How to Organize the Pseudo-Gapping Paper: - Linguistics

Implications of Pseudo-Gapping for Binding and The Representation of Information
Mark R. Baltin
Department of Linguistics
New York University
New York, New York 10003
June 11,2000
*This paper, in various incarnations, has been presented in colloquia at the University of Connecticut, the University
of Maryland, Cornell University, and NYU, and has benefitted greatly from the comments of various friends and
colleagues ( the two sets are not intended to be disjoint):, Chris Collins, Paul Postal, John Bowers, Richard Kayne,
Marcel den Dikken, Norbert Hornstein, Zeljko Boskovic, Jason Merchant, Chris Kennedy, Kyle Johnson, Polly
Jacobson, Anna Szabolcsi, and Howard Lasnik come to mind. I would also like to acknowledge my particular debt to
Howard Lasnik’s analyses of ellipsis, which have truly opened up this area for exploration.
In addition to the standard ellipsis process known as VP-ellipsis, another ellipsis process, known
as pseudo-gapping, was first brought to the fore-front in the 1970’s by Sag (1976) and N. Levin
(1986). This process elides subparts of a VP, as in (1):
(1) Although I don’t like steak, I do___pizza.
Developing ideas of K.S. Jayaseelan (Jayaseelan (1990)), Howard Lasnik has developed an
analysis in which pseudo-gapping, which, in some instances, looks as though it is simply
deleting a verb, is in fact deletion of a verb phrase, so that pseudo-gapping is really a probe into
the structure of the verb phrase. I will examine pseudo-gapping in detail, and will show that it
truly is a gold mine of insight into a number of fundamental issues in syntax. More concretely, I
will demonstrate that a careful, detailed analysis of this process will bear on the derivational
level at which Principle A of the binding theory applies, as well as the amount of explicit
encoding within syntactic representations of informational structure, particularly focus. The paper
will also re-assess Lasnik’s conclusion that pseudo-gapping provides evidence for Larson’s (1988)
V-raising to a higher empty V position, a case of head movement, and will show that the
movement involved is actually a case of remnant movement, or XP-movement.
Belletti & Rizzi (1988) first proposed that Principle A, which concerns itself with the
binding of anaphors, is an “anywhere principle”, applying at any point in the derivation. More
recently, this position has been espoused by Epstein, in the context of an attempt to
dispense with representational conditions in favor of a highly derivational approach to syntactic
I will present evidence that Principle A cannot be an anywhere principle, and that its
application must be delayed until a specific point in a derivation. This point, however, cannot be
LF. Rather, Principle A seems to apply at the point in a derivation at which a Complete
Functional Complex, in the sense of Chomsky (1986), is constructed. I will also show that this is
also the point at which obligatory control is determined.
Another area of grammar which this article bears upon is the representation of focus. It has
been proposed by a number of linguists in recent years that focus is directly encoded in syntactic
representations (see, for example, Rizzi (1997)). In this view, focused constituents are located in
the Spec of a Focus Phrase. One hallmark of focus is contrastive stress, such that a contrastively
stressed element is considered to be focussed. Assuming that focus is directly syntactically
encoded, Jayaseelan (1999) analyzes the ellipsis remnant in pseudo-gapping to be located in an
IP-Internal Focus Phrase, located below Tense.
I will show that the ellipsis remnant in pseudo-gapping, while focussed, should not be
represented as occurring in the Spec of an IP-Internal Focus Phrase. Assuming that the Spec of a
Focus Phrase is in an ~A-position, the thrust of my argument in this paper will be to show that
the ellipsis remnant is in an A-position.
The establishment of the A-status of the ellipsis remnant is the glue that unites the two main
implications of this paper. I will show that pseudo-gapping allows multiple ellipsis remnants, as
shown by Bowers (1998), and that one of these remnants can bind another, but that binding
cannot take place before both remnants have been moved to positions in which binding can occur.
Given the standard assumption that binding is A-binding, the establishment of this conclusion
will also indicate that the relevant position cannot be Spec of Focus Phrase, which is standardly
considered to be an ~A-position. I will present some further evidence, independent of the binding
considerations, that the process which moves the ellipsis remnant to its final position is Amovement, rather than ~A-movement.
The evidence for these claims will emerge in the course of the paper. In much of what follows, I
will be exploiting heavily an observation of N. Levin (1978), who noted that pseudo-gapping
cannot apply into the object of an infinitive, unlike standard VP-ellipsis. Hence, we have the
contrast between (2) and(3):
(2) * Although I didn’t expect him to eat steak, I did expect him to ___pizza.
(3) Although I didn’t expect Fred to eat steak, I did expect Bill to___.
I will try to account for this restriction in a natural way.
The paper proceeds as follows: Section II reviews the analysis of pseudo-gapping presented in
Lasnik (1995): Section III analyzes the structural position of adjuncts; Section IV characterizes
restrictions on possible pseudo-gapping remnants; Section V discusses the application of pseudogapping to clearly phrasal units; Section VI discusses a possible reason for the non-occurrence of
pseudo-gapping in infinitives; Section VII re-analyzes the structure of prepositional dative
constructions in light of ellipsis considerations, and draws implications for the application of
Binding Principle A; Section VIII extends the discussion to the derivational level at which
obligatory control is established; Section IX argues against the notion of a focus phrase playing
any role in the analysis of pseudo-gapping, presenting further evidence that the pseudo-gapping
remnant is in an A-position; Section X provides evidence that what has been analyzed as Vmovement to an empty V position is in fact remnant movement; Section XI extends the analysis
presented in the previous sections to cases of apparently non-clause-bound quantifier scope;
Section XII concludes.
II.The Analysis of Pseudo-Gapping
The ellipsis process dubbed pseudo-gapping by N. Levin (1986) (originally (1978)) has been used
in recent years within generative grammar to motivate a variety of syntactic proposals, most
notably by Howard Lasnik ( i.e. Lasnik (1995), (1998), (1999b), 2000) , developing ideas of
K.S. Jayaseelan (Jayaseelan (1990). Jayaseelan has argued that pseudo-gapping is in fact deletion
of a phrasal unit, rather than a single lexical item. A core case of pseudo-gapping can be seen in
(4)Although I don’t like steak, I do__pizza.
While it may appear that a single verb has been deleted in (4), Jayaseelan noted that more
complex verb phrases show deletion of the verb plus phrasal material, as in (5):
(5)Although I wouldn’t introduce Fred to Susan, I would ___Bill (i.e. introduce Bill to
On the standard assumption that only constituents undergo grammatical processes such as
movement or deletion, a sequence such as the verb and indirect object in (5) must form a
constituent to the exclusion of the direct object. In this way, pseudo-gapping becomes a probe
into the structure of the verb phrase, particularly if one wishes to assimilate it to the more standard
ellipsis process known as VP-ellipsis, as in (6):
(6)Although John doesn’t like steak, I do___.
Lasnik takes pseudo-gapping to diagnose what has come to be known as the VP-shell,
following Larson’s (1988) proposal that VPs contain, in addition to the standard VP, a higher
empty V position which includes the standard VP in the complement domain. The direct object
occurs in the specifier position of a projection between this empty V and the standard VP,
which Lasnik, following Koizumi (1995), identifies as AGR”. Hence, the structure of , e.g.,
the main clause in (5) would be (7):
e D” j
introduce to Sally
Pseudo-gapping, then, is simply VP-ellipsis of V”1 before V1 has raised to the position
of V0. Lasnik considers the question of what forces V1 to raise if its VP has not elided,
i.e. the question of why (8) is ungrammatical:
(8)*I would Bill introduce to Susan.
Lasnik couches his answer (1995, 1999b, 2000) in terms of Chomsky’s minimalist
framework (Chomsky (1995)), in which movement is motivated by the need to check
features, either strong features (in which case movement is overt, occurring before the
derivation branches off to phonetic form), or weak features (in which case movement is
covert, occurring after the derivation branches off to phonetic form). The element that
moves must contain a strong feature that moves to the checking domain of a head that has
the same strong feature. One question that arises in this framework is the question of
whether(i) it is the head that attracts the moving element that must have its feature
checked; (ii) whether it is the moving element that must have its feature checked; or (iii)
whether both elements must have their features checked.
Lasnik (1999b) argues for (ii),
contra Chomsky (1995b), who argues for (i) . His argument from pseudo-gapping is that
e.g. V1 in (7) contains a strong feature that is checked in the position of V0. The deletion
of V”1, which contains V1 prior to V1 raising to the position of V0, of course eliminates
this strong feature.
There are three features of Lasnik’s analysis that I would dispute: (i) the remnant
appears in [Spec, Agr-O”]; (ii) there is at most one remnant; (iii) the verbal element that
moves is an X0, rather than an XP.
. In what follows, I will be examining the nature of strandable material after VP-ellipsis sites in
both finite and infinitive VPs. There are some elements that can be stranded after an elided VP in
both finite and non-finite clauses, while there are some elements that can only be stranded after
an elided VP in a finite clause. I will take Levin’s restriction to be a ban on the following
configuration, calling the position Agr” for the moment, and revising the label later:
My focus in much of what follows will be on the nature of the remnant (i.e. Z”) in inner VPellipsis. I will take the ability of an element to be stranded in finite cases of ellipsis, but not in
infinitives, as indicating that it occurs in the position of Z”, i.e. in the specifier position of the
functional projection that Lasnik takes to be Agr1. I will argue that the elements that can be
stranded after the ellipsis sites in both finite and non-finite clauses are in fact adjuncts, while the
elements that can be stranded only after ellipsis sites in finite clauses are arguments.
