be extended to German, a language which also lacks the equivalent of 'preposition stranding' that we find in English.

This page intentionally left blank

REFERENCES

Abney, S. (1987). 'The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Akmajian, A., S. Steele, and T. Wasow (1979).''The category AUX in Universal Grammar.' Linguistic Inquiry 10, 1-64. Akmajian, A., and T. Wasow (1975). 'The constituent structure of VP and AUX position of the verb BE.' Linguistic Analysis 1, 205-245. Aoun, J., N. Hornstein, D. Lightfoot, and A. Weinberg (1987). 'Two Types of Locality.' Linguistic Inquiry 18: 537-577. Authier, J-M. (1989). 'Arbitrary Null Objects and Unselective Binding.' In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), 45-67. Dordrecht: Kluwer. . (1991). 'Is French a Null Subject Language in the DP?' Probus 4, 1-16. . (1992). 'A Parametric Account of V-governed Arbitrary Null Arguments.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 345-374. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, C. L. (1991). The Syntax of English not: The limits of Core Grammar.' Linguistic Inquiry 22, 387-429. Banfield, A. (1981). 'Stylistic Deletion in Coordinate Structures.' Linguistic Analysis 7, 1-32. Baltin, M. (1987). Do Antecedent-contained Deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18, 579-595. . (1991). 'VP Ellipsis as Non-Lambda Predicate Ellipsis.' Manuscript, New York University. . (1993). 'Negation and Clause Structure.' Manuscript, New York University. Barton, E. (1990). Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bayer, J. (1984). 'COMP in Bavarian.' Linguistic Review 3, 209-274. Belletti, A. (1988). The Case of Unaccusatives.' Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1-34. Belletti, A., and L. Rizzi (1981). 'The Syntax of ne: Some Theoretical Implications.' Linguistic Review 1, 117-154. Bennis, H., and L. Haegeman (1984). 'On the Status of Agreement and Relative Clauses in West Flemish.' In Sentential Complementation, W. de Geest and Y. Putseys (eds.). Dordrecht: Foris. 193

194

References

Bernstein, J. (1993). 'Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure Across Romance.' Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric AGR. In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), 69-110. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bresnan, J. (1972). 'The Theory of Complementation in English Syntax.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. . (1973). 'Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English.' Linguistic Inquiry 4, 275-345. . (1975). 'Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations.' Linguistic Analysis 1, 25-74. . (1976). 'On the form and interpretation of syntactic transformations.' Linguistic Inquiry 7, 3-40. Carstens, V, and Kinyalolo (1989). 'Agr, Tense and Aspect and the IP Structure: Evidence from Bantu.' Paper presented at GLOW Conference, Utrecht. Chao, W. (1987). On Ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Published by Graduate Linguistics Students Association, UMass, Amherst.) Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. . (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1970). 'Remarks on Nominalizations.' In R. A. Jacobs and P. A. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co. . (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. . (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1986a). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger. . (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1991). 'Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation.' In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1992). 'A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.' MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1, MITWPL. Chung, S., and J. McCloskey (1987). 'Government, Barriers and Small Clauses in Modern Irish.' Linguistic Inquiry 18, 173-237. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1992). 'On the Evidence for Partial N Movement in the Romance DP.' unpublished manuscript, Universita di Venezia. . (1993). 'Functional Projections and N-Movement within the DP.' Paper presented at GLOW Conference, Lisbon. Cole, P. (1987). 'Null Objects in Universal Grammar.' Linguistic Inquiry 18, 597-612. Contreras, H. (1986). 'Chain Theory, Parasitic Gaps, and the ECP.' Manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle. . (1989). On Spanish Empty N' and N. In Studies in Romance Linguistics, Carl Kirschner and J. DeCesaris (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References

195

Contreras, H. (1991). 'On the Position of Subjects.' In Syntax and Semantics 25. Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, S. Rothstein (ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. Corver, N. (1990a). 'The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions.' Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University. . (1990b). Evidence for DEGP. Proceedings of N ELS 20. Graduate Student Linguistics Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Dalrymple, M. (1991). 'Against Reconstruction in Ellipsis.' Manuscript, Xerox-PARC, Palo Alto, CA. Dalrymple, M., S. Shieber, and F. Pereira (1991). 'Ellipsis and Higher-Order Unification.' Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399-452. De Vries, G. (1992). 'On Coordination and Ellipsis.' Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University. den Besten, H. (1983). 'On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules.' In On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania, W. Abraham (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Di Sciullo, A.M., and E. Williams (1987). On the Definition of Word. Linguistic Inquiry Mongraph No. 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Drijkoningen, F. (1990). 'Two Aspects of the Determiner Phrase.' In Recherches de Linguistique Francaise et Romane d'Utrecht IX 55—64. Emonds, J. (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press. . (1978). 'The Verbal Complex V'-V in French.' Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151-175. . (1985). A Unified Approach to Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Ernst, T. (1991). The Phrase Structure of English Negation.' Linguistic Review 9: 109-144. Evers, A. (1981). 'Verb Second Movement Rules.' In Wiener Linguistische Gazette 26. Faraci, R. (1974). 'Aspects of the Grammar of Infinitives and For-Phrases.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Farrell, P. (1990). 'Null Objects in Brazilian Portuguese.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 325-346. . (1992). 'Null Noun Complements in English.' Linguistic Inquiry 23, 147-156. Fiengo, R., and R. May (1990). 'Anaphora and Ellipsis.' Paper presented at GLOW Conference, Cambridge, England. Fiengo, R., and R. May (1992). 'The Eliminative Puzzles of Ellipsis.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Fiengo, R., and R. May (1993). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fukui, N. (1986). 'A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Fukui, N., and M. Speas (1986). Specifiers and Projections. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 8, 128-172. Gardent, C. (1992). 'A Multi-level Approach to Gapping.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.

