The syntax and semantics of split constructions: a comparative study

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

98

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

Predicate Logic with Anaphora

While Predicate Logic can be used to characterize much linguistic behaviour, it has little to say about the ways in which utterances can change the context of interpretation relevant for the interpretation of anaphoric elements (but see Cresswell, 2002). In this section we introduce the PLA system of Dekker (2002a). This provides an account of the interpretation of anaphoric pronouns in a discourse without necessitating a shift away from the classical satisfaction relation of Predicate Logic. 66 The key to the PLA system is adoption of Stalnaker's (1998) view that indefinites (existentials) and pronouns are generally used with referring intentions. 67 That is, a speaker ought to use these terms with specific witnesses in mind, which she, in addition, is assumed to believe to be related to specific individuals in the actual world. An existential might be used because the identity of the intended referent is not relevant, or because the speaker does not have adequate means to identify the referent. 68 So although existentials and pronouns are used with referential intentions, it is not clear from their semantics alone which individuals satisfy these intentions. Their informational contribution is therefore conceived of as functional upon their possible referents. The referential intentions associated with the use of existentials are modelled in PLA in terms of their possible referents, and since, in a piece of discourse, the various existentials come in a particular order, the whole sum of referential intentions is modelled by means of sequences of possible referents, that is, by means of sequences of individuals that are possible referents for the existentials of the discourse. Syntax For PLA, we introduce into the language of Predicate Logic a set of pointers V = {Pi,P2>•••}• We add (29) to the syntax rules of (2), (3) and (17). (29) every pointer is a term. Length and Scope of a Formula A discourse is taken to consist of a number of conjoined formulae as schematized in (30). Supposing fa is the formula currently under evaluation, fa A ... A fa-i is the preceding discourse. (30)

faA...Afa^±AfaA...

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

4.2.3

99

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

The PLA semantics works by matching the existentials of a discourse with sequences of witnesses (that is, possibly intended referents). Such sequences also determine the possible referents of pointers and this is how anaphoric relations are established. This second use arises because a witness sequence is not only taken to reflect what are the possible referents of existentials in a given formula (say, fa of (30)), but also what might be possible referents of existentials in preceding formulas (faA...A(j)i-i of (30)). To separate these two uses we define: - the length of a formula in (31), that is, the number of "new" witnesses <j> can be thought to contribute to the discourse; and - the scope of a formula in (32), that is, the number of (both "new" and "old") witnesses required whenever <j> is evaluated. (31)

(32)

l(P(h,...,tn)) 1(3x4) l(-*4)

= 0 •= 1(4) + 1 = 0

i(4M>)

= i(4>)+ i(i/,)

s(P(ti,...,tn)) sW>) s(3x4) s(4Aip)

= max{z | p4 is among ti,...,tn} = 8(4)-1(4) = s(4) + l = m&x{s(4) + 1(I/J),S(I/;)}

From (31), we see that an atomic formula has zero length: pointers can only denote "old" witnesses from prior discourse. Likewise, negation has zero length: it is assumed to bind (provide its own witnesses for) the existential quantifiers in its scope. An existential quantifier itself contributes one witness in addition to those contributed by the formula which it binds. The length of a conjunction is the sum of the lengths of its conjuncts. It follows that the length of a formula works out to equal the number of existential quantifiers not outscoped by a negation (also implication and disjunction by (8)). Such occurrences of the existential quantifier we call visible occurrences. Non-visible occurrences (that is, occurrences inside the scope of negation) we will call opaque occurrences. The definition of the scope of a formula works out to be the formula's length plus the number of visible existential quantifiers that the pointers of the formula require there to have been in the preceding discourse:

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

100

101

- If an atomic formula contains a pointer pi, it requires there to be (at least) i visible existential quantifiers in the preceding discourse. This is because (a) the index i makes the pointer pi take as its denotation the i-th accessible witness found when going back in the discourse, and (b) accessible witnesses will only exist provided there are accompanying visible existential quantifier occurrences. The scope of an atomic formula therefore equals the index of the most demanding pointers among its terms. - The scope of ~^4 equals the scope of 4 (which equals its length plus the number of previously required antecedents) minus its length. That is, negation is taken to block the introduction of new witnesses, while leaving pointer requirements on previous discourse intact. - An existential quantifier brings about an increment of one, since the scope of a formula includes its length. - Finally, conjoined formulae make up a discourse (cf. (30)), and so in 4 Aiji, 4 counts as preceding discourse for ip. Hence some of the demands of ty on preceding discourse s(ty) — l(ip) may be met by 4> This leaves I/J requiring there to be s(ip) — l(ip) — 1(4) visible existential quantifiers in the discourse preceding 4 A ty. When this number exceeds the demands of 4 (given by s(4) — l(4))itne whole conjunction's scope becomes this number plus the length of the conjunction, i.e. s(-0) — 1(I/J) — 1(4) + 1(4 Ai/j) = s(i/)). Otherwise, the scope of the conjunction equals the demands of 4 p l u s the length of the conjunction, i.e. s(4) — 1(4) +1(4 A ^ ) = s(4) + W ) Thus, the scope of 4 w * u D e whichever is larger: s(4) + l(ip) or By way of illustration, consider the formulae of (33) and (34). (33) 3x(man(x) A 3t/(woman(?/) A dated(x,y))) woman.] (34) 3x(rose(x) A g a v e ( p 1 , p 2 , x ) )

[A man dated a [He gave her a rose.]

The length and scope of (33) is two: since it contains no pointers, its scope equals its length. The length of (34) is one. In contrast, its scope is three: since it (a) adds a new witness itself, and (b) has its most demanding pointer requiring an antecedent that is the witness for the second visible existential quantifier occurrence back in the previous discourse. The length of the conjunction of the two sentences, Z((33) A (34)), as well as its scope s((33) A (34)), is three. For although the second conjunct establishes an anaphoric link that is

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

two visible existential quantifier occurrences back, these are provided by the first conjunct. Generally, if the scope of a formula 4 equals its length we will say that it is resolved, or anaphorically closed. In that case the formula contributes 1(4) witnesses but it does not impose (trans-sentential) conditions upon witnesses from previous discourse. Interpretation We now give the definition of the satisfaction \=M of a formula 4 in an assignment V and a sequence e made up of individuals from V (the domain of M). This is written: T, e \=M 0- Terms are interpreted as in (35). That is, constant symbols and variables are interpreted just as in Predicate Logic, while a pointer pi selects the i-ih individual from the sequence, since if e is a sequence of individuals (d\, d^ ...), then ei is di.

(

M(t) if t is a constant symbol Y(t) if t is a variable ei if t is a pointer p^

The remainder of the semantics is spelled out in (36), with the following notation: - ce is the concatenation of sequences c and e; - de is a sequence with witness d as its first element; and - T>n is the set of all sequences with length n made up of elements from V. (36) -T,e\=M - r, e

P(h,..., tn) iff <[*i W , e , . . . , [*» W , * > €= M(P)

KM

-4 iff - 3 c G V1^ : T, ce

KM

4

- T,de \=M 3x0 iff T[x/d], e \=M (/> - T,ce

\=M

4 Aip 1ST,e

\=M

and T,ce

^ where c G T>1^

\=M

Satisfaction of an atomic formula P(...) is defined just as in Predicate Logic, except for the fact that the formula may house anaphoric pointers, the interpretation of which is determined by the given sequence of individuals. The negation of a formula 4 tells us that 4 is simply false. It states that there is no way to match up the existential quantifiers of 4 with a sequence c of 1(4) individuals. A negation thus closes the "existential holes" of the formula 4 i n its scope, so that,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

102

103

e.g., -i3xP(x), as usual, means that no x is P. As a consequence, existential quantifiers in 4 cannot serve as antecedents for subsequent pointers. An existentially quantified formula 3x0 behaves like an ordinary quantifier in that it binds free occurrences of the variable x in its scope. But it also behaves like a free variable itself: possible witnesses for the quantified statement come from the first individual in the sequence relative to which the quantified formula is evaluated. So if e is a sequence satisfying 4 under an assignment of d to x, then de satisfies 3x0. Such a sequence is thus seen to keep track of the possible witness d for x, which as a consequence can be (re)addressed by subsequent pointers outside the scope of 3x0. From the existential quantifier's interpretation it follows that sequences reflect the introduction of witnesses for corresponding quantifiers in reversed order, so that a sequence (d\, c^, •••) is said to satisfy a certain discourse, if d\ is a possible referent of the existential used last (the most "salient" one, so to speak), d
of0. (37)

r , (di...didi+i...dijrjdi+jjri...) T, (di+i...di+jdi+j+i...) r , (di...didi+i...di+jdi+j+i...)

\=M 0A-0 ^=M 4 \=M V>

iff and

This shows, firstly, how each conjunct may contribute its sequence of (possible) witnesses ((di+i...di+j) for 0 and (di...di) for -0), and, secondly, that pointers can be related to the witnesses of previous discourse ((di+j+i...) for 0 and (di+i...di+jdi+j+i...) for I/J). Notice that such a "dynamic" conjunction is stated in terms of a static satisfaction relation: it is only the presence of witnesses that make it different from a classical notion of conjunction. Thus conceived, all that is dynamic here (and, hence, about the PLA notion of interpretation) is that it accounts for the intuition that in a succession of two assertions, one assertion literally precedes the other. With this knowledge of how conjunction works, we should note that existentials and pointers are quite similar, with the equivalences of (38)-(40) holding. (38) T, de \=M 3xP (x) iff T, de ^=M P (Pi) (39) T,bde

K M 3X(P(X)

A 3j/Q(y)) iff T,bde \=M P(p x ) AQ(p 2 )

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(40) T,bde \=M 3xP(x) A 3yQ(y)

ffiT,bde\=M

P(p 2 )AQ(p 1 )

Differences between existentials and pointers reside in the way they are taken up in various configurations. Existentials can be seen to introduce "new" referents, whereas pointers refer back to "old" ones. A second key difference is that existentials are quantified away under negation, while pointers are not. Also note that (39) and (40) illustrate how the relevant order of existentials does not necessarily correspond to their linear surface order. Rather the ordering is determined by syntactic structure, thus 3y comes after 3x in (41) (that is, is more "salient"), but 3y comes before 3x in (42) (that is, is less "salient"). (41) 3x(...) (42)

A3y(...)

3x(..3y(...)).

Examples Let us now see how PLA handles some key-note examples of systems of dynamic interpretation. Consider (33), repeated as (43). (43) 3x(man(x) A Ely (woman (y) A d a t e d ( x , y ) ) ) woman.]

[A man dated a

As (44) shows, (43) is satisfied by a sequence cde. (Throughout this section e can be taken to be any sequence.) That is, (43) is true if and only if c is a man who dated woman d. (44) Y,cde \=M (43) iff c G M(maji),d M (dated)

G At (woman) and (c,d) G

Now consider (34), repeated as (45). (45) 3x(rose(x) A g a v e ( p 1 , p 2 , x ) )

[He gave her a rose.]

As (46) shows, (45) is satisfied by a sequence bode. (46) T,bcde^M

(45) iff b G .M(rose) and (c,d,b) G .M(gave)

That is, (45) is true if and only if b is a rose given by c to d. (47) illustrates the conjunction of (43) and (45). Notably, the pointers of (45) get identified with the intended referents of the man and woman mentioned in (43), that is, to the witnesses of the first and second existentials back in the discourse.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

104

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

105

(47) T,bcde K M (43) A (45) iff c G M(man), d G M(woman), (c,d) G .M(dated), b G Morose) and (c,d,b) G Al(gave)

(48) (43) —» (45) [If a man dated a woman then he gave her a rose.] The PLA notion of implication is defined in terms of negation and conjunction as in (8). Working this out, we find (49) holds. (49) r , e h M 0 - + ^ i f f \/ce VlM: if r , c e \=M 0 then 3a G V1^: T,ace \=M 4 This gives (48) the satisfaction conditions of (50). (50) r , e h M ( 4 8 ) i f f Vcd G V2: iir,cde\=M (43) then 36 G V: T,bcde\=M (45) iff Vcd eV2: iice M(m<m), d G M(woman), and (c,d) G M(dated) then 3b eV: be .M(rose) and (c,d,b) G .M(gave) Hence, (48) will be satisfied by any sequence provided that every man gives a rose to every woman he dates. These are the standard truth conditions associated with an implication with the form of (48) in Discourse Representation Theory and systems of dynamic semantics.

4.2.4

Predicate Logic with Barriers

In PLA, pointers and variables have a complementary distribution. Variables can only be bound by quantifiers in whose scope they find themselves; pointers, however, do not 'see' these quantifiers, and only refer back to witnesses which pop up after an existential formula has been closed. This is great if our attention is limited to accounting for inter-sentential anaphora and donkey anaphora. But there are plenty of instances in natural language where anaphoric relations are established internal to a sentence, for example, as the coindexation in (51) indicates. (51) Someonei thinks that he* is happy. In a PLA type logic, this equates to being able to establish anaphoric relations with an existential internal to that existential's scope. To achieve this we turn to our final logic, Predicate Logic with Barriers (PLB) (first introduced in Butler, 2003). Building on the previous

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Finally, consider a so-called "donkey sentence" with the form of (48).

106

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

systems, this logic introduces a barrier operator that moves witnesses from the assignment to the discourse context where they are in the reach of pointers.

For PLB, we introduce into the language a barrier operator, adding (52) to the syntax rules of (2), (3), (17) and (29). (52) if 0 is a formula and xi,..., xn are variables then BAR/xi...x n 0 is a formula. The variables x\,..., xn in BAR/xi...x n are considered free occurrences of variables in the formula. We treat x\, ...,xn in jjx\...xn as a set. So jjx\...xn is in fact a shorthand for jj{x\, ...,xn}. We will say that BAR/xi...x n is slashed by X\,...,xn. We further shorten BAR/0 to BAR. Length and Scope of a Formula To get an immediate idea of how BAR is going to work, as well as the system in general, we can look at how it effects the scope of a formula. This is calculated with s of (54), which is the length of the formula (calculated with I of (31) and (53)) plus the number of existentials which the pointers of the formula require there to have been in the preceding discourse. (53) /(BAR//X 0) = 1(4) (54)

8(4)

- 5(0,0,0) s(e,k,Pti,...,tn) = max{fc,max{z | p^ is among ti,...,tn}} s e s(e,k,-<4) = ( ,k,4) -1(4) s(e,k,3x4) = s(e + l,k,4) + 1 s(e, k, 4 Aip) = max{s(e, k, 0) + 1(I/J), s(e, k,*4)} s(e,k,BAR//X4) = s(card(X), k + e — card(X), 0) — e — card(X) provided e > card(X)

For bookkeeping purposes, the definition of scope for PLB carries two additional numbers, e and k, both initially set to 0. - e keeps track of the number of existentials able to bind variables. Upon a BAR/X occurrence, it is reset to the cardinality of X. This corresponds to the number of existentials that maintain there binding influence past the BAR//X occurrence.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Syntax

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

107

The number that is added to k is also subtracted from the overall scope calculation. The reason for this is that k enters into the scope calculation at the atomic formula level, and so this apparent removal of information actually prevents its duplication. We should also note that s(e,k, BAR//X4) only works provided e > card(X), that is the number of variables left open in 0 does not exceed the number of variables bound. The other operations of negation, existential quantification and conjunction are defined basically as they were in (32). Also, just as in (32), if an atomic formula contains a pointer pi, it requires there to be (at least) i existentials in the preceding discourse. But this is not all, as the number k is returned when it happens to be higher than the indices carried by the formula's pointers. Thus, the scope of an atomic formula equals either the index of the most demanding pointers among its terms or the number k, whichever is highest. If there are no pointers around, its scope sets to k, which as noted starts out as 0. By way of illustration, consider the formulas of (55)-(58): (55) 3XBARPCP!) (56) 3x3t/3zBARP(p3) (57) 3xBAR/xP(p x ) (58)

3x3y3zBAR//xyzP(ps)

The length and scope of (55) is one: since it contains a BAR which destroys the binding potential of the existential while adding to the discourse context the witness the pointer picks up. For the same reason, the length and scope of (56) is three. The length of (57) is one. In contrast, its scope is two: despite containing a BAR, this is slashed for x, leaving the binding potential of 3x intact, thus requiring an additional witness for the pronoun to be resolved. For the same reason, the length of (58), which is three, differs from its scope, which is six.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

- k keeps track of the number of existentials which will have lost their binding role. This number only increases with a BAR/X, where it has added to it the number e minus the number of existentials that maintain there binding influence (namely, card(X)).

108

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

Free Variables

(59) no occurrence of x in 3x0 or Vx0 is free unless it occurs free under the scope of a BAR/X where x & X (and with such a case, the resulting formula cannot be evaluated). Interpretation PLB breaks in two the single sequence of PLA to give: 1. a sequence of individuals yet to be introduced by the discourse, which we will call the novel sequence, and 2. a sequence of individuals already introduced by the discourse, that is, the discourse context. With this change, we give the definition of the satisfaction \=M of a formula 0 in the assignment T, the novel sequence c and the discourse context e. This is written: T,c, e \=M 4- All terms (constant symbols, variables and pointers) are interpreted just as in PLA, that is, as in (35). However, the assignment in PLB is taken to be partial. Thus, it is possible that a variable x has no mapped value. If such is the case, x can have no denotation, and so the satisfaction relation is said to crash. Similarly, an adequately sized discourse context is not secured, so that if p^ is evaluated with respect to a sequence with length less than i, the satisfaction relation is once more said to crash. 69 Hence, pointers can only be used in environments where the context supplies a suitable range of antecedents. The rest of the semantics is spelled out in (60). Note that () is the empty sequence. T|X is the assignment T, but with its domain of application restricted to the variables in X. (60) - r , ( ) , e > ^ P ( t i , . . , g

iff([*iW,?v.,[*nkr,?)€^(P)

-r,(),ehM-0iff-3cG^W

:T,c,e^M4

- T, dc, e \=M 3x0 iff T[x/d], c, e \=M 4 - T, ca, e -Y,c,e

\=M

4 Aip iff T, a, e

\=M

4

an(

i I\ c, de

\=M

ty

\=M BAR//X 0 iff T\X,c, (T(xi),...,T(x n ))e \=M 4 where {xi,..., x n } = domain(r) — X

Just as in PLA, atomic formulae in (60) are evaluated relative to a model, an assignment and a discourse context. The thing to note

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Given the introduction of BAR, the definition of free variables in (20) needs to be adjusted thus:

109

that is different about the PLB formulation is that an atomic formula can only be evaluated if the novel sequence is empty. Failure to meet this condition causes the evaluation to crash. This has the effect of helping to ensure that there are not too many witnesses present for the evaluation. We should note that an evaluation crash does not have the same status as being undefined in a three valued logic. An interpretation crash is in essence a syntactic violation, and indeed from §4.3/113 onwards we equate interpretation crash with ungrammaticality. A clear distinction between the two notions arises with disjunction. In a three valued logic, a disjunction is true if either disjunct is true, false if both are false and otherwise undefined. This gives the truth table in (61a), with "u" the truth-value status of being undefined. In contrast, the interpretation of the disjunction of PLB (as derived via (8)) crashes whenever one of its disjuncts crashes. For illustrative purposes, we can think of this as giving the table in (61b), with "c" indicating an interpretation crash. However, be aware that "c" does not have a truth value status: PLB, like the previous logics we looked at, has only the truth values true and false. A T u F T u F T u F

B T T T u u u F F F

AVB T T T T u u T u F

A T c F T c F T c F

B T T T c c c F F F

AVB T c T c c c T c F

The negation of a formula 0 tells us that there is no way of supporting 0. Just like in PLA, in determining this, negation binds the existential quantifiers of 0. The only difference comes in the separation of the novel sequence from the discourse context, since the novel sequence is required to be empty. If the novel sequence is not empty, the evaluation crashes, with too many witnesses being present for the evaluation. The existential quantifier removes a witness and assigns this to the variables it binds. This is the PLA behaviour. In taking as its value the first element of the novel sequence, it even picks up the same witness: the single sequence of PLA being the concatenation of the

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

novel sequence and the discourse context. What is different is that if 3x0 is evaluated with respect to an empty novel sequence, T[x/d\ can have no completion, causing the satisfaction procedure to crash. This ensures that enough witnesses are present for the evaluation. The system inherits its conjunction from PLA: the first conjunct is evaluated before the second has come up with its possible witnesses and the second after the first has done so. What is different is that the single sequence of PLA is broken in two, that is, into the novel sequence and the discourse context. Because an interpretation crash will occur if there are either too many witnesses in the novel sequence or too few, an 1(4) calculation is not required in the semantic definition: that the novel sequence is the length it needs to be is assured by an evaluation success. More formally, if novel sequence a satisfies 0 given the discourse context e, and novel sequence c satisfies a subsequent 4 given the extended discourse context de, then the combined novel sequence ca also satisfies the conjunction of 0 and ijj given discourse context e. This can be pictured as in (62), given that i is the length 1(4) of 4 (making (di...di) the equivalent of c), and j is the length 1(4) of 0 (making (di+i...di+j) the equivalent of a). (62)

T, (d1...didi+1...di+j),(di+j+1...) T, {di+i...di+j), (di+j+1...) T, (di...di), (di+i...di+jdi+j+i...)

\=M 0A-0 \=M 4 \=M 4

iff and

As (62) makes clear, since the ordering of items both inside and between the novel sequence and discourse context is always maintained, we could continue to think of the two sequences as forming a single sequence just as in PLA that is judiciously broken up by the interpretation procedure. (62) also illustrates how the first conjunct is able to contribute its sequence of (possible) witnesses as accessible values for the pointers of the second conjunct, since for the second conjunct these witnesses are at the front of the discourse context. This "dynamics" is further illustrated by the calculations in (64) and (66). In (64), p x (he) and 3x (someone) are forced to take as their values different witnesses, while in (66) their values are the same witness. (63) smiles(p x ) A 3xlaughs(x)

[He smiles and someone laughs.]

(64) {},a,be\=M (63) iff {},(),be\=M smiles(p 1 ) and {},a,be \=M 3xlaughs(x) iff {}, (),be \=M smiles(p x ) and {x H-> a}, (),be \=M l a u g h s ( X ) iff b e .M(smiles) and a G .M(laughs)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

110

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics (65) 3xsmiles(x) A laughs (p x )

111

[Someone smiles and he laughs.]

This demonstrates how a witness is moved from the novel sequence to the assignment by an existential (where it becomes the value of a variable occurrence) and then on to the discourse context by the conjunction (where it is accessible for pointers). Thus, just as in PLA, a pointer p^ in taking as its denotation the i-th witness from the discourse context, receives an interpretation that is coreferential with the i-th existential quantifier occurrence found when going back in the discourse from the place where the pointer occurs. We should note that existentials and pointers are no longer as similar as they were in PLA. Now, the equivalences of (67)~(69) hold.

(67) r,d,ehAi3xP(x) iffr,(),dehMP(Pi) (68) T,bd,e\=M 3x(P(x) A3yQ(y)) iff r, (),bde \=M P( P l ) AQ(p2) (69) Y,bd,e\=M

3xP(x) A 3y§(y) iff T,(),bde\=M

P(p 2 ) AQCp^

The difference between the two types is sharply illustrated with existentials taking their witnesses from the novel sequence (being seen to introduce "new" referents), whereas pointers link up to witnesses from the discourse context (being seen to refer back to "old" ones). The novel ingredient of the system is the BAR operator. This performs two roles: 1. it restricts the assignment F, so that T only assigns witnesses to the variables that slash it, and 2. it adds to the front of the discourse context all witnesses removed

from r. The calculation in (70) illustrates these roles, with BAR slashed for y. In addition, (70) shows that, as a consequence of moving to the discourse context, witnesses removed from the assignment cannot be reached by subsequent quantifier actions, but can be reached by pointers. Thus, while the first occurrence of 3x no longer binds x of P(^>y >Pi) 5 it does have the effect of binding p 1? or rather it 'colinks' with p x .

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(66) {},a,e\=M(6h)ffi {},a,e\=M 3xsmiles(x) and {}, (),ae \=M laughs(p 1 ) iff {x i—• a}, (),e \=M smiles(x) and {}, (),ae \=M laughs(p x ) iff a G M(smiles) and a G M(laughs)

112

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(70) {y^a},bc,e \=M 3xBAR//y3xP(xyyyj>1) iff {x i-> b,y i-> a},c,e\=M BAR/?/3xP(x,y,p 1 ) iff {x^b,y^ a}|{y},c,{x ^b,y*-> a}(x)e \=M 3xP(x,?/,p 1 ) iff {y ^a},c,be \=M 3xP(x,y,p 1 ) iff

iff


10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

{x^c,y\-^a},(),be\=MV(x,y>Pi)

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

113

Summary To sum up, we note that the interpretation procedure of PLB crashes: - if a variable is not assigned a value at its point of evaluation (possible because the assignment is partial); - if a formula with either form P(t\,...,tn) or -i0 is evaluated with respect to a non-empty novel sequence (ensures there are not too many witnesses); - if an existential quantifier 3x0 is evaluated with respect to an empty novel sequence (ensures enough witnesses); - if a pointer p^ is evaluated with respect to a discourse context with length less than i (the pointer can only be used provided the discourse context supplies a suitable range of antecedents). Moreover we should note that the system gives rise to four types of binding relations: 1. bound (in an operator-variable relation); 2. colinked (linked to the same witness, which is basically the equivalent of "donkey anaphora," and so can have the effect of mimicking a binding relation, but notably in all quantified contexts when brought about by a BAR); 3. covalued (linked to different witnesses that are the same individual from V); and 4. disjoint in reference (linked to different witnesses that are different individuals from V).

