The Non-Unity of VP-Preposing*
Mark Baltin
Department of Linguistics
New York University
New York, New York 10003
719 Broadway, Room #424
mark.baltin@nyu.edu
August 3, 2005
1
Abstract:
This paper shows that a VP in English is only a VP at the outset of a derivation, and
that VP-preposing in English is in fact preposing of the internal arguments of the verb,
followed by remnant movement of the original VP. Therefore, English looks much more
like German (Muller (1998)), than it appears at first glance The evidence for the nonconstituency of the verb and its original arguments in preposed position comes from its
solution to what has been termed Pesetsky’s Paradox, in that an object of a preposed VP
can bind into an adverbial at the end of a sentence. The paradox results from the
incompatibility of the phenomenon with the conjunction of two assumptions: (i) binding
requires c-command; (ii) only constituents move.. Assumption (i) requires the object to
be higher than the adverbial, but the preposing of the verb and object to the exclusion of
the adverbial would then require that a non-constituent (the verb and object) prepose.
The paradoxical nature of the phenomenon rests on the two assumptions, and the paper
presents additional evidence that binding requires c-command, showing the contrasts
between topicalized VPs and topicalized PPs. The full set of binding phenomena can be
accounted for with a c-command requirement on binding, but cannot be accounted for
with a rival account of command that makes reference to grammatical functions, known
as o-command within HPSG (Pollard and Sag (1992, 1994) or ranking (Bresnan (2002))
or f-command (Dalrymple (1999)).
2
* This paper is an expanded version of a paper that will appear in A Festschrift for
Joseph Emonds, to be published by Mouton, edited by Wendy Wilkins, Vida Samiian,
and Simin Karimi. That paper deals with the structure of the VP in its canonical, nonfronted position, and does not deal with the VP-preposing construction dealt with here. A
version of it was presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, University of
Arizona, in September, 2003, and at the NYU Workshop on Remnant Movement,
October, 2003. I would like to thank those audiences, and in particular Paul Postal,
David Pesetsky, Guglielmo Cinque, Marcel den Dikken, Richard Kayne, Tom Leu,
Laura Rimmell, Howard Lasnik, and Chris Collins, for helpful comments. As usual,
they deserve all of the credit and none of the blame.
3
The Non-Unity of VP-Preposing
“We may look different, but we’re all the same”
Kerchak’s dying declaration, Tarzan, Walt Disney Productions
This paper has two goals. The first goal is to propose and defend an analysis of
VP-preposing in English that denies the constituency of the verb plus its complements in
fronted position; the second goal is to demonstrate that optional adverbials are generated
outside of the verb phrase.
The literary quote given above is a widely held view among formal linguists
about the grammars of natural language (see, for example, the papers in Cinque and
Kayne (2005)), and I will illustrate this principle with respect to a common phenomenon
in Germanic languages known as “remnant movement”, (den Besten and Webelhuth
(1990), Muller (1998)), in which a part of a phrase is extracted, and then the rest of the
phrase is moved. An example is given in (1 (Muller’s (1)(a)):
(1) [ Gelesen] hat [
read
has
[IP
das Buch
keiner t1]
the bookacc no-onenom
No-one has read the book.
4
Muller presents extensive evidence that  in (1) is a VP in which the object of
gelesen ‘read’ ,das Buch, has first been scrambled out of the VP, with the VP minus its
object then topicalizing. In English, this is impossible:
(2) *Read he the book.
In English, topicalizing the VP would require taking the object along with the verb,
as in (3):
(3) Read the book he did__.
Following a tradition in Germanic syntax (Thiersch (1985), den Besten &
Webelhuth (1987, 1990), Muller argues that the unavailability of remnant movement in
English is due to English’s lack of scrambling. However, it seems that English does in
fact have scrambling (Johnson (2001), Baltin (2003)), evidenced in the English pseudogapping construction as in (4):
(4) Although he didn’t give BOOKS to Sally, he did___MAGAZINES .
Assuming that only constituents undergo processes such as movement or
deletion,1 and that deletion takes place only under structural identity, the objects (books
1
Richard Oehrle points out that this assumption is controversial, pointing to examples
such as (i), which involves what has been thought to be non-coinstituent conjunction (see
Dowty (1985) , for example), and (ii), which involves a multiple focus for a cleft
sentence:
(i)
John visited Sally on Tuesday and Mary on Wednesday.
(ii)
It was in Boston on Saturday that I saw her.
These examples are interesting, and while I have no comment on (ii), (i) has been
analyzed by Larson (1988) as involving across-the –board verb movement, with the
object being generated in the Spec of the lower VP and the temporal being generated as
its complement. Briefly (we will deal with Larson’s analysis more below), Larson
analyzes transitive VPs as complements to an empty V, with the lexical V then moving to
this empty V Hence, the structure of (i) would be (iii):
(iii) [ vP [DP John][ v [VP[VP Sally[V’ visit on Wednesday ] and [VP Mary [V’
visit on Thursday]].
5
in the subordinate clause, and magazines in the main clause), would have to move out of
the VPs prior to the deletion, so that the sequence give to Sally is a constituent.
Assuming the correctness of this analysis, the unavailability of remnant movement in
English cannot be attributed to English’s’ lacking scrambling, and would remain
mysterious.
In the remainder of this paper, I will show that English not only has scrambling, but
is like German in that VP topicalization is really remnant movement, so that the verb
plus object in (3) does not constitute a single VP, but that the structure of (3) is really
(5)2:
(5)
CP
C’
C
V
Read
TopP
VP
Top’
V’
Top
DPi
t
AgrP
DPi
the book
Agr’
Agr
TP
DP
T’
He
T
VP
Did
t
The main verb visit would then move in across-the-board fashion out of both
conjuncts. Hence, non-constituent conjunction arguably does not exist, and the
assumption that only constituents undergo grammatical processes is not refuted by this
type of phenomenon. Of course, (ii) would also require an account.
2
A word about this structure is necessary. I am assuming for concreteness an analysis of
topicalizaion along the lines of Rizzi (1997), in which there is a dedicated Topic Phrase,
and the topic of a sentence would have to move to the specifier of a topic phrase.
6
My evidence for this structure will come from an analysis of binding into clause-final
adverbials from within fronted VPs, first discussed in Pesetsky (1995):
(6) a.Visit themi he did on each otheri’s birthdays.
b. Visit many prisonersi he did at theiri lawyers’ requests.
The binding requirements from a fronted VP into a clause-final adverbial have
caused some discussion within what can roughly be called “Chomskyan” syntactic
theories (Minimalist and environs). I will discuss the noteworthy aspects of this
construction, and Minimalist attempts to account for its properties. After discussing the
problems with previous accounts of these properties, I will present my own analysis, in
which the verb plus object do not form a constituent in fronted position. One might
reasonably ask whether my conclusions would hold in other frameworks, such as HeadDriven Phrase-Structure Grammar ( Pollard & Sag (1992), (1994)) or Lexical-Functional
Grammar (Bresnan (2002), Dalrymple (1999)). I will show some drawbacks to these
approaches to binding, in comparing binding from fronted VPs with binding from fronted
PPs. It will therefore become clear that the analysis of binding presented here is not
based on purely parochial assumptions, and has solid empirical support.
It is helpful to tirst discuss an influential view within Chomskyan linguistics of the
English verb phrase, that of Larson (1988).
I. Binding and C-Command
Barss & Lasnik (1986) observed that when English verb phrases contain two
nominal complements, the first complement can apparently bind into the second, but not
vice versa.
(7) a. I introduced themi to each otheri.
7
b. * I introduced each otheri to themi.
(8) a. I introduced many studentsi to theiri teachers.
b. *I introduced theiri teachers to many studentsi.
Larson assumes, as do I , the definition of binding given in (9), the binding
principles given in (10), and the constraint on relating pronouns to quantified antecedents
in (11):
(9)  binds  if and only if  c-commands  and  and  are co-indexed.
(10)Binding Principles:
Principle A= An anaphor must be bound in its minimal domain.
Principle B= A pronoun must be free (i.e. not bound) in its minimal domain.
Principle C= R-expressions must be free.3,4
(11)A pronoun that is related to a quantified nominal must be bound by the quantified
nominal.5
3
I am simplifying greatly, so as not to get bogged down in historical details of the
binding theory that are not relevant to the issues in this paper. In particular, Larson
assumed Chomsky’s (1981) Government-Binding Theory, which claimed that there was
a structural notion of government, which subsumed some relevant notion of command
and locality, and implied a notion of a governing category, so that the Binding Principles
were really believed to be:
Principle A= An anaphor must be bound in its governing category.
Principle B= A pronoun must be free in its governing category.
Principle C= An R-Expression must be free.
Because the notion of a governing category is no longer employed (see, e.g., Chomsky
(1995) for reasons), I will simply leave the binding principles as given in the text. My
concerns are with the relevant notion of command for binding.