196

References

Goodall, G. (1984). 'Parallel Structures in Syntax.' Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Gouet, M. (1976). 'On a Class of Circumstantial Deletion Rules.' Linguistic Inquiry 7, 693-697. Grimshaw, J. (1985). 'Subdeletion.' Manuscript, Brandeis University. . (1991). 'Extended Projection.' Manuscript, Brandeis University. Grinder, J., and P. Postal (1971). 'Missing Antecedents.' Linguistic Inquiry 2, 269-312. Guisti, G. (1991). The Categorial Status of Quantified Nominals.' Linguistische Berichte 136,438-454. Haegeman, L. (1983). 'Die and dat in West-Flemish Relative Clauses.' In Linguistics in the Netherlands, H. Bennis and W. U. S. van Lessen-Kloeke (eds.). Dordrecht: Foris. Haider, H., and M. Prinzhorn (eds.) (1986). Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Haik, I. (1987). 'Bound VPs that need to be.' Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 503-530. Hankamer, J. (1978). 'On the nontransformational derivation of some null VP anaphors.' Linguistic Inquiry 9, 66-74. Hankamer, J., and I. Sag (1976). 'Deep and Surface Anaphora.' Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391-426. Hankamer, J., and I. Sag (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing.' Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 325-345. Hardt, D. (1991). 'Ellipsis and Discourse.' Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. . (1992). 'VP Ellipsis and Semantic Identity.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Hendrick, R. (1978). The Phrase Structure of Adjectives and Comparatives.' Linguistic Analysis 4, 255-300. Herschensohn, J. (1978). 'Deep and Surface Nominalized Adjectives in French.' Linguistic Inquiry 9, 135-137. Hestvik, A. (1992). The Effect of Subordination on Strict Identity Interpretation of Reflexives.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Higginbotham, J. (1983). 'Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals.' Linguistic Inquiry 23, 395-420. Hornstein, N., and D. Lightfoot (1981). Explanation in Linguistics. New York: Longman. Hornstein, N., and A. Weinberg (1981). 'Case Theory and Preposition Stranding.' Linguistic Inquiry 12. Huang, C-T. J. (1989). 'Pro-drop in Chinese.' In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer. . (1984). 'On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.' Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531-574. . (1982). 'Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

References

197

Iwakura, K. (1977). 'The Auxiliary System in English.' Linguistic Analysis 3, 101136. Jackendoff, R. (1971). 'Gapping and Related Rules.' Linguistic Inquiry 2.1, 21-36. . (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1977). X-bar Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. . (1985). 'On Certain ECP Effects in Spanish.' Manuscript, USC. Jaeggli, O., and K. Safir (eds.) (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jones, C. (1985). 'The Syntax and Thematics of Infinitival Adjuncts.' Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Published by Graduate Student Linguistic Association. UMass, Amherst.) Kaisse, E. (1983). The Syntax of Auxiliary Reduction in English.' Language 59, 93122. . (1985). Connected Speech: The interaction of phonology and syntax. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Karimi, S. (1989). 'Aspects of Persian Syntax, Specificity, and the Theory of Grammar.' Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington. Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . (1983). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kempson, R. (1986). 'Logical Form: The grammar cognition interface.' In Communication et Cognition: Documents de Travail. Paris: Colloque des Cargese, CNRS. Kester, E-P. (1994). 'Adjectival inflection and the licensing of pro.' Manuscript, Utrecht University. Kitigawa, Y. (1991). 'Copying Identity.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 497-536. Klein, E. (1984). 'VP Ellipsis in DR Theory.' Manuscript, University of Edinburgh. Koopman, H. (1984). Verb Phrase Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche (1986). 'A Note on Long Extraction in Vata and the ECP.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 367-374. Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche (1988). 'Subjects.' Manuscript, UCLA. Kornfilt, J. (1984). 'Case marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish.' Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Koster, J. (1975). 'Dutch as an SOV language.' Linguistic Analysis 1, 111-136. Laka, M. I. (1990). 'Negation in Syntax: The nature of functional categories and projections.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Langacker, R. (1966). 'On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command.' In Modern Studies in English, D.A. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.). New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Lappin, S., and M. McCord (1990). 'Anaphoric Resolution in Slot Grammar.' Computational Linguistics 16, 197-212. . (1991). 'Concepts of Logical Form in Linguistics and Philosophy.' In The Chomskyan Turn, A. Kasher (ed.), 301-333. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

198

References

. (1992). 'The Syntactic Basis of VP Ellipsis Resolution.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Larson, R., and R. May (1990). 'Antecedent-Containment or Vacuous Movement: Reply to Baltin.' Linguistic Inquiry 21, 103-122. Lasnik, H. (1981). 'Restricting the Theory of Transformations: A Case Study.' In Explanations in Linguistics, N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot, (eds.). New York: Longman. Lema, J., and M-L. Rivero (1989). 'Long Head Movement: ECP versus HMC.' In Proceedings of NELS 20, Graduate Student Linguistic Association, UMass, Amherst. Lobeck, A. (1987a). Syntactic Constraints on VP Ellipsis. Bloomington, Indiana: University Linguistics Club. . (1987b). 'VP Ellipsis in Infinitives: INFL as a Proper Governor.' Proceedings of N ELS 17. Graduate Students Linguistics Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. . (1990). 'Functional Heads as Proper Governors.' Proceedings of NELS 20, Graduate Students Linguistics Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. . (199la). 'The Phrase Structure of Ellipsis.' In Syntax and Semantics 25. Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. S. Rothstein (ed.). San Diego: Academic Press. . (1991b). 'Spec-head agreement in DP.' In Proceedings of WCCFL 10, Dawn Bates, (ed.). Stanford Linguistics Association, CSLI. . (1993). 'Strong agreement and identification: evidence from ellipsis in English.' Linguistics 31, 777-811. Lyons, C. (1986). 'The syntax of English genitive constructions.' Journal of Linguistics 22, 123-143. Marantz, A. (1980). 'English S is the maximal projection of V In J. Jensen (ed.), NELS X: Cahiers linguistiques d 'Ottawa. University of Ottawa, 303-314. May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Md.Salleh, R. (1987). 'Fronted Constituents in Malay: Base Structures and Move-alpha in a Configurational Non-Indo European Language.' Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington. Motapanyane, V. (1988). 'La position du sujet dans une langue a I'ordre SVO/VSO.' Memoire de pre-doctorat, Universite de Geneve. Rivista di grammatica generativa 13, 81-110. Muysken, P. (1983). 'Parameterizing the notion head.' Journal of Linguistic Research 2, 57-64. Napoli, D.J. (1983). 'Missing Complement Sentences in English: A Base Analysis of Null Complement Anaphora.' Linguistic Analysis 12, 1-28. . (1985). 'Verb phrase deletion in English: a base-generated analysis.' Journal of Linguistics 21, 281-319.