4.3

PLB and Constraints on Syntactic Dependencies

In the rest of this chapter we look at examples where a case can be made for the constraints of a syntactic dependency being manifestations of the interpretability conditions of the PLB system. §4.3.2/115

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(74) {},(),(e 1 ...)hM-3xBAR0iff -n3(dci...cn) G V* : {}, (dci...cn), (ex...) ^=M 3xBAR 0 iff {x i-> d}, (ci...c n ), (ei...) \=M BAR 0 iff {}, (ci...c n ),(dei...) |=>t 0

114

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

4.3.1

A Word on Notation

Before launching into the topics of this section, we need to comment on less standard aspects of the notation we will use to bridge the gap between conventional syntactic LF representations and the formulas PLB evaluates. First, we reduce the notion of c-command to the methods of phrasal composition in (75) with their identical semantic expansions. (75) a. [Op 0] 4 iff Op(0 4) b. ^ [ O p 0 ] iffOp(0<8>^) The connective is sensitive to the choice of Op. In the case of existential quantification Op = "3x" and 0 = "A". For universal quantification, Op = "Vx" and ® = "—•". For example, "Some man likes every woman" gets the interpretable LF in (76), which, given (75), is identical to (77). (76) [DP some man] [vp likes [DP every woman] ] [3xman(x)] ( l i k e s ( x , i / ) \Sy woman(y)] ) (77) 3y(maii(y) A V^(woman(z) —• l i k e s ( z / , z ) ) ) Unless specified otherwise (as was the case with the universal), we will always assume that = "A". Second, sentences with embedded clauses will yield formulas with content P : 0 . We use ":" to indicate that 0 is an additional argument of P. Thus, (78) is identical to (79). (78) someone thinks someone lied [3x] t h i n k s (x) : \3y] lied(?/) (79) 3xthinks(x,3?/lied(y)) However, we are unable to evaluate (79) since we have no semantic interpretation for embedding verbs. To provide this would require a lengthy digression and that we replace our extensional set up with a more involved intensional one. 71 Instead, to evaluate such formulae we will simply remove the contribution of the embedding verb. This

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

and §4.3.4/121 deal with movement relations (A- and A-, respectively), 70 while §4.3.3/119 and §4.3.5/126 are concerned with dependencies that do not appear to involve movement (binding dependencies and strong crossover effects, respectively).

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

115

gives an interpretable formula, while leaving intact the claims we wish to make with such examples.

A ( r g u m e n t ) Movement

In this section we look at phenomena that have been held to involve movement of an element to an A-position or argument position in terminology stemming from Government Binding Theory. Such positions were those in which an element could be base generated and bear a crucial semantic role with a clause's main predicate. This included the Spec-IP or subject position, since subjects were taken to be base-generated in Spec-IP before the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis (Koopman and Sportiche, 1991, among others). 72 An example of A-movement is the movement of the object to subject position in passive constructions, as in (80). (80) Someonei was nominated ei. Under Minimalism, all nominals have Case features that must be checked. The affixation of a passive morpheme is thought to destroy a verb's ability to check the Case feature of its object, which is still generated in complement position. As a result, the object is forced to move to a subject position in which its ("nominative") Case feature may be checked. A second form of A-movement involves the subject of an infinitival complement having to raise to become the subject of the predicate selecting the infinitival complement. Illustrated in (81), this is known as subject-to-subject raising. It is likewise driven by the need for the nominal to check its Case feature which will have gone unchecked in its base position. 73 (81) a.

Someonei seemed/proved/tended/is likely ei to be a great linguist, b. Therei seemed/proved/tended/is likely ei to be a lot of discussion.

Such raising instances need to be distinguished from control constructions like in (82). One difference is the fact that the subject of a control construction must be animate, as the ungrammatical (82b) shows. In contrast, no such restriction is placed on the subjects of the infinitive-taking predicates in (81), except that they be possible subjects of the infinitive predicate. Thus, while the selecting

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

4.3.2

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

predicate of a control infinitive imposes "thematic" restrictions on its subject, the selecting predicate of a raising infinitive does not bear any relation, other than person, number, and gender features, to its subject. This difference is accounted for with the idea that a control construction like (82a) involves the presence of the null pronominal PRO in addition to the (base generated) matrix subject to give two linked elements capable of taking separate theta roles, whereas raising infinitives have no such additional element. Someone tried/strived/wanted/expected [PRO to be a great linguist], b. *There tried/strived/wanted/expected [PRO to be a lot of discussion].

(82) a.

A second difference is Stowell's (1982) observation that control infinitivals and raising infinitivals have different temporal properties. The event time of control infinitivals is, in some sense, unrealized or future with respect to the event time of the matrix. For example, in (83a) remembering precedes beer-bringing; in (83b) Mary has been convinced to fly once to Singapore sometime in the future; in (83c) the purchase of a new laptop is as yet unrealized. (83) a. J o h n remembered [PRO to bring the beer]. b. John convinced M a r y [PRO to fly once to Singapore]. c. J o h n wants [PRO to buy a new laptop]. In contrast, the event time of raising infinitivals is identical to, or simultaneous with, the event time of the matrix. For example, (84) is true if and only if at some past time/interval t, John was believed to be the best at/during t; it cannot mean that at some past time/interval t, it was believed that John would be (become) the best at some future time/interval t'. (84) Johni was believed ei to be the best. Stowell characterizes this interpretive difference in terms of the feature [±TENSE]: control infinitivals are [+TENSE] whereas raising infinitivals are [—TENSE]. We will adopt Stowell's idea and suppose that a BAR operator is introduced with [+TENSE]. There are good reasons for supposing that the tense feature uniformally moves to C (e.g., T-to-C movement, verb-second languages, etc.) and so we will assume that, at LF, a [+TENSE] clause has a BAR in its C domain. 74 We also need an

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

116

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

117

analysis of PRO, which we take to be a pronoun, as in (85), that is, a pronoun that picks up the most salient individual of the discourse context. 75 Pl]

With these assumptions we are in a position to account for the contrast between control infinitivals and raising infinitivals. T in infinitivals selected by control predicates is [4-TENSE] and so introduces a BAR. This allows PRO as in (86), but prohibits raising as in (87). (86) Someone tried [CP P R O to be great]. BAR [3x] t r i e d ( x ) :BAR I3y y = p x ] g r e a t (y) (87) *Someonei tried [cp ei to be great]. BAR [ 3 x ] t r i e d ( x ) : BAR g r e a t (?/) (86) is okay because, as the derivation in (88) shows, the presence of the BAR sends someone's witness to the discourse context where it is available for anaphoric pick up by PRO. (88) {},bb,e\=M (86) iff {}, bb, e ^=M B x ] BAR [3y y = p x ] g r e a t (y) iff {x i-» b}, b, e \=M BAR [3y y = p-^ g r e a t (y) iff {}, b, be K M By y = p ^ g r e a t (t/) iff {y *-* b}, (), be \=M g r e a t (y) (87) is bad because, as the derivation in (89) shows, x is left without a binder in the infinitive clause, having been scoped over by a BAR that eliminates someone's x-binding. (89) {}, b, e\=M (87) crashes trying {},b,e \=M [3x] BAR g r e a t (x) iff {x i-> b}, (),e \=M BAR g r e a t (x) iff {}A)ibe\=M g r e a t (x) In contrast, T in infinitivals selected by raising predicates is [—TENSE] and so does not introduce a BAR. This allows raising in (90), but prohibits PRO in (91). (90) Someonei seems ei to be great. BAR [3x]seems:great(x) (91) ^Someone seems P R O to be great. BAR [3x] seems: [3y y = p x ]great(y)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(85) PRO := [3x x =

118

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(92) {},ab,be\=M (91) iff {},ab,be\=M Qx] I3y y = p x ] g r e a t (y) iff {x H-» a}, b, be \=M I3y y = p x ] g r e a t (y) iff {x H+ a, y \-+ b}, (), be ^=M g r e a t (y) This analysis predicts that adding additional raising predicates allows successive applications of A-movement to apply to a single DP, as illustrated in (93). (93) a.

Someonei seems ei likely ei to win. BAR [3x]seems:likely:win(x) b. Someonei is believed ex to appear ei to be likely ei to be nominated ei. BAR [3x] believed: appears: l i k e l y : nominated(x)

But while A-movement can move a DP indefinitely far, as (93) suggests, this appears to be achievable only with the most local of steps. Long-distance raising or "super-raising" that crosses a filled subject position is ill-formed, as (94) illustrates. (94) a. *Someonei seems [CP that it is likely ei to win]. BAR [3x] seems:BAR likely:win(t/) b. *Someonei is believed [CP that a medal was awarded ei]. BAR [3x]believed:BAR I3y medal(y)]awarded(x,y) Given that [—TENSE] clauses with filled subject positions do not exist, the data in (94) is exactly as expected. We should note that in the literature, two types of accounts have been offered for (94). First, under the ECP inspired proposal of Lasnik and Saito (1984), (94a,b) are ruled out by viewing the longdistance raised subject as failing to antecedent govern the trace because of the intervening C P / I P pair. Second, (94a,b) are ruled out under Relativized Minimality (Rizzi, 1990): someone as the head of an A-chain cannot antecedent govern its trace due to an intervening A-spec (it and a medal, respectively). In this respect, the PLB analysis is most closely related to the ECP inspired account.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(90) is okay, since x in the embedded clause is bound by someone, there being no BAR to disrupt the binding. (91) is bad because, as (92) shows, there is no BAR present to send the witness of someone into the discourse context, prohibiting PRO form entering into an anaphoric link with someone.

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

119

To sum up, the constraints on A-movement are the constraints on variable binding we see in PLB.

Binding Dependencies

In this section we consider what PLB has to say about the locality contrast between anaphors and pronominals. We assume that anaphors are variables x, y, z, etc. and that pronominals are interpreted as in (95). (95) he, she, him, her := [3x x = p^] The rough generalization is that anaphors must be bound by an antecedent that not only c-commands, but is also sufficiently "local." Pronominals can be bound, but only if the antecedent is sufficiently "non-local." Thus, the well-formed anaphoric dependency in (96), which does not cross a clause boundary, contrasts with the ill-formed dependency in (97), which does. (96) Someonei likes himselfi BAR [ 3 x ] l i k e s ( x , x ) (97)*Someonei thinks that [you like himselfi] BAR [3x] t h i n k s (x) : BAR youJLike (x) Conversely, disjoint reference with a pronoun is enforced internally to a clause, as in (98), but not across a clause boundary, as in (99). (98)*Someonei likes himi BAR [3x] ( l i k e s (x, y) \3y y = p x ]) (99) Someonei thinks [you like himi] BAR [3x] t h i n k s (x) :BAR (youJLike(y) [3y y = p j ) These facts fall out from the PLB semantics. As the calculation of (100) shows, (97) is bad since T(x) fails to denote. Here, the ungrammaticality is not just relative to the indexing: himself requires an antecedent and so the sentence remains out even when himself is not coindexed with someone. (100) {},b,e\=M (97) crashes trying {},6,e | = M [3x] BAR youJLike(x) iff {x i—• b}, (), e \=M BAR youJlike(x) iff {},(), be \=M youJLike (x)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

4.3.3

120

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(101) {},ab,be\=M (98) iff {}, ab, be \=M B x ] ( l i k e s (x, y) [3y y = p j ) iff {x f-> a}, b, be \=M l i k e s (x, y) [3y y = P}] iff {x h-> a, y «-> b}, (),be\=M l i k e s (x,t/) iff (a,b) G M ( l i k e s ) In (99), him can corefer with someone. This is possible because the BAR of the embedded clause moves someone's witness from the assignment to the discourse context. This has the effect of making someone's witness unavailable for anaphors but available for pronouns, as (102) shows. (102) {},66,ehM(99)iff {},bb,e | = M [3x]BAR (youJLike(y) I3yy = p1]) iff {x i-» b}, b, e \=M BAR (youJLike (y) [3y y = p x ]) iff {}, b, be \=M youJLike (?/) I3y y = p x ] iff {y H-» b}, (),be\=M youJLike(y) iff b e .M(youJLike) Our account of binding makes a further prediction, namely, that the degree of locality that applies to A-movement should also apply to anaphors. Hence, without [+TENSE], and hence a BAR, the binding domain grows. Compare e.g. (103a,b) to (93a,b), and (104a,b) to (94a,b). Once again, ungrammaticality judgements (here (104a,b)) follow from evaluation failures. (103) a.

Someonei seems to know herselfi very well. BAR [3x]seems:know_very_well(x,x) b. Someonei is believed to appear to be likely to nominate herselfi. BAR [3x] b e l i e v e d : appears: l i k e l y : n o m i n a t e s (x, x)

(104) a. *Someonei says [CP that it is possible to know herselfi very well]. BAR [3x] says (x) : BAR p o s s i b l e : know_very_well (x, x) b. *Someonej believes [CP that a medal was awarded herselfi]. BAR [3x] b e l i e v e s (x) : BAR I3y medal (y) ] awarded (x, y)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The ungrammaticality indicated by the star of (98) is relative to the indexing: as (101) demonstrates, (98) is interpretable given that he and someone are not coindexed. This is because someone removes the witness a from the opening novel sequence ab, placing a into the assignment where it is unavailable for the pronoun to pick up.

121

Finally, consider (105), a typical so called "Condition C" violation. As (106) shows, the ungrammaticality indicated by the star is relative to the indexing: the structure of (105) dictates that he must take its witness from the discourse context before someone has taken its referent from the novel sequence. This rules out the possibility of coreference as a witness can only cross from the novel sequence to the discourse context. (105) *Hei likes someonei. BAR [3x x = p x ] ( l i k e s (x,y) [3y]) (106) {},ba,be\=M (105) iff {},ba,be\=M [3x x = p x ] ( l i k e s ( x , y ) [3y]) iff {x H-> b}, a, be \=M l i k e s (x, y) \_3y~] iff { X H b,yt-> a}, (),be\=M l i k e s ( x , y ) Moreover, coreferential dependence remains impossible even if someone in (105) were to scope over the pronoun, as it would if quantifier raised, and as it does in the topicalized (107). This is illustrated with the calculation in (108). Notably, the impossibility of interpreting (107) under the stated indexing arises as a consequence of the form of the interpretable LF representation. This result contrasts with previous theories of binding that have captured such facts with appeals to S-structure as the level at which to specify constraints on binding, an appeal that cannot even be stated with a Minimalist syntax. 76 (107) * Someonei, hei likes ei. [3yl [3x x = p t ] l i k e s ( x , y ) (108) {},ab,be\=M (107) iff {y H+ a},b, be \=M C3X X = p x ] l i k e s ( x , y ) iff {x H 6 , J / H a}, {),be^=M l i k e s ( x , y ) To sum up, the constraints on binding dependencies are the constraints on variable/pointer binding we see in PLB, capturing the fact that anaphors must, and pronouns can, be bound.

4.3.4

A-Movement

A - m o v e m e n t is movement to a non-argument position. The prototypical example is WH-movement, as in (109a-e) (showing five subcases: main clauses, embedded clauses, free relatives, pseudoclefts, and relative clauses). Other types are null operator movement,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

122

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(109) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Whoi do you like ei? I don't know whoi you mean ei. Whatever! you say ei about John, I still think he's okay. Whati John is e[ is proud of himself. I have never read the book whichi John recommended e\. I have never read the book Opi (that) John recommended ei.

g. Shakespeare is tough Opi to get students to read ei. h. [These books] i, I have never read e^ Unlike A-movement, A-movement is not Case driven. Thus it is able to affect more categories than just DP, as (110) shows. (110) a. [To whom]i did you speak ei? b. [In these books]i, I would never write notes ei. Also unlike A-movement, A-movement is not required to be strictly local, e.g. filled subject positions are crossed in (109) and (110). In fact the grammatical dependencies of (109) and (11.0) have the appearance of being "unbounded," in that the two members of the dependency can occur an indefinite distance apart. ( I l l ) illustrates this, and one can imagine examples in which the distance between the WH-phrase and its trace, measured say in terms of clausal boundaries crossed, is greater. (111) a. Whoi do you like e[ b. Whoi do you believe [that John likes ei] c. Whoi do you believe [that John said [that Mary likes ei]] However, there is an abundance of evidence stemming from Ross (1967) that this type of dependency is also restricted. Thus Amovement is ill formed out of strong islands, regardless of the total distance between the moved element and its gap: (112) illustrates movement from a tensed WH-island, (113) a sentential subject (subject island), (114) an adjunct island, and (115) a relative clause (a complex NP island). (112)*Whoi did you know [why John likes ei]? (113)*Whati does [explaining ei] bother you?

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

as in (109f-g) (showing two subcases: relative clauses and toughmovement), and the movement of focused or topicalized elements, as in (109h). Each of these can be analyzed as movement to Spec-CP. 77

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

123

(114)*Whati was Mary bothered [because Peter explained e^?

Based on the unacceptability of such examples, Chomsky (1973) proposed that long distance movement is never possible, and that apparently distant connections like in (111) are in fact mediated by a sequence of relatively local connections. On one interpretation, this involves a sequence of movements accessing successively higher Spec-CP positions (escape hatches) between the gap position and the ultimate position of the moved item. Thus, a derivation for (111c) can be schematized as in (116), with the successive positions of WHi indicated by ti (its traces). Such step-by-step movement is known as successive cyclic movement. (116) [CP WHi C [IP ... [CP ti C [IP ... [CP tj C [IP ... ej ... ]]]]]] The key significance of this account is that it can then be argued that such short movements are, for some reason, not available in derivations for (112)-(115). In roughly the terms of Chomsky (1973), movement across more than one bounding node is prohibited by subjacency. IP and NP are bounding nodes. Thus, the movement in (116) is licensed. In (112), on the other hand, an example with a tensed WH-island, the embedded Spec-CP is occupied, as shown in (117). Therefore subjacency is violated: the movement of who must have been in one step, crossing two bounding nodes on the way (indexed for illustrative purposes). (117)*[CP

Whoi C [IP 2 you know [CP whyj C [IPX John likes ei ej]]]]?

Similarly, (113)-(115) violate subjacency, as (118)-(120) illustrate, respectively. (118)*[Cp Whati C [IP 2 [NPx [CP ti [rp explaining ei]]] bother you]]? (119)*[CP

Whati C [IP 2 Mary bothered because [rpx Peter explained

(120)*[CP Whati C [rp3 you know [NP 2 the girl [cp whoj [n>x ej explained ei]]]]]? The successive cyclic perspective on A-movement has gained widespread acceptance, and not only because of the theory of island-hood that it supports. Also, languages have been found to provide morphosyntactic confirmation for the core idea that seemingly long move-

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(115)*Whati do you know the girl [whoj ej explained ei]?

124

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

ex etait arrive]]? (121) [cp Quii Jean a dit [CP ti qui who Jean has said that.AGR was arrived 'Who did Jean say arrived?' We too will take the successive cyclic perspective seriously and assume that it is the existence of intermediate traces in e.g. (116) that saves (111). But how to make sense of what intermediate traces are? We have been assuming since §4.3.2/116 that BAR gets introduced at the top of a clause with [+TENSE]. Now we will assume that the syntactic operation of filling Spec-CP or leaving a trace in Spec-CP exists to slash the local BAR. That is, placing variable information x in the specifier position of a CP that scopes over a [+TENSE] clause has the effect of coindexing the BAR introduced at the top of the clause thus: BAR/x. It is this that makes the movement count as an A-movement, and it is this that has the effect of maintaining x as a variable that continues to receive an interpretation past BAR/x. Consequently such a movement can be seen to cross a C P / I P boundary. For example, this gives (111) the LF representation in (122). (122) [CP Whoi C you believe [CP ti C John said [cp ti C BAR/x BAR/x BAR/x 3x Mary likes ei]]]? 3x BAR/x you_believe: BAR/x john_said: BAR/x maryJLikes (x) This is interpretable because, as (123) shows, the x-binding is kept in the assignment by the slashed BARs throughout the semantic derivation. Thus, each BAR occurrence gives rise to the need for a movement that has the effect of preventing x from having to be semantically closed. That is, movement can be used to maintain an open proposition, but only when successive cyclic.78 (123)

{}, a, e ^M

3X BAR/X BAR/X maryJLikes (x) iff

{x H-> a}, (), e \=M BAR/x BAR/x maryJLikes (x) iff {x »-• a}, {), e \=M BAR/x maryJLikes (x) iff {x H-> a}, (), e \=M maryJLikes (x)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

ments are compositions of more local operations. See e.g. McCloskey (1979) on Irish and Torrego (1984) on Spanish, among many other studies. A quick illustration is French (121). Here, the complementizer que undergoes agreement in C indicating that the WH-phrase has passed through its specifier (cf. Rizzi, 1990).

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

125

In contrast, (112) gives rise to the LF representation in (124).

This is uninterpretable because, as (125) shows, x is left in a subordinate clause without a binder and under the scope of a BAR that eliminates all previous x-bindings. (125) {}, ab, e \=M 3X BAR/X 3y BAR//y j ohnJLikes_since (x, y) crashes trying {x H-> a}, b, e \=M BAR/x 3y BAR//y j ohnJL i k e s . s i n c e (x, y) iff {x — i > a}, b, e \=M 3y BAR//y johnJLikes_since(x, y) iff {x h-» a,y H-> b}, (),e\=M BAR/?/ johnJLikes_since(x,y) iff {y H-> 6}, (),ae (=j\4 johnJLikes_since(x,?/) Other strong islands e.g. (113)-(115) can be accounted for in an identical fashion. Finally, note that a further prediction is made when the clause is [—TENSE], since such clauses fail to introduce a BAR. This allows long movement, that is, movement out of a clause that does not require a stop over in Spec-CP. Thus, in contrast to (112)/(124), (126) is okay, since there is no intermediate BAR to eliminate the x-binding provided by what. (126) Whati did you wonder [how to fix ei]? 3xBAR/x youjffonder:how_toJ:ix(x) However, we do not yet predict the contrast discovered by Huang (1982) between the locality behaviour of A-dependencies created by arguments, such as in (126), and that of A-dependencies created by adjuncts, such as in (127). That is, we are not yet predicting WHisland effects. (127) *Howi do you wonder [what to fix ei]? The contrast between (126) and (127) will only become transparent in the next chapter when we turn to our account of intervention effects. For the time being we can think of adjuncts as being just like arguments when it comes to the mechanics of A-movement per se. Notably, adjunct A-movement can be successive cyclic as in (128) (cf. (111)).

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(124)*[cp Whoi C you know [CP whyj C John likes ei ej]]? 3x BAR/x BAR 3x BAR/x youJmow: 3yBAR//y johnJLikes_since(x,y)

126

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

Also adjunct A-movement is subject to the same strong islands as argument A-movement, as (130) illustrates (cf. (112)-(115)). (129) a. b. c. d.

*Howi *Howi *Howi *Howj

do you believe [whoj ej repaired it ei]? did [fixing it ei] bother Mary? was Mary bothered [because John had fixed it ei]? do you know the girl [that fixed it ei]?

4.3.5

Strong Crossover

The strong crossover phenomenon, first noted in Postal (1971), designates binding failures like those in (130) (from Postal, 1997): (130) a. *[CP Whoi did Frank convince heri [cp ti that you would hire ei]]? b. *the principlei [CP whichi I inferred from iti [CP ti that no other principle entailed ei]] c. *[cp Whati Jane compared iti to a model of ei] was the Eiffel Tower. d. *It doesn't matter [cp whoi they claim shei believes you should invite ei]. Such failures come as a direct consequence of pronouns (pointers) only being able to pick up witnesses from the discourse context. Successive cyclic movements via Spec-CP ensure that these effects are enforced all the way up the syntactic tree to the point where the movement stops. Alternatively put, as a consequence of extending the domain in which variables can be bound (and so used), movement via a BAR has the reverse effect of excluding pronouns. Example (131) illustrates an existential "moving through" two BAR occurrences. Since both BAR occurrences are slashed for x, the witness that 3x takes from the novel sequence is kept in the assignment throughout the semantic calculation, and so out of reach for the pointer p x . (131) {},ab,be\=M 3x BAR/x By y = p x ]BAR/x Q(x) iff {x i-* a}, b, be \=M BAR/x I3y y = p 2 ] BAR/x Q(x) iff {x i-> a}, b, be \=M [By y = ?1] BAR/x Q (x) iff {x H* a,y H-» b}, (),be\=M BAR/x Q(x) iff {x i-> a}, (), bbe f=M Q (x)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(128) a. Howi do you fix it ei? b. Howi do you believe [ti John fixes it ei]? c. Howi do you believe [ti John said that [ti Mary fixes it ei]]?