4
The R in R-expression stands for Referring, and is meant to be a regular nominal with
a fixed reference, such as John, the man in the brown hat, the book, etc., as opposed to
pronouns and anaphors, which have variable reference.
5
Again, I am simplifying, in that certain pronouns can be related to quantified
expressions but not be bound by them, a species of pronouns that Evans (1980) called Epronouns.
8
One final factor that is necessary, which I will consider in greater detail in Section VII,
is the failure of certain prepositions to count for c-command, as in (12):
(12)a. I talked [PP to themi][PP about each otheri].
b. I talked [ to many prisonersi][PP about theiri problems].
c.
*It seemed [to himi] that Johni would lose.
In (12)(a), the object of to can apparently bind into the PP headed by about, as in
(12)(b). In (12)(c), if to is ignored for binding, the sentence is ruled out by Principle C.
The apparent failure of certain prepositions to block c-command is extremely
problematic, on the face of it, for a definition of binding that relies on c-command; as
Paul Postal (personal communication) has emphasized, c-command is a formal principle,
meant to be defined on the formal geometry of phrase-markers. It cannot be simply
stipulated as being ignored. Indeed, this apparent failure of such PPs to block ccommand has led to alternative notions of command in Head-Driven Phrase-Structure
Grammar (Pollard & Sag (1992)) and Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan (2002)). I
will consider these alternatives to c-command later, and will point to a problem that they
share which indicates that their notions of command are in fact too weak to account for
the data.
II.
The hierarchical structure of the English verb phrase
A. VP- Shells
Based on the above principles of binding, c-command, and presumed invisibility of
PPs for the computation of the latter, an English verb phrase with a verb and two internal
arguments cannot exhibit ternary branching, as in (13):
9
(13)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
I
T’
T
VP
Past
V’
V
DP
PP
introduce them
P’
P
DP
to
each other
Given that PPs are not computed for c-command, ternary branching within the V’
would cause DP and PP to symmetrically c-command each other, and would incorrectly
predict grammaticality for (7)(b) and (8)(b). We therefore need a structure in which the
object asymmetrically c-commands the PP. Larson’s structure is given in (14):
10
(14)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
We
T’
T
VP
Past
V’
V
e
VP
DP
V’
them
V
PP
introduce
P
P’
DP
to
each other
This structure is known as the “VP-shell” hypothesis, in that the highest VP is headed by
an empty verb, which takes the lower VP as a complement. The object is generated as
the specifier of this lower VP, and the PP is the lexical verb’s complement. The lower
verb then moves to the higher, empty verb, yielding the structure in (15):
11
(15)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
T’
We T
VP
Past
V’
Vi
VP
introduce DPj
them
V’
Vi
PP
t
P’
P
to
DPj
each other
B. Adverbials
The same considerations of binding lead Larson and, apparently, us, to place
adverbials as complements of the lexical VP. For instance, the object can bind into a
temporal adverbial in (16):
(16)I visited them on each other’s birthdays.
The structure of (16) would therefore be (17):
12
(17)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
I
T’
T
VP
Past
V’
V
VP
DP
V’
them
V
PP
visit
P’
P
on
DP
DP
D’
Each other ‘s birthdays
What is noteworthy about this structure for adverbials is that it obliterates the
distinction between arguments, such as objects and indirect objects, and modifiers, such
as temporals, locatives, conditionals, etc. The structure is the same. If the distinction is
made anywhere, it is in the lexical entry for the main predicate,with objects, for example,
only being possible if explicitly mentioned in the lexical entry for the verb, and
modifiers being generally possible. An argument that Larson makes for this structure for
adverbials is that it eliminates what has been called non-constituent conjunction, as in
(18):
(18)I visited Sally on Tuesday and Martha on Wednesday..
13
The structure for (18) is given in (19):
(19)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
I
T’
T
VP
Past
V’
V
VP
e
VP
DP
Sally V
and
V’
PP
visit on
Tuesday
VP
DP
Martha
V’
V
visit
PP
on Wednesday
The lexical verb in each of the two conjoined VP complements of the empty higher V
will move in across-the-board fashion to the empty V, yielding (18). In this way, nonconstituent conjunction, sanctioned in other frameworks such as Categorial Grammar
(Dowty (1985)), can be avoided, and we can keep to the requirement that only
constituents can conjoin.6
Later in this paper, I will show that the traditional generative treatment of
adverbials, in that they are generated outside of the subcategorization domain of the
In Baltin (to appear a), Larson’s analysis of conjunction is adapted to the VP-structure
that is advocated in this paper.
6
14
verb, V’, is correct, but I must first discuss a problem that this analysis poses for the
assumption that only constituents can move.
III.
Pesetsky’s Paradox
Again, assuming c-command, we appear to be forced into the structure (18), in which
the object c-commands the adverbial, and hence the verb and the object never form a
constituent, to the exclusion of the adverbial. The standard assumption in generative
grammar is that only constituents undergo grammatrical processes such as movement.
How, then, can we account for the possibility of VP-preposing in which the verb and
object prepose, leaving an adverbial in clause-final position and containing material
which must be bound by the object, as in (20)?
(20)Visit many studentsi he did on theirj birthdays.
This, then, is Pesetsky’s Paradox, noted in Pesetsky (1995): the assumption that only
constituents move forces the verb and object to form a constituent, but the assumption
that binding requires c-command prohibits the verb from forming a constituent.
It must be emphasized, however, that the paradox rests on the assumption
that binding requires c-command, an assumption that is by no means uncontroversial in
formal syntax.7 Other theories of grammar, such as Head-Driven Phrase-Structure
Grammar (Pollard & Sag (1992,1994) and Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan
(20002), Dalrymple (1999)) do not share this assumption, and therefore would, as far as
I can see,
be able to accommodate a structure such as (21) for (17):8
7
I am indebted to Richard Oehrle for forcing me to come to grips with this point.
The structure in (21) 9s not intended as a faithful representation of LFG and HPSG in
all respects. There are countless aspects of (21) that would be disavowed by proponents
of those frameworks, such as a label for the node T, the DP analysis of nominals, etc.
What I am claiming, however, is that the hierarchical structure in (21), in which the verb
8
15
(21)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
T’
I
T’
T
V
visited
PP
VP
P’
V’
P
DP P
them P
DP
DP
D”
On
each other ‘s birthdays.
For expository purporses, it will be helpful to refer to the empirical phenomenon
itself, without any theoretical account of its cause. Let us therefore refer to Pesetsky’s
Paradox effects as binding from a preposed consituent into a clause-final adverbial,
keeping in mind that the paradox exists only under one set of assumptions about binding
and movement dependencies.
In Section VII,, I will provide further evidence for c-command, and against
the notions of c-command and f-command, showing that Pesetsky’s Paradox truly
does imply a phrase-structure in which the object is higher than the adverbial.
Before I proceed in motivating my analysis, however, I must digress and discuss two
treatments of Pesetsky’s Paradox effects that essentially reconstruct the fronted VP
into its original position that alter the structure within the preposed VP and its trace,
and object form a constituent that does not contain the PP, would be countenanced by
those frameworks.
16
allowing the moved element and its trace (construcd as a copy) to have distinct
structures.
IV. Cascades and Flexible Constituency Solutions to Pesetsky’s Paradox.
A. Cascades
To solve Pesetsky’s Paradox, Pesetsky (1995) posits two types of structural
representations for sentences:(i) cascade structures, in which rightward linear order
within a projection implies right branching,; (ii) layered structures, in which rightward
linear order is compatible with left branching, and two different modules of grammar
might require different structures, so that binding would require cascade structures, and
movement and ellipsis would require layered structures (see Steedman (1995) for a
related idea). Pesetsky eschews Larson’s VP-shell structure, and instead proposes a
structure in which the object is in fact a specifier of the temporal PP, so that a cascade
structure for (16) would be (22):
17
(22) C”
C’
C
T”
D” i
I
T’
T
past
V”
D”i
t
V’
V
visit
P”
D” j
them
P’
P
D”
on
D” j
each other D
D’
N”
‘s
birthdays
The layered structure which would allow the movement of the verb and the direct
object, stranding the temporal adverbial, would be (23):
18
(23) C”
C’
C
T”
D”i
I
T’
T
Past
V”
D”i
t
V’
V’
P”
V
D”j
visit
them
P’
P
on
D”
D”j
D’
each other D
N”
‘s birthdays
Pesetsky posits principles that relate cascade structures to layered structures.
We will return to this account, examining its ability to handle similar phenomena,
after examining the account of Phillips (1996, 2003).
