Research
On the ATB Dependencies
-
University:
Boston University -
Course:
CAS WR 699 | Teaching College Writing Academic year:
2024
-
Views:
401
Pages:
18
Author:
Jarrett Richard
On the ATB dependencies
• Goal of this class:
Across-The-Board (ATB) movement and Coordination
Coordinate Structure Constraint: movement vs. LF constraint
Analyses of ATB constructions
Problems of the previous accounts
An alternative account: Right Node Raising (RNR) and ATB
1. Coordinate Structure Constraint
(1) a. *Which book did John like to read [&P the article and _]?
b. *Which book did John like to read [&P _ and the article]?
c. *Which book did John like to read [&P _ and _]
(2) *Which car did [&P John want to sell _, and Mary want to buy the bicycle]?
(1-2) tell us that nothing can come out of the coordinate structure: Ross (1967) generalizes it as
Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC).
(3) Coordinate Structure Constraint (as a movement constraint)
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a
conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.
(Ross 1967)
But consider the following:
(4) a. Who did [&P you like _ but Mary hate _]?
b. What book does [&P Mary think she should read _, but Bill think she should disregard_]?
c. Which car did [&P John want to sell _, and Mary want to buy _]?
Ross notes some exceptions to the CSC:
The extraction seems to be acceptable when an identical constituent from both conjuncts
move out of the conjunct simultaneously: Across-The-Board (ATB) movement.
2. Challenges for the CSC
2.1 Multiple wh-movement
(5) *Which cari which carj did John want to sell ti and Mary want to buy tj?
(6) *Kogoi kogoj Jan lubi a ti Maria kocha tj?
whom whom Jan likes and Maria loves
‘Whom does Jan like and Maria love?
(Polish, Citko 2003: 3) On the ATB dependencies
(5-6) indicate that extractions of an identical element do not always save the CSC violation.
2.2 Single-identity reading (“ATB” reading)
In most cases, ATB movement yields a single-identity reading:
(7) What did John sell t and Mary buy t?
a. ‘What is x, such that John sold x, and Mary bought x.’
b.?*‘What are x and y, such that John sold x, and Mary bought y.’
If (7a) is the LF form for (7), it would constitute a violation of Bijection Priciple.
(8) Bijection Principle
An operator must bind one and only one variable.
(Koopman and Sportiche 1983)
Note: Weak Crossover effect is reduced to the violation of Bijection Principle.
(8’) a. *Hisi mother loves every soni.
b. Every son ∀x. x’s mother loves x
(8’’) *Whoi does hisi son admire t?
As shown in (9), a single operator binds two variables.
(9) What OPx did John sell x and Mary buy x?
Could it be that one copy of the wh-phrase is deleted at PF as in (10)? Would there be more
operators than we see?
(10) What What Opx Opy did John sell x and Mary buy y?
(10) obeys Bijection Principle, since each operator would bind a different variable. However,
ATB reading does not have to result. To get ATB interpretation, we would still need to assume
that the operators must be co-indexed.
2.3 Extraction out of one conjunct
Movement could be derived from only one conjunct in some cases (Ross 1967, Goldsmith 1985,
Lakoff 1986, Kehler 1996).
(11) How much can you drink and still stay sober?
(Kehler 1996)
(12) That’s the stuff that the guys in the Caucasus drink and live to be a hundred. (Lakoff 1986)
2 Kehler (1996) argues that there seems to be certain discourse coherence in (12-13), which he
categorize “cause-effect” relations.
(13) What did Harry buy, come home, and devour in thirty seconds?
(Ross 1967)
2.4 Lack of LF ATB movement
Bošković and Franks (2000) point out ATB movement seems to be disallowed in covert syntax.
Only overt movement seems to create ATB constructions.
(14) Every philosopher read some paper and every linguist reviewed some paper.
(∀>∃, *∃>∀)
*‘There is some paper that every philosopher read and every linguist reviewed.’
(14’) Every philosopher read and every linguist reviewed some paper.