127

With pronouns being excluded from the path of an A-moved element, another prediction is made, namely, that reflexives should be licensed to occur along the path of any (A- or A-) movement. However, there are no obvious examples to show that this holds for A-movements, and indeed (132) and (133) appear to be counterexamples. (132)*Whoi did himselfi convince ei? (133)*[CP Whoi did Frank convince herselfi [CP t i that you would hire ei]]? But (132) and (133) are bad for independent reasons. (132) is out because the reflexive requires accusative Case but gets nominative, while (133) is out because reflexives are basically limited to linking up with the local subject. This requirement of linking to the local subject is further demonstrated in (134) (attributed to C.-T.J. Huang by Progovac, 1994, 15). In (134a) himself is ultimately bound to John, which looks like long distance binding, but this is only achieved by a set of local anaphoric dependencies linking subjects, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (134b,c). John believed himself1 to have persuaded himself 2 [ P R O to criticize himself3]. BAR [3x x = John]believed(x) :persuaded(x,x) :BAR [3x x = p x ] c r i t i c i z e ( x , x ) b. *John believed himself1 to have persuaded M a r y [ P R O to criticize himself3]. c. * John believed [Mary to have persuaded himself 2 [PRO to criticize himself3].

(134) a.

This shows that reflexives are more than just variables, which is a fact that the current analysis abstracts away from. Interestingly, the requirement of linking to a local subject breaks down when a local subject is not around, as with the picture NP of (135). As predicted whom in (135) is able to bind the anaphor that is placed along its movement path. 7 9 (135) [To whomi]i does it appear that pictures of himselfi are flattering ei? BAR [3x] appears ( x ) : BAR/x [3y pictures_of (y, x) ] f l a t t e r i n g - t o (y, x)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Interfacing Syntax and Semantics

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

Another piece of evidence in support of the current analysis comes from the prediction that movement to an A-position does not give rise to a strong crossover violation. As (136) and (137) illustrate, this is indeed the case. Notably, these examples work because the moved element moves to the subject position to which the anaphor has to be linked. (136) Someonei seems to himselfi ei to be polite. BAR [3x] seems_to ( x ) : p o l i t e (x) (137) Whoi C ei seems to himselfi ej to be polite. [3x]BAR seems_to(x): p o l i t e (x) Similarly, the raised subject NP in (138) is the only antecedent a reflexive of the infinitival complement can take. (138) a.

Johni seems to Mary2 ei to fancy himselfi. BAR [3x x = John] [3y y = mary] seems _to(?/) : fancies(x,x) b. *Johni seems to Mary 2 ei to fancy herself2.

4.4

Summary

We have seen that PLB in imposing interface conditions forms an integral component in the explanation of syntactic phenomena. In particular, we were concerned with how the interpretation procedure constrains the types of grammatical dependencies possible. Little more was needed besides the set up of the semantics and a few motivated assumptions: - that [+TENSE] introduces a barrier at the clausal boundary; - that A-movement is movement that slashes a barrier; - that anaphors and gaps left by A- and A-movements are variables, in the sense of operator-variable constructions in logic; and - that pronouns are uniformally taken to use pointers to pick up witnesses from the discourse context, even when in the scope of quantificational elements to which they are "bound." All this has given us an architecture of the syntax/semantics interface and an account of a wide range of locality effects, but this does not yet give us an account of intervention effects in split constructions. For that we turn to the next chapter, where we extend the usage information available to PLB.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

128

T h e Account 5.1

Introduction

In PLA/PLB, an 1(4) calculation makes it possible to anchor the number of witnesses introduced for the visible existentials of 4 to the number of witnesses required by the visible existentials of 0. This chapter provides extensions to this type of usage information. As a result, new distinctions are made between lexical elements that, while performing essentially the same semantic function, are limited to specific discourse roles. That is, lexical elements are made context sensitive as a consequence of coming with information about how they should be used. We then see how this machinery complements the syntactic analysis of the most relevant examples of this book: §5.3 looks at N-words and NPIs from chapter 3, while §5.4 goes through the WH data in chapters 1 and 2. §5.5 gives a summary.

5.2

Additions to PLB

This section adds PPI, NPI and WH-phrase usage information to the PLB system of the previous chapter. All three expression types are treated very much like indefinites, that is, as introducing instances of existential quantification. However, they have special properties in that they can only be used in particular contexts. Specifically, both PPIs and WH-phrases will need to be visible from the top of the clause of an interpretable LF representation, while an NPI will need to be under the scope of a local licensing operator like negation. 129 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Chapter 5

130

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

5.2.1

Constructions

Usage Information

(1) - if 4 is a formula and x is a variable then pos x4 is a formula; - if 4 is a formula then wid 4 and wh 4 are formulae. (2) - pos x4 iff 3x4 - wid 4 iff 4 - wh 4 iff 4 That is, pos x gets interpreted as an instance of existential quantification, while wid 4 and wh 4 have no impact whatsoever. Instead, wid 4 and wh 4 are purely syntactic elements that, as visible elements, contribute to the w(4) calculation of (3) and the q(4) calculation of (4), respectively, pos x4 contributes to the revised 1(4) calculation of (5). (3)

w(3x4) w(pos x4) w(wid 4) w(wh 4) w(BAR//X 4) w(P(tU...,tn)) w(Neg x 4) w(4 A 4)

= = = = = = = =

w(4) w(4) w(4) +1 w(4) w(4) 0 0 w(4) + w(4)

(4)

q(3x4)
= = = =

q{4>) q(4>) q(4>) «fa) + l

= «(0) = 0 = 0 = q{) + q{i>)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

We introduce into PLB usage information posx, wid and wh. We add (1) to the syntax definitions of PLB. When it comes to the semantics, we use the equivalences of (2).

The Account

m l(e, 3x(f>)

= J(-»

= I(e,) + 1 l(e+ l , p o s x(j>) = Ke,4>) Z(e,wid0) = l(e,(t>) l(e, wh 0) = l(e,4>) l(0,BXRJX <j>) = l(e,) + e = 0 l(0,P(h,...,tn)) 1(0, Neg x ) = 0 l(e + g,<j>Ail>) = l(e,4>) + l(g,ip) Calculations are illustrated in (6)-(8). Note how (8) shows that BAR in an 1(4) calculation makes occurrences of posx visible. (6) w(widpos yP(x,y))

=1

(7) g(whNegywhP(x,2/)) = l (8) a. b. c. d.

5.2.2

Z(BARpos xpos y3zP(x9y9z)) /(pos xBARpos y3zP(x,y,z)) /(pos xpos yBAR 3zF(x,y,z)) /(pos xpos y3zBARP(x9y,z))

= 3 =2 =1 = l

PPIs

We can already illustrate how PLB works with its enhanced usage information with the case of Positive Polarity Items (PPIs). PPIs can only be interpreted outside the scope of a local negation. Thus, (9) is okay since it lacks negation altogether. This leaves pos visible owing to the matrix BAR, with the effect that a witness is made available for x as part of the general requirement that utterances are supportable. (9) C Jean a vu [DP O p quelqu'un]. BAR Jean has seen [pos x person(x)] BAR (jean_see(x) [pos x person(x) ]) 'Jean has seen someone.' (10) {},a,e\=M

(9) iff a G A'i(person) and a e A4(jean_see)

In contrast, (11) is bad, as (12) illustrates. This is because pos is opaque. That is, the NPIs usage instruction fails to show up in the /-calculation negation invokes. As a consequence, x is left free under the scope of a BAR that empties the assignment, leaving x without a denotation.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(5)

131

132

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(12) {}, (),e \=M (H) crashes trying -.3() e V°, () eV° : {}, (),e \=M jean_see(x) [pos x p e r s o n ( x ) ] (11) was a case of a PPI under the scope of a local negation. (13) shows that if the PPI is instead under the scope of a non-local negation, then the sentence is suddenly okay again. (13) C Jean n'a [NegP pas dit [CP que Marie avait vu [DP BAR Jean NE-has not said BAR Marie had seen O p quelqu'un]]]. [posx p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR Neg jean_said:BAR (marie_see(x) [pos x p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'Jean didn't say that Marie had seen someone.' (14) { } , { ) , e > M (13) iff-3{) e p o . a e D 1 : { } , a , e > M jean_said:BAR (marie_see(x) [pos x p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) As (14) illustrates, the PPI in (13) is okay because its pos usage instruction is made visible on account of the embedded BAR that separates the PPI from negation. Thus we see that, in order to be used, a PPI need only fall outside the scope of a local occurrence of negation.

5.2.3

A Neg(ation) Operator with Domain Widening

To make use of the w(4) calculation, we introduce into PLB a new negation operator Neg x with domain widening. 80 If x is the empty sequence, we shorten this to Neg. We add (15) to the syntax definitions and (16) to the interpretation definitions. (15) if 4 is a formula and x is a sequence of variables then Neg x 4 is a formula. (16) r , ( ) , e > M ^ N e g x 4 > i f f ^3aeVw^\ceV\TZm

:T[x/a],c,e\=MTz

4

(16) uses new notation: r[x/a] = T[xi/ai]...[xn/an] where n = card(x) = card(a). Also, (16) appends to the satisfaction relation

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

[NegP pas vu [DP O p quelqu'un]]. (11)*C Jean n'a BAR Jean NE-has not seen [pos x p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR Neg (jean_see(x) [pos x p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'Jean has not seen someone.'

133

\=M a globally given context restriction 11, an addition that is taken to carry over to the other interpretation definitions. Like V, TZ is a non-empty set of individuals. Thus, Neg x 4 says that it is not possible to assign w(4) witnesses from V (the maximally widened domain) to the variables in x when the existential closure of 4 is true. Values for completing the existential closure come from the relativized V\R,, which is taken to model the expected domain of quantification. Thus, contextual domain restrictions are accounted for in this way. While this changes the syntax of PLB, changes to the underlying system are small. For example, it can be observed that the equivalences of (17) and (18) hold. (17) (18)

r,(),e\=MvKeg4iffT,(),e}=Mv^4 T, (), e \=MT> Neg x 4 iff T, (), e \=Mv ~^3x4

provided card(x) = w(4) It follows from (18) that Neg x 4 has the effect of providing witnesses for the variables of x as if they had been quantified over by existential quantifiers. But this only works with V as the contextual parameter. This is because variables bound by Neg receive values from the unrestricted domain V as opposed to the restricted domain T>\TZ. We will see in §5.3/134 how this set up has the effect of giving an NPI like any a value from the unrestricted domain. This captures Kadmon and Landman's (1994) observation that any contributes to the indefinite a reduced tolerance of exceptions. For example, B in (19) says that she does not have socks and that baby socks are no exception to this claim. (19) A: Do you have dry socks? B: I don't have ANY socks.

5.2.4

A Q(uestion) Operator

We introduce into the language of PLB a question operator Q x (with x a possibly empty sequence of variables) that makes use of the q(4) calculation. If x is the empty sequence, we shorten this to Q (used for polar questions). We add (20) to the syntax definitions. (20) if 4 is a formula and x is a sequence of variables then Q x 0 is a formula. To keep matters simple, we follow Dekker (2002b) in sticking to an extensional set up in which questions are sets of sequences of individ-

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The Account

134

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(21) [Qx 4]M*,rf={aeV*M | 3ceV\nlW:T[x/S\,c,e \=M* 4} It is easily seen that the equivalences of (22)-(24) hold. (22) () € [q P | M - , r , e iff M(P) = true (23)

de[QxP{x)}MntrtgiSdeM(P)

(24) cd e [Q xy P(a? f i/)] M tt r ,* iff (c,d) £ M(P) We should also note that the more general equivalence of (25) holds. (25) a e [Q x 4]M-*,r,s iff 3c e V\Km

: T, dc, e\=Mn 3x4

Thus, also WH-phrases are very much like indefinites.81 Again the two types of terms differ with respect to the different roles they play in discourse. Indefinites are assumed to relate to individuals which are not required to be determinate; WH-phrases relate to individuals requested to be determined. 82

5,3

Deploying Neg a n d wid

In this section we go through the negative constructions detailed in chapter 3. We show that the LFs of the syntactic account outlined in §3.5/87, when evaluated with the PLB semantics of the last section, provide an explanation for the range of data. To come with negation, LF representation 4 must embed Neg x 4, where x is a possibly empty sequence of variables. In addition, if x is non-empty, then visible usage information wid is required in 4 f° r 4 t o D e interpretable (calculated with w(4)). This tells the evaluation procedure to use as values for x whatever witness sequence a it can in its attempt to disprove the truth of 4, provided a has length w(4) and the individuals that make up a come from the fully extended domain V. Hence, the number of wid occurrences needs to equal the length of x. If this condition is not met, the result is an interpretation crash, with either a variable left with no witness or a witness left with nowhere to go. With this much background, we are in a position to start considering negative constructions with French N-words.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

uals. In the case of a polar question this can only be either {()} or {}. These two states corresponds to the truth values true and false, respectively, or in other words, to the answers yes and no. Formally, the definition runs as in (21).

The Account

5.3.1

135

French N-words

(26) Q: Qui as-tu vu? who have-you seen 'Who have you seen?' A: Op Personne. Neg x [wid per son (x)] 'No one.' (26) illustrates how we analyze personne, that is, as projecting a null negation operator and a restriction with usage information wid. wid tells the evaluation procedure to make a witness available from the widened domain. This only works when wid is in a visible relation with an appropriate operator. Negation is such an operator, and since N-words project their own licensing negation, they are predicted to show no variability in their quantification behaviour, as is indeed the case (for data, see §3.4/84). Statements with multiple N-words are ambiguous between a negative concord reading and a double-negation interpretation. We can account for this by (i) allowing an option of absorption as in (27) for multiple negative operators that converge on the same scope position, and (ii) allowing N-word negative operators to take up independent scope positions. (28) illustrates the two options. (27) Neg x Neg y = Neg xy (28) C O p Personne a Op rien dit. BAR Neg x [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] has Neg y [wid t h i n g (?/)] said (i) BAR Neg xy [wid person(x)] [wid thing(y)] s a i d ( x , y ) 'There are no (x, y) such that person x said thing y.' (ii) BAR Neg x [wid per son (x)] Neg y [wid t h i n g (?/)] said(x,y) 'There is no person x for which there is no thing y such that x said y.' In examples with a NegP projection, indicated by the presence of the negative particle ne, an N-word's inherent negative operator will enter into a checking relation with a negative head to take up its scopal position. (29) illustrates the proposal: Op moves to Spec-NegP,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

In §3.5/87 it was argued that French N-words come with an inherent negative operator. For example, this allows an N-word to be used as a constituent answer to a question, as in (26).

136

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(29) C Jean nj'a [NegP Opi ej vu [DP ei personne]]. BAR Jean NE-has Negx seen [wid person (x)] BAR Neg x (jean_see(x) [wid person(x) ]) 'Jean has not seen anyone.' (30) {}, <),*t=M* (29) iff - 3 a € V1, () e V\K° : a € Al (person) and a £ jM(jean_see) The next point is worth emphasizing: constructions with a single N-word are not cases of negative concord. We noted in §3.4/82 that the Neg head ne is neither necessary nor sufficient to mark sentential negation. Rather its sole function is to indicate the scope of negation: it has no semantic content. Instead, the addition of pas 'not' is normally required for sentential negation. But in sentences with an N-word, it is usual for pas to have to be omitted, as (31) shows. We suppose this is because its use is redundant, with negation already present with the N-word. That is, (29) blocks (31). [NegP p a s Opi ej vu [DP ei personne]]. (31)*C Jean nj'a BAR Jean NE-has Neg Neg x seen [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] BARNeg(jean_see(x)(Neg x [wid person(x)])) 'Jean has not seen anyone.' Next consider (32), an example with an N-word under the scope of negation as indicated by ne, but not a local negation. As (33) shows, the resulting LF is not interpretable in accordance with the sentences ungrammatical status. This follows despite a witness being made available for x from V. The problem is that the Neg x operator provided by the N-word, in moving to its scopal position, fails to bind past the embedded BAR. As a consequence the embedded BAR is left with a free x in its scope, forcing an interpretation crash. (32)*C Jean n'a [NegP Opi dit [CP que Marie avait vu [DP BAR Jean NE-has said BAR Marie had seen ei personne]]]. [wid per son (x)] BAR Negx jean_said:BAR (marie_see(x) [wid person ( x ) ] ) 'Jean didn't say that Marie had seen anyone.'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

while the head ne raises from Neg to cliticize onto Inn. As (30) shows, the resulting LF is interpretable: the presence of [wid person (x)] under the scope of the local negation leads to a witness being made available for x from the fully extended domain V.

The Account

137

Next consider (34), our first example with an intervention effect. As (35) shows, this cannot be evaluated. This is because the presence of [wid p e r son (x)] under the scope of the frequency adverb fails to provide a visible wid for the Neg x operator. As a result, Neg x is left without any values to assign x, forcing an interpretation crash. (34)*C Jean n'a [NegP Opi toujours vu [DP ei personne]]. BAR Jean NE-has Negx [Vt] seen [wid per son (x) 3 BARNegx [Vt] (jean_saw_at(x,t) [wid per son (x)]) *'Jean hasn't always seen anyone.' (35) {}, (),e\=M*. (34) crashes trying -.3(> G V°, () G V\K° : {}[()/>x\ A) I ^ H M * [V£](jean_saw_at(x,£) [wid per son (x)]) Let us now consider more subtle examples involving scope effects. While (36) has readings where negation has both wide and narrow scope, (37) has only a reading where negation takes narrow scope. (36) C Je n'ai p a s appele un policier parce que j'avais peur. BAR I NE-have not called a policeman because I-had fear (i) because_i_was_scared: BAR Neg (i_called(x) [3x policeman(x)]) 'It is because I was scared that I didn't call a policeman.' (ii) Neg because_i_was_scared: BAR ( i . c a l l e d ( x ) [3x policeman(x)]) 'It is not because I was scared that I called a policeman.' (37) C Je n'ai appele O p p e r s o n n e parce que BAR I NE-have called Negx [wid per son (x)] because j'avais peur. I-had fear (i) because_i_scared: BARNegx (i_called(x) [ w i d p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'It is because I was scared that I didn't call anyone.' (ii)*Neg x because_i_scared: BAR (i . c a l l e d (x) [wid per son (x)]) *'It is not because I was scared that I called someone.'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(33) {},<), e \=Mn (32) iff - 3 a € D 1 , () G V\K° : {x i-> a}, (),e f=x^ BAR (marie_see(x) [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) iff {}, (),ae ^M™ marie_see(x) [widperson(x)] crashes trying {}(x) G .M (person) and {}(x) G A4(niarie_see)

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

The difference is that (36) has the plain indefinite un policier 'a policeman', while (37) has the N-word personne. Notably, personne introduces negation into the clause in the form of the binding operator Neg x. To take wide scope, Neg x has to cross a BAR. But this results in an LF representation (37ii) that is uninterpretable, much like (32), with Neg x failing to bind past the crossed BAR. This leaves occurrences of x free under a BAR that eliminates all x-bindings. On the other hand, the narrow scope reading in (37i) is possible with Neg x binding the occurrences of x, since no BAR intervenes. In contrast, pas in (36) has no such dependency with the indefinite, leaving it free to take narrow or wide scope. Universal quantifiers also act as interveners for the licensing of N-words. Thus, when an N-word lies under the scope of a universal, the negative operator it projects can only take narrow scope with respect to the universal. Thus, just as (34) is ruled out, the wide scope reading for (38), namely (38ii), is ruled out, since this leaves the wid usage information of the N-word invisible to its binding Neg x operator. (38) C Marie n'a donne aucun cadeau a tout le monde. BAR Marie NE-has given no gift to all the world (i) BAR ((Negx (marie_has_given(x,2/) [ w i d g i f t ( x ) ] ) ) \Sy per son (y)]) 'For everyone it is not the case there is a gift Mary gave them.' (ii) BAR Neg x ((marieJias^given(x,i/) [wid gif t (x)]) Viy per son (y)]) *'It is not the case that for everyone there is a gift Mary gave them.' An interesting fact is that intervention effects do not yield ungrammaticality if pas is inserted locally to ne. This holds despite pas usually being incompatible with N-words, as (31) showed. Thus, pas is necessary when a quantifier intervenes between the scope marker ne and the N-word, as seen by the contrast between (39) and (40). [NegP Opi donne tous les livres a [DP ei (39)*C Je n'ai BAR I NE-have Neg y given all the books to personne]]. [wid per son (y)] BAR Neg y [Vx book(x)] [wid person(y)] i_gave(x,?/) 'I didn't give every book to anyone.'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

138

139

(40) C Je n'ai [NegP pas donne tous les livres a [DP O p BAR I NE-have Neg given all the books to Neg x personne]]. [wid per son (y)] BAR Neg [Vx book (x)] Neg y [wid per son (y)] i_gave(x,z/) 'I didn't give every book to no one.' (39) is out for the same reason as (34), that is, because the syntactic form gives rise to an intervention effect that is not circumventable: the N-word's negation operator Op must move to the scope position signalled by ne, with the effect that the intervener every book falls between Op and the wid usage information on which it depends. However, in (40) we can suppose that pas introduces the negation ne marks. This allows Op to take a low scope position inside the scope of every book, which as a result no longer acts as an intervener. Also note that, in being uninterpretable, (39) fails to block (40). A similar effect shows up when the violation at stake is due to an intervening BAR. Compare (41) and (42). (41)*C Je n'ai Opi rencontre [DP un homme [CP que [DP ei BAR I NE-have Neg x met a man BAR personne] a essaye de tuer]]. [wid per son (x)] has tried COMP kill-lNF BARNegx ijnet:BAR [ w i d p e r s o n ( x ) ] t r i e d _ t o J k i l l ( x ) 'I didn't meet a man that anybody tried to kill.' (42) C Je n'ai p a s rencontre [DP un homme [CP que Opi BAR I NE-have Neg met a man BAR Neg x [DP ei personne] a essaye de tuer]]. [widperson(x)] has tried COMP kill-lNF BAR Neg i_met: BAR Negx [ w i d p e r s o n ( x ) ] t r i e d _ t o _ k i l l ( x ) 'I didn't meet a man that nobody tried to kill.' (41) is bad for the same reason as (32). But in (42), pas satisfies ne's need for a matrix scope negation, allowing the N-word's Op to take up local scope, much as it does in (40).

5.3.2

NPIs

In this section we discuss NPIs. The significant difference from Nwords is that while N-words can stand on their own as negative elements, NPIs need the support of a negative element. For example,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The Account

140

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(43) Q: Who have you seen? A:* Anyone. [wid per son (x)] (43) illustrates how we are going to analyze NPIs, that is, as involving a restriction with usage information wid. It follows that an NPI is basically the equivalent of the restriction part of an N-word. That is, NPIs differ from N-words in having no negation operator to project. The similarities and differences in their distributions will stem from this. As with N-words, wid tells the evaluation to make a witness available from the widened domain. This is only possible with an appropriate operator. While N-words essentially project their own licensing operator, NPIs have to rely on independently introduced operators. This accounts for why NPIs are able to show quantificational variability in contrast to N-words (see data in §3.4/84). We illustrate a typical NPI example in (44), which as (45) shows, can be evaluated. (44) C John did not see anyone. BAR Negx [wid per son (x)] BARNegx (john_saw(x) [wid per son (x)]) (45) {}, (), e

HM-

(44) iff - 3 a E V\ () e V\1Z° : a G A4(person) and a G A4(john_saw)

In contrast, (46) cannot be evaluated. Neg does not scope over the NPI. Consequently, the NPIs x is left free under a BAR that removes all x-bindings. (46)*C Anyone did not arrive. BAR [wid person(x)] Neg a r r i v e (x) Like N-words, NPIs display clause-bound effects, as French (47) shows. This follows from the fact that negation is unable to bind past a BAR. Hence, x in (47) fails to receive a denotation, as (48) illustrates. (47)*Jean n'a pas dit que Marie avait vu qui que ce soit. Jean NE-has Neg x said BAR Marie had seen [wid per son (x)] BAR Neg x jean_said:BAR (marie_seen(x) [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'Jean didn't say that Marie had seen anyone.'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

they cannot be used as constituent answers to questions, as (43) shows.