B. Flexible Constituency
Phillips (1996, 2003) is essentially concerned with the unification of grammatical
and parsing mechanisms. Given his (and my) assumption that parsing is by its very
nature dynamic, constantly altering structure with the addition of more input(i.e. new
lexical items being encountered in the speech or reading stream), the grammar must
reflect this dynamism. The claim that the grammar and the parser are identical has
implications for the treatment of extraction phenomena as well. Consider leftward
extractions, which are handled in, e.g. minimalism as copy plus deletion in a bottom-to-
19
top procedure (i.e. Merge (Chomsky (1995), with the copy created at a point after the
original element is merged. The parser encounters a reversed sequence, with the
“moved” element (i.e. the copy) encountered prior to the position in which it is licensed
(i.e. its theta-position if an argument, or “base” position if an adjunct).
Therefore, Phillips’ grammar creates phrase-markers in a top-down fashion, with the
displaced element generated in its displaced position, and is copied in its canonical
position. Given that constituents can be altered in the course of the derivation, the
copy’s internal structure can be altered in the course of adding additional material.
Phillips’ example is given in (24).
(24)(Phillips’ (29))a….and [give the books to themi in the garden] he
did_- on each otheri’s birthdays.
i. and [give the books to themi] he did__in the garden on
each otheri’s birthdays.
The relevant portions of (24) are generated as follows. Phillips does not adopt
Pesetsky’s cascade structures, but rather Larson’s structure for the internal VP, in which
a series of empty V positions are generated, but in reverse. Assuming that VP-preposing
is adjunction to IP, the initial portion of the second conjunct in (24)) will be (25).
(Phillips’ (30)(a)):
20
(25)
IP
VP
V
IP
VP
give
NP
I
he
did
V’
NP
books V
PP
give P
NP
to
them
The “trace” of the preposed VP (copy-traces in italics) is then copied as the
complement of I, causing the I to project to I’:
(26)(Phillips’ (30)(b))
IP
VP
V
give
IP
VP
NP
NP
V’
books V
he
PP
give P
to
NP
them
I’
I
did
VP
V
give
VP
NP
books
V’
V
give
PP
P
NP
to
them
Finally, adding an adverbial to a trace alters the internal structure of the trace, in this
case the dative PP:
21
(27)(Phillips’ (30) (c ))
IP
VP
V
give
IP
NP
VP
NP
V’
books V
he
PP
give P
to
NP
I’
I
did
VP
V
give
them
VP
NP
books
V’
V
PP
give P
VP
to NP
V’
them V
PP
give on each
other’s
birthdays.
V.
Evidence for a Higher Placement of Adverbials
Pesetsky’s and Phillips’ solutions to Pesetsky’s Paradox rely on reconstruction
of the VP which alters the VP’s constituent structure in a way that forces the
adverbial to be generated lower than the direct object. However, there is a great deal
of evidence that the adverbial must be generated higher than the direct object, outside
of the VP, evidence that I will now marshal.
With this in mind, consider sentences such as (28), in which a quantifier object
must bind a variable inside of an adverbial.
22
(28)Visit every prisoneri though I may after hisi lawyer visits himi, it won’t
matter.
Phillips discusses such cases of variable-binding, which is standardly assumed
to require c-command, as does anaphoric binding. However, consider (29), in
which the VP in the temporal phrase deletes:
(29)Visit every prisoneri though I may after hisi lawyer does___, it won’t
matter.
If the temporal is merged low within the copied VP, this would be a case of
antecedent-contained deletion. To see this, consider the structure that Phillips’
system would posit:
(30)
PP
VP
V
Visit
P’
NP
P
every prisoner though
IP
NP
I
I’
I
may
VP
V
visit
VP
NP
PP
every prisoner P
IP
after NP
I’
his lawyer I
does
VP
visit him
23
In this case, the deleted VP, indicated as deleted by bolding, is contained within its
antecedent. Unless some mechanism now gets the null VP out of its antecedent, this is a
case of the much-discussed antecedent-contained deletion ( Bouton (1970), May (1985),
Baltin (1987), Larson & May (1990), Fox (2002) and many others), and would lead
to ungrammaticality if the null VP is allowed to remain within its antecedent, due to an
infinite regress problem in determining its antecedent’s identity.
Hence, Phillips’ parser is recovering, and his grammar is generating, a structure that
still needs to be altered in order to avoid antecedent-contained deletion.
One influential view as to how to resolve the problem of antecedent-contained
deletion (henceforth ACD) has invoked quantifier-raising at LF out of the antecedent VP
(May (1985)’s idea). One might reasonably take the subordinate clause ACD as being
resolved by LF movement out of the antecedent, in which case the possibility of ACD
here would tell us nothing about the overt position of the subordinate clause.
Most examples of ACD have focused on relative clauses that contain the null VP, as
in (31):
(31) I ate everything you did___.
There have been two main approaches to ACD in the literature: the LF-evacuation
approach, originally advocated in May (1985), which situates the null VP within its
antecedent in the overt syntax, but removes it by an LF operation, Quantifier Raising, so
that the null VP is not within its antecedent at LF; and the overt evacuation approach,
advocated in Baltin (1987), in which the null VP is removed from its antecedent by an
overt operation ( such as extraposition, as advocated in Baltin (1987)).
24
It is clear that at least some cases of ACD would be straightforwardly resolved by
placing the null VP outside of its antecedent in the first place.
In this case, for instance, adverbial subordinate clauses are treated as nonquantificational modifiers in most standard semantics texts (Larson & Segal (1995),
Heim & Kratzer (1998)). Hence, the QR approach is at least inconsistent with the
semantic treatment of adverbial modifiers. We can still capture the fact that antecedent
resolution in apparent ACD cases tracks scope by reading scope off of the overt
syntactic structure. Fox and Nissenbaum, (2002), for example, note that ACD forces a
de re reading of the subordinate clause when the matrix clause is included in the
antecedent VP for the null VP in (32).
(32) (Fox and Nissenbaum’s (3):
a. Room 1 wants to have dinner before Room 2 does < want to have dinner>
b. Room 1 wants to have dinner before Room 2 does < have dinner>.
As they note, (32(a) has only the de re reading (the reading where Room 1 doesn’t
know what time Room 2 wants to have dinner, but picks a time which happens to be
before Room 2’s desired time) while (32)(b) has the de dicto reading (the reading where
Room 1 says “I want to have dinner before Room 2 has dinner.”). However, we can
simply posit one structure for the adverbial in which it is included within the matrix VP,
forcing the de dicto reading, and another in which it is outside of it, yielding the de re
reading. In this way, the adjunct is never contained within the VP to which it is
adjoined, and its scope is read off of its adjunction position.
The same facts requiring a higher position for the adverbial obtain even when the VP is
not preposed.
25
(33) I visited every prisoneri after hisi lawyer did__.
Notice that, unlike (29), the object binds a variable in the subordinate clause in the
non-preposed position. We will return to the mechanism by which the object ccommands the subordinate clause in both the preposed and non-preposed positions
(Pesetsky’s Paradox) shortly. For now, however, we can see that the scope of the
subordinate clause must be contained within the scope of the object. If the object
undergoes QR as well, this is perfectly consistent with the LF scope account of QR.
However, notice that what is doing the work here is the movement of the object out
of the VP, in this case by QR. If the object is moving out of the VP, this is consistent
with the adverbial being higher than the VP.
The parallels between variable-binding by a quantifier into an adverbial and
binding by an antecedent into an anaphor inside of the adverbial (i.e. Pesetsky’s
Paradox effects) cry out, I would claim, for a unified treatment. Assuming that
binding requires c-command, the object must c-command the adverbial. QR would
accomplish the higher movement of the object in the case of variable-binding, but
would have nothing to say about the cases of anaphoric binding, assuming that the
antecedent objects for the latter case need not undergo QR (i.e., proper names, for
example).
One view of LF movement of the objects, Hornstein’s (1995) view, does
not tie LF movement to QR. Hornstein argues at length that the movement in question
is not specifically quantificational, but is in fact LF-movement to the Spec of a higher
Agr projection outside of the VP for Case-checking purposes. We will see below,
26
however, when we look at the evidence from pseudo-gapping, that the movement is in
fact overt rather than covert.i
In the next section, we will see evidence from the British English do that supports
a structure in which the adverbial is outside of the VP at all stages of the derivation.
C..British English Do
British English contains a type of VP-anaphora which looks,to all intents and purposes,
like a variant of VP-ellipsis, so that (34)(a) and (34)(b) are, as far as I can determine,
equivalent:
(34)(a) John will read the book, and Fred will__, too.
(b) John will read the book, and Fred will do, too.
However, there is a crucial difference between VP-ellipsis and British English doanaphora. A VP-ellipsis gap, as is well-known (see, e.g., Hankamer & Sag (1976) and,
for a recent lucid discussion of this issue, Kennedy (to appear)), exhibits internal
structure, in the sense that it must house elements that would have originated in an overt
phrasal counterpart of the gap. For example, VP-internal wh-phrases can appear within
the gap:
(35)Although I don’t know which book Fred will read, I do know which book
Tom will[____t].