(∀>∃, ∃>∀)
‘There is some paper that every philosopher read and every linguist reviewed’
(cf. Bachrach and Katzir 2006)
(14’) indicates that the existence of a single overt copy is crucial.
Citko (2003) supports Bošković and Franks’ generalization: only pair-reading is available in (1516).
(15) Zhangsan xihuan shenme ren Lisi taoyan shenmo ren?
Zhangsan like which person Lisi hate which person
‘Which person does Zhangsan like and which person does Lisi hate?’
(Chinese)
(16) John-i enu salam-ul cohaka-ko Mary-ka enu salam-ul miweha-ni?
John which person like-and Mary
which person hate-Q
Which person does John like and which person does Mary hate?
(Korean)
ATB interpretation is not possible in (15-16), unable to create a single copy of the wh-phrase.
(16’) ?John-un cohaka-ko Mary-nun enu salam-ul miweha-ni?
John which person
like-and
Mary
which person hate-Q
Which person does John like and which person does Mary hate?
(Korean)
The ATB reading can be derived by ATB topicalization or ATB scrambling
(17) Shenmo ren Zhangsan xihuan Lisi taoyan?
which person Zhangsan like
Lisi hate
‘Which person does Zhangsan like and Lisi hate?’
3
(Chinese) On the ATB dependencies
(18) Enu salam-ul John-i cohaka-ko Mary-ka miweha-ni?
which person John like-and Mary hate-Q
‘Which person does John like and Mary hate?’
(Korean)
To sum up, the examples above raise questions that the CSC should be treated as a movement
constraint, and that ATB constructions, leaving an identical trace in each conjunct, are relevant
to the CSC:
• First, if the CSC were based on movement, then it would be mysterious why (6) is not
acceptable.
• Second, if ATB is an exception of the CSC, we need to know why the exception does not
hold at LF (14-18) and how the CSC can sometimes be disobeyed (11-13).
• And finally, if ATB leaves a trace in each conjunct, how can a single-identity reading be?
In section 3, I will introduce an alternative account for the CSC, due to Ruys (1993) and Fox
(2000). Then, in section 4, I will derive ATB constructions with a new analysis. In section 5, I
will compare the new analysis with others, in particular, parasitic gap (Munn 2001) and parallel
merge (Citko 2005) analyses.
3. The CSC as an LF constraint
LF representational analysis: The CSC is not a movement constraint, but an LF constraint (Ruys
1993, Fox 2000, Lin 2001, and Kato 2006).
(19) a. Some teacher likes every student.
b. Some teacher likes every student but hates the president.
(∃>∀, ∀>∃)
(∃>∀, *∀>∃)
The second conjunct in (19b) disambiguates the scope of the first conjunct (Sag and Williams
1976, among others)
(20) Some student likes every teacheri and wants himi to be the next dean.
(∃>∀, ∀>∃)
(21) Fox (2000) argues that extraction out of the coordinate structure is possible if each conjunct
obeys all the independent grammatical constraints (Multidimensional account)
(22) Some teacher likes every student but hates the president.
a. Every studenti, some teacher likes ti.
b. *Every studenti, some teacher hates the president.
(*∀>∃)
(*Vacuous quantification)
(23) a. Every teacheri, some student likes ti.
b. Every teacheri, some student wants himi to be the next dean.
4 ATB Wh-movement:
(24) What did John like and Mary hate?
a. What did John like t?
b. What did Mary hate t?
(25) *What did John like the cake, and Mary hate?
a. *What did John like the cake?
b. What did Mary hate t?
(*Vacuous quantification)
Revisit (6), repeated here in (26):
(26) *Kogoi kogoj Jan lubi a ti Maria kocha tj?
whom whom Jan likes and Maria loves
a. *WH..WH.. Jan likes t
b. *WH..WH.. Maria loves t
(*Vacuous quantification)
(*Vacuous quantification)
The multidimensional hypothesis of the CSC accounts for why (26) is ruled out.
To account for the rest of the questions raised at the end of section 2, I will propose a new
analysis of ATB construction.