The Account

141

This also accounts for why (49) does not have reading (49ii) where negation scopes over because: for such a reading negation would have to bind past an unslashed BAR, which is impossible. This is much like the N-word data in (37). (49) I didn't call anyone because I was scared, (i) because_i_was_scared: BAR Neg x (i_called(x) [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'It is because I was scared that I didn't call anyone.' (ii) Neg x because_i_was_scared: BAR (i_called(x) [wid per son (x)]) *'It is not because I was scared that I called someone.' The same reasoning accounts for the Korean data in §3.3.2/75. Thus, as (50) shows, a negative element in a matrix clause cannot license an NPI in an embedded clause because of the intervening BAR. (50) *?[cPi Na-nun [CP 2 Chelswu-ka amuto I-TOP Chelswu-NOM [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] ttaly-ess-ta-ko] malha-ci ani ha-ess-ta]. hit-PAST-DCL-BAR say-CI Neg x do-PAST-DCL BAR Neg x i_said:BAR (chelswu_hit (x) [ w i d p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'I did not say that Chelswu hit anybody.' In contrast, as (51) shows, negation can license an NPI in the same clause, there being no intervening BAR. (51) [CPI Na-nun [cp2 Chelswu-ka a m u t o ttaly-ci I-TOP Chelswu-NOM [wid person(x)] hit-CI ani ha-ess-ta-ko] malha-ess-ta]. Neg x do-PAST-DCL-BAR say-PAST-DCL BAR i_said:BAR Neg x (chelswuJhit (x) [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] ) 'I said that Chelswu did not hit anybody.' The analysis also accounts for the fact that (50) can be improved if the NPI is scrambled out of the embedded clause, as in (52). Not only does such scrambling lift the NPI into the appropriate binding domain, but it must also slash the embedded BAR in the process.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(48) {}, <),e H A ^ (47) crashes trying -3<> e V°, () e V\K° : {}, (),e 1=^7?. marie_seen(x) [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ]

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(52) [CPX Amutoi na-nun [CP 2 Chelswu-ka ei [wid person(x)] I-TOP Chelswu-NOM ttaly-ess-ta-ko] malha-ci ani ha-ess-ta. hit-PAST-DCL-BAR/x say-CI Neg x do-PAST-DCL Neg x [wid person(x)] i_said:BAR/x chelswuJiit (x) 'I did not say that Chelswu hit anybody.' We also expect (53), where an NPI in a matrix subject position of a raising construction is licensed by an embedded negation, there being no embedded BAR to prevent negation taking up scope with the NPI. (53) Amutoi Mary-eykey-nun [ei ttokttokhaci ani [widperson(x)] Mary-DAT-CONTRA clever Negx han-kes] kathta. do-KES seem Neg x [wid person(x)] seems_to_mary: c l e v e r (x) 'Anybody seems to Mary not to be clever.' So far we have only considered clause-bound effects with NPIs, but our analysis also predicts intervention effects, much in the way that it does for N-words. Thus, while (54) is interpretable, as (55) shows, displaying a visible wid for Neg, (56) crashes under a reading where the universal scopes over the NPI. 8 3 As (57) shows, (56) crashes since there is no visible wid information for Neg, which as a result is left without a witness to impart to the NPI's variable y. (54) John wouldn't give someone a n y t h i n g . BAR Neg y [3x person(x)] [wid t h i n g ( y ) ] j ohn_would_give (x, y) (55) {}, Q,2\=M*

(54)

iff

~^a

€ P 1 , ^ € V\Kl : b e M ( p e r s o n )

and a £ Al (thing) and {b, a) G A4(john_would_give) (56) *John wouldn't give everyone a n y t h i n g . BAR Neg y [Vx person(x)] [wid thing(y)] j ohn_would_give (x, y) (57) {}, Q,e\=M7i (56) crashes trying -G() € V°, () e V\K° : {}[()/V] A)i^ \=MK [Vx person(x)] [wid t h i n g ( t / ) ] j ohn_would_give ( x , y) (58) and the calculation in (59) show how the frequency adverb always can similarly block negation from binding an NPI.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

142

The Account

143

(58) *John hasn't always seen anyone. BAR Neg x [Vt] (j ean_saw_at (x, t) [wid person(x) ])

That NPIs signal the scope of negation follows from the requirement that NPIs have to be visible for negation. We saw this most strikingly in Korean, a language in which quantifiers scope from their overt positions while negation is able to take up any scope position under the local BAR. In §2.3.1/49 we observed that subjects and objects can have either wide or narrow scope with respect to negation. Thus (60) is ambiguous: the quantified object motun haksayng-eykey 'every student' can have wide scope with respect to negation (reading (i)), or narrow scope (reading (ii)). (60) John-un motun haksayng-eykey chayk-ul cwuci ani John-TOP every student-TO book-ACC give not hayssta. did (i) [Vx s t u d e n t (x) ] [By book (y) ] Neg j ohn_gave (x, y) 'John gave a book to no student.' (ii) Neg [Vx s t u d e n t ( x ) ] I3y book(y)] john_gave(x,?/) 'John gave books to some of the students.' Now, if chayk-ul 'books' is exchanged for the NPI amwu chayk-to 'any book,' the ambiguity disappears, as (61) shows. (61) John-un motun haksayng-eykey amwu chayk-to cwuci ani John-TOP every student-TO any book-ACC give not hayssta. did (i) [Vx s t u d e n t (x) ] Neg y [wid book (y) ] j ohn_gave (x, y) 'John gave a book to no student.' (ii) Neg y [Vx student (x)] [wid book(?/)] john_gave(x,y) *'John gave books to some of the students.' Notably, reading (ii) gives rise to an intervention effect, with the quantifier removing the visibility of the NPI's wid, with the result that negation is left without any witnesses to support the NPI. Interestingly, scrambling the NPI to a position above the quantifier, as in (62), reverses which reading is available: reading (i) is out since negation is not in a scope position where it is able to bind the NPI.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(59) {}, (>, e \=Mn (58) crashes trying - 3 ( ) e V°, () e V\TZ° : {}[()/x]> ()>£ K M 7 * [Vt](jean_saw_at(x,t) [wid p e r son ( x ) ] )

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(62) John-un amwu chayk-to motun haksayng-eykey cwuci ani John-TOP any book-ACC every student-TO give not hayssta. did (i) [wid book (y) ] [Vx student (x) ] Neg y j ohn_gave (x, y) *'John gave a book to no student.' (ii) Neg y [wid book (y) ] [Vx student (x) ] j ohn_gave (x, y) 'John gave books to some of the students.'

5.4

Deploying Q and wh

In this section we go through much of the WH phenomena detailed in chapters 1 and 2. We follow the rational of the last section: evaluating the LFs of the syntactic account we presented yields an explanation for the lie of the data. To count as an interrogative, LF representation 4 must have form Q x 4, with x a possibly empty sequence of variables. That is, 4 must have a question operator that takes up a scopal position as the outermost element. In addition, if (/> is a WH-question, then visible usage information wh is required in 4 f° r 4 to be interpretable (calculated with q(4))- This tells the evaluation to have witnesses a G T>q^ available for the variables in x. We can assume that a question act comes as a demand to have a defined. Hence, the number of wh occurrences needs to equal the length of x. If this condition is not met, the result is an interpretation crash, with either a variable left with no witness or a witness left with nowhere to go. With this much background, we are in a position to start working our way through the WH data.

5,4.1

Combien Constructions

French combien constructions display three options: the all-in-situ option as in (63), the split option as in (64), and the all-fronted option as in (65). (63) Tu as lu combien de livres? you have read how many of books 'How many books have you read?' (64) Combieni as-tu lu ei d e livres? how many have-you read of books 'How many books have you read?'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

144

The Account

145

In addition to their overt structures, the three options differ in terms of the locality effects to which they are susceptible. The all-in-situ option displays clause-bound effects as in (66), and intervention effects as in (67). (66)*Tu as dit qu'il avait lu combien d e livres? you have said that-he had read how many of books 'How many books did you say that he had read?' (67)*Tu n'a pas lu combien d e livres? you NE-have not read how many of books 'How many books didn't you read?' The split option does not display clause-bound effects as (68) shows, but does display intervention effects as (69) shows. (68) Combieni as-tu dit qu'il avait lu ei de livres? how many have-you said that-he had read of books 'How many books have you said that he had read?' (69)*Combieni n'as-tu pas lu ei de livres? how many NE-have-you not read of books 'How many books have you not read?' The all-fronted option does not display clause-bound effects as (70) shows, nor does it display intervention effects either as (71) shows. (70) C o m b i e n de livresi as-tu dit qu'il avait lus ei? how many of books have-you said that-he had read-AGR 'How many books have you said that he had read?' (71) C o m b i e n d e livresi n'as-tu pas lus ei? how many of books NE-have-you not read-AGR 'How many books have you not read?' To account for these differences we analyze combien DPs as in (72). (72) [DP combien de livres] := [3y [whx =

\y\]books(y)]

That is, combien de livres is taken to introduce a set of books y, the number of which x is brought into question by the presence of combien. By itself, combien is taken to contribute (73).

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(65) C o m b i e n de livresi as-tu lus ei? how many of books have-you read-AGR 'How many books have you read?'

146

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

Thus, combien is not a question operator. Rather it contributes a usage instruction wh (providing the information that the sentence contains at least one WH-phrase), and restrictive material x = \y\ (the condition that brings into question the number of books). The All-in-Situ Option We will suppose that all interrogatives come with a null Q operator that is base generated as the highest element in the clause. The same Q operator is used for all WH-questions as well as yes-no questions, as shown in §5.2.4/133. That is, Q effectively types the clause to trigger an interrogative evaluation. In addition, we suppose that Q is free to unselectively bind variables. But note that for the evaluation to avoid interpretation crashes, exacting constraints will be placed on the number of variables bound, and indeed which variables. Combining these assumptions with our analysis of combien DPs in (72), gives (63) the LF (74). [DP combien d e livres]]? (74) [CP Op C Tu as lu Q BAR you have read [By [wh x = |y|] books (y)] Q x BAR/x (youjreadCy) [By [wh x = \y\]books (y)]) In (74), wh occurs visible to Q. Thus Q is permitted and required to bind a variable. This is moreover constrained to be x: if Q were to bind another variable, then the interpretation would crash. Also note that in the interpretable form of (74), the BAR is slashed for x. Without this, the interpretation would again crash. This follows from assumptions made in §4.3.4/124 that placing variable information into the local Spec-CP slashes the local BAR. Hence, the BAR in (74) gets slashed for x as a result of Q settling on x as the variable it will unselectively bind. But note that such Q induced slashing can only apply to the matrix BAR. (75) illustrates how (74) is interpretable. (75) [(74)]M*9r,e = {aeV1\3be V\R> : T[x/a],b,e ^M* BAR//x (you_read(i/) [By [whx = \y\]books (y)])} = {a G V1 | 3b e V\V} : a = \b\, b e M(books), b € Ai(youjread)} That Q's variable information should slash only the matrix BAR predicts the clause-bound effect in (66), there being no movement for additional slashing. As (76) illustrates, (66)'s LF is uninterpretable: x in the lower clause has no binder and yet is scoped over by an

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(73) combien := [wh x = |y|]

The Account

147

intermediate BAR that eliminates its Q binding. That the matrix BAR should be slashed in (76) is of no help in saving the structure. O p C Tu as dit [CP 2 qu'il avait lu Q BAR you have said BAR-he had read [DP combien d e livres]]]? [By [whx = \y\] books (?/)] Q x BAR/x you_said: BAR (he_read(y) [3y [whx = \y\]books(?/)])

Next we consider why (67) gives an intervention effect. (67) yields LF (77). Since there are no visible occurrences of wh from Q, Q is not permitted to bind any variables. This leaves x without a binding operator under the scope of a BAR that eliminates any x-binding. Hence, x is left without a denotation, making the LF uninterpretable. O p C Tu n'a pas lu [DP combien d e livres]]? Q BAR you NE-have Neg read [Ely [wh x = \y\]books(y)] Q BAR Neg (you_xead(?/) [3y [wh x = \y\] books (y)])

(77)*[CP

T h e Split O p t i o n We continue with the same assumptions for the split option. Thus combien moving to the clause initial position yields the LF (78). (78) [CP O p Combieni C as-tu lu [DP ei d e livres]]? Q [whx = \y\] BAR/x have-you read [By books (y)] Q x [wh x = \y\~\BAR/x (you_read(y) [3y books(y)]) In (78), Q has visible information permitting it to bind a variable. Nevertheless, (78) is bad: combieri's movement leaves an occurrence of y outside its binder's scope. The situation is salvageable if the restrictive content of combien reconstructs. We indicate this by splitting combien into "c—i" (the residue of movement) and u[e\ ombien}" (all the restriction material), as in (79). (79) [Cp O p C-i C as-tu lus Q BAR/x have-you read-AGR [DP ei o m b i e n de livres]]? [3y [whx = \y\]books(?/)] Q x BAR/x (youjread(y) [3y [wh x = \y\] books (?/)])

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(76)*[CPI

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

In (79), all y occurrences are in the scope of their binder. The only residue of an effect left by combien''s movement is that the BAR is slashed for x. But then this would have happened anyway, since, just as in (74), Q has visible information that permits it to bind a variable that is moreover constrained to be x. In fact, (79) yields exactly the same interpretable structure as (74). However, that combien should slash BARs when moved does have a noticeable consequence: it eliminates the clause-bound effect. Thus (68) is grammatical because its intermediate BAR is slashed, as in (80), allowing Q (which is permitted to bind a variable by the visible wh) to bind the deeply embedded x (which is required to be so bound). as-tu dit [cp2 ei qu' il avait (80) [CPX O p C—i C Q BAR/x have-you said BAR/x he had [DP ei ombien d e livres]]]? lu read [3y [whx = \y\]books(y)] Q x BAR/x youjsaid: BAR/x (he_read(y) [3y [whx = \y\]books(y)]) The split option does, however, still lead to intervention effects. (69) is ruled out because reconstruction of combien1 s restrictive content is forced for the same reasons that it was forced in (79). As (81) shows, this has the undesirable consequence of placing at LF the usage information that comes with combien under the scope of the intervener pas 'not'. Thus, (81) is out for the same reason as (77): there are no visible occurrences of wh from Q, and so Q is not permitted to bind any variables, with the result that x fails to denote. (81)*[cpOpC~iC n'as-tu pas lu [DPei ombien d e livres]]? Q BAR/x have-you Neg read [3y [ w h x = |y|]books(y)3 Q BAR/x Neg (you_read(y) [3y [wh x = |y|] books(y)])

T h e All-Fronted O p t i o n We continue with the same assumptions for the all-fronted option. The difference from the split option is that this time the whole combien DP moves successive cyclically to the clause initial position. As a consequence, in (82), which is the LF for (65), y's binder moves with combien and all BARs along the movement path are slashed for y. This removes the need for reconstruction, with all variables being bound (Q binds x thanks to the visible wh).

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

148

The Account

149

The same reasoning gives (70) the interpretable LF (83), with the two BAR occurrences slashed for y. (83) [CPX O p [DP C o m b i e n d e livres]i C as-tu dit Q [3y [whx = \y\]books(y)] BAR//y have-you said [CP 2 e i qu' il avait lu ei]]? BAR//y he had read Q x [3y [wh x = \y\]books(y)]BAR//xy you_said:BAR//y hejreadCy) It also gives (71) the LF (84), which is likewise interpretable, with usage information wh occurring in the matrix Spec-CP position and hence outside the scope of the potential intervener pas 'not'. (84) [CP O p [DP C o m b i e n d e livres] i C n'as-tu pas Q [3y [whx — \y\]books(y)] BAR//y have-you Neg lus ei]? read Q x [3y [wh x = \y\]books(y)]BAR//xy Neg you_read(2/) Scope Effects In §1.3.1/14 it was noted that split combien constructions provide a particularly clear illustration of the need to account for intervention effects in terms of scope. Consider again an example such as (85). (85) a.

Combieni ont-ils tous lu ei d e livres? how many have-they all read of books b. C o m b i e n d e livresi ont-ils tous lus ei? how many of books have-they all read-AGR 'How many books have they all read?'

As de Swart (1992) observes, (85b) is ambiguous. Either the universal takes wide scope over the WH-phrase (we ask all persons how many books they read), or the universal takes narrow scope (we ask for a single number that is the number of books everyone read). In contrast, (85a) only has the reading where the universal takes wide

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(82) [cp O p [DP C o m b i e n d e livres]j C as-tu Q [3y [whx = \y\] books (j/)] BAR//y have-you lus ei]? read-AGR Qx [3y [whx = \y\] books (y)]BARj/xy you_xead(y)

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

scope. Attempts to derive the narrow scope reading can only result in LFs like (86) (with the BAR slashed for z being the effect of moving combien to the clause initial position). This gives an intervention effect: there are no visible occurrences of wh from Q because of the intervening universal, and so Q is not permitted to bind any variables, with the result that z is left without a denotation. (86) QBAR//z [Vxperson(x)] (read(x,y) [3y [wh z =

\y\]books(y)3)

Note that (85b) encounters no such problem because it can yield the LF in (87) where the usage information wh is visible from Q, that is, outside the scope of the intervener tous 'alP. (87) Q z [3y [wh z = \y\] books (y)]BAR/x [Vx p e r s o n ( x ) ] read(x,y) The question that now arises is why the wide scope reading for the universal is nevertheless available when other interveners such as negation lead to complete ungrammaticality, cf. (69). Here we follow Krifka (2001) who argues that a universal can scope out of a speech act because it can be interpreted as giving rise to a conjunction of speech acts. 84 For example, the universal in (88) is able to scope outside the question act, as in (88i), which is short for the conjoined question (88ii). (88) Which book did every linguist read? (i) [[DP every linguist]i [Q_ACT which book did ei read]] (ii) [Q-ACTI which book did John read] and [Q-ACT2 which book did Mary read] and ... Thus, in the LFs of readings where a universal takes wide scope, there is no universal present to act as an intervener.

5.4.2

French WH-in-situ

In the previous section we saw how to treat in-situ combien DPs. In this section we use the same analysis for other cases of French WH-in-situ. But before resuming the analysis, we note that French WH-phrases in-situ cannot receive interpretations other than WH, as (89) shows.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

150

151

(89) a. *I1 a parle avec qui. he has spoken with whom Intended: 'He spoke with someone.' b. *I1 veut tout quoi. he wants all what Intended: 'He wants everything.' c. *I1 n'aime pas quoi. he NE-likes not what Intended: 'He does not like anything.' This tells us that WH-phrases in French are not solely variables. In addition to a variable and restrictive material we will suppose that they carry usage information wh, just like their moved counterparts. This comes as information saying that a new witness is required, which is basically the role of an indefinite. What is exceptional is that the new witness should be targeted for a WH-phrase. Such a close connection with indefinites is expected considering that, as noted in §1.2/8, the morpheme qu in French interrogative words is not a mark of interrogation, but instead a mark of indefiniteness; it is also found in indefinites such as quelqu'un 'someone' and quelque chose 'something'. Along with this, we will continue to assume that a null interrogative operator is base generated as the topmost element of the clause. For an example like (90), this gives a split configuration. (90) [Cp O p C TU vois qui]? Q BAR you see [whperson(x)] Q x BAR/x (youjsee(x) [whperson(x)]) (90) can be interpreted: an occurrence of wh is visible to Q, permitting and requiring Q to bind a variable which is moreover constrained to be x since x needs to be bound. In contrast, examples with an intervener like (91) are bad. This is because the WH-phrase with its usage information remains below the scope of the intervener. As a result, Q is not permitted to bind any variable and so x is left without a binder under the scope of a BAR that eliminates any previous x-binding. Op C Tu ne vois pas qui]? Q BAR you NE see not [whperson(x)] Q BAR Neg (you_see(x) [wh person(x) ])

(91)*[CP

Things go back to a state of well-formedness whenever the WH-phrase is interpreted outside the scope of an intervener. Hence, (92) is okay, permitting and requiring the binding of x with Q.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The Account

152

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

Negative subjects in French single WH interrogatives induce the same kind of intervention effects as seen in (91), and for essentially the same reasons. Thus, (93) is not well-formed since Q has no visible usage information for requesting a witness for enabling the binding of x. Op C Aucun etudiant a lu < quoi]? Q BAR no student has read [wh t h i n g (?/)] Q BAR Neg [3x student (x)] (read(x,?/) [wh thing(y)])

(93)*[CP

In contrast, (94) is valid, with the WH-phrase interpreted in the SpecCP position and hence outside the scope of the negative subject. (94) [CP O p Qui' C est-ce qu'aucun etudiant a Q [wh t h i n g (y)] BAR//y is-this that-no student has lu ei ]? read Q y [wh t h i n g (2/)]BAR/y Neg [3x student ( x ) ] r e a d ( x , y ) Finally, we note that the analysis accounts for the clause-bound effect of all WH-in-situ cases. Since nothing moves to the front of the clause, intermediate BARs are not slashed. Hence, the embedded BAR in (95) (in contrast to the matrix BAR) eliminates Q's x-binding, making the structure uninterpretable. O p C Tu crois [CP que tu as vu qui]]? Q BAR you believe BAR you have seen [wh person (x)] Q x BAR/x you_believe:BAR (you_see(x) [wh p e r s o n ( x ) ] )

(95)*[CP

In contrast, fronting of the WH-phrase slashes all intermediate BARs. For example, this allows Q to bind the deeply embedded x in (96). (96) O p Quii C tu crois [CP ej que tu Q [whperson(x)] BAR/x you believe BAR/x you as vu ei]? have seen Q x [wh per son (x)] BAR/x youJbelieve: BAR/x you_see(x)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(92) [CP O p Quii' C est-ce que tu ne vois pas Q [wh person (x)] BAR/x is-this that you NE see Neg ei]? Q x [wh person(x)] BAR/x Neg you_see(x)

The Account

Korean

In Korean intervention effects occur with all WH question types, that is, with both single and multiple WH questions, and with both argument and adjunct WH-phrases. Thus, when the subject is an NPI, all WH questions with unmarked word orders are ungrammatical. This is because the subject NPI will require that its licensing negation scopes over everything else. (97) is a case in point: because of negation's placement, there are no visible occurrences of wh from Q, and so Q is not permitted to bind any variables, with the result that y is left free under the scope of an unslashed BAR, forcing an interpretation crash. (97)* Amuto muos-ul sa-chi anh-ass-ni? [wid per son (x)] [wh thingCy)] buy-COMP Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q BAR Negx [widperson(x)] [wh t h i n g (y)] buy (x,?/) To make an interpretable structure, the object WH-phrase must scramble to a position above the subject NPI, as in (98). In (98), wh is visible from Q. Thus Q is permitted and required to bind a variable, namely x, with the result that all variables are appropriately bound. (98) Muos-iili amuto ei sa-chi anh-ass-ni? [wh t h i n g ( y ) ] [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] buy-COMP Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q y BAR//y [wh t h i n g (y) ] Neg x [wid person (x) ] buy (x, y) The same reasoning applies to multiple WH questions, where all WH-phrases must scramble over any potential intervener. For example, in (99), (d) and (e) are the only valid permutations, due to the fact that both argument and adjunct WH-phrases are scrambled over the subject NPI, making the usage information they carry visible for Q. (99) a. *Amuto nuku-lul oti-eso [widperson(x)] [whperson(y)] [whplace(z)] manna-chi anh-ass-ni? meet-CHI Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q BAR Neg x [wid p e r s o n ( x ) ] [wh person(?/)] [wh p l a c e (z)] meet (x 9y, z)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

5.4.3

153

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

b. *Nuku-lul amuto oti-eso [whperson(y)] [widperson(x)] [whplace(z)] manna-chi anh-ass-ni? meet-CHI Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q y BAR/y [whperson(y)]Neg x [wid person(x)] [wh p l a c e ( z ) ] m e e t ( x , y , z ) c. *Oti-eso amuto nuku-liil [wh p l a c e (z)] [wid per son (x)] [whpersonCy)] manna-chi anh-ass-ni? meet-CHI Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q z BAR//z [wh place(^)]Neg x [widperson(x)] [wh person (y) ] meet (x,y,z) d. Nuku-lul oti-eso amuto [whperson(y)] [whplace(z)] [wid per son (x)] manna-chi anh-ass-ni? meet-CHI Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q yz BAR//yz [wh person(y)] [wh place(z)] Neg x [wid person (x) ] meet (x ,y, z) e. Oti-eso nuku-lul amuto [wh p l a c e (z)] [whperson(y)] [wid per son (x)3 manna-chi anh-ass-ni? meet-CHI Neg x-do-PAST-Q Q yz BAR //yz [wh p l a c e (z)] [wh person (y)] Neg x [wid per son (x)] meet (x,ytz) 'Where did no one meet whom?'

5.4.4

German Multiple W H Questions

In WH questions, German fronts a single WH-phrase. Hence in single WH questions, wh is outside the scope of potential interveners. But this changes with multiple WH questions. While (100) is okay, as (101) shows, with both its instances of wh visible, this is not the case for (102). Just like (100), (102) fronts the subject and leaves the object in-situ. But unlike in (100), in (102) this strands a wh under the scope of negation, with the result that the wh occurrence is made opaque. As (103) shows, this brings about an interpretation crash: Q is only able to bind one variable, leaving the variable z of the object free under the scope of a BAR that removes all previous ^-bindings.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

154

155

(100) Op Welche Kinder haben welche Bilder Q [wh c h i l d r e n ( x ) ] have [wh p i c t u r e s (2)] niemandem zeigen wollen? Neg [3y person (y)] show wanted Qxz [wh children(x)]BAR/xz [wh p i c t u r e s ( z ) ] Neg [By person(y) ] wanted_to_show_to (x, z, y) 'Which children wanted to show which pictures to nobody?' (101) [(100)lM* {} ,g ={abeV2 | {}[xy/ab],(),e^MK [wh children(x)]BAR//xy [wh p i c t u r e s ( z ) ] Neg [3y person(y)]wanted_to_show_to(x,z,y)} = {ab € V2 | a e M(children), be M(pictures), {xv->a,z^b},(),e\=Miz Neg [3y person(^)]wanted_to_show_to(x, £,?/)} (102)*Op Welche Kinder haben niemandem Q [wh c h i l d r e n ( x ) ] have Neg [3y person(y)] welche Bilder zeigen wollen? [whpictures(z)] show wanted Q x [wh c h i l d r e n ( x ) ] BAR/x Neg [3y p e r s o n ( y ) ] [wh p i c t u r e s (z) ] wanted_to_show(x, y, z) 'Which children wanted to show nobody which pictures?' (103) 1(102)]^^^}^ crashes trying {a € V1 \ a e A l ( c h i l d r e n ) , {x i-> a}, (),e\=Miz Neg [3y personCy)] [wh p i c t u r e s (z)] want ed_to_show(x, y, z) }

5.4.5

French Multiple W H Questions

We now turn to multiple WH interrogatives in French. In French, intervention effects only occur with single WH questions. Thus, (104) shows that interveners such as pas 'not' and seulement 'only' can scope over a WH-phrase in-situ in a multiple WH question without creating interpretive problems. (104) a.