Also, an understood quantified object within the VP-ellipsis gap can take inverse
scope over the subject, presumably by QR of the object over the subject:
(36)Some man will read every book, and some woman will __too. (allows the
understood every book to scope over some woman).
Lasnik (1995) also provides evidence that internal arguments extract from an elided VP
27
in the pseudo-gapping construction:
(37)a. Although he didn’t give books to Sally, he did__magazines.
b. Although he wouldn’t put books on the table, he would___on
the mantlepiece.
When we turn our attention to British English do-anaphora, however, we find a
striking contrast. British English do does not tolerate any of the diagnostics for internal
structure, so that wh-traces are impossible within the VP covered up by do.
(38)* Although I don’t know which book Fred will read, I do know which book Tom
will do.
Inverse scope is impossible in the British English do construction:
(39)Some man will read every book, and some woman will do too. (can only be
understood with the subject scoping over the object, including the understood
object in the second conjunct.).
The pseudo-gapping construction is impossible in the British English do construction:
(40)*Although I won’t put the book on the table, I will do__on the mantelpiece.
Given this, we would not want to derive British English do in the same way in which
we derive the VP-ellipsis construction. The most natural account of the difference would
be to derive VP-ellipsis by deletion of the VP after the relevant operations ( whmovement, QR, A-movement in the pseudo-gapping construction) occur, while British
English do would really be a Pro- VP. For concreteness, let us follow Postal’s (1966)
view of pronouns as determiners, and view British English do as v (or perhaps a lexical
instantiation of Kratzer’s (1994) category Voice). In short, the overt pro-form is really a
functional head, but perhaps a syntactically intransitive one, lacking a lexical
28
complement in the syntax but having the semantic features of its typical complement in
its lexical representation. Because the complement (in this case, a VP, but for typical
pronouns, an NP) is not present syntactically, there would be no source for elements that
would have to be generated within the complement. Hence, the structure of a clause with
British English do will be as in (41):
(41)
C”
C’
C
T”
D”
T’
John
T
M”
Past
M’
M
v”
will
D” v’
t
v
do
Given the lack of a syntactic VP, we can now test the hypothesis that adverbials
originate within the VP. We would predict ,if VP-internal generation were correct, that
the adverbial would not be able to co-occur with British English do, just as other
elements which are assumed to have a VP-internal origin cannot. However, VP-internal
origination for these adverbials is disconfirmed. Such adverbials occur perfectly in this
construction, as we can see for the locative and benefactive, two examples:
(42) a.Although he wouldn’t visit Sally on her birthday, he would do on
her
anniversary.
29
b .Although he wouldn’t bake a cake for Sally, he would do for Mary.
We have seen, then, two pieces of evidence for a VP-external origin for the adverbials
that are overtly c-commanded by the object. Before positing a solution, I would like to
note one more case of constituency clash in which an adverbial must be c-commanded
by material within the VP, but the c-commanding material must be the verb itself. This
can be seen in the so-called applicative constructions in the Bantu languages, discussed
by M. Baker (1988) and Pyllkanen(2002). An applicative construction is one in which
an argument is apparently added to the argument structure of a verb, and the role of the
argument is marked by a morpheme added to the verb (the applicative marker).
Pyllkanen makes a distinction between high and low applicatives, depending on whether
the argument is generated outside of the VP (high) or inside of the VP (low). She takes
the benefactive to be a high applicative, a conclusion dove-tailing with my own
arguments that the English benefactive must be generated outside of the VP. An example
is given in (43)9:
(43) (Pyllkanen’s ((12)(b))
N-a-i-zric-i-a
(Chaga)
mbuya.
FOC-1SG-PRES-eat-APPL-FV
9-friend.
He is running for a friend. (from Bresnan and Moshi (1993))
An anonymous reviewer suggests that this is not really a case of Pesetsky’s Paradox in
the same sense as in the text, because it is assumed that high applicatives are really
attaching to v, the empty higher V in Larson’s analysis. However, the verb is also clearly
attaching to v, and so the applicative is indirectly attaching to an element that does not ccommand it in the initial representation, just as the object ends up c-commanding the
adverbial in English, although it does not c-command it at the beginning of the
derivation.
9
30
However, if we assume Baker’s (1988) analysis of the applicative marker as heading the
argument phrase and then incorporating into the verb, we would, on the face of it, have
movement to a non-c-commanding position, unless the verb itself moves still higher,
before the applicative morpheme incorporates into it.
In a certain sense, then, the phenomenon of Pesetsky’s Paradox is quite general.
An adverbial that must be generated high will show evidence of c-command by VPinternal material. The answer which was suggested in the previous paragraph, and which
I will try to present in greater detail in the next section, is to move the VP-internal
material to a higher position than the adverbial.
Specifically, the object must move out
of the VP to a position that is higher than the adverbial, followed by movement of the rest
of the VP.
IV.The Proposed Analysis
To recap, we need a clausal structure that will have the following two properties:
1. the adverbial must be outside of the VP which it
modifies;
2. (ii) VP-internal material must c-command the
adverbial.
On the face of it, these two properties would seem to be contradictory. The
contradiction is illusory, however. I will now try to posit a structure that satisfies these
two requirements.
Let us first consider a simple sentence with a transitive verb, such as (44):
(44) John visited Sally.
31
A great deal of evidence has accumulated for the position of Johnson (1991) that
objects move overtly out of the VP, so that the structure of (44) is at least (45):
(45)
C”
C’
C
T”
D” i
John
T’
T
Past
V”0
D” i
t
V’
Agr”
Vk
Visit
D” j
Sally
Agr’
Agr
V”1
V’
Vk
D”j
t
t
Lasnik (1995) takes pseudo-gapping to provide evidence for the structure in (45).Pseudogapping, as exemplified in (46), is analyzed as VP-ellipsis of V”1, after the remnant has
moved out.
(46)Although he didn’t visit Martha, he did ___Sally.
Evidence for pseudo-gapping as phrasal deletion is seen in (47), in which sequences
larger than a single word delete.
(47)Although he wouldn’t give books to Sally, he would___magazines.
32
Baltin (2003) shows that all internal arguments of a verb have to be allowed to vacate
V”1, as can be seen in (48), allowing for multiple arguments to be stranded:
(48)Although I wouldn’t give books to Martha, I would ___magazines to Sally.
In Lasnik’s analysis, if V”1 does not delete, V1, the head, moves to v (V0 here).
Baltin (2002) argues, however, that the verbal movement is phrasal movement, remnant
movement, rather than head movement, on the basis of examples such as (49):
(49)Although I didn’t try to persuade Sally, I did____Martha.
Hence, the structure of (50) would have to be (51):
(50)I tried to persuade Martha.
(51)
C”
C’
T”
C
D”
I
T’
T
Z”
Past
V”
tried to persuade
Z’
Z
Agr”
D”
Sally
Agr’
Agr
V”
t
A word about the movement of V” in (51) is in order. I analyze it as movement to the
specifier position of a higher functional projection, which I label Z here for expository
convenience. I suspect that Z is really Pred0, as in Bowers (1993), given that the same
considerations that motivate verbal movement in the instances of pseudo-gapping in the
33
literature hold for movement of complex adjectival constructions, as in (52), discussed
in Baltin (2002), as well as of predicate nominals such as (53), originally noted by Chris
Collins.
(52)Although he isn’t very fond of Sally, he is__of Martha. (understood: very
fond).
(53) Although he isn’t a student of physics, he is__of chemistry.
In any event, Johnson (2001) identifies the movement of the argument out of V”1 in the
pseudo-gapping construction as the same process of object scrambling in Dutch, which
operates out of infinitives into matrix clauses and which Baltin (2003) shows to be Amovement. V” would then move to [Spec, Z”], in this case as remnant movement.
In short, there is a great deal of evidence for movement of verbal complements,
followed by remnant movement of the VP, from the original positions of these elements.
With this in mind, we are now in a position to account for the crucial properties of
adverbials, (i) and (ii), that were isolated at the beginning of this section.
A comprehensive analysis of adverbials has recently been suggested by Cinque
(1999), which takes clause structure to be much more articulated than has previously
been thought, with functional heads such as Temp (for temporal), Ben (for benefactive),
etc. Cinque’s analysis is based on a large cross-linguistic study of the ordering of
adverbials and the order of verbal affixes that express the semantic notions of those
adverbials. I propose that the object shifts out of the VP, and the VP then preposes, in
a position subordinate to the adverbial. The VP then moves higher than the adverbial,
followed by the object shifting to a position higher than the adverbial.