Before so doing, let us briefly talk about the previous accounts: Sideward Movement (Hornstein
and Nunes 2002), Parasitic Gap (Munn 1993) and Parallel Merge (Citko 2005):
4. RNR-based account of ATB construction
• RNR is an ellipsis phenomenon, licensed by an ellipsis feature (Ha 2007).
• The underlying structure of ATB construction is RNR.
• The RNR target in the second conjunct cyclically moves out of the coordinate structure.
4.1 Similarity between RNR and ATB
There seems to be similarity between ATB and RNR: there must be contrastive focus prior to the
target (cf. distinctness constraint, Citko 2006).
(27) a. JOHN LIKED , but MARY HATED the opera.
b. *John liked , and Mary liked the opera.
(28) a. What did John LIKE t, but Mary HATE t?
b. ??What did John like t, and Mary like t?
5 On the ATB dependencies
4.2 RNR is ellipsis
4.2.1 Vehicle Change
(29) a. Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks Sally does , too.
b. Joshi didn’t vote for himselfi, but Mary did .
(Fiengo and May 1994:220)
(30)
Vehicle Change (simplified version, F&M 1994)
As long as indices remain constant, proper names and their pronominal correlates must
have the same reference.
(31) a. Mary loves Johni, and hei thinks Sally does , too
b. Joshi didn’t vote for himselfi, but Mary did .
RNR:
(32) a. Mary heard that Johni SUBMITTED , but
Sue said that Bill actually WROTE the article about Johni for the magazine.
b. Johni COULDN’T , so I nominated himi
• Some/any alternation (Klima 1964)
(33) Mary didn’t read any article, but John did.
a. *Mary didn’t read any article, but John did read any article.
b. Mary didn’t read any article, but John did read some article.
(34) John read, but he hasn’t understood any of my books.
a. *John read any of my books, but he hasn’t understood any of my books.
b. John read some of my books, but he hasn’t understood any of my books.
(Kayne 1994)
(35) * John hasn’t understood, but he has read any of my books.
a. *John hasn’t understood any of my books, but he has read any of my books.
b. *John hasn’t understood some of my books, but he has read any of my books.
4.2.2 Lack of Morphological Identity
In VP ellipsis, verbal morphology sometimes need not match between conjuncts (Warner 1986,
Lasnik 1999, and Lightfoot 1999).
(36) a. Bill met Prof. Smith yesterday, and I will this afternoon.
b. Jane was here, and I will be , too.
c. *Jane was here, and I will , too.
RNR shows the same patterns (Bošković 1997, 2004).
6 (37) a. John WILL , and Peter already HAS slept in her house.
b. John MUST have been , and Peter COULD have been hassled by
the police.
c. ?*John MUST , and Peter COULD have been hassled
by the police.
(Bošković 1997: (8), (11))
4.2.3 Sloppy Identity
Sloppy identity in VP ellipsis (Sag 1976, Williams 1977, Reinhart 1983):
(38) John likes his father, but Bill doesn’t .
a. John likes John’s father, but Bill doesn’t like Bill’s father. (Sloppy reading)
b. John likes John’s father, but Bill doesn’t like John’s father. (Strict reading)
RNR also allows sloppy identity.
(39) Johni LIKES, but Billj HATES hisi/j father.
a. John likes John’s father, but Bill hates Bill’s father. (Sloppy reading)
b. John likes Bill’s father, but Bill hates Bill’s father. (Strict reading)
4.3 Ellipsis feature for RNR (à la Merchant 2001)
• ERNR enters the derivation with contrastively focused constituent in the first conjunct
• ERNR needs to satisfy syntactic, semantic, and phonological licensing conditions in (44).
(40) [&P John MADE[ERNR] the spaghetti, and BILL ATE the spaghetti.]
When C is merged to &P, ERNR is checked by the focus feature in (41):
(41) [CP C[focus] [&P John MADE[ERNR] , and BILL ATE the spaghetti.]
Why not (42)?