Qui n'a pas dit quoi? who NE-has not said what 'Who didn't say what?' b. Qui a parle seulement a qui? who has spoken only to whom 'Who has spoken only to whom?'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The Account

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

Given the findings of the last section, which focused on German, this is unexpected. To account for this we will suppose that, in French, the restriction of the WH-phrase that occupies the highest structural position before WH-movement comes with a wh* usage instruction, that is, a usage instruction that allows Q to bind any number of variables to ensure a successful evaluation. We will further suppose that other lower placed WH-phrases come without usage information. For example, this gives (104a) the LF in (105) which (106) shows to be interpretable. (105) O p Qui C n'a pas fait quoi? Q [wh* p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x NE-has Neg done [thing(i/)] Q xy [wh* person(x)]BAR/x?/ Neg (done(x,?/) [thing(?/)]) (106) 1 ( 1 0 5 ) W j r v r = {ab e V* | T[ab/xy], ()9g\=Mn [wh* person(x)]BAR/xy Neg (done(x,y) [ t h i n g ( y ) ] ) } = {ab £V*\ae M(pexson), b e A4(thing), (a,b) ft A4(done)} Provided the WH-phrase with wh* is visible to Q, the effect is that Q is left free to unselectively bind any other WH-phrase. Note that these new assumptions do not change any of our previous findings for French, we simply need to exchange instances of wh with wh*. But also note that we should not do this for either German or Korean.

5.4.6

English

We will suppose that the analysis just outlined for French carries over to English. The only difference is that English always fronts a WHphrase, and so intervention effects with argument WH-phrases in-situ almost never occur. However there is one context where intervention effects are predicted, namely, when the WH-phrase with wh* is left in-situ to fall under the scope of an intervener owing to some other WH-phrase having moved to the sentence initial position. Recall that the highest WH-phrase before movement gets to carry wh*. This is usually the WH-phrase that is required to move to the sentence initial position, as (107) shows. This is the so called superiority effect. (107) a. Whoi C ei liked w h a t ? b. *Whati did w h o like ei? However the superiority effect breaks down when the WH-phrases are D-linked. For example, the exchange in (108) is perfectly okay.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

156

The Account

157

This provides the right conditions for intervention effects to occur. 85 Examples (109)-(112) give a relevant paradigm, attributed to Kiss by Pesetsky (2000) (cf. §3.3.2/78). (109) O p W h i c h personi C ei did not read which b o o k ? Q xy [wh* p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x?/ ((Neg read(x,?/)) [book(y)]) (110) O p W h i c h personi C ei didn't read which book? Q xy [wh* p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x?/ Neg ( r e a d ( x , z ) [book(?/)]) (111) O p W h i c h b o o k C did which p e r s o n not read ej? Qxy [book (?/)] BAR/x?/ [wh* per son (x)] Neg read (x,?/) (112)*Op W h i c h b o o k C didn't which p e r s o n read ei? Q [book (?/)] BAR/?/ Neg [wh* per son (x)] read (x,?/) In (109), wh* is placed in Spec-CP outside the scope of any potential intervener. (110) is similarly okay. Despite wh* being left in-situ with the subject in (111), negation is unable to scope over wh*, having remained low in the clause. Finally, in (112) negation raises to C with did to a scope position above the in-situ WH-phrase carrying wh*. This brings about an intervention effect, with negation scoping over the usage information. That is, Q sees no wh* and so is unable to bind any variables, with the effect that x and y are left unbound. Note that this analysis is supported by the fact that the word order in (112), minus the intervener, is perfectly okay, as (108) shows. 86 Examples (113)-(115) (from Pesetsky, 2000) illustrate the same type of intervention effect with not, but with non subjects. (113) O p W h i c h issue! C should I not discuss ei with Q [wh* i s s u e (x)] BAR/x Neg which d i p l o m a t ? [diplomat (?/)] Q xy [wh* i s s u e (x)] BAR/x?/ Neg (i_should_discuss_with(x,y) [diplomat (?/)]) (114)*Op W h i c h diplomati C should I not discuss Q [diplomat (y)] BAR/?/ Neg which issue with ei? [wh* i s s u e (x)] Q [diplomat (?/) ] BAR/?/ Neg (i_should_discuss_with(x,?/) [wh* i s s u e ( x ) ] )

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(108) Q: W h i c h booki did which p e r s o n read ei? A: John read Aspects and Mary read LGB and ...

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(115) Op Which diplomati C should I discuss Q [diplomat (?/)] BAR/?/ which issue with ei [wh* i s s u e (x)] Q xy [diplomat (?/) ] BAR/x?/ (i_should_discuss_with(x,?y) [wh* i s s u e ( x ) ] )

5.4.7

Chinese

The standard view in the literature on Chinese is that its WH-phrases are pure variables that acquire different interpretations when bound by different operators (cf. Cheng, 1991; Aoun and Li, 1993; Shi, 1994; Tsai, 1994, among others). This can be seen in the examples of (116). (116) a. Ta gen shei shuohua ma? he with whom speak Q 'Did he speak with someone?' b. Shenme ta dou yao. what he all want 4 He wants everything.' c. Ta bu xihuan s h e n m e . he not like what 'He does not like anything.'

(Ouhalla, 1996, 690)

In (116a) the WH-phrase shei 'whom' has an existential reading induced by the yes-no question particle ma. In (116b) the WH-phrase shenme 'what' has a universal reading induced by the quantificational element dou 'all'. Finally, in (116c) shenme has an NPI reading induced by the negation marker bu 'not'. It follows that a WH-phrase like shenme should have no more structure than is given in (117). (117) shenme := [ t h i n g ( x ) ] That is, shenme fails to come with any usage information of its own. Under the account of questions that we have developed, this is only possible if Chinese matches this lack of usage information on individual WH-phrases with an interrogative operator that carries its own usage information. Thus, (118) gives an example LF representation of a Chinese question. Since the interrogative operator introduces its own usage information wh*, it effectively behaves like an unselective binder, licensed to bind any free variable within its scope.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

158

The Account

159

It follows from this analysis that Chinese is predicted to never exhibit intervention effects, since the usage information the interrogative operator introduces for itself can never be adversely effected by an intervener's presence. Thus mei 'not' scoping over the WH-in-situ in (119) is okay. (119) O p C Ta mei chi shenme? Qwh* BAR he not eat [thing (x)] Q x wh* BAR/x Neg (he.eat (x) [ t h i n g (x) ]) 'What didn't he eat?' Similarly, the negative quantifier meiyouren 'nobody' is able to scope over the WH-in-situ in (120). (120) O p C Meiyouren gan gen shei dajia? Qwh* BAR nobody dare with [person (x)] fight Q y wh* BAR/?/ Neg [3x p e r s o n ( x ) ] [person(x)] dare_f i g h t (x, y) 'Who will nobody dare fight?' In addition, there are no intervention effects with quantifiers either. (121) has both a reading where the universal takes wide scope over the WH-phrase (we ask all persons what they bought), given by (121a), and a reading where the universal takes narrow scope (we ask for a single item that is what everyone bought), given by (121b). (121) O p C Meigeren dou mai-le shenme? Qwh* BAR everyone all buy-PERF [ t h i n g ( x ) ] 'What did everyone buy?' a. Q y wh* BAR/?/ (peter_bought (?/) [thing (x) ]) A Q y wh* BAR/?/ (mary-bought (?/) [ t h i n g ( x ) ] ) A ... b. Q y wh* BAR/?/ [Vx p e r s o n ( x ) ] (buy(x,?/) [ t h i n g ( x ) ] ) However, WH-adjuncts in Chinese are different, as they do show intervention effects, and it is to these that we turn next.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(118) O p C Tamai-le shenme? Qwh* BAR he buy-PERF [ t h i n g (x)] Q x wh* BAR/x (he_eat(x) [ t h i n g (x)]) 'What did he buy?'

5.4.8

The Syntax and Semantics of Split

Constructions

WH-adjuncts and Other Scope Restricted WH-phrases

Cross-linguistically, non-argument WH-phrases are always susceptible to intervention effects. A language like Chinese, which does not display intervention effects with arguments, is no exception. To cover these data, we need to assume that the usage information wh* provides is specific to arguments. That is, to introduce a value for a WH-adjunct, Chinese Q still needs visible usage information from the WH-adjunct itself. This closely approximates Rizzi's (1990) referential/non-referential variable distinction (§1.3/12), or Williams' (1994) claim that an adjunct does not have a theta-theoretic relation with its sentence (§1.3/17). In addition, following reasoning from Williams (1994), we will suppose that, at LF, an adjunct's usage material must be in-situ, that is, at the point where the adjunct is merged. Prom this, it follows that (122) is grammatical, since its WH-adjunct provides a visible wh, while (123) and (124) are bad, both having WH-adjuncts that fail to provide visible wh usage information. 87 (122) O p C Ni renwei C Lisi weishenme cizhi? Qwh* BAR you think BAR Lisi [wh reason (x)] resign Q x wh* BAR/x you_think: BAR/x [wh reason (x)] l i s i _xesigned_f or (x) 4 Why do you think Lisi resigned?' (123)*Op C Ni bu renwei C Lisi weishenme cizhi? Qwh* BAR you Neg think BAR Lisi [whreason(x)] resign Q wh* BAR/x Neg youjthink:BAR/x [wh r e a s o n ( x ) ] l i s i ^resigned J: or (x) 'Why don't you think Lisi resigned?' (124)*Op C Meiyouren weishenme cizhi? QBARwh* nobody [wh reason (?/)] resign Q wh* BAR/x Neg Neg [3x p e r s o n ( x ) ] [wh reason(?/)] r e s igned _f or (x, y) 'Why did nobody resign?' These effects observed in Chinese carry over to other languages. Thus in English, we find the same contrast between argument and adjunct WH-phrases, with (126) being out for the same reasons as (123) and (124), namely, no visible wh adjunct usage information. Notably in contrast to (125), (126) requires reconstruction of the WH-phrase

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

160

The Account

161

(125) O p Whoi C don't you think C John Q [wh* p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x Neg BAR/x talked to ej? Q x [wh* p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x Neg you_think: BAR/x j ohn_talked_t o (x) (126)*Op W—i C don't you think C John talked to Q BAR/x Neg BAR/x Mary [ei hy]? [wh reason (x)] Q BAR/x Neg you.think: BAR/x (john_talked_to_mary_lor(x) [wh r e a s o n ( x ) ] ) We can assume that this account carries over to the WH-island data in (127), with the embedded question closing off the visibility of usage information contained within. (127) a. Whati do you wonder [whether to fix ei]? b. *Whyi do you wonder [whether to fix the car ei]? The same account extends to the distributional restrictions placed on all other WH-phrases that, for whatever reason, have their scope restricted. For example it extends to WH-phrases that occur in existential there constructions. As (128) shows, in contrast to (129), a how many DP occurring in an existential there construction is forced to take in-situ scope. (128) How many people^ do you need there to be ei at the meeting? (i) Q x [3y [wh x = \y\]people(,y)]BAR/x?/ you_need: BAR//y at_the_meeting(y) *For what n: there are n people x such that you need x to be at the meeting. (outer reading; not available) (ii) Q x BAR/x youjaeed: BAR/x (at_thejneeting(y) [3y [whx =

\y\]people(y)])

For what n: you need there to be n people at the meeting. (inner reading)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

material, with the only residue of movement in the LF representation being the slashed BARs.

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

(129) How m a n y peoplei do you think I should talk to ei? (i) Q x [3y [whx = \y\]people(?/)]BAR/xy you.think: BAR/?/ i_should_talk_to(?/) For what n: there are n-many people x, such that you think I should talk to x. (outer reading) (ii) Qx BAR/x you_think: BAR/x (i_should_talk_to(?/) [3y [whx = \y\]people(?/)]) For what n: you think I should talk to n-many people. (inner reading) As we saw with combien de DPs in §5.4.1/147, a question like (130) has its inner reading barred, since this gives an intervention effect, with the negation removing the visibility of the wh usage instruction, with the result that Q is left without witnesses to support its binding anything. (130) H o w m a n y dogs has Karl not fed ei? (i) Qx [3y [whx = \y\] dogs (y)]BAR//xy Neg karl_fed(?/) For which n: there are n dogs that Karl didn't feed. (outer reading) (ii) Q BAR/x Neg (karl_fed(?/) [3y [whx = |y|]dogs(y)]) *For which n: it is not the case that Karl fed n dogs. (inner reading; not available) It follows that (131) is expected to be ungrammatical, since it cannot be interpreted. Its outer reading is barred by the existential there context and its inner reading is barred since it creates an intervention effect. (131)*How m a n y peoplei don't you think there were ei at the meeting? (i) Q x [3y [wh x = \y\]people(?/)]BAR/x?/ Neg you_think: BAR/?/ at_thejneeting(?y) *For what n: there are n people x such that you don't think x were at the meeting, (outer reading; not available) (ii) Q BAR/x Neg you_think: BAR/x [3y [ w h x = |y|3people(?/)]at_thejaeeting(?/) For what n: you don't think there were n people at the meeting. (inner reading; not available)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

162

The Account

German Partial W H Constructions

In §4.3.4/124 we arrived at a perspective of WH-movement that associated filling Spec-CP with providing variable information that would slash the local BAR and so permit the successful extraction of an element. That is, the traditional idea of successive cyclic movement of a WH-phrase was argued to provide a way of placing variable information into a series of Spec-CPs, with the effect of creating escape hatches. But this need not be the only way. As an alternative consider base generation in Spec-CP of elements that carry little more than variable information. This is the idea we wish to adopt to account for partial WH constructions like in (132). Such constructions involve a "scope marking" element was 'what' that we will assume serves the purpose of slashing the local BAR and a separate contentive WH-phrase wen 'who' that provides the usage information and restrictive material. (132) [CPI O p Was C glaubt Inge [CP 2 weni Q BAR/x believes Inge [wh p e r s o n ( x ) ] C Gunther ei gesehen hat]]? BAR/x Gunther seen has Q x BAR/x inge_believes: [wh person(x) ] BAR/x gunther .seen (x) 'Who does Inge believe that Gunther saw?' Examples (133) and (134) show that partial WH constructions are only possible provided there are no intermediate clauses between the scope marking element was and the contentful WH-phrase (the clause-bound effect). (133) [CPX O p Was C glaubst Q BAR/x believe wemi C Hans [whperson(x)] BAR/x Hans ei gesprochen hat]]]? spoken has

du [Cp2 mit you with meint [cp 3 ei' dass Jakob thinks BAR/x Jakob

Q x BAR/x youJbelieve: [wh person(x)]BAR/x inge_thinks: BAR/x gunther _spoke_with(x) 'With whom do you believe that Hans thinks Jakob spoke?'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

5.4.9

163

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions Op Was C Q BAR/x m i t wemi with [whperson(x)]

(134)*[CP1

glaubst du [CP 2 dass Inge meint [CP 3 believe you BAR Inge thinks C Gunther ei gesprochen hat]]]? BAR/x Gunther spoken has

Q x BAR/x you_believe: BAR inge_thinks: [wh person (x)] BAR/x glint her _spoke_with(x) In (133) the contentive WH-phrase wem 'whom' successive cyclic moves to its intermediate position. This opens up for x the BARs of CP2 and CP3. Was opens up the BAR of CPi, and so consequently the Q operator is able to bind x inside CP3. In contrast, in (135), the contentive WH-phrase only moves as far as CP3. This leaves the BAR of CP2 closed, with the effect that Q's x binding fails to reach beyond the BAR of CP 2 . Interestingly, adding a was to CP2 of (134), as in (135), saves the structure. It follows that this second was occurrence performs the same function as the was in Spec-CP 1 of opening the local BAR. (135) [CP! O p W a s C glaubst du [cp2 was C Hans Q BAR/x believe you BAR/x Hans C Jakob ei meint [CP 3 m i t wemi thinks with [wh p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x Jakob gesprochen hat]]]? spoken has Q x BAR/x you_believe: [wh p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x inge_thinks: [person(x)] BAR/x gunther_spoke_with(x) 'With whom do you believe that Hans thinks Jakob spoke?' Note that we do not need to postulate any syntactic link (e.g. movement) between the two occurrences of was and the occurrence of wem, since the semantics will enforce convergence on the same variable for the structure to be interpretable. Finally we turn to intervention effects. (136) shows how when the contentive WH-phrase wem remains within the scope of negation, the partial WH construction fails to be interpretable. This is because the negation makes the usage information of wem opaque. As a result, Q is not permitted to bind any variable, with the result that the variable of wem is left unbound.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

164

The Account

165

Q BAR/x Neg youJbelieve: [wh p e r s o n ( x ) ] BAR/x inge_spoke_to (x) 'Who don't you believe that Inge has spoken to?'

The same effect arises when the subject is a negative quantifier, that is, Q is left unable to bind any variable.

(137)*[CPI O p W a s C glaubt niemand [cp2 Q BAR/x believes Neg [3y per son (?/)] weni C Inge ej gesehen hat]]? [whperson(x)] BAR/x Inge seen has Q BAR/x Neg [3y person (?/)] b e l i e v e (?/) : [wh per son (x)] BAR/x inge_see(x) 'Who does nobody believe that Inge saw?'

In the literature on partial WH constructions, a distinction between direct and indirect dependency approaches is often made. Under the direct approach, there is a direct link between the noncontentive WH-element and the contentive WH-phrase (Van Riemsdijk, 1982; McDanial, 1989; Fanselow and Mahajan, 1996). Under the indirect dependency approach, there is only an indirect connection between the two elements, which is mediated by the CP containing the substantive WH-phrase (Dayal, 1994; Horvath, 1997). What the two approaches have in common, however, is that LF movement is assumed: of the contentive WH-phrase in the direct approach and of the whole embedded clause in the indirect approach. On both accounts, the highest WH-phrase is an expletive, that is, a deficient/non-contentive element, lacking crucial features that the lowest WH-phrase on the other hand possesses. We share the view that the WH-phrase is non-contentive: it provides nothing more than a variable to slash the local BAR. Most notably, our account differs in assuming no LF movement.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(136)*[cPi O p W a s C glaubst du nicht [CP 2 m i t Q BAR/x believe you Neg with wemi C Inge ei gesprochen hat]]? [whperson(x)] BAR/x Inge spoken has

The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions

5.4.10

Summary

Table (138) gives a summary of the proposed distribution of argument based wh usage information cross-linguistically. WHi refers to the WH-phrase that occupies the highest structural position before any movement. These are the only differences we need to assume between languages to account for the diversity observed. In particular, this buys us the three way cut in the data noted in §2.3/52. Language

Korean German French English Chinese

wh with all WH restrictions yes yes

wh* with WHi with Q restriction operator

yes yes yes

To reach this position, we proposed that cross-linguistically interrogatives come with a bare interrogative operator Q base generated as the highest element. Thus all interrogatives give rise to split configurations. This is very similar, at least in spirit, to Baker (1970), Cheng (1991), Watanabe (1992), Aoun and Li (1993), Tsai (1994) and Cole and Hermon (1998), who assume that the WH-operator is universally generated as a null operator and that the contentive WH-phrase is universally a variable. The key innovation is the idea that to have values under question to impart to variables, Q is taken to rely on the presence of WH usage information. Whenever WH-phrases carry WH usage information, they must be in a visible relation with the C domain, in the sense of not falling underneath a scopal operator, for Q to function as a binder of WH variables.

5.5

Summary

In this chapter we gave a step by step analysis of all the relevant examples of split constructions introduced in this book. Our point of departure was the idea that PPIs, N-words, NPIs and WH-phrases are very much like indefinites, only differing with respect to the roles they play in discourse. These differences came about as a result of usage information being given to the lexical items. This had the

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

166

167

effect of restricting the syntactic positions in which items could be used as determined by what could be successfully evaluated by the PLB semantics. It also gave a clear characterization of what a split construction is: a split construction is a construction in which an operator and the usage information on which it depends are structurally detached. In these terms we also have a new characterization of what a bare operator is: a bare operator is an operator that is not accompanied by usage information.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

The Account

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

Here we bring together the definitions of the Predicate Logic with Barriers system (PLB). These definitions are spread across chapters 4 and 5.

Syntax - every constant symbol is a term; - every variable is a term; - every pointer is a term; - if P is an n-place predicate symbol, and ti,...,tn are terms, then P(t\, ...,tn) is an (atomic) formula; - if 4 is a formula, then wid 4 and wh 4 are formulae; - if 4 and 4 a r e formulae, 4 ^4: 4^ 4 and 4 ~* 4 are formulae; - if 4 is a formula and x is a variable then 3x4•> V%4 and pos x4 are formulae; - if 4 is a formula and x is a sequence of variables then Neg x 4 and Qx 4 are formulae; - if 4 is a formula and xi,..., x n are variables then BAR/{xi,..., xn} 4 is a formula; - there are no other formulae other than those constructed via the preceding rules.

169 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Appendix

170

Appendix

w(3x4) it;(pos x4) w(wid 4) tu(wh 4) w(BAR//X 4) w(P(tu...,tn)) w(Neg x 4) w(4 A 4)

=-- w(4) =-- w(4) =- w(4) + i —-. w(4) =•- w(4) == 0 -: 0 =- w(4) + w(4)

q(3x4) g(pos x4) g(wid (/>) g(wh 4) g(BAR//X0) q(P(h,...,tn)) q(Neg x4) q(4 A 4)

= = = = = = =

1(4) l(e, 3x4) l(e + l,pos x4) l(e,MT±d4) l(e,wh4) l(0,BAR//X4) l(0,P(*i,...,i n )) i(O,Negx0) l(e + g,4A4)

q() Q(4>)

Qtt) q() +1 9(4>)

0 0 q() + q(i>)

= K-,4>) = = = = = = =

Ke,) + 1 l{e,<j>) l(e,4>) l(e,) l(e, <j>) + e 0 0

=

Ke,) + l{i

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Usage Information

Appendix

171

Free Variables - every occurrence of x in an atomic formula is free; - every free occurrence of x in 4 is also free in 4 A 4-> 4 V 4, 4 —> 4\ idem for every free occurrence of x in 4\ - no occurrence of x in 3x4, Vx0, pos x4, sequence y of Neg y 4 or sequence y of Q y 4 is free unless it occurs free under the scope of a BAR/X where x ^ X (and with such a case, the resulting formula cannot be evaluated).

Semantics

(

M(t) Y(t) ei

- lQx4]M^^e

if £ is a constant symbol if t is a variable if t is a pointer p^

= {aeV^

| 3ceV\Um

:T[x/a],c,e\=MK

4}

- T,(),e H M * P(ti,...,t„) i f f ( [ t i ] M , r , e V . , i y M ) r , e ) ^ ( P ) - T, (), e |=M7* Neg x <£ iff -i32 e Vw^\ce V\Km : r[x/a],c,e K M ^ <£ - T, dc, e (=.A4^ 3x4 iff T[x/d], c, e (=^7*. 0 - T, ca, e | = x ^ 4 A*4 iff T, a, e l^jvi7* ^ and T, c, de ^M™ ^ -T,c,e \=M
Equivalences - 4 V 4 iff ->(-^ A -i^) - 4 -> ^ iff -i(0 A -i^) - Vx<^> iff - I 3 X - I 0

- p o s x iff 3x<^ - w i d iff 4 - wh <^> iff 4

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

- every free occurrence of x in 4 is also free in wid 4 and wh 4;

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

This page intentionally left blank

1. Since it does not correspond to (1), the type of quantification in (3) was dubbed non-canonical quantification by Obenauer (1983). 2. We analyze only nominal split quantification and do not intend our claims to hold for cases like in (i) and (ii) which are "noncanonical" in the general sense of lacking canonical order. (i) When Ed goes to the movies, he always buys popcorn. LF: always, when Ed goes to the movies, he buys popcorn (ii) When Ed goes to the movies, he m u s t buy popcorn. LF: must, when Ed goes to the movies, he buys popcorn. Other split constructions that we will not consider include splittopic and split-adjectival constructions. The intervention facts that such constructions display easily fall out of systems of dynamic interpretation (e.g., the PLA system of §4.2.3/99). (iiib) is an example of a split-topic in German (van Riemsdijk, 1987; Fanselow, 1988; Haider, 1990). In this case, contrary to what happens with an interrogative, it is the remnant rather than the raised element that is focused (zwei 'two' receives main stress). (hi) a. Karl hat zwei Biicher gekauft. Karl has two books bought 'Karl has bought two books.' b. Biicheri hat Karl [DP zwei ei] gekauft. books has Karl two bought 'As for books, Karl has bought two.' (ivb) is a related construction: a split measure phrase construction from Japanese. 173 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes

Notes (iv) a. Mizu san-rittoru-ga tukue-nouede koboreta water three-litre-NOM table-on spilled (koto) the-fact-that b. Mizu-ga tukue-nouede san-rittoru koboreta water-NOM table-on three-litre spilled (koto) the-fact-that '(the fact that) Three litres of water spilled on the table.' (Nakanishi, 2003) (vb) is an example of a split-adjectival construction from Modern Greek. (v) a. Idha to forema (to) kokino. see-PAST. lSG the dress the red 'I saw the red dress.' b. To KOKINOi idha [Dp ei (to) forema]. the red see-PAST.lSG the dress 'I saw the RED dress.' (Androutsopoulou, 1997) Here, the bare adjective receives contrastive focus and the stranded nominal receives secondary main stress. Adjectival splitting is also possible in Russian (Sekerina, 1997) and Sardinian (Jones, 1993).