The Position of Adjuncts
I will assume adjuncts to be optional elements in a sentence that have general privileges of
occurrence, and are not lexically licensed. Temporals and reason clauses are generally
considered adjuncts:
(10)I visited Sally after the party.
(11) I visited Sally because I wanted to ingratiate myself.
Of interest in the present context is that they can be stranded in ellipsis contexts:
(12)Although I didn’t visit Sally after the party, I did__after the lecture.
Actually, I am agnostic on the question of whether this functional projection is actually Agr. All that matters for
present purposes is that it be some functional projection. For opposing recent views on the existence of an Agr
Projection see Chomsky (1995, 1999, 2000) and Belletti (2000)). Actually, if Agr is identified as the position in
which object agreement and Case-checking occurs, the range of elements that actually appear in the position of Z”
makes it dubious that the projection of which it is the Specifier is in fact an Agr projection.
Although I didn’t visit Sally because I liked her, I did__because I wanted to
ingratiate myself.
We must ask whether these adjuncts are in the same position as pseudo-gapping remnants.
pseudo-gapping, the ellipsis remnant is located within the main VP, the VP headed by the
underlyingly empty V position. Are adjuncts also located in that position? If they are, then (12)
and (13) would induce the same representation that pseudo-gapping induces.
Under some treatments, adjuncts are located within the VP. For example, Larson (1988)
posits the following hierarchy, in which elements higher in the hierarchy are projected higher in
the phrase-marker than elements lower in the hierarchy:
(14)Thematic Hierarchy
Adjuncts are considered obliques. This theory of linking would generate them lower than
internal arguments, and hence within the VP. Andrews (1982) also provides evidence, from
various VP-fronting processes, that adjuncts must be located within the VP:
(15)John said that he would visit Sally after the party, and visit Sally after the party he did.
Nevertheless, there is also evidence that adjuncts must be located outside of the VP. One
such piece of evidence comes from sentences such as (16):
(16)I visited Sally after you did___.
Larson’s thematic hierarchy would posit the structure in (17) for (16):
did e
Obviously, (16) means that I visited Sally after you visited Sally. Therefore, the antecedent
of V”2, the null V”, is V”0. In other words, the structure in (17) is an instance of antecedentcontained deletion. However, there are none of the standard LF-licensing mechanisms for
antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) that would rescue this instance of ACD (May (1985),
Larson & May (1990), Hornstein (1995)).
All accounts of ACD agree that it is not generally
possible, and that apparent cases of it involve, in fact, mechanisms that remove the null VP
from within the antecedent VP to a position in which the null VP is outside of the antecedent. The
accounts differ as to the nature of this mechanism. Some accounts favor covert movement that is
in fact Quantifier Raising (QR) (May (1985), Larson & May (1990)), while another covert
movement account relies on covert movement to [Spec, Agr-O”] for Case-checking reasons
(Hornstein (1995)).
However, unless one takes the subordinating conjunctions to be quantificational, a move
which seems implausible, the QR account would be untenable. Similarly, subordinate clauses do
not, presumably, have a Case to be checked in [Spec, Agr-O”]. Therefore, we can reject
accounts in which the subordinate clauses are within the highest VP in the overt syntax (see
Hornstein (1995) for other arguments).
I assume, therefore, that adjuncts can appear outside of V”0, without taking a stand on
exactly where these adjuncts are located2.
IV. The Remnant
In this section, we shall try to characterize the class of possible remnants. Lasnik (1995, 1999b)
characterizes the movement of the remnant to [Spec, Agr-O”] to be driven by an EPP feature. It
is clear, however, that a more precise characterization is needed.
In the last section, I showed that adjuncts can appear outside of the highest VP, assuming
the existence of VP-shells. In this section and the next, I will concentrate on material stranded
after ellipsis sites that cannot be analyzed as adjuncts. All of these post-ellipsis site constituents
are phrases that are lexically selected by the main verbs, in most cases obligatorily. It has been
generally assumed that such phrases are within (perhaps extended) projections of the verbs that
select them, an assumption that has its roots in Chomsky’s (1965) principle of local
They could be adjoined, for example, to T’. Richard Kayne (personal communication) has suggested an approach
to these ellipsis f acts which is consistent with the LCA (Kayne (1994)), in which the antecedent VP is located
within the spec of the subordinate conjunction, with the subordinate clause TP as the complement of this conjunction,
so that the structure of (26) would be as in (i):
I [T’ T [P” [VP visited Sally][P’ [P after][T” you [T’[T did][V” e]]]]]]
It is enough for my purposes to locate these adjuncts outside of the highest VP.
subcategorization, and which continues today. I shall therefore identify any case of ellipsis
followed by a phrase that is selected by the elided verb as a case of pseudo-gapping, with the
structure that is appropriate for that type of ellipsis. In the next section, we shall see support for
this identification when we consider Levin’s generalization in greater detail.
Lasnik has claimed that there can be but one remnant in a pseudo-gapping construction. We
shall see below that this is incorrect. However, in this section, I shall focus on single remnants in
pseudo-gapping, and will see that such single remnants must meet the following requirement:
(18)A single pseudo-gapping remnant must be saturated, in the sense that the semantic value
of all elements within the remnant must be obtainable within the remnant.
There are three cases to consider: (i) predication; (ii) infinitives with PRO subjects; (iii)
A. The Non-Predicative Nature of The Remnant
Levin (1986) notes that the constituent that tends to be left behind in pseudo-gapping is (in current
terms )a DP or a PP, as in (CAPut!’) and (20):
(CAPut!’)Although he doesn’t like steak, he does__pizza.
(20) Although he wouldn’t dash into the classroom, he would__into the schoolyard.
The remnant can not be an AP, except in comparatives, as noted by Levin (1986, p. 26):
(21)(a.) (Levin’s 2.4.1): *Rona looked annoyed, but she didn’t frustrated.
b.(Levin’s 2.4.2): *At first the watchdog appeared (to be) friendly, but later on it
(22)a. (Levin.s 2.4.7) Rona looked more annoyed than she did 0 frustrated.
b. The watchdog seemed more friendly than it did 0 ferocious.
Comparative ellipsis in general seems to be freer with respect to possible remnants than pseudogapping. I will therefore assume that they are different processes, and this article is concerned
with this type of ellipsis in non-comparatives.
In fact, I would claim that the true generalization about what can be a possible remnant
in pseudo-gapping should not be stated in categorial terms at all, but rather in terms of whether or
not the remnant is saturated, in the Fregean sense:
(23) Remnant Generalization With Respect to Pseudo-Gapping:
A remnant must be saturated (possible alternative: must be a Complete Functional
Complex, in the sense of Chomsky (1986))
All of the cases of possible pseudo-gapping nominal remnants that were presented by
Levin , including a large number of naturally occurring examples, as well as the ones in this
article, such as (17), were non-predicative DPs. Contrast, e.g. , (CAPut!’), with (24):
(24)*Although he didn’t become a lawyer, he did__a doctor.
A restriction on possible pseudo-gapping remnants in terms of syntactic category would not
predict the unacceptability of (24). However, the verb become takes a predicate nominal as its
complement, and the nominal, being predicative, is unsaturated. The requirement that the
remnant be saturated will also rule out AP remnants, which are predicative and hence unsaturated,
accounting for (21(a)).
Paul Postal (personal communication ) has pointed out an interesting pair of verbs which illustrate
the ban on predicative remnants. These are the verbs turn DP into DP, and make DP out of DP:
(25)He turned her into a snake.
(26) He made a liar out of her.
It would seem that nominals that appear in the underlined positions in (25) and (26) are
predicate nominals. Hence, they should be impossible pseudo-gapping remnants, as in fact they
(27) *Although he didn’t turn her into a liar, he did__into a fool.
(28) *Although he didn’t make a liar out of her, he did __a fool___.
B. Control Infinitives
It will be noted that clausal complements are also possible pseudo-gapping remnants, as in (29):
(29)a. Although he doesn’t feel that Fred is malicious, he does___that he’s incompetent.
b. Although I don’t think that linguistics is a social science, I do_that anthropology is a
social science.
c. Although I wouldn’t prefer for Sally to leave, I would__for her to maintain a low
Interestingly enough, control infinitives are not possible pseuodo-gapping remnants:
(30)a.* Although I didn’t try to visit Sally, I did__to visit Susan.
b. *Although he doesn’t want to give a lecture, he does__to visit.
The fact that control infinitives behave like predicative complements in not being possible
pseudo-gapping remnants rather than their full infinitival counterparts indicates that the notion of
saturation at work in this domain is one that makes reference, not to the projection of all of the
head’s arguments, but to whether or not the arguments can be assigned semantic values.
Specifically, with respect to control infinitives, it is assumed that there is a PRO subject
(presumably generated in [Spec, V” of the highest V”, and remaining there, as in Baltin (1995)).
However, PRO in this instance is bound, as a control infinitive, and hence is referentially
dependent, and it is this property which causes it to count as unsaturated. Interestingly enough,
when the infinitive allows arbitrary control of the PRO subject, the infinitive is a possible
(31) a. Although it isn’t permitted to( PROarb) smoke in the theater, it is permitted to
(PROarb)smoke in the lobby.
b. Although it isn’t permitted to smoke in the theater , it is___to smoke in the lobby.