(42) *JOHN MADE[ERNR] the spaghetti, and BILL ATE[ERNR] .
(43) [CP C[focus] [&P John MADE[ERNR] , and BILL ATE[ERNR] the spaghetti.]
(Closeness, Chomsky 1995)
7 On the ATB dependencies
Formalization:
(44) ERNR
a. Syntax of ERNR
CP
wp
C[focus]
&P
wo
TP
TP
3
6
Mary
VP
John BOUGHT the car
3
V
DP
the car
SOLD[ERNR]
b. Phonology of ERNR
XP(s) Ø/ ERNR ____ ]TP1.
c. Semantics of ERNR: e-GIVEN must be observed in RNR.
i) Mary sold the car F-clo (E) = ∃x.∃R. x R-ed the car
ii) John bought the car F-clo (A) = ∃x.∃R. x R-ed the car
4.4 ERNR and successive cyclic wh-movement
(45) C[focus] [&P [TP1 JOHN LIKED[ERNR] what] and [TP2 MARY HATED what]]
• The ERNR feature enters the derivation with the contrastively focused verb LIKED in the
first conjunct, and it is subject to be checked by the focus feature of the C head.
• To satisfy the semantic licensing condition for ERNR, the conjuncts need to mutually entail
each other, modulo ∃-type shifting (e-GIVEN, Merchant 2001).
• If the semantic licensing condition is satisfied, ERNR instructs not to pronounce the
complement of ERNR in (46).
(46) C[focus] [&P [TP1 JOHN LIKED[ERNR] ] and [TP2 MARY HATED what]]
After RNR is constructed, the wh-word in the second conjunct undergoes successive-cyclic whmovement to SpecCP as in (47). I will refer to this as the ellipsis account of ATB wh-movement.
(47) [CP What did[+Q,+wh] [&P [TP1 John LIKE] and [TP2 Mary [vP t’ HATE t]]]
Notice that (47) would have been ruled out by the violation of the CSC, if we suppose that the
CSC is a movement constraint. However, (47) satisfies the multidimensional account of the CSC.
8 4.5 Consequences
4.5.1 The pair-list answers (“non-ATB reading”)
Munn (1999) argues that sometimes a pair-list answer is possible.
(48) a. Where did Mary vacation and Bill decide to live?
b. Mary vacationed in Paris and Bill decided to live in Toronto.
(Munn 1999: 421)
(49) Where did Mary VACATION[ERNR] , and Bill t’’ decide to t’ LIVE t?
Under the multidimensional analysis of the CSC, we divide the conjuncts into two
subcomponents.
(50) a. Where did Mary vacation ?
b. Mary vacationed in Paris
Reconstruction
(51) a. Where did Bill decide to where?
b. Bill decided to live in Toronto.
The answer to (49) is therefore independent to the answer to the second conjunct. Non-ATB
interpretation results from this possibility with the combination of (50b) and (51b): Mary
vacationed in Paris and Bill decided to live in Toronto.
For ATB-reading:
The elided copy of the wh-phrase in the first conjunct serves as a bound variable in (52).
(52) a. Where λ8 did Mary vacation g(8)?
b. Mary vacationed g(8).
The variable is bound by the wh-phrase of the second conjunct since the moved wh-copy has
been derived out of the second conjunct. If the answer to the wh-phrase of the second conjunct is
in Toronto, g(8) in the first conjunct would also be bound by in Toronto.
(53) a. Where λ8 did Mary vacation g(8) and Bill decide to live g(8)?
b. In Toronto λx. Mary vacationed x, and Bill decided to live x.
(54) Q: Whose car does John LIKE, but Bill HATE?
A: His (own) car.
(55) Q: Whose car does Johni LIKE whose car, but Billj HATE t?
A: Hisi/j (own) car [CP C[E] [John LIKES , but Bill HATES t]]].
9 On the ATB dependencies
The pronoun can serve as a bound variable, so that it can be bound by the subject of its own
clause. This allows each pronoun to be realized with different identities as in (56b). Thus,
functional answer results. If the pronoun is a referential, the strict identity answer results, as in
(56c).