3. Note that these constructions are pseudo- and not real partitive structures. They are not interpreted as 'how many of the books', but simply as 'how many books'. 4. Mohawk may be seen as a special case in that it is commonly thought to be a non-configurational language with a flat structure. Non-configurational languages have the following properties: free word order, discontinuous expressions and null anaphora. The idea is that free word order in these languages is base-generated. For example, Jelinek (1984) argues that all argument positions are filled by clitics, with the overt DPs being adjuncts, while Baker (1996) puts forward the hypothesis that the argument positions are filled by pro^s, being licensed by agreement morphology on the verb with the overt DPs appearing in a clitic left dislocation-type structure. Others, for example Austin and Bresnan (1996), following Hale's (1983) classical analysis, posit two levels of representation: one which encodes grammatical rela-

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

174

175

tions (functional-structure), and one which consists of the surface syntactic tree (constituent structure). The issue as to whether non-configurational languages really are non-configurational remains open. For example, Legate (2002) convincingly argues that Warlpiri's syntax is hierarchical, with attested island and weak crossover effects. 5. It may be argued that the left branch extraction (Ross, 1967; Boskovic, 2003) examples (13b), (14b) and (15b) differ from other kinds of split constructions, like the French and German examples already introduced in the main text and those that follow. For example, in French it is impossible to extract a bare which element as (ib) shows. (i) a.

[CP [DP Quel livre]i as-tu lu ei]? which-MAS.SG book have-you read b. *[CP Queli as-tu lu [DP ei d e livre]]? which-MAS.SG have-you read of book 'Which book have you read?'

The conclusion thus might be that French does not allow left branch extraction and that the split constructions seen do not involve left branches. Nevertheless, we will group all split constructions together regardless of the left branch status of the structures involved (for a similar view, see Koopman, 1997). The reader is referred to Mathieu and Sitaridou (2004a) and Mathieu and Sitaridou (2004b) for an account that rules out (ib) for independent properties of the bare operator. 6. The trace appears after the nominal, since we assume it is generated in that position, see e.g., Horrocks and Stavrou (1987). 7. It is also possible in some languages for WH-exclamatives to involve DP-splitting: e.g., French (i) and Spanish (ii). (i) [CP Qu'i elle est [DP ei belle]]! what she is beautiful 'How beautiful she is!' (ii) [CP Citi e Maria [DP ei d e frumoasa]]! how is Mary of beautiful 'How beautiful Mary is!' (Corver, 1990, 186) However, it is not clear whether (i) and (ii) involve the kind

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes

176

Notes

8. As far as we know, the term "intervention effects" was originally used to describe so-called pseudo-opacity effects in French of the kind represented in (31). Recently, the term has been used more widely to include the locality effects in WH-in-situ and partial WH constructions. One such use is due to Hagstrom (1998) (see also Kratzer and Shimoyama, 2002), who uses the term in the account of a range of blocking phenomena in Japanese and Sinhala. But this does not seem to be the same phenomenon as we are considering for two reasons: firstly, negation is not an intervener, and secondly intervention effects are circumvented as soon as one WH-phrase has been located above an intervener, contrary the WH-in-situ Korean facts we observe in §2.3.1/47. 9. Another question that arises is why the nominal complex is able to pied-pipe when it should be blocked by economy. The reasoning is as follows: the EPP, which is universally strong (Watanabe, 1992; Chomsky, 1995) is a general uninterpretable feature requiring visibility in order to be erased. Visibility is minimally achieved by movement of combien and other such material raised to its dedicated Spec. Since the generalized E P P feature is uninterpretable, once eliminated it is no longer accessible to the computation. We explore this problem, which we dub the Pied-Piping puzzle, in Butler and Mathieu (2004). 10. Since on our view the semantic restriction remains in-situ and is simply coindexed with the null operator, one might argue that our account faces the so-called Donald Duck problem (Reinhart, 1995, 1997, 1998). However, this is not so, because it turns out that the Donald Duck problem is simply a non-problem with the PLA/PLB semantics that we adopt in chapter 4 (see Dekker, 2003b, for details). 11. There is good reason to think null operators exist: in relatives, degree and purposive clauses, parasitic gaps, tough-movement (Chomsky, 1977; Browning, 1987), across-the-board movement constructions (Franks, 1992, 1993; Munn, 1992, 1993), reciprocals in Japanese (Nishigaushi, 1992; Ochi and Ochi, 2003), etc. Null operators have been used for in-situ interrogatives before (cf. Watanabe, 1992; Aoun and Li, 1993, for Japanese and Chinese

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

of quantification described in the main text, if they involve any quantification at all. We therefore leave these cases aside.

Notes

177

respectively). The present work can be seen as an extension of the use of null operators to other languages and other constructions.

13. We follow Mathieu (1999, 2002) in postulating movement of the null operator in the case of French N-words, but not in the case of French WH-in-situ elements for reasons that will become apparent in chapter 5. 14. Note that null operator movement is not equivalent to ("covert") feature movement. For example, in §3.5/88 it is shown that null operators can have bearings on phonology. Rather, null operator movement is a surface/overt process, separate from full movement. 15. This example is grammatical if toujours is interpreted as meaning 'still', but this is not the interpretation that concerns us here. 16. There is dialectal variation concerning the judgements for (47). According to Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche (1981) and Tellier (1991) French WH-in-situ is possible in tensed embedded clauses. The dialectal variation is acknowledged in most of the recent literature on French WH-in-situ (cf. Boskovic, 1998, 2000; Boeckx, 1999). Dialectal variation has also been reported for (49). 17. Cinque (1990) also includes extraposition islands as examples of weak island. However, it is in fact debatable whether extraposition islands constitute a separate case. Following Szabolcsi (2003c), we note that they are overwhelmingly also factive islands, (i) is a case in point (Szabolcsi's example). (i) *Howi is it a scandal that he behaved ej? Cinque (1990) nevertheless notes that the following extraposition island is not factive: (ii)*Howi is it time to behave ei? However, the following extrapositions involve non-factive, nonnegative predicates, yet they do not appear to create islands. (hi) How much winei is it possible/legal/fun/dangerous to drink ei at a party?

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

12. We know that diachronically interrogative words are derived from indefinites (Klima, 1964).

178

Notes

18. The problems mentioned here apply to Rizzi (1990), but not to Cinque (1990) who suggests that it is the quantificational nature of the element in the A-position rather than its derivation "via WH-movement" that is responsible for its WH-movement properties. 19. Following de Swart (1992), Obenauer (1994) and many others, we distinguish iterative adverbs such as beaucoup 'many times/a lot', deuxfois 'twice', etc., from frequency adverbs such as souvent 'often', toujours 'always', quelquefois/parfois 'sometimes'. 20. One question that we will address in §5.4.1/150 is why universal quantifiers block only one reading in the case of questions while yielding complete ungrammaticality in the case of negative structures. It will be argued that a wide scope reading for the universal is possible in interrogatives because universal quantifiers can scope out of questions (Krifka, 2001). The same situation arises in the case of frequency adverbs. They too allow one reading in the case of interrogatives while yielding complete ungrammaticality in the case of NPIs. Again, we argue that this state of affairs is down to the ability of certain quantificational elements to scope outside of questions. 21. Exponents of similar views, but with very different approaches, include Keenan (1988); Jacobson (1999); Schlenker (2003); Shan and Barker (2003); Szabolcsi (2003a). 22. The ECP originally applied at S-structure, but it was subsequently extended to LF (Kayne, 1981, 1984). 23. Note that, on this view, the ECP no longer has anything to say about superiority effects or why adjunct WH-phrases cannot remain in-situ. We make suggestions for an alternative account of the superiority effect in footnote 85, and there are quite a few other theories that also do not rely on the ECP, for example, the weak crossover based accounts of Williams (1994) and Hornstein (1995). As for adjunct WH-phrases, it turns out that only why is incapable of remaining in-situ, as (i) illustrates.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Following Szabolcsi, we take this to indicate that extraposition per se is not what is responsible for the intervention effect in (ii). This still leaves it is time to islands without an account.

Notes

179

In French, (iia) is perfectly grammatical (see Rizzi, 1990; Cinque, 1990). English (iib) successfully asks for a pair from people to methods of arrival: (ii) a. Tu vas comment? you go how 'How are you?' b. 'Who left how?' 'Which (x, y), x a person, y a method of arrival, x left by yi' The reason why/pourquoi cannot remain in-situ may be that it is always base-generated in Spec-CP, so that it never moves from an underlying position (Rizzi, 1990). Throughout this book we adhere to the Uniformity Principle. This is not simply a convenient move. A grammar that does not make any distinction between LF/covert operations and overt operations is simpler than one that posits two different levels of structure. We thus believe that an optimal grammar, whether or not Minimalist, should obey the Uniformity Principle. In the PLA/PLB systems of chapter 4, (95) would need to be something like My(4 A p x = y). That is, bound x in 4 c a n D e existentially disclosed in these systems, but only with the aid of a pointer that links to x's witness. In passing, Honcoop (1998) also suggests applying the analysis to WH-in-situ and head-internal relative constructions. A related proposal was made independently by Butler (1999) only for comparative constructions. This used an operator Op that quantified over the outputs of a Dynamic Predicate Logic semantics with the effect of controlling the quantificational behaviour of any indefinite that added to that output. It followed that an intervener like negation would have the effect of preventing any embedded existential from adding to the output quantified over

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(i) a. *Tu es parti pourquoi? you is left why 'Why did you leave?' b. *Who left why? 'Which (x,y), x a person, y a reason, x left for y.'

180

Notes

28. Radical reconstruction, as it has been called, can also be found in A-scrambling. An A-scrambling XP is always interpreted in its pre-scrambling position (cf. Saito, 1989). 29. The ideas of Dekker (2002a) are in turn based on ideas from Kamp (1990), van Rooy (1997), Stalnaker (1998) and Zimmermann (1999). 30. Single WH-in-situ questions in French are thus not only used as echo, but also as standard questions asking for new information. Echo questions are responses from an utterance that takes the form of a question seeking confirmation of some part, in effect repeating the source utterance. They do not involve quantification (Hendrick and Rochemont, 1988; May, 1985, 61-62), Moreover, echo questions involve heavy stress of the WH-phrase in-situ and/or rising intonation. This is not the case with the questions that concern us. 31. This fact is problematic for Boskovic's (1998; 2000) analysis which is limited to a view of intervening elements as heads. That XPs can act as interveners is thus unexpected. The same problem carries over to related proposals by Denham (2000) and Plunkett (2001). 32. See Mathieu (2004) for an alternative analysis of the meaning contrast in terms of information structure. 33. (21) is one of three strategies in French to ask yes-no questions. The others involve (i) est-ce que, or (ii) so-called complex inversion. (i) Est-ce que Jean a achete un livre? is-this that Jean has bought a book 'Has Jean bought a book?' (ii) Jean a-t-il achete un livre? Jean has-he bought a book 'Has Jean bought a book?' 34. See Simpson (1995, 2000) for a related proposal. 35. That WH-feature movement is claimed to hold also leaves the

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

by Op. The same mechanism was developed further in Butler (2002).

Notes

181

36. In order to account for the presuppositional interpretation of French in-situ questions, Boeckx (2003) builds on the work of Sportiche (1998) and argues that the WH-phrase in-situ first moves to the specifier position of a (contrastive/strong) Focus phrase. Then IP remnant movement follows ending up in the specifier position of a Topic phrase, (ia) is the base-generated structure, (ib) represents the first movement of the derivation (raising to Spec-Foe), and (ic) shows the second movement (raising to Spec-Top). (i) a. b. c

[CP [IP [VP WH]]] [FOCP WHi [IP [VP ti]]] [TOPP [IP [VP ti]]j [FOCP WHi [ tj]]]

Remnant accounts of WH-in-situ and split structures have many problems. This is because the moved versus in-situ variants have very different properties. For example, there is a contrast between (iia) and (iib). In (iia) no Principle C violation is instantiated because the R-expression Marie is contained in an adjunct (adjuncts can be inserted later in the structure, see e.g., Chomsky 1995, Lebeaux 1991, Van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981). However, the ungrammaticality of (iib) shows that the entire WH-phrase does not sit in the C domain, since if it did then the sentence would be grammatical. (ii) a.

[DP Quii des gens que Marie connait bien] a-t-ellei who of-the people that Marie knows well has-she vu a la fete? seen at the party b. *EUei a vu [DP qui des gens que Marie connait she has seen who of-the people that Marie knows bien] a la fete? well at the party 'Who of the people who/that shei knows well did Mariei see at the party?'

We explore these issues in connection with split combien constructions in Butler and Mathieu (2004).

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

way open for C&R to adopt the accounts of Beck (1996b) (see §1.3.1/20) and Pesetsky (2000) (see §1.3.1/19 and §3.3.2/78) instead.

182

Notes

37. See Mathieu (2004) for more details.

39. The observations that we make with the existential there construction can be generalized to a range of other scope restricting contexts, including the so called "antipronominal contexts" of Postal (1998), of which the existential there construction is just one example. Another source for scope restricting contexts includes the scope reconstruction data of Heycock (1995). 40. To distinguish the outer reading from the inner reading of (72), Beck (1996b) provides the following context: suppose there are 5 dogs altogether; Karl has fed 3 of them, but he has not fed the other two. If someone asks (72), the only possible true answer is 'two', meaning: there are two dogs that Karl hasn't fed. It would not be possible to truthfully answer 'four', meaning: it is not the case that Karl has fed four dogs. This should be possible if (72) had reading (72b) in addition to (72a). 41. Successive cyclic WH-movement is not actually possible in all dialects, that is to say, speakers may prefer the partial WH construction option if available. 42. There is, however, dialectal variation. 43. Due to Laka (1990), the theoretically neutral term "N-word" encompasses several expression types: e.g., Italian nessuno, Spanish nadie and French personne, all meaning no one. 44. Nominal NPIs in French appear to form yet another series, e.g., de gateau 'of cake' in (i). (i) Jean n'a pas mange de gateau. Jean NE-has not eaten of cake 'Jean hasn't eaten any cake.' These items display a mix of NPI and N-word like behaviour, see Heyd (2003) for details. Although de has been glossed as of, this is in fact misleading, because de is not a preposition here. There is evidence that de in such contexts is the mark of predicate inversion, i.e., an instantiation of the nominal copula (for details see Heyd and Mathieu, 2003). For more on predicate inversion,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

38. Beck (1996b) notes that some speakers are able to give (57) the same range of readings that are available for (58).

Notes

183

45. We ignore the reading of (8) where the existential scopes over the universal, since its existence does not bare on the point the example makes. 46. In §5.3.2/141, we account for the data in (9) without having because as an intervener, rather the unavailable scope reading is shown to follow from the clause-bound effect to which NPIs are sensitive (cf. the discussion of (5)). 47. This, together with (19), can be used as the basis for an account of exhaustivity effects with questions, see e.g. Krifka (1998) and Zeevat (2003). 48. This motivation itself follows, of course, from Gricean pragmatics as well: NPIs are typical examples of marked expressions. The use of such an expression gives rise to an implicature via Grice's maxim of manner. 49. Note that (i) is not a counter-example, since qui que ce soit 'anyone' can only be interpreted as a free choice element. That is, an NPI reading is unavailable. (i) Q: Qui dois-je inviter? who must-I invite 'Who should I invite?' A: Qui que ce soit. 'Anyone.' 50. In (51), a subject NPI with a stative embedded predicate is licensed by the matrix negation. Lee (1994) observes that a subject with a stative embedded verb in Korean can be marked by either Nominative Case "-i" as in (i) or an exceptional Accusative Case "-ul" as in (ii). (i) Mary-nun John-i hayngpokhata-ko mitci ani hayessta Mary-TOP John-NOM happy-COMP believe not did 'Mary did not believe that John is happy.' (finite) (ii) Mary-nun John-ul hayngpokhata-ko mitci ani hayessta Mary-TOP John-ACC happy-COMP believe not did 'Mary did not believe John to be happy.' (non-finite)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

see Moro (1997) and for predicate inversion in the DP, see Dikken (1998) and Bennis, Corver, and den Dikken (1998).

Notes Lee conjectures that the sentence with a Nominative Case subject contains a finite embedded clause as shown in the translation and that the sentence with an Accusative Case subject contains a non-finite embedded clause as shown in the translation. NPIs in Korean are not marked by any Case marker. The structure of the embedded clause in (51), then, is ambiguous between a finite clause and a non-finite clause.

51. This does not say why feature movement is unavailable to prevent the superiority violation in (ib), a question with non-D-linked WH-phrases. (i) a. W h o i C ei liked w h a t ? b. *Whati did who like ei? To counter this problem, Pesetsky introduces Cm'spec, the constraint that multiple WH questions must have multiply filled Spec-CPs. Applied to (ib), this requires both WH-phrases to phrasal move (overtly and covertly) to Spec-CP. Notably feature movement is ruled out, since feature movement leaves a WHphrase in-situ. Hence the superiority violation is imposed. Pesetsky claims to provide external motivation for Cm~spec, but even with this, the problem of why (60a) is grammatical gets re-opened. That is, why should Cm'spec happen to not apply to a question with D-linked WH-phrases. As Pesetsky himself concludes: "this proposal comes no closer than previous efforts to explaining why the semantic property of D-linking yields an exception to the superiority effect" (cf. footnote 85). 52. Note that this goes against the clause-bound findings of the previous section. We actually think that (63) is ungrammatical under an NPI reading, with any being forced to take a free choice interpretation at best. 53. Important for the explanation of the ungrammaticality of (64a) is a particular property of Double Object constructions: scope freezing, i.e., as (ia) shows, they only permit surface scope between the indirect object and the direct object. (i) a. Mary showed a student every book. (3 > V, *V > 3, Scope Freezing) b. Mary showed a book to every student. (3 > V, V > 3, No Scope Freezing)

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

184

Notes

185

For the ungrammaticality of (64b), it must be that the universal quantifier cannot scope over the negation. As (ii) shows, this seems to be correct. (-.>V,'*V>-.) 54. Again, we consider (67a,c) to be ungrammatical under an NPI reading, with any being forced to take a free choice interpretation at best. 55. Schapansky (2002) argues otherwise. First, she claims that in certain contexts ne can be negative. It is indeed a well-known fact that ne can appear with modals without the presence of pas, as in (i) and (ii). (i) Je ne peux vous aider. I NE can you help-lNF T cannot help you.' (ii) Je ne sais ou aller. I NE know where go-iNF T don't know where to go.' However, these examples are either rather archaic/formal and/or introduce certain connotations via pragmatic means. For instance, (i) means 'Unfortunately, I cannot help you', and (ii) means T don't quite know where to go'. We assume that either the modal provides the necessary conditions for the sentence to survive as a negative statement or that we are dealing with a pure pragmatic rather than syntactic case or that a null operator is present in the structure. Second, Schapansky introduces other examples such as (iii). (iii) Je ne cours plus vite qu'il ne fait. I NE run more quick than-he NE does 'I run faster than he does.' But, clearly, this type of example has nothing to do with negation. She concludes her paper by saying that she has presented evidence against Rowlett's claim (1998) that ne never has any meaning. But as far as we are able to see, no such claim is being made by Rowlett. What Rowlett simply argues is that NE has no negative meaning, a proposition, which, for us, is entirely reasonable (see

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

(ii) Mary didn't tell every student the truth.

186

Notes

56. According to Deprez (1997), (138) is ungrammatical, not because personne is inherently negative and thus involves movement, but because personne is a numeral indefinite (it means zero personnes, 'zero persons'), which following Diesing (1992) is interpreted specifically and thus undergoes QR. It is a quantifier of the weak, and not of the strong kind. So, the crucial point in other words is that, according to Deprez, it behaves like an existential rather than a universal quantifier. On this view, the process of QR is via A- and not A-movement (Hornstein, 1995), thus the island effect follows (somehow redundantly) from the fact that: (i) Amovement is clause-bound; (ii) QR is clause-bound. Now, if the N-word is interpreted existentially, as Deprez seems to suggest, then, on logical grounds, (138) should be grammatical. As has been shown by Reinhart (1997), the scope of existentials is free (i.e., it is not clause-bound like the scope of universals). So-called strong quantifiers, of which universal quantifiers are a subset, cannot be extracted from syntactic islands (here the strong quantifiers cannot have the higher existential in their scope): (i) a. Someone reported that Max and all the ladies disappeared. b. Someone will be offended if we don't invite most philosophers. c. Many students believe anything that every teacher says. (Reinhart, 1997, 338) However, so-called weak quantifiers, of which existentials are a subset, can take scope over the strong quantifier (the choice of ladies, philosophers and teachers does not have to vary with the higher strong quantifier). (138) must thus be ungrammatical for reasons other than QR: (ii) a. Everyone reported that Max and some lady disappeared. b. Most guests will be offended if we don't invite some philosopher. c. All students believe anything that many teachers say. (Reinhart, 1997, 339) Note that it is not possible either to derive the clause-boundedness of French N-words from the assumption that they are universal quantifiers (according to Giannakidou, 2000, in some languages,

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Ashby, 1976,1981,2001, for the loss of ne in contemporary spoken French).

Notes

187

(iii) a. II (n)'y a personne dans le jardin. it NE-there has N-word in the garden 'There is no one in the garden.' b. II (n)'y a rien dans le frigo. it NE-there has nothing in the fridge 'There is nothing in the fridge.' 57. We abstract away from the free choice reading. 58. NPIs can be licensed by a universal quantifier provided they are in the restriction and not the nuclear scope: *Everyone will know anything. This follows from the fact that universal quantifiers are monotone decreasing in their restriction, but not in their nuclear scope. 59. There appears to be one exception to the generalization that French N-words cannot occur in non-negative environments: the case of jamais 'never'. This N-word seems truly ambiguous between a non-quantificational and a quantificational element. The complexity of the data and the intra-language idiosyncrasies might therefore be seen as a challenge for parametric accounts of French N-words. However, although difficulties may arise under a Government and Binding view of parametrization, Minimalism provides us with a theory of parametrization which can account for the facts in a straightforward manner. According to Minimalism (Chomsky, 1995), variation between languages is restricted exclusively to differences in the lexicon. Languages may thus not be wholly consistent with respect to a particular parametric choice: one lexical item may choose one value; a second lexical item may choose a different value. In the case at hand, this means that the Jespersen Cycle may not apply to all elements at once. 60. Our account of N-words as projecting a negative operator is similar in spirit (although different in its technical implementation) to those of Postal (2000) and Szabolcsi (2003b). Postal's (2000) proposal argues that certain expressions, e.g. NPIs, come with (semantically significant) underlying negations and map onto var-

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

e.g. Greek, N-words are universal quantifiers and the locality of such elements follows from this fact). This is because N-words can appear in existential contexts as (iii) shows. As is wellknown, universal quantifiers cannot appear in such environments (see §2.2.2/46 for an illustrative example and references).

Notes ious surface morphologies depending on whether those negations stay in place or are removed (either raised or deleted). Starting with an underlying representation such as ->3ar, the idea is that if the negation stays in place we get i" saw no one, if negation raises we get anyone as in i" didn't see anyone or alternatively if negation is deleted we get no one saw anyone. Under Szabolcsi's (2003b) proposal, negation gets deleted via absorption of the licenser negation and the relevant negative component of the NPI into a binary resumptive quantifier. (i) no(x,y)

[[licenser ... X ...] ... [NPI ••• 2/ ...]]