The difference between controlled infinitives and non-controlled infinitives that is seen in the
contrast between (30)(a) and (b) on the one hand and (31)(b) on the other falls out naturally from
the requirement that pseudo-gapping remnants be saturated. An arbitrarily controlled PRO is
essentially a pronoun, as noted by Hornstein (1999), which is free in its local domain. A
controlled PRO, on the other hand, is essentially treated as an anaphor. In fact, we see a reflex of
this distinction with respect to A-movement. A full for –infinitive can undergo A-movement,
while a corresponding infinitive with a controlled PRO subject cannot. The fact that control is the
relevant factor can be seen from the fact that infinitives with arb subjects can also undergo Amovement:
(32)a. For John to leave early would be preferred by everyone.
b. *To leave early would be preferred by everyone.
To smoke in the lobby seems to be permitted.
Since(as I will show in Section VI) the pseudo-gapping remnant is in an A-position, the
contrast between controlled infinitives, on the one hand, and full for-infinitives and noncontrolled infinitives on the other, with respect to their different privileges of occurrence as
pseudo-gapping remnants, is but a consequence of their differences with respect to A-movement
in general.
C. Anaphors
One apparent problem with the requirement that remnants be saturated is the occurrence of
reflexives within remnants, as in the picture- noun cases:
(33) Although John didn’t take pictures of Sally, he did__pictures of himself.
However, an analysis of these reflexives as logophors, as proposed by Reinhart & Reuland
(1993), brings them into line with the already independently motivated requirement that remnants
be saturated. In fact, according to my informants, it seems that reflexives and reciprocals as
remnants are unacceptable when they cannot receive an analysis as logophors, i.e. when they are
the arguments themselves:
(34) a.* Although John doesn’t like Sally, he does__himself.
b.* Although they don’t like Tom and Sally, they do__each other.
D.Particles and Prepositions
It has long been noted that prepositions seem to have a dual function. On the one hand, they
have been analyzed as synthetic Case-markers, so that, e.g., the English dative preposition to
is analyzed as a bearer of dative Case, and English of is analyzed as a genitive Case-marker.
There has also been an analysis of certain prepositions as being predicates (see, for example,
Becker & Arms (1971)). A compelling case for the existence of predicative prepositions can
be made from the observation that prepositions can often be used without objects, as in cases
such as (35):
(35) a. Is he in?
b. I want him out.
In such cases, there is nothing for the preposition to Case-mark, and in (35)(a), what
could be the predicate of the sentence if not the preposition in? In (35)(b), out is obviously
occurring as the head of a small clause predicate, parallel to I want him dead.
It does not seem reasonable to claim that all prepositions, however, are predicates, any more
than it is reasonable to claim that all prepositions are Case-markers. An obvious problem for the
view that all prepositions are predicates is the existence of prepositions such as of and to, which
never have intransitive uses, and do not have (in the case of of) any independent meaning. 3
Rather, it seems that prepositions can have both uses. In this vein, Emonds (1972) argued that
English particles are really intransitive prepositions. One of his arguments was based on the
observation that oftentimes the same verb that selected for an object plus particle would select for
an object plus prepositional phrase headed by a preposition that was homophonous with the
particle. Examples are the following:
(36) a. I put it on .
b. I put it on the table.
(37) a. I sent it down.
b. I sent it down the fire escape.
(38) a. I sent it up.
b. I sent it up the stairs.
The particle must be predicative. It cannot be used as a Case-marker if there is nothing for it to
Case-mark. With this in mind, it seems that the preposition can only be a pseudo-gapping
remnant if it is followed by an object, but not if it is used as a particle:
(39) a. Although I wouldn’t send it up the stairs, I would___down the fire escape.
An anonymous reviewer has suggested that the locative complement of put is really a predicate of a small clause. I
will argue in the next section that this locative PP is a possible pseudo-gapping remnant. Hence, the analysis that has
been suggested by this reviewer would be a counter-example to that claim. There is strong reason to reject the small
clause analysis of DP+ PP sequence following put. Note that the object of the locative P can contain an anaphor that
is bound by the subject, in contrast to uncontroversial small clause predicates:
They put thumbtacks on each other’s chairs.
*They consider me fond of each other’s parents.
This same reviewer suggests that the two objects in the double object construction form a small clause, along the
lines of, e.g. Johnson (1991), and the same considerations also lead me to reject the small clause analysis of the
double object construction:
(iii) They showed me each other’s pictures.
b. *Although I wouldn’t send it up, I would ____down.
I follow Emonds in viewing particles as intransitive prepositions. The inability of a lone
preposition to be a pseudo-gapping remnant is a consequence of the requirement that pseudogapping remnants be saturated.
E.Interim Summary
Following in essence Lasnik’s analysis of the pseudo-gapping remnant as occurring in a specifier
position of a projection that is higher than the elided material, we conclude that saturated phrases
occur in these specifier positions, but that unsaturated phrases occur in complement positions
within the phrases that undergo ellipsis. Hence, a minimal contrast between , e.g. (29)(a) and
(30)(b), both repeated below, would, in terms of the structures that I am proposing, would assign
the former the structure in (40), and the latter the structure in (41)(for purposes of simplification ,
I am omitting the subordinate clauses, and am presenting only the clauses in which ellipsis
(29)(a) Although I wouldn’t prefer for Sally to leave, I would__for her to maintain a low
(30)(b) *Although he doesn’t want to give a lecture, he does__to visit.
(40) C”
Past M
for her to
maintain a low profile
(41) C”
Inner VP-ellipsis would elide V”1, the complement of the empty V. In (40), the underlying
complement of V1 has moved to [Spec, Agr”], a position outside of the ultimately elided V”1, ;
in (41), on the other hand, the underlying complement of V1 remains in its original position,
and is hence within V”1 at the time of ellipsis.
It has been proposed in recent years within minimalism that there are features called “thetafeatures”. What exactly this means has never been made clear. If we were to do the job that those
who invoke these features should have done, and made this notion precise, it would presumably
view theta-roles as atomic entities, so that notions such as THEME, GOAL, SOURCE, etc,
would be instantiated as features to be checked. There seems to be a consensus among
researchers in lexical representation ( Jackendoff (1987), (1990), Levin & Rappaport (1988),
Gruber (2000)) that theta-roles should not be viewed as atomic, but rather, as parts of
structured propositions in a semantic meta-language. If this is the case, the notion of a thetafeature would not make sense4.
In any event,
theta-roles are clearly not a driving force for the movement to remnant position
in pseudo-gapping, as can be seen from the contrast between (40) and (41). We would assume
that the infinitive has the same thematic role regardless of whether it is controlled or
uncontrolled. Similarly, the contrast between anaphor objects and non-anaphor objects, as
exemplified by the contrast between (34) and (1), would also indicate that thematic relations do
not play a role here.
On the other hand, I have proposed that single remnants are always saturated.
We might
ask how to capture this restriction within an approach to movement in which movement is driven
by a need to check features between a head and some other element in the phrase-marker, such
that the other element must move close enough to the head to enable the feature to be checked.
An example is wh-movement, in which a wh-feature on C attracts a phrase with the wh-feature
to its specifier, enabling the wh-feature to be checked.
If we were to apply a feature-checking mechanism to the phenomenon that I have been
discussing in this article, we would (a)endow the head that I have been labelling Agr with the
feature +S (for “saturated”); and (b) posit the feature +S on the head of the phrase that would
appear as a remnant.
However, there are two reasons to reject this approach. The first reason is somewhat
analogous to Chomsky’s (1965) reasoning in not representing grammatical relations in phrasemarkers. His view was that grammatical relations are predictable from phrase-marker
configurations, and that it is therefore redundant, and missing the crucial nature of what
Hornstein (1999) notes that the adoption of the configurational view of theta-roles, in which theta-roles are specified
by the syntactic configurations in which the heads appear (Hale & Keyser (1993), Chomsky (1995)) is also
inconsistent with the notion of “theta-features”.
grammatical relations are, to directly represent notions such as subject and object in phrasemarkers. To be sure, alternative theories of grammar, such as Relational Grammar (Perlmutter &
Postal (1977)) and Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan (1982)) dispute the extent to which
grammatical relations are predictable, and therefore posit representations in which they are
directly represented, but the point is that if they are predictable, they should not be represented.
The same point holds for a feature +S. For one thing, a feature +S could not be posited on a
head, since heads are not saturated-only maximal projections are. Furthermore, a maximal
projection’s being saturated is presumably directly computable without the feature, and so the
feature is redundant.
A second reason for rejecting the feature-driven movement approach in terms of a feature
+S is that, as we shall see when multiple remnants are considered, the three cases of unsaturationpredication, obligatory control, and bound anaphora- do not form a natural class. It will turn out
that obligatorily controlled infinitives, and bound anaphors, can be possible second pseudogapping remnants, just in case the controller or the antecedent is the first remnant. In other
words, the restriction can be amnestied in the case of control or bound anaphora. The restriction
cannot be amnestied for predication, however.
V.The Operation of Inner VP-Ellipsis on Clearly Phrasal Units
Thus far, I have concentrated on ellipsis cases in which the elided element consists of a single
verb, and in which there is a single remnant. In every sentence in this paper, up to this point, the
remnant has been a phrase that is obligatorily selected by the verb. This is not an accident. I have
been making the traditional assumption about adjuncts versus arguments, which is that adjuncts
are systematically optional and are not lexically selected. I have also been assuming that
arguments are generated within a (perhaps extended) projection of the heads of which they are
arguments, and that adjuncts are outside of the outer V”, V”0 in this paper.