34
One word about the structure that I will propose that will not be motivated until
Section VIII, when I discuss movements involving PPs. I propose that the object shifts
and the VP preposes twice in the middle field when an adverbial is generated-once below
the adverbial, and once above it. Hence, the structure will be as in (54):
35
(54)
C”
C’
C
T”
D”
I
T’
T
Z”
V”
Z’
Past
V’
V DP
Visit t
Z
AgrP
DP
them
Agr’
Agr
Temp”
PP
Temp’
On each Temp
Z”
Other’s
birthdays
V”
Z’
t
Z
Agr P
t
In (54),
Agr’
Agr
V”
t
t
Temp would be generated above the VP, but lower than [Spec, Agr”], the
home of the shifted object, and lower than [Spec, vP], the home of the shifted VP.
36
We are now in a position to solve Pesetsky’s paradox, in which
fronted VPs contain objects that can bind adjuncts in final position.
A. Pesetsky’s Paradox Revisited
The analysis of object shift, VP-movement to [Spec, ZP] above the adverbial would
seem to work fine for cases in which the VP is in its canonical position, but we still have
not accounted for the hard cases, in which the VP is preposed as a constituent, but can
strand an adjunct within which the object can bind, as in (6), repeated here:
(6) John said that he would visit the children, and visit them he did __on each other’s
birthdays.
My proposal to handle the preposed case is quite simple. The object shifts out of the
VP in the middle field, and the VP then moves leftward, perhaps to a topic position
(Rizzi (1997)), by remnant movement. The object then moves immediately below the
VP. In short, the structure of the second conjunct is really (55).
37
(55)
CP
C’
C
TopP
VP
V’
V t
visit
Top’
Top
AgrP
DP
Them
Agr’
Agr
TP
DP
He
T’
T
Did
ZP
VP
t
Z’
Z
AgrP
DP
t
Agr’
Agr
PP
TempP
Temp’
On each other’s Temp ZP
birthdays
V.Correlations Between Pesetsky’s Paradox Effects and The Possibility of
Pseudo-Gapping
The evidence for this derivation will come from an examination of the correlation
between the restrictions on pseudo-gapping and the restrictions on Pesetsky’s Paradox
effects. Simply put, Pesetsky’s Paradox effects will be predicted not to occur when the
extraction that is evidenced by pseudo-gapping is not possible. Needless to say, these
38
correlations will not be expected under either a flexible constituency approach or a
cascades approach to Pesetsky’s Paradox.
Recall that object shift can take place out of infinitives, as seen in (49) for
English pseudo-gapping, and in Dutch object-scrambling shown below. We would
therefore predict Pesetsky’s Paradox to exhibit itself between the object of a preposed
infinitive and a final adjunct. To my ear,and those of my informants, the facts bear out
this prediction:
(56) Try to visit every prisoneri though I may after hisi lawyer does___, I’m not sure
that I’ll be successful.
I will now demonstrate two restrictions on object shift: (i) inability to apply out of an
infinitive when a DP intervenes; (ii) inability to apply out of an infinitive that is
introduced by an overt complementizer.
I will then show the same restrictions applying
in the VP-topicalization construction with respect to Pesetsky’s Paradox effects.
A.The Minimal Link Condition
Pseudo-gapping can delete a sequence of verbs, with the condition that the
sequence not be interrupted by an overt DP. Hence, (57) is not a possible pseudogapping sentence(deletion indicated by bolding):
(57)* Although I didn’t try to persuade Sally to visit Martha, I did < try to persuade
Sally to visit> Susan.
Assuming that pseudo-gapping is A-movement of an argument out of the inner VP,
followed by ellipsis of that VP, it seems plausible to locate this restriction on pseudogapping within the Minimal Link Condition. The object of persuade would intervene
between the object of visit and a position outside of the matrix VP, and hence movement
39
of the object of visit, Susan, to this higher position would violate the requirement of
Shortest Move (Chomsky (1995), Rizzi (1990)). Presumably, the farthest that the object
of the infinitive VP could move would be to a position outside of its own VP.
We can then test whether object shift is responsible for the Pesetsky’s Paradox effects
by topicalizing a complex VP and seeing whether the embedded object can bind a
variable in an adjunct at the end of the sentence. The object shift account predicts that
this will be impossible, and the results seem to bear this out:
(58)* Persuade Sally to visit every studenti though I may on hisi graduation day, it
won’t matter.
One might attribute the unacceptability of (58) to its complexity. However, (59) seems
much improved to me and my informants:
(59) Persuade Sally to visit Tomi though I may on hisi graduation day, it won’t
matter.
The contrast between (58) and (59) is accounted for straightforwardly in the present
account. The relation between persuade’s object and the pronoun in (58) must be one of
variable binding, which requires c-command. The analogous relation in (59) is simple
coreference, without binding.
B. The No-Overt Complementizer Restriction on A-Movement
Johnson (2000) shows that arguments can scramble out of infinitives into the
matrix clause in Dutch, as in (60) (Johnson’s (28)), but not when the infinitive is
introduced by an overt complementizer, as in (61) (Johnson’s (29)):
(60)…dat Jan Marie1 heeft geprobeerd [ t1 te kussen].
….that Jan Marie has
tried
to kiss.
40
… that Jan has tried to kiss Marie.
(61)* …dat Jan Marie1 heeft geprobeerd [ om t1 te kussen].
….that Jan Marie has
tried
C0 to kiss.
… that Jan has tried to kiss Marie.
Recall that Johnson (2001) is taking object scrambling to be the process that
removes the argument from the inner VP in pseudo-gapping before that VP deletes. We
might then ask whether we can test the restriction on argument removal from an English
infinitive that is introduced by an overt complementizer. English, of course, has the forcomplementizer, but an infinitive that is introduced by for has a lexical subject. PRO is
clearly not counted as an intervening subject for the Minimal Link Condition (as seen in
(26))), a fact that is interesting in its own right. However, movement of an argument
over a lexical subject will violate the MLC, as in (62):
(62)*Although I wouldn’t hope for Sally to visit Martha, I would <hope for Sally to
visit> Susan.
Hence, in order to test for the restriction on A-movement out of an infinitive that is
introduced by an overt complementizer, we would need to find a complementizer which
introduces non-finite clauses in English and which does not take a lexical subject.
One such case exists: the complementizer from, originally discussed in Postal (1974)
and then by Baltin (1995) and Landau(2002), as in (63):
(63) He refrained [from PRO visiting Martha]. (position of PRO irrelevant).
Landau (2002) analyzes from as a complementizer. Assuming this to be correct, we note
that it is impossible to pseudo-gap a sequence of verbs that includes from:
41
(64)*Although he didn’t refrain from visiting Martha, he did <refrain from
visiting> Susan.
Contrasting with (64) is (65):
(65)Although he didn’t stop visiting Martha, he did < stop visiting> Susan.
Kayne (1981), who noted the ban on raising out of infinitives that are introduced by
overt complementizers in the Romance languages (de in French, and di in Italian)
suggested that the restriction was due to the ECP. However, an ECP account would
predict a subject-object asymmetry in the class of extractable elements from this position,
and (38) would suggest that the ban must have another source. I would suggest that the
ban is due to Chomsky’s (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition, in which the phases are
vP and CP; the Phase Impenetrability Condition limits extraction out of a phase to the
Spec and head positions of the phase. Presumably, the object of a from-gerund extracts
to a position within the gerund.
With this in mind, consider the following contrast:
(66)*Refrain from visiting every studenti though she may on hisi graduation day, it
won’t matter.
(67) Refrain from visiting Tomi though she may on hisi graduation day, it won’t
matter.
Assuming the contrast between (66) and (67),( 66) would be ruled out by the
requirement that the object quantifier c-command a variable that it binds. Because the
object cannot move out of the from-complement, the requisite c-command relation will
not obtain. Given that the embedded object in (67) is not a quantifier, it can be related to
the pronoun by simple coreference, which does not require c-command.
42
Needless to say, the flexible constituency approach would have nothing to say
about the contrasts between (58) and (59, or (66) and (67). The cascade theory fares a bit
better with respect to the contrast between (58) and (59), since “argument categories” DP
and CP block cascade formation, and hence the assumption that from is a complementizer
would block cascade formation within it of the temporal adjunct. However, the cascade
approach should still treat (58) and (59) on a par given that the infinitive is presumably
of the same categorical type in both instances. The flexible constituency approach should
allow the copied VP to be altered at the point of encountering the adjunct at the end of the
copied sequence in all of these cases. The present account, however, takes the possibility
of seeing Pesetsky’s Paradox effects to correlate with the possibility of argument-shifting
out of the embedded VP in the pseudo-gapping construction. Taken together with the
possibility of eliding the VP in a clause-final subordinate clause which shows evidence of
c-command by an object within a fronted VP, it seems that an overt movement, within a
single type of representation of constituency, is preferable to either a dual constituency
approach or a flexible constituency approach.
VI.
The Necessity for C-Command in Binding
It would be helpful, at this point, to review the central empirical findings in this paper,
and to ascertain how solid is the support for the constituent structures that this paper
advocates.