According to Szabolcsi, the use of resumptive quantification explains why scopal interveners block NPI-licensing. Resumptive quantification factors out the shared operator of the two or more operator-restriction units. Using a variable-binding or a generalized quantifier-style representation, a sentence such as (iia) can be represented by either (iib) or (he). (ii) a. I didn't say anything. b. no(#, y)[at event(y) I say think(x)] c. no (event, thing) [said-by-me-at] If a frequency adverb such as always is added to the sentence in (iia), this scopal element will separate the operator no from the thing-portion of its binary restriction, bringing about an intervention effect. Like our proposal, this approach does not refer to the mechanics of the computation of scalar implicatures. 61. The crucial difference between Rowlett's (1998) null Neg operator and the one proposed here is that we assume that the operator is part of the N-word forming one lexical item, whereas he does not. Indeed, Rowlett's claim is that French N-words are pure variables. But as was shown in §3.4/81, there is ample evidence for the view that French N-words are inherently negative. In this respect, the current proposal is more in line with Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) and Haegeman (1995). But in turn, the difference between their proposal and ours is that whereas they consider ne to be negative, we do not. 62. We leave unexplored the possibility of having a family of reasoning rules for each logic as a third component. Reasoning rules for Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic can be found in most

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

188

Notes

189

63. It is a little unusual to present Propositional Logic by introducing predicate and constant symbols straightaway. These symbols are essentially only in first-order logic. They are already useful, however, and we can see a continuity between Propositional Logic and Predicate Logic: it is the use of variables and quantifiers that really distinguishes Predicate Logic from Propositional Logic. 64. Note that the symbols "=>" and "2>" are often used in place of U

.5)

65. Typically, -> has higher precedence (binds more tightly) than A and V, which have higher precedence than —>, so -iP A Q —> R means ((-»P) A Q) —• R. Mathematical operators like = and > have higher precedence than the operators of Predicate Logic, so -m = 4 means ~>(n = 4). Also note that A and V are associative. Associativity of A means that P A(Q AR) is equivalent to (P AQ) AR, so we can write P A Q A R without parenthesis. 66. PLA thus differs from representational systems like Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp, 1981) and from systems of dynamic semantics like Dynamic Predicate Logic (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1991) that integrate into the interpretation procedure the systematic pragmatic effects associated with the use of indefinites and anaphoric pronouns. 67. For similar views, see Aloni (2001), Donnellan (1978), Kamp (1990), Rooy (1997), Sandu (1997) and Zimmermann (1999). 68. Even in this latter case it is assumed that there is a true (but unknown) answer to the question which individual the existential is about, in order for subsequent anaphoric elements not to be opaque. 69. Actually, this was also the case in PLA, but we implicitly assumed a big enough discourse context so the issue of a PLA formula crashing never arose.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

introductory logic textbooks, while Van Eijck (1998, 2001) gives reasoning rules for a logical system akin to Predicate Logic with Anaphora.

190

Notes

70. Three major types of movement are generally distinguished: 1. Head Movement; 2. A-movement, or NP movement; There does not appear to be much for us to say about head movement with PLB. This is very much expected if it is true that head movement is best relegated to the phonological component as in some versions of the Minimalist Program. One reason for this is that verbs are claimed not to be interpreted differently whether they appear in-situ (as in English) or raised to Infl (as in French), whether they appear in embedded or root structures, etc. In contrast, XP movement, whether A- or A-, yields interpretations that are different from the in-situ alternative. In addition, head movement differs from core rules of syntax in that: (i) it is an adjunction rule; (ii) it is countercyclic; and (iii) the raised head does not c-command its trace (cf. Chomsky, 2001, 38). However, there are alternatives to the view that head movement applies at PF. For arguments that head movement is not always semantically inert, see Benedicto (1997) and Zwart (2001). In addition, there appear to be syntactic residues involving head movement that are difficult to reconcile with a P F approach, see Koeneman (2000). To account for this, remnant movement approaches have been proposed, according to which head movement is reanalysed as phrasal movement (Sportiche, 1998; Koopman and Szabolcsi, 2000; Mahajan, 2003) or as an interarboreal operation (Bobaljik and Brown, 1997; Nunes, 2001). For such approaches we expect PLB to offer insights. 71. Aloni (2001, 2003) and Dekker (2003a) provide examples of such intensional extensions. 72. In fact, the VP-internal subject hypothesis entails that there is Amovement in virtually every finite clause, from Spec-VP to SpecIP, as indicated by the stranded quantifier in (i). (i) [The demonstrators]! all ej left. However, we will ignore this complication, since its effect on our analysis here is superficial.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

3. A-movement (A' movement), or WH-movement.

191

73. A-movement has also been called NP movement, since it only really applies to DPs, which were called NPs before the DP hypothesis (Abney, 1987). That A-movement should apply only to DPs is expected if it is true that it is motivated by the need for Case, since only DPs need Case. As this suggests, when the base position of a raised DP is a Case position the result is bad, as shown by (i). (i) a. It seems to Mary that John is a great linguist, b. *Maryi seems to eY that John is a great linguist. 74. That a BAR should be introduced with [+TENSE] is not without motivation, considering that a BAR basically requires semantic saturation. This ensures that the formula over which a BAR scopes is independently interpretable, which is suggestive of a link with theories of multiple Spell-Out and the kinds of arguments martialled in their support (see e.g. Uriagereka, 1999). However, we will avoid such comparisons here, concentrating instead on the empirical impact of our stipulation. 75. This goes against the Government Binding Theory analysis of PRO as being both pronominal and anaphor (cf. Chomsky, 1981). Nevertheless, despite being a pronominal, PRO's anaphor-like properties are not lost, since it is a pronoun that is constrained to pick up the most contextually salient individual. 76. For recent attempts to recast Binding Theory in purely syntactic terms, see Grohmann (2003), Hornstein (2001), Kayne (2002) and Zwart (2002). 77. It is generally assumed that there are other non-argument landing sites, such as adjunction to IP (a possible analysis for (109h) or adjunction to VP, but we will not discuss such possibilities here. 78. There is a close connection here with the idea that movement to Spec-CP triggers an application of functional abstraction. Such an operation has been considered necessary for the content of a WH-clause to be integrated into the larger semantic structure of which it is a part (see e.g. Heim and Kratzer, 1998). Slashing a BAR has the same desired effect: it causes a [+TENSE] clause, which under a non-slashed BAR is a semantically saturated proposition, to be turned into a predicate.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Notes

192

Notes

80. This is only intended as a sketch of an analysis for using w (4)We note at the end of the section that (16) can be thought of as the beginnings of an implementation of Kadmon and Landman's (1994) theory of any (see also Aloni, 2003). There are many options left to explore. For example, we might have introduced a general domain widening operator which could "latch on" to operators like negation that bring about an existential closure. But since negation is the only NPI trigger we aim to formalize, we do not need such generality. Also, we might have instead imported Krifka's (1995) ScalAssert operator (see §3.3.1/67), or some other exhaustification mechanism, like in Honcoop (1998) (see §36/72). 81. We know that this is true cross-linguistically (see Cheng, 1991; Haspelmath, 2000, for details). 82. This is all we need to know for what follows, but it falls far short of providing a proper semantics for questions. For this the reader is referred to Dekker (2002b) and in particular to the notion of (constituent) answerhood that this paper provides. This comes as a mix of Aloni, Beaver, and Clark (1999), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1984) and Zeevat (1994). 83. We ignore the reading of (56) where the NPI takes wide scope over the universal. 84. Krifka (2001) argues that non-universal quantifiers cannot move out of speech acts because they cannot be interpreted in terms of speech act conjunction alone. They require disjunction as well and Krifka independently shows that speech act disjunction is not possible. For example, as (i) shows, baptisms and curses cannot be disjoined. (i) *I hereby baptize you John, or I hereby baptize YOU Mary. 85. It is tempting to view superiority as a convention that arises out of the need to avoid intervention effects. In English (and French), fronting the highest element before movement guaran-

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

79. Anaphors in picture NPs are often claimed to be logophors. The current analysis is suggestive of why an anaphor without a local subject takes on a logophoric role. This suggests a treatment of logophors as elements that all BARs have been slashed for.

Notes

193

If such a bias exists, it breaks down for cases with D-linked WHphrases. But then a D-linked WH-phrase can only rarely fall under the scope of a potential intervener like negation. This is what lay behind the pragmatic theory of weak islands outlined in §1.3.2/21. Following this reasoning, we also expect the motivation for superiority to be lost in a language like German that is not able to use superiority as a strategy to circumvent intervention effects (its WH usage information being distributed among all its WH-phrases). And indeed, German is an example of a language that is often argued to lack the superiority contrast, as the data in (i) and (ii) shows. (i) a. W e r sah was? who saw what b. W a s sah wer? (ii) a. W e n hast du iiberredet was zu kaufen? whom-ACC have you persuaded what to buy 'Who did you persuade to buy what?' b. Was hast du wen iiberredet zu kaufen? 86. We should note that (112) has a reading under an echo interpretation for the in-situ WH-phrase. This reading poses no problem for our analysis, since we can assume that the moved WH-phrase carries wh* to Spec-CP outside the scope of the intervener, being the only and hence highest-before-movement questionable WHphrase, as in (i). (i) O p W h i c h booki C didn't which person read e\? Q [wh*book(x)] BAR/x Neg Q x [wh* book(#)] BAR//x Neg echo_person_read(#) 87. One issue that is left open by the present discussion is the fact that Chinese does not display subjacency effects. Thus, as Huang (1981) notes, (i) shows that Chinese lacks the tensed WH-island effect. (i) ni xiang-zhidao [ wo weishenme mai shenme]? you wonder I why buy what 'What do you wonder why I bought?'

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

tees no intervention effect: it lifts the WH-phrase that carries all WH-argument usage information to the topmost position. It is possible that this promotes a bias that favours adoption of this movement strategy for all occasions.

Notes We side step this issue by slashing all BARs for the WH-phrases in Chinese. But this absence of subjacency is a much wider phenomenon. For example, it also applies to multiple questions in English that have successfully fronted a WH-phrase. Pesetsky (2000) talks about this in terms of a "subjacency tax." This could be implemented as a slash of all BARs. Another option consistent with our system would be to have non wh marked WH-phrases pick up their values with a pointer, that is, have them behave like resumptive pronouns.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

194

Abney, S. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Acquaviva, P. (1993). The Logical Form of Negation. A Study of Operator-Variable Structures in Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa. Acquaviva, P. (1999). Negation and operator dependencies: evidence from Italian. Lingua 108, 137-174. Aloni, M. (2001). Quantification under Conceptual Covers. Ph. D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, pp. 25-37. Universitat Konstanz, Germany: FB Sprachwissenschaft. Aloni, M., D. Beaver, and B. Clark (1999). Focus and topic sensitive operators. In P. Dekker (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12-th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 55-60. Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy. Androutsopoulou, A. (1997). Split-DPs, focus, and scrambling in Modern Greek. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 16, 1-16. Aoun, J. (1986). Generalized Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Aoun, J., N. Hornstein, and D. Sportiche (1981). Some aspects of wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistics 18, 537-577. Aoun, J. and Y.-H. Li (1993). WH-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24, 199-238. Aoun, J. and Y.-H. Li (2003). Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of WHConstructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ashby, W. (1976). The loss of the negative morpheme "ne" in Parisian French. Lingua 39, 119-137. 195 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Ashby, W. (1981). The loss of the negative morpheme "ne" in French: a syntactic change in progress. Language 57, 674-687. Ashby, W. (2001). Un nouveau regard sur la chute du "ne" en Frangais parle tourangeau. French Language Studies 11, 1-22. Austin, P. and J. Bresnan (1996). Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 215-268. Baker, C. L. (1970). Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6, 197-219. Baker, M. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barwise, J. (1987). Noun phrases, generalized quantifiers and anaphora. In P. Gardenfors (Ed.), Generalized Quantifiers: linguistic and logical approaches, pp. 1-30. Dordrecht: Reidel. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4-> 159-219. Beck, S. (1996a). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 4, 1-56. Beck, S. (1996b). WH-constructions and Transparent Logical Form. Ph. D. thesis, Universitat Tubingen. Beck, S. and S.-S. Kim (1997). On WH- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384. Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell (1997). Distributivity and negation: the syntax of "each" and "every". In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking, pp. 71-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Benedicto, E. (1997). V-movement and its interpretational effects. Paper presented at GLOW. Bennis, H., N. Corver, and M. den Dikken (1998). Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Linguistics 1, 85-117. Blutner, R. (1993). Dynamic generalized quantifiers and existential sentences in natural language. Journal of Semantics 10, 33-64. Bobaljik, J. and S. Brown (1997). Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 345-356. Boeckx, C. (1999). Decomposing French questions. In J. Alexander, N.-R. Han, and M. M. Fox (Eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 6.1, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, pp. 69-80. Boeckx, C. (2003). French WH in situ interrogatives as (c)overt clefts. Harvard University.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

196

197

Boeckx, C. and J. Jeong (2003). The fine structure of intervention in syntax. Harvard University and University of Maryland. Borkin, A. (1971). Polarity items in questions. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 53-62. Boskovic, Z. (1998). LF Movement and the Minimalist Program. In P. N. Tamanji and K. Kusomoto (Eds.), North East Linguistic Society 28, pp. 43-57. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA. Boskovic, Z. (2000). Sometimes in Spec-CP, sometimes in-situ. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 5 3 88. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Boskovic, Z. (2003). On Left Branch extraction. In Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Bosque, I. (1980). Sobre la Negacion. Madrid: Catedra. Bouvier, Y.-F. (2001). Some audible effects of a silent operator. Snippets 4, 7-7. Browning, M. (1987). Null operator constructions. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Published by Garland, New-York, 1991. Butler, A. (1999). Setting up exhaustive values. In A. Todirascu (Ed.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 1999 Student Session, Utrecht, pp. 211-222. Butler, A. (2001). Degree relatives are ordinary relatives. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, and Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XI Proceedings, Cornell University, pp. 76-94. CLC Publications. Butler, A. (2002). Control and Exhaustification. Ph. D. thesis, University of York. Butler, A. (2003). Predicate Logic with Barriers and its locality effects. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, PP- 70-80. Universitat Konstanz, Germany: FB Sprachwissenschaft. Butler, A. and E. Mathieu (2004). Split-DPs, the Generalized E P P and Visibility. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Carlson, G. (1977). Amount relatives. Language 53, 520-542. Chang, L. (1997). WH in situ Phenomena in French. MA thesis, University of British Columbia. Cheng, L. (1991). On the typology of WH-questions. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Published by Garland, New-York, 1997. Cheng, L. (2000). Moving just the feature. In U. Lutz, G. Miiller, and A. von Stechow (Eds.), WH-scope marking, pp. 77-99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Cheng, L. and J. Rooryck (2000). Licensing WH-in-situ. Syntax 3, 1-19. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232286. New York: Rinehart and Winston. Chomsky, N. (1977). On WH-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajan (Eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. New-York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cole, P. and G. Hermon (1994). Is there LF movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25, 239-262. Cole, P. and G. Hermon (1998). The typology of WH-movement. WH-questions in Malay. Syntax 1, 221-258. Comorovski, I. (1989). Discourse and the Syntax of Multiple Constituent Questions. Ph. D. thesis, Cornell University. Comorovski, I. (1996). Interrogative Phrases and the SyntaxSemantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Corblin, F. (1994). Semantique des negatifs multiples. In P. Attal (Ed.), La negation: Actes du colloque de Paris X Nanterre, 12-14 novembre 1992. Numero special de Linx, 29, Stanford, pp. 279-298. Corblin, F. (1996). Multiple negation processing. Theoria 62, 214260. Corver, N. (1990). The Syntax of Left Branch Extraction. Ph. D. thesis, University of Tilburg. Cresswell, M. (2002). Static semantics for dynamic discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 545-571. Cresti, D. (1995). Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3, 79-122. Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect WH-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2, 137-170. Dekker, P. (1993). Existential Disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 561-587.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

198

199

Dekker, P. (2002a). Meaning and use of indefinite expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 141-194. Dekker, P. (2002b). Something else. In G. Alberti, K. Balogh, and P. Dekker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium on Logic and Language, Pecs, Hungary, pp. 17-26. Dekker, P. (2003a). The pragmatic dimension of indefinites. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam. Dekker, P. (2003b). A pragmatic view upon indefinites. In K. von Heusinger, R. Kempson, and W. Meyer-Viol (Eds.), Arbeitspapier 110 Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, Proceedings of ESSLLII 13 Workshop on Choice Functions and Natural language Semantics, pp. 17-34. Konstanz: University of Konstanz. Denham, K. (2000). Optional WH-movement in Babine-Witsuwit'en. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 199-251. Deprez, V. (1997). A non-unified analysis of Negative Concord. In D. Forget and P. Hirschbuler (Eds.), Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics, pp. 53-75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Deprez, V. (2000). Parallel (a)symmetries and the internal structure of negative expressions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 253-342. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dikken, M. den. (1998). Predicate inversion in DP. In A. Alexiadou and C. Wilder (Eds.), Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, pp. 177-214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Donnellan, K. (1978). Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, pp. 47-68. New York: Academic Press. Dowty, D. (1994). The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning. In M. Harvey and L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistics Theory IV, pp. 114-144. Cornell University. Eijck, J. van. (1998). Dynamic reasoning without variables. Technical Report INS-R9801, CWI, Amsterdam. Eijck, J. van. (2001). Incremental dynamics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 319-351. Eng, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25. Fanselow, G. (1988). Aufspaltung von NPn und das Problem der "freien Wortstellung". Linguistische Berichte 115, 91-113. Fanselow, G. (2000). Partial movement. A contribution to the SynCom project.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Fanselow, G. and A. Mahajan (1996). Partial movement and successive cyclicity. In U. Lutz and G. Miiller (Eds.), Papers on WhScope Marking, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs, 340, pp. 131-161. University of Stuttgart and University of Tubingen. Fauconnier, G. (1975a). Polarity and the scale principle. In Chicago Linguistics Society 11, Chicago, pp. 188-199. Chicago Linguistic Society. Fauconnier, G. (1975b). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 353-375. Frampton, J. (1991). Review of Relativized Minimality. The Linguistic Review 8, 1-46. Franks, S. (1992). A Prominence constraint on null operator constructions. Lingua 87, 35-54. Franks, S. (1993). On parallelism in Across-the-Board dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 509-529. Gavruseva, E. (2000). On the syntax of possessor extraction. Lingua 109, 743-772. Giannakidou, A. (1997). The Landscape of Polarity Items. Ph. D. thesis, University of Groningen. Giannakidou, A. (2000). Negative ... concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 457-523. Giannakidou, A. and J. Quer (1995). Two mechanisms for the licensing of Negative Indefinites. In Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America (FLSM) 6, pp. 103-114. Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC). Giannakidou, A. and J. Quer (1997). Long distance licensing of negative indefinites. In D. Forget, P. Hirschbuler, F. Martineau, and M.-L. Rivero (Eds.), Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics, pp. 95-113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph. D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof (1991). Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 39-100. Grohmann, K. (2003). Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grosu, A. (1994). Three Studies in Locality and Case. London: Routledge. Grosu, A. and F. Landman (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6, 125-170.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

200

201

Guerzoni, E. (2004). Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics. Haegeman, L. (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, L. (1997). On the syntax of N-words and the Neg Criterion. In D. Forget, P. Hirschbuler, F. Martineau, and M.-L. Rivero (Eds.), Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics, pp. 115-137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haegeman, L. and R. Zanuttini (1991). Negative heads and the Neg Criterion. The Linguistic Review 8, 233-251. Hagstrom, P. (1998). Decomposing Questions. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Haider, H. (1990). Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, pp. 93-112. John Benjamins. Hale, K. L. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-47. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10, 41-53. Haspelmath, M. (2000). Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Heim, I. (1987). Where does the indefiniteness restriction apply? evidence from the definiteness of variables. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 21-42. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hendrick, R. and M. Rochemont (1988). Complementation, multiple WH and echo questions. In P. Avery (Ed.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 9. Toronto. Her burger, E. (2001). The Negative Concord puzzle revisited. Natural Language Semantics 9, 289-333. Heycock, C. (1995). Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry ^ , 1 0 3 - 1 3 8 . Heyd, S. (2003). L'interpretation des syntagmes nominaux en (des' et (de' en position sujet et objet - Genericite, habitualite et incorporation semantique. Ph. D. thesis, Universite de Strasbourg 2.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Heyd, S. and E. Mathieu (2003). De N e t l'incorporation semantique. Universite de Strasbourg 2/University College London. Honcoop, M. (1998). Dynamic Excursions on Weak Islands. Ph. D. thesis, Leiden University/HIL. Honcoop, M. (1999). Dynamic quantification at a distance. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen, and P. Norquest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Cascadilla Press: Oxford University Press. Horn, L. (1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA. Horn, L. (1973). Greek Grice. In Proceedings of the Ninth Regional of the Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 205-214. Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell. Horrocks, G. and M. Stavrou (1987). Bounding Theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for WH-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23, 79-108. Horvath, J. (1997). The status of "WH-expletives" and the partial WH-movement constructions of Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 509-572. Huang, C.-T. J. (1981). Move WH in a language without WHmovement. Linguistic Review 1, 369-416. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Jacobson, P. (1999). Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117-184. Jelinek, E. (1984). Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 39-76. Jones, M. (1993). Sardinian Syntax. Routledge: Oxford. Kadmon, N. and F. Landman (1994). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 353-422. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, pp. 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Kamp, H. (1990). Prolegomena to a structural theory of belief and other attitudes. In C. A. Anderson and J. Owens (Eds.), Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language and Mind, pp. 27-90. Stanford: CSLI.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

202

203

Kayne, R. (1981). ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93-133. Kayne, R. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, R. (2002). Pronouns and their antecedents. In S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, pp. 133-166. Oxford: Blackwell. Keenan, E. (1987). A semantic definition of "indefinite NP". In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 286-318. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Keenan, E. (1988). On semantics and the binding theory. In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Kiss, K. (1992). WH-movement and specificity. Natural Language Linguistic Theory 11, 85-120. Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor and J. Katz (Eds.), The Structure of Language, pp. 264-323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Koeneman, O. (2000). The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement. Ph. D. thesis, Utrecht University. Koopman, H. (1997). Heavy pied-piping. Talk presented in Jena. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua 85, 211-285. Koopman, H. and A. Szabolcsi (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kratzer, A. and J. Shimoyama (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. Paper presented at the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25, 209-257. Krifka, M. (1998). Additive particles under stress. In D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII Proceedings, pp. 111-129. Ithaca: Cornell University. Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9, 1-40. Krifka, M. (2003). Polarity items in questions, slides for Korean Society of Language and Information Conference, Inha University, Incheon. Kroch, A. (1989). Amount quantification, referentiality, and long WH-movement. University of Pennsylvania. Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing negation. In C. Barker and D. Dowty (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) II Proceedings, pp. 237-259. The Ohio State University Press. Ladusaw, W. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 321-341. Oxford: Blackwell. Laenzlinger, C. (1998). Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation: Adverbs, Pronouns and Clause Structure in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Laka, I. (1990). Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Larrivee, P. (1995). Quantifieurs negatifs et double negation. In P. Larrivee et al (Ed.), Actes des Neuviemes Journees de Linguistique, pp. 207-217. Centre International de Recherche en Amenagement Linguistique. Lasnik, H. (1974). Analysis of Negation in English. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1984). On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235-289. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1992). Move Alpha. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lebeaux, D. (1991). Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 25, pp. 209-239. Academic Press. Lee, R. K. (1994). Constraints on A-movement are derivational ones: A study from NPI licensing in Korean. In N. Akatsuka (Ed.), Japanese Korean Linguistics, Volume 4. Stanford: CSLI. Legate, J. (2002). Warlpiri: Theoretical Implications. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 325-387. Longobardi, G. (1985). Connectedness, scope and C-Command. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 163-192. Lumsden, M. (1988). Existential Sentences: their structure and meaning. London: Routledge. Mahajan (2003). Word order and (remnant) VP movement. To appear in Word Order and Scrambling, edited by S. Karimi, Blackwell Publishers.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

204

205

Mathieu, E. (1999). French WH in situ and the Intervention Effect. In C. Iten and A. Neeleman (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 441-472. University College London. Mathieu, E. (2001). On the nature of French N-words. In C. Iten and A. Neeleman (Eds.), UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 319-352. University College London. Mathieu, E. (2002). The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. Ph. D. thesis, UCL. Mathieu, E. (2004). The mapping of form and interpretation: the case of optional WH-movement in French. Lingua. Mathieu, E. and I. Sitaridou (2004a). Noun ellipsis, determiner spreading, and split-DPs. In I. Philippaki-Waburton, S. Varlokosta, M. Georgiafentis, and G. Kotzoglou (Eds.), Greek Syntax and the Minimalist Seduction. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mathieu, E. and I. Sitaridou (2004b). Split-WH constructions in Classical and Modern Greek. In M. Batllori and F. Roca (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Parametric Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. May, R. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. May, R. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. McCloskey, J. (1979). Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics: A case-study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel. McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple WH-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565-604. McNally, L. (1992). An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction. Ph. D. thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz. Milsark, G. (1977). Towards an explanation of certain pecularities in the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30. Moritz, L. and D. Valois (1994). Pied-piping and Specifier-Head agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 667-707. Moro, A. (1997). The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Munn, A. (1992). A Null Operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9, 1-26. Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. Ph. D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Nakanishi, K. (2003). The semantics of measure phrases. To appear in North East Linguistic Society 33. Nishigaushi, T. (1992). Syntax of reciprocals in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 157-196. Nunes, J. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303344. Obenauer, H.-G. (1976). Etudes de la Syntaxe Interrogative du Frangais. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Obenauer, H.-G. (1983). Une quantification non-canonique: La quantification a distance. Langue Francaise 58, 66-88. Obenauer, H.-G. (1994). Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre. Universite de Paris VII: These de doctorat d'Etat. Ochi, J. and M. Ochi (2003). Reciprocity and null operator movement. In M. Kaowaki and S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Ouhalla, J. (1996). Remarks on the binding properties of WHpronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 676-707. Ouhalla, J. (1997). The structure of logical form of negative sentences. Linguistic Analysis 27, 220-244. Partee, B. (1995). Quantificational structures and compositionality. In E. Back, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, pp. 541-601. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Percus, O. (1997). Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society, 27, Amherst, pp. 337-351. GLSA. Pesetsky, D. (1987). WH-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 98-129. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Plunkett, B. (2001). Attract and Covert Merge: predicting interrogative variation. In G. Alexandrova and O. Arnaudova (Eds.), The Minimalist Parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21-23 March 1997, pp. 159-174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Postal, P. (1971). Cross-Over Phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Postal, P. (1997). Strong crossover violations and binding principles. Prepared for ESCOL 97, Yale University.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