With this in mind, consider the elements that are strandable after ellipsis sites in both finite
and non-finite clauses:
(42) a.. Although I won't do it tomorrow, I will___the day after.
b. Although I don't expect him to do it tomorrow, I do expect him to__the
day after.
c. I wouldn't do it out of fear, but I would__out of respect.
d.I wouldn't expect him to do it out of fear, but I would expect him
to___out of
e.He didn’t do it because of personal preference, but he did __because of
basic integrity.
f. I didn’t expect him to do it because of personal preference, but I did expect him
to__because of basic integrity.
The elements that are strandable after ellipsis sites in both finite and non-finite clauses are
adjuncts. All of the stranded elements in (42) meet the standard criteria for adjuncthood.
However, there are other elements that are standable after ellipsis sites in finite clauses ,but
not after ellipsis elements in infinitives. As just noted, one traditional hallmark of adjuncts is their
optionality; they are never required, and hence a phrase which is required as a matter of lexical
choice of clausal main verb must be an argument. The locative complement of put is the standard
example; another is the PP headed by on which is interpreted as the source for the verb blame:
(43)He blamed his problems *(on Sally).
The verb blame is interesting in that it seems to participate in the same type of alternation
in the expression of the thematic roles that it assigns as, e.g,, dative verbs . Hence, an
alternative way of expressing (43) is (44):
(44)He blamed Sally for his problems.
Let us say that blame assigns, within the VP that it heads, the theta-roles of source and
theme. We would then say that, when the direct object is theme, the source is expressed
as a PP headed by on, and when the direct object is source, the theme is a PP headed by
for. The PP source is obligatory with blame, but the PP theme is optional:
(45)He blamed Sally.
Hence, the PP source is an argument of blame, with that lexical representation, but the PP
theme may be an adjunct. With this in mind, let us compare the ellipsis patterns with the
blame and put constructions in finite and non-finite clauses:
(46)a. Although he didn’t blame his problems on Sally, he did__on Susan.
b. *Although I didn’t expect to blame my problems on Sally, I did expect to __on
(47) a. Although I didn’t blame Sally for these problems, I did__for those problems.
b. Although I didn’t expect to blame Sally for these problems, I did__for those
(48) a. Although I didn’t put my wallet on the dining room table, I did__on the living
room table.
b.* Although I didn’t plan to put my wallet on the dining room table, I did plan
to __on the living room table.
As mentioned in the previous section, PPs can be either predicative or non-predicative. The
ability of these PPs to be stranded in finite clauses but not in infinitives recalls Levin’s observation
that inner VP ellipsis does not occur in infinitives. Therefore, we can account for the possibility of
these PP remnants in the finite clauses as inner VP-ellipsis, so that we might give the main clause
of , e.g. (46)(a) a structure as in (49), in which the PP is located in [Spec, Agr”].
(49) C”
on Susan
his problems V
It is noteworthy, however, that the object of blame in this case is within V”1, the inner V”. We
must ask how it comes to precede the PP.
The answer comes from Koizumi (1995), who posited Agr” as a recursive category. If we
assume that Agr can take Agr” as a complement, in addition to V”, a fuller structure for (50)
would be (51):
(50) He blamed his problems on Susan.
his problems
on Susan Agr
V P”k
Lasnik (1995) proposed a non-recursive Agr, predicting only one remnant in
inner VP-ellipsis cases, but Bowers (1998) showed this to be false.d The recursive Agr structure
predicts multiple remnants, and this seems to be correct:
(52) Although he didn’t blame those problems on Sally, he did___these problems on
The prediction about DP-XP sequences is that the DP and the XP should individually be able
to occur as remnants. This prediction is correct, at least when the XP is a predicate. If the XPis
not a possible remnant, i.e. is a selected predicate of the verb, as is true of small clause
predicates, it is not a possible remnant:
(53)*Although I don’t consider Sally malicious, I do___Susan dishonest.
If the subject of the small clause raises to [Spec, Agr”], it will be outside of V”1, the inner
V”. However, the predicate will be trapped within this inner V” and hence will obligatorily
delete if the inner V” elides.
We find the same pattern when we look at the differential ability of obligatory prepositional
datives which are single arguments of verbs to be stranded after verbal ellipsis in finite and
infinitive clauses. The verbs occur and appeal (in the relevant senses), dash, and allude
(supplied to me by Richard Kayne), can be elided in finite clauses but not in infinitives:
(54)a. Although this didn’t occur to Fred, it did__to Susan.
b. *Although I didn’t expect this to occur to Fred, I did expect it to__to Susan.
(55)a. Although this didn’t appeal to Fred, it did__to Susan.
b. *Although I didn’t expect this to appeal to Fred, I did expect it to__to Susan.
(56) a. Although he didn’t dash into the classroom, he did__into the schoolyard.
b. *Although I didn’t expect him to dash into the classroom, I did expect him
to __into the schoolyard.
(57) a. Although he didn’t allude to his drinking problem, he did___to his gambling
b. *Although I didn’t expect him to allude to his drinking problem, I did expect
him to__to his gambling problem.
VI.The Source of The Restriction on Inner VP-Ellipsis in Infinitives
We must ask why inner VP-ellipsis cannot take place in infinitives, i.e. why the structure in
(58) is prohibited:
(58) M’
One line of inquiry which seems plausible, in my view, would be to require that an argument be
licensed by an appropriate head, somewhat in the manner of structural Case-licensing. In this
regard, we might say that the infinitive marker to does not license arguments because it does not
have any features which license arguments, any more than it licenses an external argument.
Chomsky & Lasnik (1995) propose that the infinitive marker to checks a null Case, the Case of
PRO, but Baltin (1995) argues against this proposal. In the analysis of PRO in Baltin (1995),
PRO remains in [Spec, V”]. The tensed helping verb in finite clauses, however,
can both
license nominative Case, and can license internal arguments.
VII.The Resolution of a Problem Concerning the Structure of Prepositional Datives
Larson (1988) first proposed the VP-shell. Basing his discussion on observations by Barss &
Lasnik (1986), he showed that it was desirable to posit a structure for prepositional datives in
which the direct object c-commands the prepositional dative. Assuming that binding requires ccommand, the direct object can serve as the antecedent for an anaphor within the prepositional
dative, but not vice versa:
(59)(a) I introduced them to each other.
(b) * I introduced each other to them.
A structure for prepositional datives such as that given in (7) would meet this requirement.
If we make the standard assumption that only constituents elide, however, we must ask why
the verb plus direct object can elide, stranding the prepositional dative, if the structure of the main
clause in (60) before ellipsis is (61):
(60)Although I didn’t give money to the United Way, I did___to the AJA.
to The AJA Agr
There is no constituent in (61) that comprises the verb and object, excluding the indirect
There is another highly relevant factor. The evidence for the structure in which the object ccommands the prepositional dative comes from binding, and when the indirect object contains
an anaphor that is intended to be linked to the direct object, ellipsis is impossible:
(62)(a) Although I wouldn’t introduce them to Tom and Sally, I would introduce them to each
(b) *Although I wouldn’t introduce them to Tom and Sally, I would___ to each other.
It would seem then that we need to posit two structures: (i) one in which the verb and
object form a constituent, so that the object does not c-command the prepositional dative; and
(ii) one in which the direct object c-commands the prepositional dative. Evidence for the first
structure comes from ellipsis considerations, and evidence for the second comes from binding.
When binding considerations force the second structure, ellipsis of the first structure is
It would be undesirable to posit two distinct underlying phrase-structures for prepositional
datives –one in which the prepositional dative is inside the V”, c-commanded by the direct object,
and another in which it is outside the V”. Positing two distinct structural positions for
prepositional datives would violate most theories of linking.
I would propose to view the stranding of prepositional datives under ellipsis as a case of inner
V” ellipsis after the dative has moved out, with the direct object still inside of V”1.
the pre-ellipsis structure of the main clause of (60) would be (63):
Past D”i
to the AJA Agr
V”1 would delete as usual. The prediction would be that stranding a prepositional dative would
be impossible in an infinitive, and it seems that the prediction is correct:
(64) *Although I didn’t expect him to give money to the United Way, I did expect him to __to
the AJA.
To account for the impossibility of an anaphor in the remnant with an elided antecedent, a case
that is exemplified by (62)(b), we would have to say that binding applies late, and we will
consider the question of where Principle A must apply in the next section. Suffice it to say,
however, that binding , particularly of Principle A, could not be an “anywhere principle” in the
sense of Belletti & Rizzi (1988), or, in a more recent incarnation, Epstein et. al. (1998).5
Belletti & Rizzi (1988) originally proposed that Principle A was an anywhere principle as an account of the wellknown “backwards binding” phenomena of psychological predicates, as in (i), in which a reflexive contained within
the subject is coreferential with the object.
Rather, the binding of a prepositional dative anaphor by a direct object, as in (59)(a), occurs
when the object is in an Agr projection that is higher than the Agr projection in whose Spec the
prepositional dative resides.
As mentioned earlier, there can be multiple remnants in pseudo-gapping. Each remnant is in the
Spec of an Agr projection. We would predict, therefore, that the first remnant could bind an
anaphor in the second remnant, and the prediction is confirmed:
(65)Although I wouldn’t introduce these people to Tom and Sally, I would___those people to
each other.
We will explore the implications of the possibility of one remnant’s binding into another in the
next section, when we examine the nature of the remnant position in somewhat greater detail.
VIII. The Derivational Level at Which Binding and Control Apply
In the last section, we saw evidence that an anaphor can occur as a pseudo-gapping remnant,
provided that it is a second remnant that is bound by the first. We can see the same phenomenon
with respect to control. Consider the fact that an object-controlled infinitive cannot be stranded if
the object is contained within an elided VP.