(56) a. Whose car [John LIKES , but Bill HATES whose car].
b. Functional answer: Johni LIKES hisi car, but Billj HATES hisj car.
c. Strict identity: John likes Bill’s car, but Bill hates Bill’s car.
4.5.2 Movement out of the second conjunct
Selectional properties: think vs wonder
(57) a. *Bill thought who went to Prof. William’s talk last night.
b. Who did Bill think went to Prof. Williams’ talk last night?
(58) a. John wondered who went to Prof. Williams’ talk last night.
b. *Who did John wonder went to Prof. William’s talk last night?
Given the differences between (57-58), we can see why (59a) is ruled out and (59b) is good
under the ellipsis account.
(59) a. *Who did JOHN THINK, but BILL WONDER went to Prof. Williams’ talk last night?
b. Who did JOHN WONDER, but BILL THINK went to Prof. Williams’ talk last night?
(60)
Who did JOHN THINK[ERNR] , but BILL t’ WONDER t went …last night?
(61)
Who did JOHN WONDER[ERNR] , but BILL t’ THINK t went …last night?
Binding
(62) Which picture of himself did JOHN SAY , and BILL HOPE that Chris would disregard t?
The reflexive can be bound by the proper names, John, Chris, and Bill, predicted when the
movement is derived from the second conjunct in the successive cyclic way.
John
(63) Which picture of himself did JOHN SAY <[which picture of himself] Chris would disregard
[which picture of himself]>, and BILL HOPE [which picture of himself] that Chris would
disregard [which picture of himself]?
Bill
Chris
10 Strong Crossover effects
(64) a. *Whoi did Mary love in college, but hei disappove of ti?
b. *Whoi did hei love most in the show, but she not like ti at all?
(65) a. *… and whoi λx but x disapprove of x?
b. *Whoi λx did x love x most in the show, and …
(*Principle C)
Islands
(66) a. *Which man did John interview and wonder who to ask which job to give to t?
b. *Which man did John interview and read the book you gave to t?
c. *Which man did John interview and meet the man in the office near t?
(Munn 2001: 371)
(67) *Which man did John interview and read the book you gave to t?
(=66b)
• But see (68):
(68) Which booki did [John meet the man who wrote], and [Mary meet the man who published]
ti?
(Examples from Bachrach and Katzir 2006)
(69) Which booki did [John meet the man who wrote ], and [Mary meet the man
who published ti
The ellipsis account predicts (68) to be ungrammatical as (66). I will discuss Bachrach and
Katzir (2006) in section 5.2.
5. Report from the battlefield
• Parasitic Gap (Munn 1993, 2001): Source conjunct for movement
• Parallel Merge (Citko 2005, 2006): Number of copies at interpretation
5.1 ATB gaps are parasitic gaps
Parasitic gap analysis: Overt wh-movement comes from the first conjunct (Munn 1992, 2001,
see also Pesetsky 1982, Haïk 1985, Huybregts and van Riemsdijk 1985, Williams 1990, among
others).
11 On the ATB dependencies
(70) Which article did Mary like and Bill hate?
CP
3
Which articlex C’
3
C
TP
did
3
Mary
&P
wo
vP
and
vP
6
3
like tx
OPx
vP
6
Bill hate ex
The following examples indicate that the overt movement is derived out of the first conjunct.
Weak Crossover
(71) a. Whoi did you gossip about ti despite hisi mother’s having vouched for ei?
b. Which mani did you visit ti just before hisi boss fired ei?
c. *Whoi did hisi mother gossip about ti despite your having vouched for ei?
d. *Which mani did hisi boss fire ti just after you visited ei?
(72) a. Whoi did you gossip about ti but hisi mother vouch for ei?
b. Which mani did you hire ti and hisi boss fire ei?
c. *Whoi did hisi mother gossip about ti but you vouch for ei?
d. *Which mani did hisi boss fire ti and you hire ei?