206

207

Postal, P. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Postal, P. (2000). A remark on English double negatives. In E. Laporte, M. Piot, and M. Silberztein (Eds.), Syntaxe, Lexique et Lexique-Grammaire. Volume dedicated to Maurice Gross. Lingvisticae Investigationes Supplementa 24- Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Progovac, L. (1994). Negative and positive polarity. A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reinhart, T. (1995). Interface strategies. OTS working papers in linguistics. Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier Scope: How labor is divided between QR and Choice-Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335397. Reinhart, T. (1998). Wh-in situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 29-56. Reis, M. (1996). On Was-Parentheticals and Was ... WHconstructions in German. In U. Lutz and G. Muller (Eds.), Papers on Wh-Scope Marking, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs, 340, pp. 257-288. University of Stuttgart and University of Tubingen. Riemsdijk, H. van. (1982). Correspondence effects and the Empty Category Principle. In Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 12. University of Tilburg. Riemsdijk, H. van. (1987). Movement and regeneration. In P. Beninca (Ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, pp. 105-136. Dordrecht: For is. Riemsdijk, H. van. and E. Williams (1981). NP structure. Linguistic Review 1, 171-217. Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, L. (1994). Argument/adjunct (a)symmetries. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Path towards universal grammar: studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, pp. 361-376. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Rizzi, L. (2001). Reconstruction, weak island sensitivity and agreement. In C. Cecchetto (Ed.), Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora and Aspect. Stanford: CSLI. Rizzi, L. (2004). Locality and left periphery. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: the carthography of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph. D. thesis, University of Amherst, Massachusetts. Rooy, R. van. (1997). Attitudes and Changing Contexts. Ph. D. thesis, IMS, Stuttgart. Rooy, R. van. (2003). Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance. Journal of Semantics 20, 239-273. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Ross, J. R. (1984). Inner islands. In C. Brugmann and M. Macaulay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Ross, J. R. (1986). Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rullmann, H. (1993). Scope ambiguities in how many-questions. Paper presented at the 1993 LSA meeting. Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the Semantics of WHconstructions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Saito, M. (1989). Scrambling as semantically vacuous A-movement. In M. Baltin and A. Kroch (Eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. University of Chicago Press. Sandu, G. (1997). On the theory of anaphora: Dynamic Predicate Logic vs. Game-theoretical Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 147-174. Schapansky, N. (2002). The syntax of negation in French: contrariety versus contradiction. Lingua 112, 793-826. Schlenker, P. (2003). Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. UCLA and Institut Jean-Nicod. Sekerina, I. (1997). The Syntax and Processing of Scrambling Constructions in Russian. Ph. D. thesis, City University, New-York. Shan, C.-C. and C. Barker (2003). Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. University of California, San Diego and Harvard University. Shi, D. (1994). The nature of Chinese WH-questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, 301-333. Shimoyama, J. (1999). Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 147182. Simpson, A. (1995). WH-Movement, Licensing, and the Locality of Feature-Checking. Ph. D. thesis, SOAS.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

208

209

Simpson, A. (2000). WH Movement and the Theory of Feature Checking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Soh, H. L. (1998). Object scrambling in Chinese. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Sohn, K.-W. (1995). Negative Polarity items, Scope, and Economy. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut. Sportiche, D. (1998). Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. London: Routledge. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3-19. Starke, M. (2001). Move disolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. Ph. D. thesis, Universite de Geneve. Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561-570. Sufier, M. (1995). Negative elements, island effects and resumptive no. The Linguistic Review 12, 233-273. Swart, H. de. (1992). Intervention effects, monotonicity and scope. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) II Proceedings, pp. 387-406. Swart, H. de. and I. Sag (2002). Negation and Negative Concord in French. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 373-417. Szabolcsi, A. (2003a). Binding on the fly: cross-sentential anaphora in variablefree semantics. To appear in Kruijff and Oehrle, eds. Resource Sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Szabolcsi, A. (2003b). Positive polarity-negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Szabolcsi, A. (2003c). Strong and weak islands. In M. Everaert andH. van. Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Syntax Companion. NIAS Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW). Szabolcsi, A. and M. den Dikken (1999). Islands. Glot International 4, 31-8. Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts (1990). On the semantics of composed functions and the distribution of WH-phrases. In Proceedings of the 7th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam: ILLC, pp. 529-555. Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts (1993). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 2, 1-50. Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts (1997). Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, pp. 217-262. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tellier, C. (1991). Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Bibliography

Bibliography

Torrego, E. (1984). On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 103-129. Tsai, W.-T. (1994). On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 251-282. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass. Watanabe, A. (1992). Subjacency and S-structure movement of WHin-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 255-291. Williams, E. (1974). Rule Ordering in Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Williams, E. (1984). There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 131-153. Williams, E. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wouden, T. van der. and F. Zwarts (1993). A semantic analysis of Negative Concord. In U. Lahiri and A. Z. Wyner (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) III Proceedings, pp. 202-219. Cornell University: CLC Publications. Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Zeevat, H. (1994). Applying an exhaustivity operator in update semantics. InH. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, Tense, and Questions, Volume R2.2B of DYANA-deliverable, Amsterdam: ILLC, pp. 233-269. Zeevat, H. (2003). A pragmatic reconstruction of exhaustification. University of Amsterdam. Zimmermann, E. (1999). Remarks on the epistemic role of discourse referents. In L. Moss, J. Ginzburg, and M. de Rijke (Eds.), Logic, Language and Computation II, pp. 513-540. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zubizarreta, M.-L. and J.-R. Vergnaud (2002). Intervention effects in the French WH-in-situ construction: syntax or interpretation? In LSRL, Vol. 1. Zwart, J.-W. (2001). Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4, 34-62. Zwart, J.-W. (2002). Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In S. D. Epstein and T..D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, pp. 269-304. Oxford: Blackwell.

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

210

Chamorro WH-extraction, 4 Chinese lack of subjacency, 193 WH-adjuncts, 53 intervention effect, 37, 160 WH-in-situ, 176 WH-phrases, 158 Dutch wat voor construction, 3 bare operator extraction, 16 negative quantifier, 73 English degree relatives, 6 intervention effect, 156-158 multiple WH questions, 156157, 194 negative polarity items, 63-64, 84 quantifier, 73 superiority, 156, 192 universals, 42 WH-adjuncts, 53

French combien construction, 144150 all in-situ, 146-147 all-fronted, 2, 148-149 split, 2, 6, 13-15, 147148 bare which element, 175 complementizers, 124 free choice item, 183 multiple WH questions, 34, 155-156 N-words, 8, 61-66, 76-77, 81-87, 135-139, 187 intervention effect, 6466, 137-139 negation, 77 negative polarity items, 6266, 72-73, 140 phonology, 88 universals, 42 WH-exclamatives, 175 WH-extraction, 4 WH-in-situ, 8, 9, 33-47, 150-152 intervention effect, 3 5 36, 151-152 yes-no question, 180

211 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Language Index

Language Index

German was fur construction, 3 lack of superiority, 193 multiple WH questions intervention effect, 5052, 154-155 negative quantifier, 73 partial WH construction, 9, 55-58 intervention effect, 5758, 163-165 patial WH construction, 8 scrambling, 51 split-topic, 173 WH-extraction, 4 Greek N-words, 186 split-adjectival construction, 174 WH-extraction, 4 Hungarian WH-extraction, 4 Imbabura Quechua relatives, 5 Irish, 124 Italian which-DPs, 3 degree expressions, 4 N-words, 84, 182 negation, 77

negative polarity items, 4850, 75-76, 141-142 scrambling, 47-50, 75,141, 143, 153-154 WH-adjuncts, 53 WH-in-situ, 47-50 intervention effect, 4749 Latin WH-extraction, 4 Mohawk which-DPs, 3 non-configurationality, 174 relatives, 5 Polish which-DPs, 3 bare operator extraction, 16 Russian bare operator extraction, 16 split-adjectival construction, 174 WH-extraction, 4 Sardinian split-adjectival construction, 174 Sinhala blocking phenomena, 176 Spanish, 124 degree expressions, 4 N-words, 84, 182 WH-exclamatives, 175

Japanese blocking phenomena, 176 reciprocals, 176 relatives, 5 split measure phrase construction, 173

Tzotzil WH-extraction, 4

Korean multiple WH questions, 153

Warlpiri hierarchical syntax, 175

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

212

Browning, M., 176 Butler, A., 6, 105, 176, 179, 181

Abney, S., 191 Acquaviva, P., 81 Aloni, M., 189, 190, 192 Androutsopoulou, A., 4, 174 Aoun, J., 16, 34, 75, 158, 166, 176, 177 Ashby, W., 185 Austin, P., 174

Carlson, G., 6 Chang, L., 35, 38, 41 Cheng, L., 9, 35, 39-40, 58, 166, 181, 192 Chomsky, N., 11, 12, 16, 20, 91,123,176,181,187, 190, 191 Cinque, G., 10,15, 21, 22,177179 Clark, B., 192 Cole, P., 5, 166 Comorovski, I., 21, 22 Cooper, R., 1 Corblin, F., 83 Corver, N., 3, 5, 175, 182 Cresswell, M.J., 99 Cresti, D., 55

Baker, C.L., 166 Baker, M., 3, 5, 174 Barker, C , 178 Barwise, J., 1, 25 Beaver, D., 192 Beck, S., 20, 29, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57, 80, 181, 182 Beghelli, F., 16 Benedicto, E., 190 Bennis, H., 182 Blutner, R., 46 Boskovic, Z., 9, 35, 37, 175, 177, 180 Bobaljik, J., 190 Boeckx, C , 17, 35, 40-42, 177, 181 Borkin, A., 80 Bosque, L, 81 Bouvier, Y.-F., 88 Bresnan, J., 174 Brown, S., 190

Deprez, V., 81, 186 Dayal, V., 165 Dekker, P., 8, 25, 27, 72, 99, 133,176,180,190,192 Denham, K., 180 Diesing, M., 186 Dikken, M. den, 16, 182 Donnellan, K., 189 213

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

N a m e Index

Name Index

Dowty, D., 81 Eijck, J. van, 189 Eng, M., 22 Fanselow, G., 57, 58, 165, 173 Fauconnier, G., 68 Frampton, J., 55 Franks, S., 176 Gavruseva, E., 4 Giannakidou, A., 81, 186 Groenendijk, J., 25, 189, 192 Grohmann, K., 191 Grosu, A., 6 Guerzoni, E., 20, 71, 77-80, 86 Haegeman, L., 3, 61, 81, 87, 188 Hagstrom, P., 176 Haider, H., 173 Hale, K., 174 Hamblin, C.L., 66 Haspelmath, M., 62, 192 Heim, L, 1, 25,46, 54, 191 Hendrick, R., 180 Herburger, E., 81 Hermon, G., 5, 166 Heycock, C , 182 Heyd, S., 182 Honcoop, M., 9, 23-27, 29, 40, 58, 63, 71-72,179,192 Horn, L., 67 Hornstein, N., 34,177,178,186, 191 Horrocks, G., 175 Horvath, J., 165 Huang, C.-T.J., 10-11,125,127, 193 Jacobson, P., 178 Jelinek, E., 174

Jeong, J., 17 Jones, M., 174 Kadmon, H., 133, 192 Kamp, H., 25, 180, 189 Kayne, R., 178, 191 Keenan, E., 46, 178 Kim, S.-S., 20, 47, 48 Kiss,K., 10,19,22,23,29,157 Klima, E., 61, 74, 177 Koeneman, O., 190 Koopman, H., 115, 175, 190 Kratzer, A., 176, 191 Krifka, M., 42, 45, 66-71, 80, 150, 178, 183, 192 Kroch, A., 21, 22 Ladusaw, W., 63, 66, 81 Laenzlinger, C , 14 Laka, I., 81, 84, 182 Landman, F., 6, 133, 192 Larrivee, P., 83 Lasnik, H., 11, 34, 61, 118 Lebeaux, D., 181 Lee, R.K., 76, 183 Legate, J., 175 Lewis, D., 16, 25 Li, Y.-A., 16, 158, 166, 176 Linebarger, M., 63, 64 Longobardi, G., 15 Lumsden, M., 46 Mahajan, A., 58, 165, 190 Mathieu, E., 35, 81, 175-177, 180-182 May, R., 15 McCloskey, J., 124 McDaniel, D., 9, 56, 165 McNally, L., 46 Milsark, G., 46 Moritz, L., 82 Moro, A., 4, 5, 182

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

214

Munn, A., 176 Nakanishi, K., 173 Nishigaushi, T., 176 Nunes, J., 190 Obenauer, H.-G., 2, 6, 10, 14, 39, 45, 173, 178 Ochi, J., 176 Ochi, M., 176 Ouhalla, J., 37, 81, 158 Partee, B., 1, 27 Percus, O., 41 Pesetsky, D., 19-23, 29, 77-78, 80, 157,181,184, 194 Plunkett, B., 180 Pollock, J.-Y., 3 Postal, P., 10, 126, 182, 187 Progovac, L., 75-127 Quer, J., 81 Reinhart, T., 176, 186 Reis, M., 58 Riemsdijk, H. van, 9, 57, 165, 173, 181 Rizzi, L., 6, 12-16, 21, 22, 26, 41, 81, 118, 124, 160, 178, 179 Rochemont, M., 180 Rooryck, J., 35, 39-40, 181 Rooth, M., 66 Rooy, R. van, 80, 180, 189 Ross, J., 4, 10, 77, 79, 122,175 Rowlett, P., 8, 82, 185, 188 Rullmann, H., 10, 55 Sag, I , 84 Saito, M., 11, 34, 118, 180 Sandu, G., 189 Schapansky, N., 185

215

Schlenker, P., 178 Sekerina, I., 174 Shan, C.-C, 178 Shi, D., 158 Shimoyama, J., 5, 176 Simpson, A., 9, 56, 180 Sitaridou, I., 175 Soh, H.-L., 36, 37 Sohn, K.-W., 50 Sportiche, D., 34,115,177,181, 190 Stalnaker, R., 99, 180 Starke, M., 17 Stavrou, M., 175 Stokhof, M., 25, 189,192 Stowell, T., 16, 116 Sufier, M., 81 Swart, H. de, 3, 6, 10, 13-15, 23, 29, 43, 44, 84, 149, 178 Szabolcsi, A., 16, 19, 22-24, 26,177,178,187, 190 Tellier, C , 177 Torrego, E., 124 Tsai, D., 158, 166 Uriagereka, J., 191 Valois, D., 82 Vergnaud, J., 42-45 Watanabe, A., 166, 176 Williams, E., 7, 10, 17-19, 26, 53, 54, 160, 178, 181 Wouden, T. van der, 81 Zanuttini, R., 3, 81, 83, 87, 188 Zeevat, H., 72, 183, 192 Zimmermann, E., 180, 189 Zubizarreta, M., 42-45

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Name Index

216

Name Index

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Zwart, J.-W., 190, 191 Zwarts, F., 19, 22-24, 26

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

movement, see movement specifier, 13, 15, 20

Amovement, see movement position, 115 absorption, 188 across-the-board movement, see movement adjunct islands, see islands adverbs frequency, 64,137,142,178, 188 iterative, 178 Agree, 20 alternative semantics, see semantics antecedent government, see government antipronominal contexts, 182 argument position, see A-position articulatory-perceptual system, 92 assignment, 97-98

atomic formulae, 97, 100 PLA, 102 PLB, 108 Predicate Logic, 98 proposition, see proposition Attract Closest, 16 bare operator, see operator barrier, 12 A-specifier, 13 operator, 106, 111-112 Quantifier-Induced, 20 slashed, 106, 191 binding dependencies, 119, 121 dynamic, 72 influence, 106 potential, 107 relations of PLB, 113 Binding Theory, 75-77, 191 Generalized, 75 c-command, 63, 74, 87, 114 Case, 122, 183, 191 accusative, 127 assignment, 92 features, 115 nominative, 115, 127

217 10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Subject Index

Subject Index

clause-bound effect, 9-10 binding, 119 N-words, 62, 139 NPIs, 62-63,140-142,183 partial WH construction, 56-57, 163 WH-in-situ, 37, 145, 146, 152 clauses degree, 176 purposive, 176 relative, see relatives clefts, 40-42 complex NP islands, see islands conjunction, 96 PLA, 103 PLB, 110 Predicate Logic, 98 speech act, 150 constant symbol, 95 context, see discourse control construction, 115-118 coordination non-sentential, 83 covert syntax, see syntax crash at LF, 92 at PF, 92 interpretation, 108-110 crossover strong, 126-128 weak, 175 cyclicity, 20, 29 Dlinking,21-23,38,41,156, 184, 193 structure, 92 definite description, 41 quantifier, see quantifier

degree clauses, see clauses relatives, see relatives discourse, 99 context, 106,108,110-113, 118,120,121,126,128, 189 restriction, 133 Discourse Representation Theory, 105, 189 disjunction, 95, 96 PLB, 109 domain widening, 132-133 Donald Duck problem, 176 donkey anaphora, 105, 113 double negation interpretation, 135 object construction, 184 DP hypothesis, 191 dynamic binding, see binding semantics, see semantics Dynamic Predicate Logic, 179, 189 echo interpretation, 44-46,193 question, 180 Empty Category Principle, 1 1 12,118 Scopal, 17, 19, 53 escape hatch, 11, 123, 163 exhaustification, 41, 72, 183, 192 existential there construction, 46, 5455,80 closure, 192 contexts, 45 disclosure, 72, 179 quantification, 73,129,130

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

218

extraposition islands, see islands factive islands, see islands feature checking, 77 quantificational structures, 16 movement, see movement floating quantifier, see quantifier focus, 67, 72 contrastive, 41, 42 particles, 35 strong, 41 formula, 96-97 atomic, see atomic formulae length, 100, 106-107, 110 scope, 100-102, 106-107 free choice interpretation, 62, 75, 183-185 relatives, see relatives functional abstraction, 191 government, 12 antecedent, 11-18, 118 lexical, 11 Government Binding Theory, 115, 187, 191 Grice first submaxim of Quantity, 67 maxim of manner, 183 maxim of Quality, 67 head movement, see movement idiom chunks, 12 implication, 95 Implicature of Negating Stronger Alternatives, 68

219

indefinite quantifier, see quantifier indefinites, 25, 27, 63, 72, 99, 129, 151, 177 reduced tolerance of exceptions, 133 individual reading, 14, 43-45 information structure, 180 interface syntax/semantics, 91-92, 128 interveners, see scopal elements intervention effect, 6-10 Intervention Effect Condition (Pesetsky), 19, 78 islands, 10, 16, 123 adjunct, 16, 122 complex NP, 16, 79, 122 extraposition, 177 factive, 10, 46, 57, 177 inner, 10 left branch extraction, 16, 175 negative, 10, 13, 16, 22 scope, 10, 21, 49, 63-65, 70 selective, 10 strong, 11,16,79,122,125, 126 subject, 16, 122 tensed WH, 122, 123 unlocked, 10 VP-adverb, 10 weak, 7, 10, 16 WH-, 10-11, 13, 16, 58, 125, 161 Jespersen Cycle, 187 left branch extraction, see islands length, see formula

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Subject Index

Subject Index

lexical government, see government Logical Form, 21, 29, 91-92 representation, 114 logophors, 192 long WH movement, see movement Minimal Link Condition, 16 Match Condition, 16 Quantified Structure Constraint (Beck), 20 Minimalism, 16-17, 20-21, 29, 87, 91-92, 115, 121, 187, 190 architecture, 91 model first order, 94 movement, 190 A-, 121-126, 190 A-, 115-119, 190, 191 across-the-board, 176 feature, 20, 77-80, 89,177, 184 focus, 122 head, 190 long, 125 WH, 10 null operator, 89 overt, 20 phrasal, 77 remnant, 190 successive cyclic, 10, 123, 163 T-to-C, 116 tough, 122, 176 N-words, 61, 66, 81-87, 135139, 187 Neg(ation) Operator, 132-133

negation, 6, 16 PLA, 100, 102 PLB, 109 constituent, 83 double, 83, 84 embedded contexts, 9, 62, 76 Predicate Logic, 98 Propositional Logic, 95 scope of, 131 negative concord, 74, 77, 83, 135 islands, see islands polarity items, 62-66,139143 c-command requirement, 74 intervention effect, 142143 signalling negation's scope 49, 143 Nested Scope Constraint, 18 non-configurationality, 174 noun restrictor, 1 NP movement, see movement, Anull operator, see operator Numeration, 20, 29, 92 operator, 1 bare, 1 interrogative, 8, 28, 166 null, 121, 176, 177 bare, 37 interrogative, 8 movement, see movement negation, 135 negative, 8, 88-89 optionality, 34

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

220

Subject Index

pair-list reading, 14,15,19, 4244 WH-in-situ, 42 parasitic gaps, 176 passive constructions, 115 Phase Impenetrability Constraint, 16 Phonological Form, 92 phrasal movement, see movement picture NP, 127, 192 pied-piping, 78 phonological, 20 pointers, 99, 102, 105 PLA, 103 PLB, 111 positive polarity items, 70,131132 predicate inversion, 182 Predicate Logic, 95-98 with Anaphora, 99-105 with Barriers, 92,105-113, 129-134 enhanced usage information, 131 predicate symbol interpretation, 95 presuppositions, 38-39 Principle of Motivated Introduction of Alternatives, 67 PRO, 116-118, 191 proposition, 93, 94 atomic, 93 parameterized, 95 symbol, 93 Propositional Logic, 93-95

pseudoclefts, 121 purposive clauses, see clauses Q(uestion) Operator, 133-134 quantification, 96 PLA, 100, 103 PLB, 109, 111 existential, see existential opaque, 100, 189 visible, 100 non-canonical, 173 Predicate Logic, 98 tripartite form, 1 universal, 19, 73, 96, 114, 187 quantifier definite, 46 floating, 44 Germanic negative, 73-74, 82 indefinite, 46 Induced Barrier, see barrier raising, 121, 186 resumptive, 188 stranded, 190 strong, 46, 186 weak, 46 raising long distance, 118 quantifier, see quantifier subject-to-subject, 115 reconstruction Radical, 180 referential intentions, 28, 99 referents new, 104, 111 old, 104, 111

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

overt movement, see movement syntax, see syntax

221

Subject Index

relatives, 5-6, 121-122, 176 degree, 6 free, 121 internally headed, 5-6 Relativized Minimality, 12-17, 20, 118 Minimalist revisions of, 1617 restriction semantic, 1 resumptive pronouns, 194 quantifier, see quantifier S-structure, 92, 121 satisfaction relation, 95 PLA, 102 PLB, 108 Predicate Logic, 98 Propositional Logic, 95 scalar implicature, 67-68, 71 scopal ECP, see Empty Category Principle elements, 6-7, 26, 35, 63 scopally restricted WH intervention effect, 161-162 scopally restricted WH intervention effect, 54-55 scope formula, see formula freezing, 184 Hypothesis (de Swart), 23 islands, see islands Principle (Kiss), 23 semantics alternative, 66 dynamic, 25-27, 105, 189 stance on interpretation, 27 question, 192

SpecCP, 122, 123, 146, 163 IP, 115, 190 NegP, 13, 135 VP, 190 speech act, 150, 192 conjunction, see conjunction Spell-Out, 20, 92 multiple, 191 split adjectival constructions, 173 configuration, 28, 37-38, 48-49,51,53,58,8789 constructions, 1-10 measure phrase construction, 173 topic constructions, 173 stranded quantifier, see quantifier strong crossover, see crossover islands, see islands quantifier, see quantifier subjacency, 16, 123, 193-194 tax, 194 subject islands, see islands position, see Spec-IP super-raising, see raising, long distance superiority, 78, 156, 178, 184, 192-193 syntax covert, 20, 29, 77, 79, 89, 92, 177, 184 overt, 92, 179, 184 tense, 10,11,116-117,120,124

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

222

topicalization, 42-43, 74, 121, 122 tough-movement, see movement

Uniformity Principle, 20-21, 29, 80 uniqueness, 41 universal quantification, see quantification usage information, 27-29,129131 WH, 166

223

WHadjuncts intervention effect, 53, 160-161 in-situ adjuncts, 178-179 embedded contexts, 9, 34,37 islands, see islands possessor extraction, 4 witness, 99 yes-no question, 39 particle, 158

variable, 96-98 binding in adjuncts, 56 bound, 97 dummy, 98 free, 98 PLB, 108 Predicate Logic, 97 interpretation, 97 type non-referential, 12, 160 referential, 12-13, 160 visibility, 12, 28, 100, 131 volitional verbs, 58 VPadverb islands, see islands Internal Subject Hypothesis, 115

weak crossover, see crossover islands, see islands quantifier, see quantifier

10.1057/9780230501607 - The Syntax and Semantics of Split Constructions, Alastair Butler and Eric Mathieu

Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-20

Subject Index