Those pictures of himself amused John.
Under their analysis, object-experiencer verbs are those in which experiencer and theme are both within the VP
at D-structure, with the experiencer c-commanding the theme, which then moves into subject position. Binding is
established at D-structure in such cases. It can also, of course, apply later, as in (ii), in which the antecedent of the
anaphor raises to subject position, and it is only after this raising that binding of the anaphor can occur:
They seem to each other to be happy.
One apparent problem in this analysis is seen I cases of the sort in (iii), discussed by Belletti & Rizzi:
*Himself amuses himself.
If binding is an anywhere relation, the experiencer should be able to bind the theme at D-structure, and, after Amovement of the theme into subject position, the theme should then be able to bind the experiencer.
To resolve this problem, Belletti & Rizzi invoke the notion of antecedence, such that if A is the antecedent of
B, B cannot be the antecedent of A. This is Higginbotham’s (1983, 1985) notion of linking. Therefore, linking each
of the anaphors to each other, as would be necessary in (iii), would lead to referential circularity.
However, this account essentially gives up the notion of binding as an anywhere principle. Linking is
intended by Higginbotham to replace the notion of co-indexing as a component of binding. There is no natural place
for a principle of antecedence that is separate from the notion of binding. Simply put, this town (CHL) isn’t big
enough for both of them (binding and antecedence). It may very well be right to view linking as the device to
establish antecedent-anaphor relations, but if it is, cases such as (iii) would indicate that this establishment, known
as binding, must occur at a single level.
For other criticisms of Belletti & Rizzi’s account of cases involving subject-contained reflexives with object
antecedents, see Pollard & Sag (1992), Pesetsky (1995), and Bazar (2000).
(66)*Although I couldn’t persuade him to vote for Bill Clinton, I could ___to vote for Hillary
Notice that if the complement of persuade is changed to a finite complement, the clausal
complement is an acceptable remnant:
Although I couldn’t persuade him that he should vote for Bill Clinton, I could__that he
should vote for Hillary Clinton.
The restriction on controlled infinitives occurring as pseudo-gapping remnants was noted earlier,
in the discussion of single-constituent ellipsis. Recall the contrast in (30), repeated here:
(30)a.* Although I didn’t try to visit Sally, I did__to visit Susan.
b. *Although he doesn’t want to give a lecture, he does__to visit.
The fact that controlled infinitives cannot be sole pseudo-gapping remnants seems to be the
same fact as the fact that anaphors cannot be sole pseudo-gapping remnants. Hence, (30) and (66)
are parallel to (62)(b) and (34). However, we see now that these restrictions cannot be
restrictions on the movement of controlled infinitives and anaphors to the ellipsis remnant position.
If they were restrictions on the movement per se, they could never be rescued by movement of
controllers and antecedents per se. They could not be amnestied. We have seen, in (65), the
improvement that an additional ellipsis remnant makes in the case of anaphoric binding. We can
see the same phenomenon of improvement when the controller of a controlled infinitive appears
as the first remnant in a pseudo-gapping construction:
Although I couldn’t persuade Max to vote for Bill Clinton, I could__Susan to vote for
Hillary Clinton.
Interestingly enough, adding the subject of a small clause predicate does not seem to improve
its status as a pseudo-gapping remnant:
*Although I don’t consider Susan malicious, I do__Martha dishonest.
This seems to mirror a similar restriction in ECM infinitives:
(70)* Although I don’t consider Susan to be malicious, I do __Martha to be dishonest.
While I have no account of why predicates cannot appear as pseudo-gapping remnants even when
their subjects are supplied, I take this contrast between them on the one hand and controlled
infinitives and anaphors on the other to indicate that the notion of saturation discussed earlier is not
a unified phenomenon.
As to the precise level at which binding applies, we have seen evidence that it cannot apply “as
soon as possible”. It must wait until arguments are extracted from within the lowest VP. It cannot
therefore apply at the beginning of a derivation. We can also see that it cannot apply at the end of
a derivation, if we assume the correctness of the conclusion of Lasnik (1999a) that A-movements
do not leave traces. Lasnik’s argument is based on the failure of A-traces to reconstruct for the
purposes of binding and scope, a result that is unexpected if they are actually present. If one
assumes that the dative marker to does not block c-command, an apparent problem with Lasnik’s
proposal comes from a consideration of subject- raising sentences in which a matrix dative to
cannot bind into an infinitive, as noted by Chomsky (1973):
(71)*John seems to the men to like each other.
Chomsky originally used this case to argue for the existence of an A-trace in the embedded
subject position, which would act as a specified subject for the Specified Subject Condition.
Without a trace of John between the dative and the reciprocal, it seems problematic to rule out
such binding.
However, if we apply Principle A cyclically, and assume that a binding violation is indelible
(i.e. once a binding violation is computed, it cannot be rescued), we could apply Principle A as
soon as we have computed a Complete Functional Complex (i.e. a phrase with a subject). In this
way, we would not be applying binding at the end of a syntactic derivation, nor at the beginning,
but at an intermediate point, assuming a sort of cyclic computation (Frampton & Guttman (1998)).
IX.The Status of the Remnant Position in Inner VP-Ellipsis
Thus far, I have followed Lasnik (1995) and Koizumi (1995) in labelling the projection
in whose Spec the inner VP-Ellipsis remnant resides as Agr for purely expository convenience.
While I believe that the evidence is clear that this position is not in fact Agr, there is clear
evidence that the remnant position is an A-position. This view contrasts with that put forth
recently by Jayaseelan (1999), who argues for IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases, and who
argues that the inner VP-ellipsis remnant is in [Spec, FocP], an ~A-position. Arguing that
scrambled objects in Dutch and German are in ~A-positions, Jayaseelan notes that scrambled
objects in these languages license parasitic gaps, citing Zwart (1996)). Invoking the standard
distinction between A and ~A-movements in which only the latter license parasitic gaps,
Jayaseelan concludes that these scrambled objects must be in ~A-positions. His example, from
Zwart, is given in (72):
(72)(Jayaseelan (1999), ex. (36)
dat John Mariei
That John Mary without
ei ann te kijken ti gekust heeft.
to look
kissed has
That John kissed Mary without looking at her.
With respect to inner VP-ellipsis, Jayaseelan notes that the remnant invariably bears
contrastive stress, and if the discourse context is incompatible with this restriction on the
remnant, ellipsis is impossible. Jayaseelan gives the following example:
(73)(Jayaseelan (1999), ex. (63)):
Speaker A: Has she dated Bill?
Speaker B: *Yes, she has Bill.
Jayaseelan goes on to say that “…it is difficult to imagine why a direct object moving into
SPEC, AGRoP- a process which both Koizumi and Lasnik hold is something that normally takes
place in the overt syntax in English-should be subject to a Focus Constraint, just in the
pseudogapping cases.”
This is a fair point, to which I will return at the end of this section with an answer. For the
moment, let us return to a consideration of Jayaseelan’s analysis. Noting that the requirement of
contrastive stress on the remnant qualifies it as a focus, Jayaseelan says that the remnant is
actually in the Spec of an IP-Internal FocP, rather than an IP-Internal AgrP.
However, [Spec, FocP] is standardly viewed as an ~A-position , in the languages that are
usually claimed to have overt movement to this position, such as Hungarian , and that position
licenses parasitic gaps, as noted by Horvath (1999). However, English pseudo-gapping remnants
do not license parasitic gaps, as can be seen by, e.g. (74):
(74) *Although John didn’t kiss MARYi without looking at ei, he did SALLYj
without looking at ej.
If the inner ellipsis remnant is in an ~A-position, as it would be if it were in [Spec, FocP],
its inability to license parastic gaps from this position would be unexplained. In this respect,
inner ellipsis remnants are not the same as scrambled Dutch and German objects, as can be seen
from the contrast between (72) and (74).
A second problem with the postulation of inner ellipsis remnants in [Spec, FocP] comes
from the consideration of the requirement that the remnant be saturated, as argued extensively in
Section III of this paper. This is not a restriction on focussed phrases. For example, Jayaseelan
provides an example of a focussed adverbial which is in [Spec, FocP] in Malayalam:
(75)(Jayaseelan (1999), ex. (57)(c ))
naan innale ann
Mary-(y)e kand-at.
I yesterday is
It is yesterday that I saw Mary.
The restriction on inner ellipsis remnants that they be saturated is unexplained, therefore, on
an analysis that places these remnants in [Spec, FocP], because foci can be unsaturated.
The third problem with the postulation of ~A-positions as the landing site for the inner ellipsis
remnants was brought to light in the previous section. Anaphoric binding and control relations
can be established between the first and second remnants in an inner ellipsis sentence with
multiple remnants, as in (65), repeated here:
(65) Although I wouldn’t introduce these people to Tom and Sally, I would___those people to
each other.
Given the standard assumption that control binding of anaphors take place from A-positions
(Chomsky (1981)), residence of each of the remnants in ~A-positions such as [Spec, FocP],
would have no account of the possibility of such sentences as (65), in which the first remnant
binds into the second remnant.