(Munn 2001: 374)
Principle C
(73) a. *Which picture of Johni did hei like and Mary dislike?
b. Which picture of Johni did Mary like and hei dislike?
(Citko 2005: 494)
N.B: Munn also provides examples of such an asymmetry in resumptive pronouns in Hebrew,
and Binding effects.
Problems:
• Construction dependent? (Principle C)
(74) a. *The studenti who Mary likes but hei dislikes works on Right Node Raising.
b. *The studenti who hei likes but Mary dislikes works on Right Node Raising.
(75) a. *President Bushi, every democrat criticizes, but hei admires.
b. *President Bushi, hei admires, but every democrat criticizes.
12 • Distance effects (cf. WCO (72))
(76) a. ?Which employeei did Mary think t’ that hisi boss would fire t next week?
b. ?Which mani did Mary say to her friends t’ that hisi boss would fire t next week?
c. *Which mani did hisi boss think t’ that Mary would love t very much?
d. * Which mani did hisi boss tell Bill t’ that Mary would love t so much?
• Strong crossover
(77) a. *Whosei report did we criticize tj after hei submitted ej.
b. *Whosei report did we criticize tj and hei never replied to ej?
c. *Whosei paper did hei file tj after we reviewed ej?
d. *Whosei paper did hei file tj but we not review ej?
Note: Postal (1993) catalogues where parasitic gaps and ATB gaps differ.
5.2 Parallel Merge
Citko’s Parallel Merge account (2003, 2005): First, the wh-constituent is merged to both
conjuncts in a parallel fashion (78).
(78)
&P
wo
TP1
and
TP2
3
3
John
VP
Mary
VP
rpwu
V
DP
V
likes
who
hates
Then, the single occurrence of the shared wh-phrase is remerged to SpecCP in (79).
(79)
CP
wi
Who does
&P
wo
TP1
and
TP2
3
3
John
VP
Mary
VP
rpwu
V
DP
V
like
twho
hate
Another variant of Parallel Merge account is proposed by Bachrach and Katzir (2006).
RNR is not spelled-out until the coordinate structure is completed. When C is merged with
the coordinate structure, the shared constituent would be spelled out in the next spell-out
domain (80): delayed spell-out hypothesis.
13 On the ATB dependencies
• Island violation inside the spell-out domain is ignored.
(80) Which booki did [TP1 John meet the man who wrote ti], and [TP2 Mary meet the woman who
published ti]?
First Spell-Out Domain
CP
wo
Which booki
C’
3
C
TP
did wo
TP
and
TP
2
2
VP
Mary VP
“bypassed
2
2
meet
DP
meet DP
2
2
the man
CP the woman CP
2
2
who
VP
who VP
t
3
wrote
published
John
spell-out domains”
Thus, they predict and claim that ATB constructions are insensitive to island violations.
Challenges for the PM accounts:
• Forced Parallel Merge:
(81) *Kogoi kogoj Jan lubi a ti Maria kocha tj?
whom whom Jan likes and Maria loves
‘Who does Jan like and Maria love?
(Citko 2003: 3)
(82) Kogoi Jan lubi a ti Maria kocha ti?
whom Jan likes and Maria loves
‘Who does Jan like and Maria love?
(Citko 2003)
CP
wi
Kogo
&P
wo
TP1
a
TP2
3
3
Jan
VP
Maria
VP
rpwu
V
DP
V
lubi
tkogo
kocha
14 Although the MD account captures the grammaticality of (82), it does not account for the
ungrammaticality of (81). To explain why (81) is not an available option, it is necessary to
understand what makes the computational system force parallel merge in (82) during the
numeration.
• Non-ATB interpretation: A single copy of the wh-phrase always forces ATB interpretation.
(83) a. Where did Mary vacation and Bill decide to live?
b. Mary vacationed in Paris and Bill decided to live in Toronto.
(Munn 1999: 421)
• Sloppy identity: The pronoun inside the ATB wh-phrase can have a sloppy identity
interpretation in (84) (Höhle 1991, Jacobson 1999, Nissenbaum 2000).