I have shown that :
(i)
an object can bind into an adverbial.
(ii)
The adverbial must be outside of the VP.
I have assumed that binding requires c-command, and it is the requirement of ccommand that has provided the bulk of the motivation for constituent structures in which
43
the object is outside of the VP, shifting to a position higher than the adverbial. Without
this assumption, it might be possible to place the object within the VP and place the
adverbial in some higher position. The claim that binding requires c-command is
controversial ( Pollard & Sag (1992), (1994)); Bresnan (2002), Dalrymple (1999)). One
alternative, when one leaves minimalism and travels to Head-Driven Phrase-Structure
Grammar (Pollard & Sag), or Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan, Dalrymple), is to
posit a hierarchy of grammatical functions, as in (68):
(68) SUBJ<<OBJECT<<INDIRECT OBJECT<<OBLIQUE
Crucially, grammatical functions, in these theories, are not reducible to phrasestructure configurations, and the idea is that elements that are higher on the hierarchy can
bind elements that are lower, but not vice-versa (This is termed o(bliqueness)-command
in Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar, and f|(unction)-command in LexicalFunctional Grammar.
A full comparison of c-command, o-command, and f-command is obviously beyond
the scope of this paper, but a few remarks seem to be in order, due to the centrality of
this issue to the question of what is the right structure of English sentences. I will
therefore discuss a central point that has been made in arguing against c-command, and
will show that the facts that these authors assume are actually much less clear than they
indicate, showing a problem for o-command and f-command as well as c-command.
A. Binding out of PPs
One crucial point that Pollard & Sag (1992) make for o-command, and against
c-command, is that the object of a preposition can sometimes bind out of a PP, as in
(69):
44
(69) He talked to themi about each otheri.
The invisibility of certain prepositions to c-command is a much-discussed topic in the
syntactic literature (van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986), McCloskey (1984), Baltin &
Postal (1996), Hornstein & Weinberg (1981), among many others). One early way of
accounting for this phenomenon within a c-command approach to binding, due to
Hornstein & Weinberg, posited a reanalysis of the verb and contiguous preposition into a
verb, so that a slightly more articulated structure for (69) is as in (70):
(70)He [ VP [V talked to][DP themi][PP [P about][DP each otheri]]
After reanalysis, which alters the constituent structure, the original object of to ccommands the second PP, and everything within it.
Pollard & Sag provide convincing arguments against reanalysis, as do, in my view,
Baltin & Postal. The HPSG account, which relies on o-command, takes the PP headed
by to to be an indirect object, which, according to the obliqueness hierarchy in (68),
outranks obliques, such as the PP headed by about.
As can be seen from the hierarchy in (68), direct objects also outrank
obliques, and if binding simply makes reference to grammatical functions which are
claimed to be independent of phrase-marker configurations, there would be no paradox
in Pesetsky’s Paradox.
However, the claim that binding out of PPs simply supports o-command or fcommand ignores the fact, pointed out originally by van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986,
p. 203), and again by Baltin and Postal (1996) , that PPs fronted by A-bar movements,
such as wh-movement or topicalization, do not allow binding out of them:
(71)a. *To whomi did he talk about each otheri?
45
a. *To these peoplei he talked about each otheri.
b. ?* To many prisonersi he talked about theiri lawyers.
It seems that stranding the preposition improves acceptability:
(72)a. Who did he talk to__about each other?
a. These people he talked to about each other.
b.
Many prisonersi he talked to about theiri lawyers.
In short, the claim that o-command or f-command is the relevant notion of binding is
too strong, because it assumes that the preposition is irrelevant in all instances. This
assumption is also occasionally made by researchers who work within a c-command
framework. For example, Pesetsky (1995) makes this claim when he posits a notion that
he dubs EPP (Everything but PP) command, and Kayne (2005) makes essentially the
same claim when he argues that the preposition and what is normally considered to be its
object never in fact forms a constituent. Rather, he argues, in Appendix #1 of that
article, that the object moves independently, followed by movement of the preposition
plus any specifiers (the actual order of the two movements is not important, only that
there be two independent movements).
This view of movement would fail to
distinguish (71) from Pesetsky’s Paradox phenomena that I have discussed.
However, one must then ask how to account for the fact that prepositions plus
following DPs act like a constituent in fronted position, but not before fronting.
A further factor that is relevant is that it is only fronting to clause-initial position that
seems to require that PPs, consisting of a preposition and a following DP, block ccommand by the contained DP. In pseudo-gapping, for example, it is possible to have
remnants consisting of the two PPs, and the first DP can bind the second:
46
(73) Although he didn’t talk to these people about Tom and Sally, he did____to
those peoplei about each otheri.
The most promising avenue to pursue in accounting for these phenomena
would seem to be to adapt Kayne’s (2005) view that prepositions do not start out forming
a constituent with the following DPs. In Kayne’s view, a sentence like (74) would start
out, assuming that phrase-markers are built from the bottom up by Merge, as (75)::
(74)I talked to them.
(75)
a. Merge talk and them, creating a “VP” [ talk them]
c. Merge to and VP, creating [ to [VP talk them]]
d. Move them to a position between to and VP, creating [to them [VP talk
t]
e.
Move VP to a position in the Spec of to, creating [ [VP talk t][ to[
them [ VP t]]
The scope of Kayne’s analysis is unclear, since he explicitly claims that he is
only considering what have been called “grammatical prepositions”, i.e. prepositions
without much semantic content which seem to serve a purely grammatical function, such
as Case-marking. To is included in this system, but the status of about is unclear. Let
us therefore take about to be outside the set of prepositions that Kayne is discussing, and
take the about PP to be a specifier of some projection above the PP.
The structure of
(69) would therefore be (76):
47
(76)
CP
C’
C
TP
DP
T’
T
ZP
VP
V’
V
Talk
Z’
Z
toP
to’
to
AgrP
DP
Agr’
Them
Agr
VP
t
It remains to provide a structure, within this account, for the about –PP. Let us
assume for the sake of argument, following Reinhart & Reuland (1993), that the aboutPP in this construction is an adjunct, and we are assuming that adjuncts are really, as in
Cinque’s (1999) analysis, specfiers of higher functional projections. For concret\enss,
we shall call the projection that hosts the about-PP Topic . The pre-topicalization
structure of (69) would be (77):
48
(77)
TP
DP
He
T’
T
ZP
Z’
VP
V’
V
talked
Z
TopP
PP
About each
Other
TopP
Top’
Top
ZP
VP
t
Z’
Z
toP
to’
to
AgrP
DP
Agr’
t
This is the need for requiring two sequences of movement of the VP plus object- one
subordinate to the adverbial, and one superordinate- that was promised earlier in Section
IV. We need to prepose the VP to a position before the adverbial, but allow the object of
the VP to remain below the adverbial. ToP is then topicalizing, and it includes the
object. (77) represents the structure:
49
(77)TopP
toP
Top’
to’
Top
to AgrP
DP
TP
DP
Agr’
He
Them Agr VP
T’
T
Past
ZP
VP
Z’
V’
Z
TopP
V
PP
Top’
Talk
P’
Top
P
DP
About each other
ZP
VP
t
Z’
Z
toP
T
The object is contained within toP, and hence fails to c-command the
anaphor in clause-final position. While one may object to the complexity of this
derivation, it has the virtue of accounting for the facts in a way that the o-command
rquirement on binding does not.
50
If we say that toP moves to [Spec, TopP] (for topicalization) or [Spec,, CP] (for whmovement), we get the impossibility of binding ihat is exhibited in (71) if c-command is
a requirement for binding. If o-command or f-command are required in stead of ccommand, we cannot account for the contrasts between (71) and (69).
The contrast between topicalization and wh-movement involving PPs and VP
topicalization has a natural account in the analysis that I am proposing here. Consider the
structure that would be necessary for PP-topicalization to involve remnant movement of
the PP, followed by A-movement of the nominal.
(78)CP
C’
TopP
PP
Top’
P’
Top
AgrP
P
DP
Agr’
To
them
Agr
TP
DP
T’
We
T
ZP
VP
V’
Z’
Z
AgrP
talked
The problem with this structure is that it requires that the PP in [Spec, TopP] be a topic,
but grammatical prepositions such as to, with intuitively light or non-existent semantic
51
content, are not conceivable topics. More formally, the PP cannot plausibly be given a
topic feature. I assume a principle discussed in Chomsky (1995):
(79)Pied-pipe just enough material as is necessary.
In this case, we must ask why pied-piping the preposition is possible, given (10), and
especially given the fact that in most dialects of English, it is possible to leave behind, or
“strand”, the preposition, as in (80):
(80)Who did he talk to___?