I will present additional evidence in the next two sections that the phrase that occupies
the remnant position in the inner VP-ellipsis construction is in an A-position, but we must now
take account of Jayaseelan’s insight that the remnant is focussed. What is at stake in the
implications that Jayaseelan draws from this fact, and the rejection of those implications, is an
issue that lies at the heart of Minimalism. It is the issue of feature-driven movements, and
exactly how the grammar, or, in Chomsky’s more recent terms, CHL, gets natural language
expressions to be in states in which they are usable by external systems. Horvath (1999) lucidly
discusses this issue and , applying it to the representation of focus, a discourse-pragmatic
phenomenon, makes the distinction between focus-accomodating movements and focuslicensing movements. Focus-accomodating movements are those that are not explicitly licensed
by a formal focus feature, or movement to a focus projection. Rather, it is assumed, following
Cinque (1993) and Reinhart (1995), that the focus of a structure can be identified as the
constituent that contains the primary stress of that structure. Therefore, focus can be identified at
PF. Various movements can be prosodically motivated so as to put constituents into positions in
which they will receive primary stress, and hence qualify as foci.
Focus-licensing movements, on the other hand, take focus to be a formal feature of the
computational mechanism, which requires checking. Jayaseelan’s analysis is in the tradition of
focus-licensing movements.
Horvath argues for the former conception of focus. Let us modify her notion of focusaccomodating movements to that of focus-accomodating processes. The only movement that is
involved here (so far) is the movement of the remnant, which I have argued is an instance of Amovement. This movement always applies to arguments, whether they are focussed or not.
Indeed, in Section IX, I will show that there is evidence that a non-focussed quantified argument
in English undergoes A-movement out of an infinitive complement, much in the manner of socalled clitic climbing in the Romance languages, but the infinitive is still present. Crucially,
this argument does not seem to be focussed. Therefore, we cannot view the movement to [Spec,
Agr”] as focus-accomodating; it always applies, irrespective of the focality of the argument.
We could, on the other hand, say that inner VP-ellipsis is focus-accomodating, with its
function being to cause focal stress to occur on the remnant, by removing the VP containing the
remnant from the potential for bearing focal stress. The fact that inner VP-ellipsis always occurs
with subjects that are identical to the subjects of the clauses containing the antecedent VPs, as
noted by N. Levin (1986), would lend credence to the idea that the function of inner VP-ellipsis
is to create a unique focus domain.
X.What else moves?
So far, we have only looked at one movement- that of the remnant. In sentences in which
inner VP-ellipsis has applied, this is appropriate. However, part of the inherent interest of this
process is the light that it sheds on another movement process. The movement of the verb to the
higher, empty V position. It is this movement that is claimed to be interrupted by the ellipsis of
In this section, I will explore the nature of the elided element, in contrast to the nature of the
remnant. In Section VII.A, I will demonstrate that more than verbs move to this higher empty
position. Section VII.B will demonstrate that the movement is not (at least in some cases)
movement of an X0. Section VII.C will demonstrate that the movement is sometimes phrasal,
and sometimes head movement. Section VII.D will show an interesting restriction on the ellipsis
which provides another piece of evidence that the remnant is in an A-position.
A. More than Vs move
To demonstrate that the moving element in the non-elided sentence is not just V, consider
the following ((77) was supplied to me by Chris Collins):
(76)Although John isn’t fond of Martha, he is___of Susan.
(77)Although he isn’t a student of physics, he is___of chemistry.
In (76), an adjective is elided, and in (77), a predicate nominal6. Clearly, the position to which
movement occurs is not a V. Bowers (1993) has proposed the existence of a Pred0. It may be this
position, so that the pre-ellipsis structure for the main clause for (76) would be as in (78):
In the next subsection, I will discuss the process by which an obviously phrasal unit (the determiner plus noun, )
rather than a simple X0, comes to elide.
of Susan ?
P” j
In this case, A” would elide. If ellipsis did not occur, the adjective would move to Pred.
Hence, Bowers’ analysis is similar to Larson’s except that Larson’s empty V is replaced by
Bowers’ Pred0, and any category can be the complement of Pred0.
However, life is not so simple, as we shall see next.
B. Phrases can move
It can easily be shown that more than just a simple X0 can move. For example, the elided
material can be introduced by a specifier, which also elides, as in (79):
(79)Although John isn’t very fond of Sally, he is__of Martha.
The sequence that elides is very fond, so that (79) can be understood as asserting that Fred is
very fond of Sally. By parity of reasoning, then, we would analyze the ellipsis as operating on
a phrasal unit which, if ellipsis does not occur, would be moving to a higher position. It would
seem, then, that more than simple head movement is occurring here. Rather, this is a case of
remnant movement.
Similarly, a sequence of infinitives can elide, as in (80):
(80) Although I didn’t try to visit Martha, I did___Sally.
Originally, Rizzi (1978) analyzed certain verb plus infinitive sequences in Italian as
undergoing a process of restructuring , which would reanalyze a sequence of verbs into a single
verb. His analysis was based primarily on a phenomenon known as clitic climbing (see, among
other, Aissen & Rivas (1977)). Subsequently, other investigators, such as, e.g. Hornstein
(1995), have extended the restructuring analysis to other cases, such as antecedent-contained
deletion, as in (81):
(81) John wanted to read every book that you did___.
Hornstein views antecedent-contained deletion as arising from (covert) movement of the object
out of the containing VP to [Spec, Agr-O”], and in this case the elided VP can be interpreted as
want to read, rather than read. In order to account for movement to the matrix [Spec, Agr-O”],
rather than the infinitival complement’s [Spec, Agr-O”], Hornstein proposes that the matrix plus
infinitive sequence restructures along the lines of Rizzi’s (1978) proposal.
Kennedy (1997) notes that the class of matrix verbs which introduce restructuring in
Hornstein’s analysis for English is considerably wider than the class of verbs which induce this
process in Italian in Rizzi’s analysis.
In any event, if we apply the restructuring analysis to the phenomenon at hand, we would
have to widen the class of elements that restructure even further; it would not be just
complement-taking verbs plus infinitive verbs which restructure into a single verb. An adjectival
specifier plus adjective would have to restructure into an adjective, as in (79), just as an adverb
plus verb would have to restructure in (82):
Although I don’t often read books, I do___magazines.
in which the elided material is often read, rather than simply read.
An alternative to restructuring for these cases would maintain the movement of the
argument outside of the predicative phrase in which it originated, but would posit movement of
the predicative phrase, rather than simply the head of the predicate, to a yet higher position. This
is known as remnant movement (see Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000), Kayne (1994, 1998)) among
others). Therefore, if inner VP-ellipsis had not applied in (80), the structure of the main clause,
(83), would be (84):
I tried to visit Sally.
In other words, the entire predicative phrase moves higher than the internal argument, to the
Spec of a functional projection that we can call Z, which takes Agr as its complement. Crucially,
[Spec, Agr”] must count as an A-position, as we have seen.
Interestingly enough, an elided sequence that contains both a matrix verb and an infinitive
cannot contain an argument, so that (84) (b), corresponding to (84)(a), is not possible:
(84)(a) Although I couldn’t persuade Fred to visit Martha, I could persuade Fred to visit
(b) *Although I couldn’t persuade Fred to visit Martha, I could___Sally.
The Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky (1995), which requires that a target must attract the
closest element bearing the feature to be checked, will require that an embedded object cannot
move over the matrix object. To see this, consider the underlying structure for the main clause
of (84)(a):
e D”2
V D”4
visit Sally
By the Minimal Link Condition, D”4 could not move to Agr”0 because there is a closer D”, D”2,
that could move to Agr”0. Therefore, D”4 would have to move to the embedded Agr”, Agr”1, in
order to have its argument feature checked.
We have seen that a saturated DP must be able to move out of an infinitival complement.
However, there is one type of non-finite complement that does not seem to allow extraction of
the DP out of it. For want of a better, term, I call this type of complement a from-complement.
Consider the verbs persuade and encourage, which take infinitive complements:
(86)a. I persuaded Fred to leave.
b. I encouraged Fred to leave.
The verbs persuade and encourage have negative counterparts-the verbs dissuade and
discourage. When the latter verbs are the main verbs, there is also a change in the form of the
clausal complement:
(87)a. I dissuaded Fred from leaving.
b. I discouraged Fred from leaving.
This type of complement has a number of interesting properties, many of which are irrelevant
to our present concerns7, but it will be noted that there is apparently a verb of subject control
which takes a from-complement- the verb refrain.
(88)He refrained from visiting Sally.
Let us analyze from as a complementizer, taking a clausal gerundive complement.
For one thing, it seems that from contains a negative feature, in that it can license polarity items. For example,
consider the contrast between (i) and (ii):
I dissuaded him from ever talking to the press.
*I persuaded him to ever talk to the press.
In this respect, (I) seems to exhibit the same phenomenon as (iii), discussed by Laka (1990), who analyzed the
complementizer that , when heading complements of the inherently negative verbs doubt and deny as possessing a
negative feature:
(iii) I {doubt, deny} that he ever talked to the press.
Now let us attempt to pseudo-gap a sequence including a from-complementizer, leaving the
object of a from-complement’s main verb as a remnant:
(89)*Although he didn’t refrain from visiting Martha, he did__Sally.
Why should this restriction exist? In our terms, the pre-ellipsis structure of the main clause in
(89) would be (90):
D”j Agr’
D”i V’
visit t
Recall that we have been analyzing the movements of saturated phrases as movements to Apositions. The problem here seems to be with A-movement out of the from-complementizer. It
turns out that there is a stable problem with A-movement out of a clause that is introduced by an
overt complementizer, as noted originally by Kayne (1981), discussing the impossibility of
raising the subject of an infinitival introduced by the complementizer de in French or di in Italian:
(91)a.*Jean semble d’etre intelligent.
b. Jean a essaye d’etre intelligent.