References

199

Neijt, A. (1980). Capping. Dordrecht: Foris. Oehrle, R. (1979). 'A Theoretical Consequence of Constituent Structure in Tough Movement.' Linguistic Inquiry 10, 583-594. Partee, B. (1973). 'Some Transformational Extensions of Montague Grammar.' Journals of Philosophical Logic 2, 509-534. . (1984). 'Nominal and Temporal Anaphora.' Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243-286. Perlmutter, D. (1971). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Rinehart and Winston. Pesetsky, D. (1982). 'Paths and Categories.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Pollock, J-Y. (1989). 'Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.' Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365—424. Postal, P. (1966). 'On So-called "Pronouns" in English.' In D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.), Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Raposo, E. (1989). 'Prepositional Infinitival Constructions in European Portuguese.' In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), 45-67. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Reuland, E. (1983). 'Governing -ing.' Linguistic Inquiry 14, 101-136. Riemsdijk, H. van (1978). A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. Dordrecht: Foris. . (1988). 'The Representations of Syntactic Categories.' In Proceedings of the 2nd Basque World Congress, San Sebastian (September, 1987). . (1989). 'Movement and Regeneration.' In P. Beninca (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Ritter, E. (1991). 'Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew.' In S. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25. Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. San Diego: Academic Press. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. . (1986). 'Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro.' Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501-557. . (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rooth, M. (1992). 'Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy.' In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ross, J. R. (1967). 'Constraints on Variables in Syntax.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. . (1969). 'Guess who?'. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago. Rothstein, S. (1983). 'The syntactic forms of predication.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1985). Rothstein, S. (1988). 'Conservativity and determiners.' Linguistics 26, 999-1019. Rothstein, S., and A. Reed (1987). 'Definiteness and restrictive modification.' Manu-

200

References

script. Ramat Can, Israel: Bar-Han University, and Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary. Sag, I. (1977). Deletion and Logical Form, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. . (1978). 'Floated quantifiers, adverbs, and extraction sites.' Linguistic Inquiry 9, 146-150. Sag, I., and J. Hankamer (1984). 'Toward a theory of anaphoric processing.' Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 325-345. Schachter, P. (1977). 'Does she or doesn't she?' Linguistic Inquiry 8, 763-767. Schwarz, B., and S. Vikner (1989). 'All V-2 Clauses are CPs.' Working Papers in Scandanavian Syntax 43, 27-50. Selkirk, L. (1977). 'Some Remarks on Phrase Structure.' In Formal Syntax, P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.). New York: Academic Press. . (1984). Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sleeman, P. (1993). 'N-ellipsis in French.' Manuscript, University of Amsterdam/University of Utrecht. Speas, M. (1990). Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sportiche, D. (1988). 'A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure.' Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449. Stillings, J. (1975). 'The formulation of gapping in English as evidence for variable types in syntactic transformations.' Linguistic Analysis. 1, 247-273. Stowell, T. (1981). 'Origins of Phrase Structure.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. . (1982). 'The Tense of Infinitives.' Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561-570. . (1985). 'Null Operators and Proper Government.' Proceedings of NELS 16, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, UMass, Amherst, 476-492. Thiersch, C. (1978). 'Topics in Germanic Syntax.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Torrego, E. (1985). 'On Empty Categories in Nominals.' Manuscript, Boston: University of Massachusetts. Travis, L. (1984). 'Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. . (1988). The Syntax of Adverbs.' In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the IVth Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Montreal: McGill University. Vergnaud, J.-R., and M. L. Zubizarreta (1992). 'The Definite Determiner and the Inalienable Constructions in French and English.' Linguistic Inquiry 23, 595652. Wasow, T. (1972). 'Anaphoric Relations in English.' Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Webber, B. (1978). 'A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora.' Doctoral dissertation, Harvard. Whitney, R. (1984). The syntax and interpretation of A-bar adjunctions.' Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington. Williams, E. (1977). 'Discourse and Logical Form.' Linguistic Inquiry 8, 103-139. . (1978). 'Across-The-Board Rule Application.' Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31-43. . (1984). 'There Insertion.' Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131-153.

References

201

. (1986). 'A Reassignment of the Functions of LF.' Linguistic Inquiry 17. 265299. Zagona, K. (1982). 'Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections.' Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington. . (1988a). 'Proper Government of Antecedentless VP in English and Spanish.' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 95-128. . (1988b). Verb Phrase Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zanuttini, R. (1990). Two Types of Negative Markers.' Proceedings of NELS 20. Graduate Student Linguistic Association, UMass, Amherst. Zribi-Hertz, A. (1984). 'Orphan Prepositions in French and the Concept of "Null Pronoun".' Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Zwicky, A. (1981). "Stranded to and Phonological Phrasing." Linguistics 20 1/2, 3-58.