(84) Which of his(i,j) parentsk does every Americani love tk BEST, and every Germanj love tk
LEAST?
If there is a single copy of wh-phrase, the pronoun inside needs to be simultaneously bound by
the subject of each conjunct (cf. RNR (85)).
(85) Johni LIKES, but Billj HATES hisi/j father.
• ATB Left Branch Extraction (LBE):
In Polish, LBE is possible as shown in (86)
(86) Którego Kowalski polecił
t studenta?
which Kowalski recommended student
‘Which student did Kowalski recommend?’
But, ATB LBE seems to be unavailable as shown in (87)
t studenta i firma zatrudniła t studenta?
(87) a. *Którego Kowalski polecił
Which Kowalski recommended student and company employed student
b. Którego studenta Kowalski polecił
t i firma zatrudniła t?
which student Kowalski recommended and company employed
‘Which student did Kowalski recommend and the company hire?
However, Citko argues that (87a) violates distinctness constraint. (88), which observes the
distinctness constraint – the NP remnant is distinct –, is acceptable.
(88) Ilei
Maria napisała ti książek a Jan przeczytał ti artykułów?
how-many Maria wrote
books and Jan read
articles
‘How many books did Maria write and how many articles did Jan read?
(Polish)
(Citko 2006: 229)
15 On the ATB dependencies
However, the distinctness constraint is not strong enough to distinguish unacceptable (89a) from
acceptable (89b). Compare (89a) with (89b), where the whole DP is missing in the first conjunct.
The same reason that has been used for the unacceptablility of (89a) should be applied to (89b)
as well, on the grounds that (89b) still violates the distinctness constraint.
(89) a. *Ilei
Maria przeczytała ti książek a Jan odłozył ti książek?
how-many Maria read
t book and Jan filed
t books
‘How many books did Maria read and Jan file?’
(Polish)
(Citko 2006: 235)
b. ?[DP Ile ti]j
Maria przeczytała t j a Jan odłozył t j książek?
how-many Maria read
and Jan filed
books
‘How many books did Maria read and how many books did Jan file?’
(Citko 2006: 238)
Note that the ellipsis analysis predicts (89a) to be ruled out and (89b) to be acceptable. (89a)
goes wrong due to the unelided RNR target: the NP remnant book in the first conjunct. (89b) is
acceptable since the RNR target is elided, as illustrated in (90).
(90) ?Ile Maria przeczytała[ERNR] a
Jan odłozył t j książek?
• Island insensitivity:
(91) Which booki did [John meet the man who wrote], and [Mary meet the man who published]
ti?
(Examples from Bachrach and Katzir 2006)
If we switch the D-linked wh-phrases into non-D-linked ones, the sentences are considerably
degraded (92-93).
(92) *Whati (the hell) did [John meet the man who wrote], and [Mary meet the man who
published] ti?
(93) a. ?*What did John wonder which professor wrote , and Mary ask which students
read t?
b. ?*What did Mary turn off the computer after she read , and Bill go to school after
he reviewed t?
c. ?*What did John spread the rumor that Mary bought for her parents, and they
hear of the rumor that Mary got t from her students?
It is possible that the main verb in the first conjunct bears ERNR and licenses the deletion of the
embedded clause in (94a), and the ATB construction looks like (94b).
(94) a. John THOUGHT[ERNR] , and Bill KNEW Mary loved Tom.
b. Who did John THINK[ERNR] , and Bill know Mary loved t?
16 The deletion of the embedded clause does not save the grammaticality even when the islands
have been deleted in the first conjunct (95a-c). This is due to the island violations, still incurred
in the second conjunct (cf. (91)).
(95) a. *What did John wonder and Mary ask which guests gave
him t?
b. *What did Mary run , but Bill call animal controls after John hit t?
c. *Who did John spread , and Bill hear
of the rumor that Chris will get married to t soon?