This seems to be an extremely pervasive restriction on raising, as noted by Baltin (2000).
For example, Higgins (1989) argues that English did not have raising out of infinitives until
approximately the seventeenth century,
and attributes the origin of subject-to-subject raising
to the loss of overt complementizers in infinitives (as well as a loosening of selectional
restrictions in the matrix clauses for arguments).8
Kayne (1981) suggests that the constraint is due to the Empty Category Principle, a
constraint that is no longer formulable in Minimalism due to its reliance on the concept of
government, a non-Minimalist concept. It may, however, be a corollary of a more recent
principle of Minimalism, the Phase Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky (2000)). Briefly,
Chomsky defines a phase as a proposition that is introduced by a complementizer or v
(Larson’s empty V). He then defines the Phase Impenetrability Condition as follows:
(92) (Chomsky (2000), (21) Phase-Impenetrability Condition
In phase  with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside ; only H
and its edge are accessible to such operations.
This means that in a clause that is introduced by a complementizer, only the
complementizer and its specifier are accessible to operations outside of the clause. This
captures the idea, in earlier terms, that COMP is an “escape hatch”, allowing a moved
element in that position, later, more precisely, [Spec, CP] , to move out of the clause.
Crucially, [Spec, CP] is an ~A-position, so that an element in [Spec, CP] can then move to an
~A-position, but not an A-position, because movement to the latter position would be a case
This difference between raising, which cannot occur in a clause introduced by an overt complementizer, and
control, which can, is but one of many obstacles in an attempt to reduce obligatory control to raising, as in Hornstein
(1999). For further discussion, see Baltin & Barrett (in preparation).
of “improper movement”. Notice that ~A-extraction is perfectly permissible from inside of a
Who did he refrain from visiting?
In an interesting recent paper, Johnson (2000) discusses a phenomenon of objectscrambling in Dutch, which bears certain affinities to the movement to the position of the
remnant in English inner –VP ellipsis. It can prepose the object of an infinitive into the main
clause. Johnson gives the following example:
(94)(Johnson (2000), ex. (28))
…dat Jan Marie1 heeft geprobeered [ t1 te kussen].
That Jan Marie has tried
to kiss.
Crucially, Johnson shows that object-scrambling in Dutch is blocked when the infinitival
clause is introduced by a complementizer, giving the following example:
(95)(Johnson (2000), ex. (29))
*…dat Jan Marie1 heeft geprobeerd [ om t1 te kussen].
That Jan Marie has tried
to kiss.
Johnson argues that scrambling in Dutch is ~A-movement, while I have been arguing that
the English movement is A-movement. It is unclear why object scrambling should be
blocked if the infinitive is introduced by an overt complementizer if this process is
characterized as movement to an ~A-position. We have seen four factors that suggest that the
remnant position in the inner ellipsis construction is in an A-position: (i) the requirement that
the remnant be saturated; (ii) the ability of the remnant to A-bind an anaphor in another
remnant position; (iii) the inability of the remnant to license parasitic gaps; (iv) the inability
of the remnant to move out of an infinitive that is introduced by an overt complementizer.
Dutch object scrambling obviously shares the last property with English inner VP-ellipsis
remnants. It remains to be seen as to whether it shares the other three.
In any event, if we could unify Dutch object scrambling as described by Johnson with the
A-movement that I have characterized in this article, we could characterize the difference
between English and Dutch rather simply: English requires that the verbal projection move
still higher, while Dutch allows the verbal projection to remain in place.
Implications for Quantifier Scope
In this section, I will follow, in essence, Johnson’s treatment of quantifier scope in
which quantifiers apparently scope out of infinitives in which they occur, and will show that
the analysis of inner-ellipsis that has been developed in the previous sections of this article
can account for apparently non-clause bound cases of quantifier scope. An example is given
in (96):
(96)Someone tried to visit everyone.
The scope properties of such sentences , in which the sentence takes an infinitive with a
PRO subject and the matrix subject and an embedded object both of which are quantified, have
received contradictory descriptions in the literature. Hornstein (1995), to which I will return
presently, claims that the embedded object obligatorily takes narrow scope with respect to the
matrix subject. Johnson (2000) claims that the embedded object can take scope over the matrix
I agree with Johnson’s judgement, which accords with my informants.
It would be useful to discuss Hornstein’s (1995). Horstein argues that the standard
Government-Binding theory treatment of quantifiers, in which a covert rule of QuantifierRaising (QR) adjoins a quantifier to some dominating maximal projection, with its trace
interpreted as a variable bound by said quantifier, does not accord with the tenets of Minimalism,
in which movement is motivated by considerations of feature-checking. Rather, he proposes that
there is no special movement of quantifiers, and that scope interpretation is read off of structures
that are created by overt movement, specifically A-movements. His assumptions are as follows:
(97) (i) Scope is determined by c-command, such that if A c-commands B, B is within the
scope of A.
Traces are copies, so that when A-movement occurs, the moved element and its
copy are both in A-positions.
All copies but one are deleted.
(Diesing’s (1992) Mapping Hypothesis, which requires that definites move out of
the VP at LF.
Objects move to [Spec, Agr-O”] for Case –checking reasons, and this position is
superior to the underlying subject position, which is [Spec, VP], and subjects
move overtly to [Spec, Agr-S”].
Hornstein (1995) provides the following as an example of this mechanism for scope
determination(all examples are from Chapter 8 of his book):
(98)(Hornstein (1995), ex. (4)) Someone attended every seminar.
The structure that results from all LF movements is the following:
(99)(Hornstein (1995), (5))[AgrS Someone [TP Tns [Agr o every seminar[VP someone[VP
attended every seminar]]]]]
Following Hornstein’s practice of representing deleted copies by parenthesizing the copies, we
have four logically possible representations that would result:
(100)(Hornstein (1995), (6)a. [AgrS Someone [TP Tns [AgrO every seminar [VP
(someone)[VP attended (every seminar)]]]]]
b. [AgrS Someone [TP Tns [Agr) (every seminar)[VP (someone) [VP attended
every seminar]]]]]
[AgrS (Someone)[TP Tns [AgrO (every seminar) [VP (someone) [VP attended
every seminar]]]]]
d. [AgrS (Someone) [TP Tns [AgrO every seminar [VP someone [VP attended
(every seminar)]]]]]
Of these representations, (100)(a) represents wide scope for the subject,(100)(b) is
impermissible because it violates the Mapping Hypothesis, as does (100)(c), and
(100)(d) represents wide scope for the object.
Crucially, Hornstein predicts, and notes explicitly, that control relations in which
a quantified controller of PRO c-commands a quantified infinitive object could never
allow inverse scope of the object over the controller of PRO, so that structures
analogous to (94) are predicted to be unambiguous (Hornstein’s (9)(b), for
example). This is a consequence of the fact that the controller of PRO is never ccommanded by an embedded object.
However, this prediction is not always realized. For Johnson, as well as myself, (96) does
allow wide scope of the embedded object over the matrix subject controller of PRO. There are
instances in which an embedded quantifier within an infinitive cannot scope over a matrix
quantifier, such as
(101) I persuaded someone to visit everyone.
In this case, the object controller is in the matrix clause and must take wide scope relative to the
embedded object. However, if we change the structure to an ECM structure, in which the ECM
subject, argued by Lasnik & Saito (1991) to be in the matrix clause, as argued by Postal (1974),
we also find that the matrix quantifier must scope over the embedded quantifier:
(102)He believes someone to like everyone.
The only reading possible is one in which there is a particular person who likes everyone.
We have just seen that object-control verbs behave like ECM subjects with respect to scope
relative to an embedded object. Similarly, the subject-control verb in (94) is, I claim, identical
in behavior to the raised subject that Hornstein discusses:
(103) (Hornstein (1995), ex. (7)): Someone seemed to attend every class.
The upshot of this discussion is that the scope interactions that are exemplified in these cases
of infinitival complementation seem problematic for Hornstein’s A-chain account of non-clausebound scope. Interestingly, Hornstein (1995), in claiming a distinction between A-trace and
PRO with respect to quantifier scope interactions, conflicts with Hornstein (1999), who argues
that obligatory control is really a species of raising, and hence there would be no distinction
between trace and PRO if the later work is assumed. However, even if trace and PRO were
collapsed9, the fact that the embedded object must take narrow scope with respect to a matrix
object controller of PRO ( 101) or an ECM subject (102) is problematic for the A-chain account.
On the other hand, a more promising account of apparent non-clause-bound scope is given by
Johnson (2000), who notes an affinity between apparent non-clause-bound scope of infinitive
object quantifiers in English and object scrambling in Dutch, an example of which was given in
the last section. If we identify the scrambled object in Dutch with the English inner ellipsis
remnant, we can adopt Johnson’s analysis in its essentials, with two modifications: (i) viewing it
as A-movement, as argued in this article, instead of as ~A-movement, as Johnson does; (ii)
viewing it as arising from overt rather than covert movement. In this vein, notice that the cases
in which the infinitive object quantifier can scope into the matrix correspond to cases in which the
matrix verb plus infinitive verb can elide, and cases in which the infinitive object quantifier cannot
Which I strongly doubt (see Baltin & Barrett (in preparation)). Interestingly enough, Lasnik (1999) has presented
strong arguments that A-movements may not even leave traces. If this is correct, the A-chain account would be
impossible to maintain. Perhaps the account could be supplanted by interpreting relative quantifier scope
derivationally, along the lines of Epstein et. al. (1998) or categorial grammar. However, a full discussion of this issue
is beyond the scope of this article.
scope into the matrix clause correspond to cases in which the sequence between the matrix verb
and the infinitive verb cannot elide:
(104)a. Although John didn’t try to visit Sally, he did ___Martha. (corresponding to (96))
b. Although he didn’t seem to like this class, he did___that class.(corresponding to
(103) a. *Although I didn’t persuade Fred to visit Sally, I did __Mary. (meaning I did
persuade Fred to visit Mary) (corresponding to (101)).