The clue, I believe, lies in the fact that preposition-stranding is not possible in all
languages, and even in languages that do allow preposition-stranding, such as English
and Dutch, not all prepositions allow stranding. For example, van Riemsdijk (1978)
shows an interesting restriction on the prepositions which can strand. There are a subset
of locative prepositions which do not allow the normal third person singular pronoun het
as their objects, but rather require that the third person singular pronoun be expressed as a
locative er, normally expressing there. Furthermore, when the pronoun er is used, it
must precede the preposition, rather than follow it. The preposition op ‘on’ is such a
preposition, and so the state of affairs that I have just described is sketched in (81):
(81)a.*op het –on it
b. *op er- on it
c.
er-op- on it
According to van Riemsdijk, it is these and only these prepositions in Dutch which
allow stranding. van Riemsdijk’s analysis of preposition-stranding runs as follows. The
irregular third-person pronouns, which are called R-pronouns, move to the specifiers of
the prepositions which require them as third-person singular pronouns, accounting for
52
the word order R-pronoun- preposition, rather than the normal word order in which the
preposition precedes its object. van Riemsdijk proposes that it is just the possibility of
the preposition having an occupied specifier that allows stranding, so that the specifier
position is really an escape hatch for an element that moves out of the PP.
We can adopt van Riemsdijk’s analysis for English preposition-stranding as well, if
we allow the lexical entries for the prepositions to optionally allow a filled specifier. If
the lexical entry does not choose to specify a fillable specifier position, obligatory piedpiping will result. If it does specify the fillable specifier, the preposition will strand. In
fact, McDaniel, McKee, & Bernstein (1998) report that in some languages, such as
Swedish, stranding is obligatory, and pied piping is impossible. In such languages, the
feature on the preposition that requires a filled specifier is obligatory. Hence, we have
the following two options:
(82)a. To whom did he speak? (first option)
b.Whom did he speak to? (second option)
In short, the difference between PP-topicalization and VP-topicalization reduces to
this- PP topicalization is really topicalization of the nominal while VP-topicalization is
really topicalization of the projection that is headed by the verb.
VII. Why doesn’t English look like German, if VP-preposing is the same in both
languages?
In this paper, I have argued that English VP-preposing is actually like
German VP-preposing, despite superficial differences. However, these superficial
differences exist-namely, the object of the VP can remain behind in what German
53
scholars call “the middle field” (i.e., the middle of the clause) in German, but not in
English.
Muller (1998) suggests that the difference between English and German reduces
to the possibility of scrambling the arguments of a verb out of the VP in German, but not
in English (Muller, additionally, assumes that VP-topicalization in English is movement of
a single VP).
English, however, does seem to have scrambling, and Johnson (2000), (2001)
has identified the process in English that removes a verb’s internal arguments in the
pseudo-gapping construction with Dutch object scrambling; Baltin (2003) has identified
further parallels with the two processes.
Rather, the difference between languages such as Dutch, German, Japanese, and
Hindi, on the one hand, and English, on the other seems to lie in the need for the verb
(or remnant VP) to subsequently move to the left of the scrambled arguments.
It still remains to determine the basis for the need for the head to precede its internal
arguments. Collins (2001) has suggested, within a minimalist framework, that selection
by a head for its internal arguments may reduce to feature-checking, so that a head’s
selectional features may require checking to see if the features have been satisfied.
Although a verification of this conjecture is clearly beyond the scope of this paper,
and requires investigation of a much wider language base, I would suggest that all
languages are scrambling languages, but that the languages in which scrambling is visible
are the OV languages ( the afore-mentioned languages of Dutch, German, Japanese and
Hindi, for example), while the VO languages are those that require subsequent movement
of the head to the left of the “scrambled” arguments in order to license them.
54
If this descriptive observation holds, we must account for it . One way to do so
would be to exploit two distinct mechanisms for feature-checking proposed by Chomsky
(2000,2001). One mechanism would specify on a head the requirement that a particular
feature be checked in the head’s specifier position (this is known as an EPP-feature, or
Extended Projection Principle feature). Another mechanism would check the head’s
feature on an element that it c-commands, by a mechanism that is known as Agree.
We might suggest that OV languages are those in which selectional features are
EPP features, requiring movement to the specifier position, while VO languages are
those in which selectional features are checked by Agree, requiring c-command.
One
line of research within Minimalism continues to hold the distinction between overt and
covert syntax, although this is controversial (Groat & O’Neil (1996), Bobaljik (2002), Fox
(2002)). If we assume that there is a covert syntax component that follows overt syntax,
and Agree is part of covert syntax, we can guarantee that, in VO languages, selectional
features will be checked late, after overt syntax.
If we assume that VP-topicalization is really object scrambling plus remnant
VP movement, this would guarantee that in languages in which selection is checked by
Agree, the verb must precede its complements in the overt syntax. However, this only
gets us part of the way. For example, we can see the following contrast:
(83)Suggest though he may that Sally is a murderer, it won’t matter.
(84)Dash though he may into the schoolyard, into the schoolyard.
(85) *Visit though he may Sally, it won’t matter.
The constructions in (14-16) have been discussed previously under the rubric of
extraposition, involving rightward movement of the CP in (83) , the PP in (84), and the
55
DP in (85) (see Baltin (1981), (to appear b)), but the remnant movement approach that
this paper advocates suggests a different approach- scrambling of the verb’s internal
arguments, followed by leftward movement of the remainder of the VP. One immediate
advantage of this approach is that it predicts that the class of “extraposable” constituents
should coincide with the class of constituents that scramble. By and large, this seems to
hold. Baltin (2000) characterizes the class of elements that can serve as pseudo-gapping
remnants, which are analyzed as having scrambled, as the class of non-predicative,
“saturated”, constituents. So, for example, APs are not possible pseudo-gapping
remnants:
(86)* Although he didn’t become angry, he did___sad.
And similarly, APs cannot occur in “extraposed” position:
(87)*Become though he may angry, it won’t matter.
In the current approach, there is no extraposition- just scrambling of an argument
out of the VP, followed by further leftward movement of the rest of the VP.
However, the phrase “by and large” in the previous paragraph is inadequate in
formal syntax. The class of pseudo-gapping remnants includes one type of element that
does not occur in extraposed position in English- an argument nominal. Although (85) is
unacceptable, (88) is perfect:
(88)Although he didn’t visit Sally, he did___Martha.
Within a Principles and Parameters framework, such as Minimalism, nominals
would be distinguished from other saturated arguments by the need to have their Case
checked, and the difference between (14) and (15), on the one hand, and (16), on the
other, may be that the intervening material between the verb and the object prevents the
56
object’s Case feature from being Checked (or the verb’s Case feature from being
checked). Chomsky (1994), for example, suggests that an adverb that intervenes
between a verb and its object will prevent the object’s Case from being checked due to
Rizzi’s Relativized Minimality (Rizzi (1990)) constraint.
In short, I am proposing that English has the same scrambling options that have been
proposed for other languages that have been described as scrambling languages, but the
selectional mechanisms of the heads of English’s constituents will require that the head
and its projections precede the arguments, thus acting as a kind of “filter”.
In the analysis of VP-topicalization that is being proposed in this paper, in which it is
not a single VP that occurs in preposed position , but a remnant VP that precedes the
verb’s internal arguments, an intransitive verb can clearly topicalize, as in (89):
(89)Laugh he did.
Thus, the verb does not need internal arguments in preposed position. VPtopicalization, then, cannot be said to be triggered by a need to assign selectional
features to the verb’s internal arguments.
The object, on the other hand, cannot be interpreted as scrambled if it occurs
to the left of the verb in English. It can be interpreted as a topic if it occurs before the
subject, but I am assuming, following Rizzi (1997), that it is in [Spec, TopP] then.
Assuming that no TopP is generated in the middle field, following T, Hence, the
object in (15) could only be parsed as being in a “scrambled” A-position. The primary
evidence that this position is an A-position is the often-noted observation that clausebound scrambling can serve as the input to binding (Mahajan (1990) makes this
observation for Hindi, and it is often repeated in other scrambling languages, as in Baltin
57
(2003) for Dutch scrambling, as well as English scrambling as evidenced in the pseudogapping construction). In this position, however, it cannot participate in Casechecking, unless the verb is adjacent to it and c-commands it. This need for the verb to
check Case by Agree would distinguish SVO languages from SOV languages, assuming
Kayne’s (1994) claim that SVO is the basic word order in the world’s languages. The
latter would check their Case in the overt syntax in the Spec of a Case-checking
projection, while the former would check Case by Agree in the Logical Form, or Covert,
component.
In sum, the results of this paper might lead to the conjecture that all languages can
scramble, but that the effects of scrambling will only be visible in some languages.
VIII.Conclusion
This paper motivates an analysis of the VP in which the verb’s
complements vacate the VP in derived structure, and that VP-preposing is somewhat
of a misnomer, in that while the VP preposes, material which is originally part of the
VP preposes as well, but not as part of the VP.