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX

Antecedent-government, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, Across-the-board phenomena, 23, 38 n. 8 16-17, 18, 37 n. 5, 145, 150, 152-153, Adjective (A), 45, 51, 62, 67 n. 5, 69 n. 16, 168 69 n. 17, 74, 80, 101, 124, 135, 137 Arbitrary pro, 37 n. 4, 38 n. 13, 67 n. 5 n. 6, 147, 163 n. 7 Auxiliary Reduction (AR), 142, 151in French, 124, 131-132, 135, 138 n. 13, 154, 156, 163 n. 9 138-139 n. 15 Auxiliary Verbs. See Be, Do, Have, Modal in German, 104, 106-111, 112, 116, 117, 124, 131-132, 135, 137 n. 6, 137 n. 7 infinitival complements of, 179-182 Backwards Anaphora Constraint, 22, 28, 29 Adjunction to X-0 and XP, 145, 151-153, Barrier, 10, 16, 17, 67-68 n. 11, 137 n. 6, 156, 163 n. 9, 167 145, 150, 152, 155, 156, 157, 163 n. 14 Adverb (ADV), 49, 62, 69 n. 17 in infinitives, 169, 170-171, 174, 177, 185 Affix Hopping, 54 Barriers Theory, 8-16 AGR, 97 n. 5. See also INFL, AGR in; Be, 54, 67 n. 10, 141-143, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 154, 158, 162. See also VP, Infinitives, AGR in complements of non-finite be and have AGR in COMP. See COMP, AGR in AGR in Binding Theory, 10, 14, 28, 37 n. 4, 167-168 INFL. See INFL, AGR in; Infinitives, Blocking Category, 10 AGR in Agreement, 62, 66, 75. See also COMP, AGR in; DET in English, French and C-command, 36 n. 1 German; INFL, AGR in; Infinitives, Case features, 36 n. 4, 50, 52, 101, 121, 138 AGR in; NUM in English, French and n. 12. See a/so Agreement, DET [+Poss] German; SPEC-head agreement; Strong in English, French and German; agreement Genitive case; Nominative case defined, 51 in French DP, 121-124, 138, n. 12 in DEG, 63-64 in German DP, 103-109, 113, 115, 117in DET, 52-53, 80-85, 88, 89, 90, 97 n. 5 121, 124, 134, 135 in French DP, 101, 121-124, 126-135, 137 Case-government, 15, 36 n. 3 n. 8, 138, n. 11, 139-140, n. 16 Case Theory, 10, 36-37 n. 4, 153-154 in German DP, 101-109, (defined, 109), Causative verbs, 48 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 121, 133-135, Chains, 37 n. 5, 60 137 n. 4, 137 n. 5 Checking. See Feature checking in infinitives, 172 Cliticization in French, 128-130, 135, 138in INFL, 53-54 139 n. 15 in IP, 144, 146, 156, 158 COMP, 9, 11, 13, 14, 37 n. 6, 46, 51, 52, 62, and licensing and identification of pro 3667 n. 7, 97 n. 4, 145, 153. See also for, 37 n. 4 if; Subject-Auxiliary Inversion (SAI), that, whether AGR-O, 162 n. 1 AGRP, 162 n. 1, 170, 175 AGR in, 54-60, 69 n. 14, 69 n. 14, 172 in Bavarian German, 58-59 AGR-S, 162 n. 1 Alphabetic variants, 31, 33 in English infinitives, 169-172, 176-177, Antecedent-contained ellipsis, 38 n. 12 179, 181, 182, 185, 187

Index

204

in French and German, 58, 136 in Norwegian, 59-60 as proper head-governor, 16-17, 19, 5457, 59, 66 n. 1, 69 n. 14 in relative clauses, 57 I+WH], 50, 54-55, 57-60, 66, 68, n. 13, 136 Comparatives, 59 Comparative Deletion. 37 n. 7 Comparative Subdeletion, 37 n. 7 Complementizer. See COMP Complex NP Constraint, 25, 29 Construct state (CS) DP, 76-78 Deep anaphora, 39 n. 15 Definite article, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 67 n. 7, 80-83, 88, 96, 98 /;. 9, 133, 135. See also DET in English, French and German in French, 122, 124, 130-131, 135, 138 n. 10, 138 n. 13. 138-139 n. 15 in German. 102, 109, 113, 134, 135, 136 n. 3

DEG, 62, 67 n. 6, 69 n. 16 agreement in, 63-64 too/enough as DEG, 179-182, 189 n. 9 DEGP, 62, 67 n. 6, 69 /;. 17, 182 Deletion, 30-32, 35, 39 n. 15 Demonstratives, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 80-83, 96. See also DET in English, French and German in French, 122, 124, 130-131, 138-139 n. 15 in German, 102, 103. 109, 134, 135, 136 n. 3

Derived VP Rule, 33 DET in English, 50-53, 62, 66 n. 2, 97 n. 4, 97 n. 5. See also Agreement, in English DP; Definite article; Demonstratives; DP in English; Ellipsis Identification Parameter; Ellipsis in NP; Indefinite article; Quantifiers in English; NUM in English; Strong agreement in English DP and identification of empty NP, 85-86, 8891, 95-96, 135 and proper head-government (licensing) of empty NP, 53, 66 n. 1, 67-68 n. 1 1 , 7 1 , 72, 73, 87-91, 95-96, 135, 137 n. 6 [Partitive], 73, 74, 88-91, 99 n. 11, 9596, 133 [ Plural|, 53, 66, 67 n. 9, 71, 72, 73, 8185, 87, 88, 91, 95-96, 133, 137 n. 4

l+Poss], 50, 52, 66, 67 n. 7. 71, 72, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91,133. 135 DET in French, 122-130. See also Agreement, in French DP; Definite article; Demonstrative: DP in French; Ellipsis Identification Parameter, Indefinite article, NUM in French, Quantifiers in French, Strong agreement in French DP and identification of NP, 130-132, 135 and proper head-government (licensing) of empty NP, 130-132, 135, 139-140;;. 16 ( Partitivel, 121, 128-129, 134, 138, n. 12 [ Plural|, 121, 128-129, 130-131, 134, 135, 139-140. n. 16 l+Poss], 122, 138 n. 10 DET in German, 109-112. See also Agreement, in German; Definite article; Demonstrative; DP in German; Ellipsis Identification Parameter; Indefinite article; NUM in German; Quantifiers in German; Strong agreement in German DP and identification of NP, 113, 116, 118120. 135 and proper head-government (licensing) of empty NP, 113, 116, 118-120, 135 [ Partitivel, I 18-121 |±Plural], 103-104, 106-109, 112, 113, 121, 137 /;. 4 [+Poss]. 108-109, 110, 1 1 1 , 114-116, 117, 123, 134, 135 DET [+WH], 69, n. 16 Determiner, 35, 66 n. 4, 67 n. 5, 71-74, 76, 113, 121, 124, 133-135, 137 n. 5, 137 n. 9. 138 n. 10, 139-140 n. 16. See also Definite article. Demonstrative, DET in English, French and German, Indefinite article, NUM in English, French and German, Quantifiers in English, French and German Discourse Grammar, 25 Discourse Representation Theory, 39 n. 14 Do, 151 features of 54, 67 n. 10, 144 and Verb Raising, 141-143, 145, 154, 163 //. 12 Do so, 187n. I DP in English, 50, 66 n. 1, 66 n. 2, 69 n. 17, 97 n. 4, 125. See also Agreement, in English DP; DET in English; Ellipsis Identification Parameter; Ellipsis in NP; NUM in English; Quantifiers in English; Strong agreement in English DP