(104) *Although I don’t believe Fred to like Sally, I do___Mary. (meaning I do believe Fred
to like Mary) (corresponding to (102)).
To sum up this section, it seems that quantifier scope really is clause-bound, and apparent scope
of a quantifier out of a clause is really a result of overt movement of the quantified DP out of the
infinitive into the matrix clause. In a sense, this view of quantifier scope is in the spirit of Kayne
(1998), who is attempting to analyze quantifier scope as arising from overt, rather than covert,
XII. Conclusion
Pseudo-gapping looks as though it is a marginal phenomenon, not part of the standard
language. Almost 20 years ago, taking the insights of Engdahl (1981) and Taraldsen (1981),
Chomsky discussed another marginal phenomenon-parasitic gaps. He noted that it was precisely
its marginality that made it a fount of insights into deep-seated restrictions in Universal Grammar,
because its marginality made it highly unlikely that the restrictions on this phenomenon could be
observed from direct experience.
However, it is still not possible to completely analyze quantifier scope as arising from overt movement. Although
non-clause-bound scope has been shown to arise from overt movement, there is still no natural overt derivation that
would get the object to,e.g., take inverse scope over the subject.
I have tried to follow a similar approach in the analysis of pseudo-gapping, as has Lasnik
(1995). In this article, we have seen massive movement of phrasal predicates and arguments,
and have gained insight into the place in the grammar at which binding and control relations have
applied, and have gained some insight into quantifier scope. Hopefully, a careful, detailed
analysis of this process will have yielded some lasting insight into a variety of fundamental
processes of grammar.
Andrews III, Avery (1982), “A Note On the Constituent Structure of Adverbials and
Auxiliaries”. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 13, Pp. 313-317
Baltin, Mark (1995).”Floating Quantifiers, PRO, and Predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2). Pp.
Baltin, M. & Barrett, Leslie (in preparation). “The Independence of Control and Raising.”
Barss, Andrew, & Howard Lasnik (1986). “ A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects.”
Linguistic Inquiry 16. PP. 347-354
Bazar, Nicole (2000). “ Picture Noun Phrases.” Unpublished ms., New York University
Becker, Alton, & Gary Arms (1969). “Prepositions as Predicates” Proceedings of CLS 5,
University of Chicago
Belletti, Adriana (2000). “Agreement Projections. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins, eds.,
Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford, U.K., Basil Blackwell & Sons, pp. 483509
Belletti, Adriana, & Luigi Rizzi (1988). “Psych Verbs and -Theory.” Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, Vol. 6, No. 3. PP. 291-352
Bowers, John. (1993). “The Syntax of Predication.” Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 24, No. 4. Pp. 591-656
Bowers, John(1998). “On Pseudo-Gapping.” Unpublished ms., Cornell University
Bresnan, Joan (1982) ed.. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge,
Mass., MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press
--------------(1973).”Conditions on Transformations.” In Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky, eds.,
A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York, New York. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. PP. 232-286
--------(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Foris
----------(1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press
---------(1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins, and Use. New York, Praeger.
---------(1995a). “Categories and Transformations.” In N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Pp. 219-394
--------(1995b). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass., The MIT Press.
---------(1999). “Derivation By Phase.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.
----------(2000). “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In David Michaels, Roger Martin, &
Juan Uriagureka, eds., Step By Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. PP. 89-155
Chomsky, N., & Howard Lasnik (1995). “The Theory of Principles and Parameters.”, in Chomsky,
1995b. PP. 13-12
Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). “A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress. “ Linguistic
Inquiry, Vol. 24. PP. 239-297
Diesing, Molly. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Emonds, Joseph (1972). “Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule.
“ Foundations of Language, Vol. 8. Pp. 546-561
Engdahl, Elisabet. (1981). “Parasitic Gaps. “ Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 6, PP. 5-34
Epstein, Samuel, Erich Groat, Rumiko Kawashima, & Hiro Kitihara (1998). The Derivation of
Syntactic Relations. Oxford, U.K. Oxford University Press
Frampton, John, & Samuel Guttmann (1999). “Cyclic Computation, A Computationally
Efficient Minimalist Syntax”, Syntax, Vol. 2. PP. 1-27
Gruber, Jeffrey S. (2000). “Thematic Relations in Syntax.” In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins, eds.,
Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford, U.K. Basil Blackwell & Sons. Pp. 483-509
Higginbotham, James (1983). “Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals.”. Linguistic Inquiry Vol.
14. PP. 679-708
------------------------(1985). “On Semantics.” Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 16. PP. 547-593.
Higgins, F.R. (1989). “On the History of Control and Raising”. Paper presented at the MIT
Workshop on Control, Cambridge, Mass.
Hornstein, Norbert. (1995). Logical Form: From GB To Minimalism. Oxford, UK; Basil
Blackwell & Sons.
-----------------------(1999). “Movement and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry Vol. 30. PP. 69-96
Horvath, Julia. (1999). “Interfaces Vs. The Computational System in the Syntax of Focus”. In
Hans Bennis & Martin Everaert, eds., Interface Strategies. Mouton: The Hague. PP. 183-206
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1987).”The Status of Thematic Relations In Linguistic Theory.” Linguistic
Inquiry, Vol. 18. PP. 369-411
---------------------(1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Jayaseelan, K.S. (1990). “Incomplete VP Deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis, Vol. 20. PP.
-------------------(1999). “IP-Internal Topic and Focus Phrases.” Unpublished ms. ,University of
Johnson, Kyle.(1991). “Object Positions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 9. PP.
-----------(2000). “How Far Will Quantifiers Go?”, in David Michaels, Roger Martin, & Juan
Uriagureka, eds., Step By Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik.
Cambridge , Mass.; MIT Press. PP. 187-210
Kayne, Richard. (1981). “On Certain Differences Between French and English. “ Linguistic
Inquiry Vol. 12. PP. 349-371
--------------------(1991). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press
.--------------------(1998). “Overt Vs. Covert Movement. “ Syntax, Vol. 1. PP. 128-191
Kennedy, Christopher. (1997). “Antecedent-Contained Deletion and The Syntax of
Quantification.”Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 28. PP. 662-688
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995). Phrase-Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.
Koopman, Hilda, & Anna Szabolcsi. (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press.
Laka, Itziar. (1990). Negation In Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections.
Cambridge, Mass.; Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Larson, Richard, & Robert May (1990). “Antecedent Containment or Vacuous Movement.” Reply
to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 21. PP. 103-122
Larson, Richard K. (1988). “ON the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.
CAPut!’. PP. 335-391
Lasnik, Howard.(1995). “A Note On Pseudo-Gapping.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol.
27. PP. 143-163
----------------(1999)a.”Chains of Arguments.”in Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein,
eds.,Working Minimalism.Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press. Pp. 189-215
----------------(1999b). “Three Accounts of Feature Strength.” Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 30. Pp.197217
----------------(2000). “Derivation and Representation In Modern Transformational Syntax.” In
Mark Baltin & Chris Collins, eds., Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford, U.K.,
Basil Blackwell & Sons. Pp. 62-88
Lasnik, Howard, & Mamoru Saito.(1991). “On the Subject of Infinitives.” CLS 27, Part 1: The
General Session, University of Chicago, Pp. 324-343
Levin, Beth, & Malka Rappaport (1988).”What To Do With -Roles.” In Wendy Wilkins, ed.,
Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 21: Thematic Relations. New York, Academic Press. Pp. 7-36
Levin, Nancy S. (1986). Main-Verb Ellipsis In Spoken English. New York. Garland Press.
May, Robert. (1985). Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press.
Perlmutter, David, & Paul M. Postal (1977). “Toward A Universal Characterization of
Passivization”. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
University of California, Berkeley.
Pesetsky, David (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press
Pollard, Carl, & Ivan Sag (1992). “Anaphors In English And The Scope of the Binding Theory.”
Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 23: PP. 261-305
Postal, Paul M. (1974). On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical
Implications. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press
Tanya Reinhart (1995). “ Interface Strategies. “Utrecht, OTS
Reinhart, Tanya, & Eric Reuland (1993). “Reflexivity”. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 24: Pp. 657720
Rizzi, Luigi (1978). “A Restructuring Rule In Italian Syntax.” In S. J. Keyser, ed. MIT Press ,
Recent Transformational Studies In European Languages. Cambridge, Mass.; PP. 113-158
Rizzi, Luigi (1997). “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”. In L. Haegeman, ed. Elements of
Grammar. Dordrecht; Kluwer, pp. 281-337
Sag, Ivan (1976). Deletion and Logical Form. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald (1979). “The Theoretical Implications of A Class of Marked Extractions.”
In Adriana Belletti, L. Brandi, & Luigi Rizzi, eds., Proceedings of the 1979 Glow Conference.
Pisa, Italy; Scuola Normale e Superiore
Zwart, C.J.W. (1996) Morphosyntax of Verb Movement:A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of
Dutch. Dordrecht; Kluwer
Department of Linguistics
719 Broadway, Room #514
New York University
New York, New York 10003