We suggest that the distinction
between scrambling and non-scrambling languages is somewhat misleading as well,
in that we see that languages such as English are also scrambling languages, and
have the same intrinsic possibilities for scrambling that languages such as Japanese,
Hindi, German, and Dutch; the chief difference between English and these other
languages is that the latter do not require the verb to end up higher than the verb’s
arguments, while English does. The contrasts between VP-topicalization and PPtopicalization lend additional support to the former’s being remnant movement, but
not the latter, and supports the c-command requirement on binding rather than the o-
58
command requirement. We see that this analysis also yields an account of Pesetsky’s
Paradox effects, which really is a paradox, since c-command is a real requirement on
binding.
References:
Alsina, A., J. Bresnan, and P. Sells (1997) Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications .
Baker, Mark (1988), Incorporation, University of Chicago Press
Baltin, Mark (1981. “ Strict Bounding”. In C. L. Baker and J. McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of
Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baltin, Mark (1987) “ Do Antecedent-Contained Deletions Exist?”, Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 4, 279-295.
Baltin, Mark (1995) “Floating Quantifiers, PRO, and Predication”, Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 2, 199-248.
Baltin, Mark (2000) “Implications of Pseudo-Gapping for Binding and the Representation of Information
Structure”, unpublished paper, New York University (available at
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/lingu/people/faculty/baltin/)
Baltin, Mark (2002) “ Movement to the Higher V Is Remnant Movement”, Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 4, 653659.
Baltin, Mark (2003) “The Interaction of Ellipsis and Binding: Implications for the Sequencing of Principle
A”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,. 21,2, 215-246.
Baltin, Mark (to appear a), “The Position of Adverbials”, in Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy
Wilkins, eds., Festshrift for Joseph Emonds, Mouton
Baltin, Mark (to appear b), “Extraposition”, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, eds., The Syntax
Companion, CD-Rom, Blackwell Publishing Company
Baltin, Mark and Paul Postal. 1996. More on Reanalysis Hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry
27.1, pgs. 127-145.
Baltin, Mark and Barrett, Leslie. 2002. The Null Content of Null Case. Unpublished ms, New York
University and Trans-Click Corporation. ,
Barss, A. and H. Lasnik 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects,” Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 17, pp.
347-354.
Belletti, Adriana and L. Rizzi (1988) “Psych-Verbs and -Theory”, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 6, 291-352.
Besten, H. den & G. Webelhuth (1987) “Remnant Topicalization and the Structure of VP in the Germanic
SOV Languages”, GLOW Newsletter, 18, 15-16.
Besten, H. den & G. Webelhuth (1990). “Stranding”, in Gunther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld,
59
eds., Scrambling and Barriers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. (2002). A-Chains at the PF-Interface: Copies and "Covert" Movement. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 20.2, 197-267
• Bouton, L, 1970.
"Antecedent contained pro-forms", in M. Campbell et al., (eds.), Proceedings of the
6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Bowers, John (1993) “ The Syntax of Predication”, Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 4, 591-656.
Bresnan, Joan. (2002). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishers.
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) “ Categories and Transformations”. In N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “ Derivation By Phase”. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life In
Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999), Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press
Cinque, Guglielmo(2002), paper presented at GLOW, University of Hyderabad, India
Cinque, Guglielmo and Richard Kayne , eds. (2005), The Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford
University Press
Collins, Chris (2001) “Eliminating Labels”, in Samuel Epstein and T. Daniel Seely, eds., Derivation and
Representation in the Minimalist Framework, Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Publishing Company, pp. 42-62
Dalrymple, Mary. (1999). The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford and Chicago: CSLI and University
of Chicago Press.
Dowty, David (1985). “Type Raising, Functional Composition, and Non-Constituent Conjunction”, in R.
Oehrle, E. Bach, & D. Wheeler, eds., Categorial Grammar and Natural Language Structures, Dordrecch:
Reidel, pp. 153-197
Evans, Gareth (1980), “Pronouns”, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp.337-362
Fox, Danny (2002) “ Antecedent-Contained Deletion and The Copy Theory of Movement”, Linguistic
Inquiry, 33, 1, 63-96.
Fox, Danny and Nissenbaum, Jon. Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt QR. in Sonya Bird, Andrew
Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, eds., Proceedings of WCCFL 18. 132-144. 99. Somerville,
MA, Cascadilla Press.
Groat, Erich, & John O’Neil (1996) “Spell-Out at the LF Interface”, in W. Abraham, S. Epstein, H.
Thrainsson, & C. J. W. de Zwart, eds., Minimal Ideas, Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.
97-113
Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. (1976). “Deep and Surface Anaphora”. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 7, pp. 391428
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998) Semantics In Generative Grammar. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell & Sons.
60
Hornsetin, Norbert (1995). Logical Form. Oxford, U.K: Blackwell Publishing Company
Hornstein, Norbert and Amy Weinberg (1981), “Case Theory and Preposition Stranding”, Linguistic
Inquiry, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 55-91
Johnson, Kyle (1991) “Object Positions”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 4, 577-636.
Johnson, Kyle (2000) “ How Far Will Quantifiers Go?” In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagureka (eds.),
Step By Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, Kyle (2001) “ What VP-Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, But Not Why”. In M. Baltin and C.
Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell & Sons.
Kayne, Richard (1981) “ On Certain Differences Between French and English”, Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 3,
349-371.
Kayne, Richard (1994). The Antisymmstry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.,: MIT Press
Kayne, Richard (2005). “Prepositions as Probes”, in Richard Kayne, Movement and Silence, Oxford,
U.K: Oxford University Press, pp. 85-104
Kennedy, Chris (to appear).. “Ellipsis and Syntactic Representation”. In Schwabe, K. and S. Winkler,
(eds.), The Syntax-Semantics Interface: Interpreting (Omitted) Structure, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995).. Phrase-Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Koster, J. and E. Reuland, eds., (1991) Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Roryck, J. and Zaring, eds. Phrase
Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluver. 109-138.
Landau, Idan (2002) “ (Un)interpretable Neg in Comp”, Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 3, 465-492.
Landau, Idan (2004), “Partial VP-Fronting”, unpublished ms., Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Larson, Richard K. (1988) “ On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 2, 335-391.
Larson, Richard and Robert May. 1990. “Antecedent Containment or Vacuous Movement: Reply to
Baltin.” LI 21(1):103-122.
Larson, Richard, and Gabriel Segal (1995), Knowledge of Meaining, MIT Press
Lasnik, Howard (1995) A Note on Pseudo-Gapping. MIT Working Papers In Linguistics.
Lechner, W. (to appear). “ Movement and Phrase Structure Paradoxes”. In S. Schwabe & K. Winkler,
eds., Adding and Omitting. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lobeck, Ann (1995), Ellipsis, Oxford University Press
Lobeck, Ann (1999), “VP Ellipsis and The Minimalist Program: Some Speculations and Proposals”, in S.
Lappin & E. Benmamoun, Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Oxford, U.K., Oxford University
Press
61
Mahajan, Anoop (1990). The A/ A-Bar Distinction in Syntax. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
May, R. (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McDaniel, Dana, Cecile McKee, Judy B. Bernstein (1998) "How Children's Relatives Solve a Problem for
Minimalism," Language 74.2, 308-334.
McCloskey, James (1984). “Raising, Subcategorization, and Selection in Modern Irish”, Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 441-485
Muller, Gereon (1998), Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in
German, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David and E. Torrego (2001) T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Michael
Kenstowicx (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Phillips, Colin.(1996) Order and Structure. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA.,.
Phillips, Colin (2003) “Linear Order and Constituency”, Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 1, 37-90.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. (1992). “Anaphors in English and the Scope of the Binding Theory.”
Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 23, pp. 261-305
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar. Stanford and Chicago: CSLI
and University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul. (1969). “On So-Called Pronouns in English”, in D. Reibel & S. Schane, eds., , Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich, New York
Postal, P. (1974) On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Pyllkanen, Liina (2002, Introducing Arguments, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge ,
Mass.
Reinhart, Tanya and E. Reuland “Reflexivity”, Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 4, 657-720.
van Riemsdijk, Henk (1978), A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness, Dordrecht: Foris
van Riemsdijk, Henk, and Edwin Williams (1986), Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery”, in Liliane Haegeman, ed., Elements of
Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281-337
Steedman, M. (1995) Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62
Thiersch, Craig. (1985).”VP and Scrambling in the German Mittelfeld. Ms., University of Tilburg
Williams, E. (2003) Representation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zwart, C. J. W. (1997) The Morphosyntax of Dutch Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax
of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
63
i
In fact, Landau (2004) has recently advocated an approach to Pesetsky’s Paradox effects that is somewhat
similar to mine, in that it relies on movement of the object out of the VP to a position that c-commands the
adverbial. However, Landau, unlike the present account, takes the movement to be covert, and hence
cannot account for the correlations with pseudo-gapping that are discussed below.
64