Index phrase structure of, 71-72, 73-76, 79-85 PP modifiers in, 72, 74-76. 79, 125, 136, n. 1, 138 n. 11 DP in French, 133-134, 138 n. 10. See also Agreement, in French DP; DET in French; Ellipsis Identification Parameter; NUM in French; Quantifiers in French; Strong agreement in French DP ellipsis in, 130-133, 135, 138 n. 13, 139140ii. 16, I38-139n. 15, 139-140 n. 16 phrase structure of, 124-126 PP modifiers in, 125, 138 n. 11 DP in German, 101-121, 125, 133-134, 137 n. 5. See also Agreement, in German DP; DET in German; Ellipsis Identification Parameter; NUM in German; Quantifiers in German; Strong agreement in German DP ellipsis in, 112-118, 136 n. 3 phrase structure of, 109-112, 135 PP modifiers in, 110, 125, 136 n. 1, 138 n. 11 DP in Hebrew, 72, 76-79, 125. See also Construct state (CS) DP; and 'Free' Genitive (FG) DP DP in Persian, 96 n. 1 DP pro. See NP pro Each, 73, 80-83, 92, 93-96, 97-98 17. 7, 117, 121, 127. See also Quantifiers in English ECP. See Empty Category Principle Ellipsis. See a/so DP in French, ellipsis in; DP in German, ellipsis in; Ellipsis in NP; VP Ellipsis; VP Ellipsis in infinitives; Sluicing across utterance boundaries, 24—25 defining criteria for, 21, 26 and Complex Noun Phrase Constraint, 25 of complements of functional heads, 50. See also COMP; DEC; DET; INFL; NUM; Quantifiers; Tense of complements of lexical heads, 48-49, 101, 117, 135 and Coordinate Structure Constraint, 3738, n. 8 empty category as non-NP pro, 28-30, 35, 38, n. 13, 65-66 and identification, 30-36, 40 n. 20, 51, 54-56, 57, 58, 69 n. 18, 71 and licensing, 32, 35, 42, 49, 52-56, 58, 59, 66 n. 1, 69 n. 18, 71 and pragmatic antecedents, 25-26, 38 n. 10, 39 n. 15

205

and reconstruction, 32-35 and split antecedents, 29 and X-bar Theory, 42-51 Ellipsis Identification Parameter (EIP), 133136, 139-140 n. 16 defined, 102 Ellipsis in NP, 20, 66 n. 1, 183, 184. See also DET in English, French and German; DP in French and German; NUM in English; French and German; Quantifiers in English; French and German and reconstruction, 39 n. 17 and reference, 35 and split antecedents, 30 versus Gapping, 23-26 and X-bar Theory, 42-45, 46, 47, 50, 6768, n. 11 Empty Category Principle, 8-9, 17, 19, 37 n. 5, 53, 55, 56, 66 n. 1, 96 n. 1, 152, 155, 169, 189 n. 10. See also Licensing; Proper government; Proper headgovernment and empty heads, 151, 153-4, 157, 158, 163, n. 10, 169, 171 Empty Head Condition, 163 /?. 10 Empty non-NP pronominals. See non-NP pro Empty NP pronominals. See NP pro Empty operators, 178-179, 184, 185, 187 Every, 44-45, 52-53, 73, 80, 83, 92, 97-98 n. 7, 98-99 n. 10, 93-96, 117, 121, 122, 126, 127. See also Quantifiers in English Everyone, 98-99 n. 10, 128 Exclude, 36 17. 1 Extraposition, 166-167 Feature checking, 80-81, 83, 96 in DP and NUMP, 80, 83, 84 in infinitives, 171 in IP, 142, 144, 146, 147, 150, 153-154, 158, 161, 162, 162 n. 2, 164 n. 19 For, 13, 46, 50, 54, 56, 172, 188 n. 6 'Free' Genitive (FG) DP, 77-78 Functional heads, 67 n. 6, 97 n. 4, 50, 51 See also AGR; COMP; DEG; DET; INFL; NEG;NUM; Tense and government theory, 9, 11, 17, 18, 42 and licensing and identification of pro, 20 50, 51, 52, 69 n. 18 Gapping across utterance boundaries, 25, 38 n. 9 defining criteria for, 21 and Complex NP Constraint, 25

206

Index

and Coordinate Structure Constraint, 3738 n. 8 and pragmatic antecedents, 26, 39 n. 15 Gender. See Agreement Generalized Government Transparency Corollary (GTC), 87 and Auxiliary Reduction, 152-153 blocked, 176. 179 and DP, 88, 89, 91, 94, 96 and DP in German, 113, 120 and government of PRO in infinitives, 188 n. 4 in infinitives, 165-166, 169, 172, 180, 182, 183-185, 188 n. 5 and NEG, 154-156, 174, 188-189 n. 1 and Subject Auxiliary Inversion, 152-153 in tensed IP, 142, 145, 146, 147, 150 and Verb Second in German, 161 Genitive case, 50, 52, 77, 79, 97 n. 2, 97 n. 3, 108 Government, 8-9, 85, 86, 169, 177, 188 n. 4 See also Licensing; AGR; COMP; DEG; DET; INFL; NEG; NUM; Tense; Quantifiers head-government, 16, 17, 52, 169 lexical-government, 9, 16, 168 proper government, 9-14, 15-16, 168, 177 proper head-government, 17, 19-20, 35, 42, 49, 52-55, 59, 69 n. 18, 88, 96 n. 1, 67-68 n. 11, 69 n. 14, 137 n. 6, 170, 171, 172, 188 n. 4 Government Transparency Corollary (GTC), 72, 86, 96, 146 Have, 141. See also VP, complements of be and have features of 54, 67 n. 10, 142, 162 and Verb Raising, 142, 143, 145-147, 149, 150, 151, 154, 162, 158, 162, 172 Have/be Raising, 162, n. 3 Head-government. See Government Head Movement Constraint, 11, 145, 152, 153, 157, 163 n. 12. See also Empty Category Principle, and empty heads; Head-to-head movement Head-to-head movement, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151-154, 163 n. 11, 164 n. 15, 170 Hebrew DP. See DP in Hebrew HMC. See Head Movement Constraint Identification, 9-10. See also Agreement DET, in English, French; Ellipsis; Functional heads; Infinitival to; INFL; NEG; Non-NP pro; NP pro; NUM, in