Bachrach and Katzir (2006) predict (95a-c) to be acceptable, contrary to fact – the only
difference between the ungrammatical sentences in (95) and the grammatical sentence in (91) is
the size of the shared material. See (96) for the comparison.
(96) a. Which booki did [John meet the man who wrote], and [Mary meet the man who
published] ti?
b. *Which booki has John just met , and Mary known the
man who published ti for 10 years?
Independent assumption: Superiority effect
(97) a. *What did who take a picture of, and who buy an article of?
b. *What did who buy, and who eat?
6. Subject ATB constructions
• The wh-phrase is merged beyond the coordinate structure.
• Only ATB reading is available for subject ATB construction (98)
(98) Q: Who liked candies but hated marshmallows?
A: My son
A: *My son liked candies but my daughter hated marshmallows.
vP
3
Who
v’
3
v
VP
wo
VP
and
VP
5
5
liked candies
hated marshmallows
(99) [vP Some girl [&P [VP kicked every doll] and [VP hugged every cat.]]]
(∃>∀, *∀>∃)
17 On the ATB dependencies
(100) [&P [vP Some girl kicked every doll] and [vP some girl hugged every cat.]]
a. [vP Every doll [vP some girl kicked t]]
b. [vP Every cat [vP some girl hugged t]]
Questions left open:
(101) A sincere guard is standing in front of every church and sitting at the side of every mosque.
(∃>∀, ∀>∃)
a. 1st conjunct: A sincere guard [every church [a sincere guard standing in front of]
b. 2nd conjunct: A sincere guard [every mosque [a sincere guard sitting at the side of]
(Fox 2000)
7. Conclusion
• Following Ha (2006, 2007), RNR is an ellipsis phenomenon and licensed by a variant of
Merchant-style ellipsis features (i.e. ERNR)
• The ATB and RNR constructions share the same property that contrastive focus must be
assigned on the pre-ATB constituent in situ and the pre-RNR element, respectively.
• The similarity leads us to suppose that the underlying structure of ATB construction is
RNR.
• I propose an ellipsis account for the ATB construction: Once RNR is constructed, the
target in the second conjunct undergoes successive-cyclic movement.
• This would constitute a CSC violation in the traditional sense. So, I adopt Fox’s (2000)
multidimensional account of the CSC, where the conjuncts are divided into subcomponents.
And the CSC is obeyed when each conjunct independently obeys all the grammatical
constraints.
• I compared the ellipsis account with previous accounts – e.g. parasitic gap, parallel merge
– where the predictions seem to be opposite. I argue that the ellipsis account is better
captures the empirical facts.
• For subject ATB construction, I supposed that the wh-phrase is merged beyond the
coordinate structure.
18
Related Documents
- Lecture Note 3: Grammar
- Is Racism Growing In Our Society?
- Decoding Headline Cases and the Public Spectacle of Justice
- Chapter 5: Grammar Note
- Chapter 4: Grammar Note
- Chapter 3: Grammar Note
- Chapter 2: Grammar Note
- Chapter 1: Grammar Note
- Lecture 1: What is linguistics?
- Lecture 2: Phonetics (Consonants)
- Girl: With An African American Twist Seminar Paper
- Personal Narrative Example essay for CSN
- Lecture Note 1: Grammar
- Sentence Correction Practice
- Contrasting Messages: 'Man in the Mirror' vs. 'Young, Wild and Free'
- Essay: Black Panther (Clothing and Culture)
- Wolf's Lesson: Gratitude and Regret
- Lecture Note 2: Grammar
- Lecture Note 4: Grammar
On the ATB Dependencies
of 18
Recommended Documents
⏰ Deadline pressure?
Get your assignment done in just 3 hours. Quick, easy, and available 24/7.
Report
Tell us what’s wrong with it:
Thanks, got it!
We will moderate it soon!
Free up your schedule!
Our EduBirdie Experts Are Here for You 24/7! Just fill out a form and let us know how we can assist you.
Take 5 seconds to unlock
Enter your email below and get instant access to your document