English, French, German; Quantifiers, in English, French, German; Sluicing; Strong agreement; V; VP Ellipsis; VP Ellipsis, in French; VP Ellipsis, in German; VP Ellipsis, in infinitives of pro, 15, 20, 36 n. 3, 37 n. 4, 40 n. 20, 69 n. 18 of trace. 18 Identity of Reference Anaphora, 35 Identity of Sense Anaphora, 35 if, 46, 50, 54, 56 Incorporation, 72, 86, 189 n. 10 of to in infinitives, 165, 169, 171-174, 176-177, 179, 182, 185, 188 n. 6, 190191 n. 14 Indefinite article, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 80, 84, 92, 97 n. 5, 94, 135. See also DET in English, French and German in French, 122, 123, 126, 129, 130-131, 135 in German, 104-105, 107, 109, 110, 113114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 126, 135 Indirect questions, 57, 59, 60 Infinitival to, 50, 165. See also V; VP Ellipsis in infinitives features of 169, 172 and identification of VP, 160, 172 and incorporation with NEG, 174 and incorporation with V, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175-177 as licensing head, 165, 169, 172, 187 n. 3 and Tense, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177, 179, 181, 182, 185, 187 Infinitives, 67 n. 10. See also VP Ellipsis in English infinitives AGR in, 169, 170, 171, 172, 177, 179, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188 n. 4 complements of N, 183, 184, 185 complements of 'tough' predicates, 177— 179, 182 complements of V, 166-168, 173-174, 187 n. 1 extraposed, 166-168 purpose clauses, 185-187, 189 n. 11, 190 n. 12, 190 n. 13 rationale clauses, 166-168, 173-174, 187 n. 1, 187 n. 1, 188 n. 6, 190 n. 12 relative clauses, 183, 184, 185 subjects, 166, 173-174 too/enough infinitives, 177-182 INFL, 97 n. 4, 188 n. 5. See also, Infinitival to; Tense; VP Ellipsis AGR in, 17, 36 n. 3, 60, 67 n. 6, 141-144, 145, 146, 147, 162 n. 2, 163 n. 14

Index features of, 52-54, 58-59, 66, 67 n. 10, 80-81 French, See Verb Raising in French German, See Verb Raising in German and government theory, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and licensing and identification of NP pro, 14. 15, 20, 69 n. 18 and nominative case, 50 phrase structure of, 143-144 as proper head-governor, 9, 11-13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 36 n. 3, 49, 53, 66 n. 1, 67-68 n. 11, 141-143 tensed, 53, 54, 66, 67 n. 10 and Verb Second in German, 153 Interpretive rules, 31 IP, 11, 12, 17, 18, 50, 51, 54-57, 59, 60, 68 n. 12, 69 n. 14, 141-143 Kase features, 50, 52 Lexical government. See Government Licensing, 9, 15, 17, 20, 36 n. 3, 69 n. 18, 156, 158. See also Agreement; COMP; DET, in English, French, German; Ellipsis; Functional heads; Government, proper head-government; Infinitival to, INFL; NEG;NP-pro; non-NP pro; NUM, in English, French, German; Quantifiers, in English, French, German; Sluicing; Strong agreement; V; VP Ellipsis; VP Ellipsis in infinitives L-Marking, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 67-68, n. 11 Logical Form, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39 n. 16, 40 n. 20, 162, 162 n. 4, 163 n. 12, 164 n. 15, 164 n. 19

Measure phrase, 64-65, 69 n. 18 Minimality Condition, 11, 13, 155 Modal, 54, 67 n. 10, 141-143, 144, 145, 151, 154, 162, 162, n. 2 Move alpha, 8 Movement. See WH-Movement Movement to COMP. See COMP; Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) N-Raising, 77-78 NEG, 67 n. 6, 143, 163 n. 12, 164 n. 15 in English infinitives, 173-175, 188-189 n. 7 in French, 159 licensing and identification of VP 154-158 phrase structure of, 144, 145 NEG Contraction, 155-156

207

NEGP. 143, 144, 145, 154, 163 n. 14, 175, 188-189 n. 7 in French, 159 No, 98 77. 9 Nominative case, 50, 121 Non-DP pro. See Non-NP pro None, 98 n. 9 Non-lexical heads. See Functional heads Not. See NEG Noun (N), 66 n. 4, 137 n. 4 cliticization in French, 138-139 n. 15 complements of, 43, 183, 184, 185 empty, 138 n. 13 features of, 80-85 projections of, 43, 44, 66, n. 2, 67-68, 77. 11

Noun incorporation in Mohawk, 86 Noun phrase (NP), 138 n. 10, 138 n. 12. See also DP in English, French and German complement of DET, 51, 52, 71. 78, 99 n. 11 phrase structure of, 42-45, 50 66 n. 2, 73, 74 Non-NP pro, 28-30, 41, 42, 30, See also Ellipsis, as non-NP pro licensing and identification of, 30, 71 NP pro, 36 n. 4, 38 n. 13, 41, 42, 51, 98 n. 8 licensing and identification of, 14-15, 1920, 30, 35, 36 n. 3, 36-37 n. 4, 40 n. 20, 52, 54, 58, 66, 69 n. 18 Null Complement Anaphora, 37 n. 7 Null objects, 37 n. 4, 40 n. 20 NUM in English, 66 n. 2, 72, 78-79, 80-87, 97 n. 4 and identification of NP, 85, 87-92, 135 |±Partitive], 94-96, 99 n. 11, 133 [ Plural] 80-85, 87-89, 91-92, 94-96, 97 77. 5, 97 77. 6, 133 proper head-government (licensing) of NP, 85, 87-92, 135, 137 77. 6, 183 NUM in French, 125-126 and identification of NP, 132-133, 135 [±Partitive], 128-129, 132-133 | Plural], 128-129, 132-133 proper head-government (licensing) of NP, 132-133, 135 NUM in German, 109-112, 115, 116 and identification of NP, 114, 1 1 7 , 118121 [ Partitive], 119-121, 134 [±Plural], 113, 114, 115, 118-120, 134 proper head-government (licensing) of NP, 114, 135 [ Number] See DET [ Plural], NUM [ Plural]

208

Index

Numeral, 44, 45, 50, 51, 73, 80, 94, 122, 126, 135 in French, 122, 123, 124, 126, 132-133, 135 in German, 107-110, 112, 115, 117, 118121, 122, 126, 135 NUM Phrase (NUMP), 72, 78-79, 80, 84, 91, 97 n. 4, 97 n. 5, 97-98 n. 1 in French, 126, 128-130 in German, 109-110, 112-117, 120, 121 as predicate nominal, 147, 148, 163, n. 1 Ob (German if), 57 One, 67, n. 10, 73, 84, 92, 97, n. 6, 98-99, /;. 10

One-pronominalization, 24 One 's-Deletion, 39 n. 17 [ Partitive], See Agreement; DET; NUM and Quantifiers in English, French and German; Partitive constructions; Strong agreement Partitive constructions, 93-96, 98, n. 9, 9899 n. 10, 99 n. 11, 138 n. 12. See a/so DET; NUM; Quantifiers in English, French and German [ Past], 67 n. 10 See also Tense, features of, INFL, features of Perception verb complements, 48 Persian DP, See DP in Persian Phonological Form (PF), 52, 68 n. 12, 162 n. 4, 164 n. 15, 164 n. 19 Pied Piping, 60-61 [ Plural] See Agreement; DET; NUM; Quantifiers in English, French and German; Strong agreement Possessive determiner in English, 83-84, 90-91, 133 in French, 122, 123, 124, 130-131, 134, 135, 137 n. 8, 138 n. 10, 138 n. 15, 139-140 n. 16 in German, 102-103, 107-108, 1 1 1 , 134, 136 n. 2 Possessive NP, 43-44, 45. See also DET in English, French and German Post-verbal subjects, 20, 37, n. 6, 69, n. 18, 98, n. 8 PP modifiers. See DP in English, French, and German Purpose clauses, See Infinitives; VP Ellipsis, in English infinitives Predicate, 76, 147. See a/so Adjective; NUM Phrase, as predicate nominal

Predicate nominal. See NUM Phrase (NUMP), as predicate nominal Preposition (P), 56, 96 n. 3, 97 n. 3, 188 n. 5, 188 n. 6 Prepositional Phrase (PP), 60-62 Preposition Stranding, 60-61 pro. See NP-pro; non-NP pro PRO, 29, 169, 188 n. 4 Procrastinate,' 145, 164 n. 19 Pronouns, 28, 29, 33, 35, 39 n. 15, 39 ;;. 18, 66 n. 4, 139-140 n. 16, 167-168 Proper government. See Government Proper head-government. See Government Quantifier Phrase (QP), 97, n. 4, 98, n. 8 Quantifiers, 50, 51. See also DP in English; Each; Every; Quantifiers in French and German as licensing and identifying heads, 44-45, 93-96, 97 n. 5, 133-135 Quantifier Float, 93-94, 98 n. 8 Quantifier Interpretation, 31, 32, 34 Quantifier Raising, 39 n. 16 [ Partitive], 93-96, 98-99 n. 10 [ Plural], 81-82, 84, 85, 87, 92, 93-96, 122 Quantifiers in French, 124, 125, 134-135, 137 n. 9 as licensing and identifying heads 132133, 135 |±Partitive], 126, 130, 132-133 [ Plural], 122, 123, 127-130, 132-133, 137 n. 9, 138 n. 14, 138-139, n. 15 Quantifiers in German, 102, 103, 106-109, 1 1 1 , 117, 125 jeder, 102, 105, 118-121, 122 as licensing and identifying heads, 1 15116, 134-135 [ Partitive], 118-121, 137 n. 7 [ Plural], 119-121 Readjustment, 187 n. 3 Reconstruction, 30, 32-35, 39 n. 16, 39 n. 17, 39 n. 18, 60, 66, 1 1 7 , 163 n. 8 Reference, 35, 39 n. 19 Referential indexing, 18 Regeneration, 137 n. 5 Relative Clauses, 57, 59 Relativized Minimality, 16-20, 66 n. 1, 137 n. 6, 157, 164 n. 15, 177 S-Structure, 162 n. 4 Sentence Grammar, 25 Si (French, if), 57

209

Index Sloppy Identity, 33-35 Sluicing, 20, 21, 39 n. 15, 66 n. 1, See also Ellipsis; Ellipsis Identification Parameter (EIP) in Bavarian German, 58-59, 60 in French, 57-58, 136 in German, 57-58, 136 and identification, 56-58, 62 and licensing, 54, 56, 58, 62 in Norwegian, 60 and Pied Piping, 60 and Preposition Stranding, 60-61 and reconstruction, 39, n. 17, 66 and reference, 35 and split antecedents, 30 versus Gapping 23-26 and X-bar Theory, 45-46, 47 Som (Norwegian, that), 59-60 SPEC(A), 48, 49 SPEC(ADV), 48, 49 SPEC(C), 46, 50. See also COMP, AGR in; WH-Movement in Bavarian German, 59 and feature checking, 68 n. 12 in infinitives, 176-179, 187, 189n. 8 in Norwegian, 60 and Pied Piping, 61-62 in relative clauses, 184, 185 and SPEC-head agreement, 54-58, 69 n. 14 SPEC(DEG), 62-64 SPEC(DET), 52, 96 i. 1, 97 n. 3 in German, 1 10 SPEC-head agreement, 51, 52, 54-55, 57-60, 62, 116, 117, 136, 157, 158, 177. See also SPEC(C); DET [+Poss] SPEC(I), 69, n. 18, 98, n. 8 SPEC(N). 44, 45, 50, 51, 66 n. 2 in French, 125 in German, 112, 117 SPEC(NEG), 157 SPEC(P), 48, 49, 61-62 SPEC(V) 48, 49 SPELLOUT, 68 n. 12 Split antecedents, 29 Strict identity, 33-35 Stripping, 21, 26-28, 38 n. 11, 39 n. 15 Strong agreement. See a/so Ellipsis Identification Parameter; Licensing defined, 51 in English DP, 52-53, 67 n. 8-9, 71-73, 85, 87, 89-92, 135, 137 n. 4, 163 n. 6, defined, 133-134 in French DP, 101, 131-133, 135, 138

n. 14, 138-139n. 15, 139-140n. 16, defined, 134 in German DP, 101, 113-115, 117, 119121, 135, 137 n. 5, 137 n. 4, 137 n. 7, defined, 134 identification of pro, 15, 20, 35, 36 n. 4, 66, 66 n. 1, 69 n. 18 in infinitives, 165, 171, 172 in IP, 54, 146, 157, 163 n. 6 Subjacency, 19, 55 Subject Auxiliary Inversion (SAI), 143, 145, 151-153, 156, 170 in French, 159 Surface anaphora, 39 n. 15 Temporal aspect verbs, 48, 53-54 Tense, 17, 67 n. 6, 97 11. 4, 141-143, 162 n. 1, 162-163 n. 5, 163 n. 11, 164 n. 18, 175. See also Infinitival to; INFL; Verb Raising in French and German; VP Ellipsis, and identification; VP Ellipsis, and licensing; VP Ellipsis in infinitives, and identification; VP Ellipsis in infinitives, and licensing adjunction to AGR, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150-152, 154, 155, 156, 158 features of, 81, 144, 145, 147, 152, 162 11. 2, 163 n. 6

[ Tense] See INFL, features of That, 8, 13, 46, 50, 55, 56, 67 n. 8 Theta-government, 9-13, 15, 17, 18, 36 n. 2, 187 n. 3 Theta-role assignment, 9, 36 11. 2, 69 n. 14, 80, 164 n . 18, 172, 189 n. 11 Theta Theory, 10, 37 n. 4, 167 To. See Infinitival to To-Movement, 187 n. 3 Too/enough infinitives. See Infinitives 'Tough' predicates. See Adjectives, Infinitives TP, 141, 143-144, 145, 155, 162-163, n. 5, 174, 188-189 n. 7 Trace, 9, 12, 13, 37, 17. 5, 55, 57, 59, 60, 69 n. 14, 143, 163 n. 12, 176-177, 182, 189 11. 10. See also Antecedentgovernment; Empty Category Principle: Head-to-head movement; WHMovement formal licensing of, 17 identification of, 18 V 53, 56, 69 11. 18, 87, 143, 188 n. 4. See also Infinitival to, and incorporation with V; Verb Raising; VP Ellipsis

Index

210

features of, 54, 80-81, 144, 145, 146, 147, 171 and identification of empty VP, 172 and proper head government of VP in infinitives, 166, 170-171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 188 n. 5 Verb-Preposition (V-P) Reanalysis, 171-172, 190-191 n. 14 Verb Raising, 11, 54, 142, 144-150, 162 n. 3, 164 n. 18. See also Tense, adjunction to AGR; Verb Second and Auxiliary Reduction, 152, 153 in French, 145, 158, 159, 162, 164 n. 18 in German, 158, 160, 161, 162 and NEG, 155-156 of non-finite be and have, 149-150, 164 n. 17 and Subject Auxiliary Inversion, 151, 153, 154

and VP Ellipsis, 164 n. 17 Verb Second (V2) in German, 153-154, 160, 161, 163 n. 13, 164 n. 16 VP, 14, 19. See also VP Ellipsis, VP Ellipsis in infinitives, VP Preposing adjunction to, 12, 36 n. 2 as a barrier, 11, 12-13, 17, 18, 67-68 n. 11 complements of main verbs, 48, 146, 147148 complements of non-finite be and have, 149-150, 163 n. 8 as a 'derived' empty category (defined), 147 restrictive modifiers in, 47 VP Ellipsis (in English tensed clauses) 20, 39 n. 15, 66 n. 1, 141, 162-163 n. 5, 164 n. 16, 167, 186. See a/so Ellipsis; VP Ellipsis in French; VP Ellipsis in German; VP Ellipsis in infinitives and deletion, 31 and Ellipsis Identification Parameter (EIP), 136 and identification, 35, 53-54, 66, 142-143, 146-150, 152-153, 162 n. 5, 165 and licensing, 52-53, 143, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152-153, 165 licensing and identification by NEG, 154, 156-158

of projections of V, 47, 67-68 n. 11 and reconstruction, 32-34. See also Reconstruction and reference, 35, 39 n. 19 and split antecedents, 29 versus Gapping 21-23, 25-26 and X-bar Theory, 46-50, 67-68 n. 11 VP Ellipsis in French (tensed clauses), 142, 158, 161-162 VP Ellipsis in German (tensed clauses), 142, 158, 160-162 VP Ellipsis in infinitives, 162-163 n. 5, 165, See also Infinitival to; V and proper head government of VP in infinitives in complements of 'tough' predicates, 178-182 in extraposed infinitives, 166-167 in French and German, 190-191 n. 14 and identification, 165, 169, 171, 174, 175, 176, 182 in infinitival complements, 166-167, 173174 in infinitival relatives, 183, 184, 185 in infinitival subjects, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174 in infinitives with lexical subjects, 188 n. 6 and licensing, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 181, 182, 185 in purpose clauses, 186-187 in rationale clauses, 166-167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174-177, 186, 188 n. 6 in subjunctive infinitives, 188-189 n. 1 in loo/enough infinitives, 178-182 VP Preposing, 13, 39 n. 19, 187 n. 2 VP Rule, 33 WH-phrase, 45, 54, 56-57, 60, 62, 68 n. 12, 69 n. 15, 189 n. 8 WH-Movement, 8, 12, 18-19, 46, 57, 59, 60, 68 n. 12, 87, 157 in infinitives, 168, 171-172, 176-177, 182, 189 n. 10, 190-191 n. 14. See also Empty Category Principle; Head Movement Constraint; Head-to-head Movement; Trace Whether, 46, 50, 54, 56, 57, 176, 177 X-Bar Theory, 8-9, 42-51, 188 n. 5