_______________________________________________________ Paul Hagstrom, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Linguistics Boston University
Second Reader _______________________________________________________ Shigeru Miyagawa, Ph.D. Professor of Linguistics Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Third Reader
_______________________________________________________ Kyle Johnson, Ph.D. Professor of Linguistics University of Massachusetts, Amherst
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One summer night in 2005, I read a bed time story for my 2 year-old son, written in Korean, the title of which was Mwues-i mwues-i ttok kasul ka? ‘Which of those are identical?’ While I was reading the book to him, I wondered what the syntactic structure of this title would look like and supposed that it should be a Right Node Raising (RNR) construction. My interest in RNR has begun with the title of this old Korean children’s book, so I wish to thank the author for inspiring me with the initial input for my dissertation topic. I should admit, however, that I still have not figured out for sure whether or how I can analyze the sentence as RNR, even after having completed this dissertation. Other than the author of that book, there are several people to whom I am deeply grateful for. First, I would like to thank for my advisor, Paul Hagstrom. I have bothered him in every possible way a graduate student can. Paul has been always available for meetings, including late in the evening and during his sabbatical. He has sincerely answered all kinds of linguistics questions that I have had during my graduate school years – syntax, semantics, language acquisition, and even information structure. His insightful answers to, and comments on, my questions have led to the discussion of my linguistic work in the past five years. Since he was so good at organizing ideas, I always had a hope that he could convert my unorganized thoughts into linguistic generalizations. Of course, he has never disappointed me. He has been thoughtful and patient to read and comment on many drafts of this dissertation, and kind enough to correct English grammar for my conference abstracts, term papers, manuscripts, and this dissertation, of course. Without his efforts, I could not have managed to present papers in many conferences in recent years, and submitted this dissertation as an accomplishment of my graduate school years at Boston University.
v There are also two external readers I have exploited for this dissertation: Shigeru Miyagawa and Kyle Johnson. I first met Miyagawa sensei ‘teacher’ in one of the MIT colloquium talks five years ago. Since then, he has always been interested in what I am doing and provided me with kind and encouraging words whenever I came across him. I was especially lucky that I was able to audit his syntax seminar course at MIT in fall 2005 where he presented his new ideas on Japanese focus movement in terms of satisfying the EPP. My ideas concerning the importance of contrastive focus for ellipsis in RNR was inspired by his lecture notes from that class. I owe an enormous debt to Kyle Johnson. Without the benefit of countless hours spent with him discussing the nature of the ellipsis feature of Right Node Raising and the right edge effects, this dissertation could not have come out as it is now. He has always clarified my vague ideas and pointed out what predictions I should be able to make—and then whether the prediction is borne out. Although I had to cut some part of my idea of this dissertation topic, “thanks” to him for his suggestions and comments, it did not take a long time for me to realize what he suggested was correct. I would also like to express my profound gratitude to the other committee members: Victor Manfredi and Cathy O’Connor. I was very lucky that I could have Victor in my thesis committee at the last minute. Even within a relatively short time, the influence on this dissertation was huge. Victor always pointed out the importance of the focus and prosody in Right Node Raising and convinced me to insert pitch contours for some of the examples. He also kindly agreed to be the subject for the voice recordings to be analyzed. Cathy also plays an important role in this dissertation. She made me realize how important context is in the examples of my dissertation. She provides me with a possible way to develop a corpus for RNR examples with using prompt phrases, such as if not, or let alone. I was not able to include the corpus data in this dissertation, due to the time limitation, but I am very thankful that
vi she gave me the next project to pursue. I also wish to show my sincere gratitude to Cathy, as the director of the Applied Linguistics program at Boston University, for her encouragement, financial and moral support. I want to thank other professors in the Applied Linguistics program at Boston University for providing me the wonderful environment for studying linguistics and psychology, and for undertaking research: Shanley Allen, Jonathan Barnes, Cathy Harris, Michela Ippolito, Jacqueline Leiderman, and Marnie Reed. I would also like to thank professors in the department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT, who generously let me audit their classes and have an occasional meeting for the past five years. Specifically, I would like to thank Danny Fox, Irene Heim, Shigeru Miyagawa, David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, and Ken Wexler. Portions of the material in this dissertation were presented at the 42nd annual Chicago Linguistics Society conference (CLS 42), the 3rd Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 3), the 37th North East Linguistics Society conference (NELS 37), the 81st annual Linguistic Society of America conference, the 15th annual Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE 15), and the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 4). I thank the audiences at those conferences for their questions and comments. I am indebted to the following people for judging English sentences for me: Jonathan Barnett, Eric Goldstein, Paul Hagstrom, Kyle Johnson, Victor Manfredi, and Cheryl Small. The following people also deserve special mention. I benefited from discussions with Klaus Abels, Duk-Ho An, Hee-Don An, Asaf Bachrach, Seth Cable, Dae-Ho Chung, Shin Fukuda, Steven Franks, Michela Ippolito, Roni Katzir, Shin-Sook Kim, Jason Merchant, Jairo Nunes, Jaehee Park, Jongun Park, Shoichi Takahashi, Mark de Vries, Hideaki Yamashita, and James Yoon.
vii Finally, I want to express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Bowon, and my son, Joshua, for their love, support and patience. I also wish to thank my parents and my brother who have given me the warm support and encouragement. This dissertation is dedicated to my family.
viii
ELLIPSIS, RIGHT NODE RAISING, AND ACROSS-THE-BOARD CONSTRUCTIONS (Order No.
)
SEUNGWAN HA Boston University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 2008 Major Professor: Paul Hagstrom, Associate Professor of Linguistics
ABSTRACT This dissertation investigates two unique syntactic structures in natural language, known as Right Node Raising (RNR) and Across-The-Board (ATB) constructions. It establishes a connection between these constructions and the more familiar ellipsis phenomenon, reducing RNR and ATB to special cases of backwards ellipsis under coordination. First, I review previous accounts of RNR – movement, phonological deletion, and multiple dominance – and provide arguments against them. I propose that RNR is best understood as an ellipsis phenomenon, on the grounds that RNR shares many properties with ellipsis such as sloppy identity and Vehicle Change (Fiengo and May 1994). Second, I discuss licensing conditions for RNR. I argue that the licensing conditions can be reduced to semantic identity; namely, the conjuncts must stand in a mutual entailment relation, modulo existential closure over focused material, at the point of semantic interpretation. Following Merchant’s (2001) feature analysis of sluicing, I propose that ellipsis in RNR is triggered by an ellipsis feature (the ERNR feature). An ERNR feature is only valued if three requirements are met: i) it enters the derivation with a contrastively focused lexical item, ii) at PF, the complement of the
ix feature is forced to be silent, and iii) a mutual entailment relationship between the conjuncts must be established. When all the conditions are satisfied, RNR is licensed. Third, I turn to the striking similarities between RNR and ATB constructions and argue that RNR constructions are the underlying structures for ATB constructions. A single occurrence of the RNR target undergoes movement to the topmost position, stopping by every intermediate phase. With this analysis, we can solve several long-standing mysteries about ATB constructions. The conceptual problem of two independent movement operations targeting a single landing site does not arise. Furthermore, the proposed analysis sheds new light on the origin of the “single-identity reading” of ATB constructions.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Right node raising and ellipsis……………………………………………….1 1.1 Right node raising………...………….………………………………………………………..3 1.1.1 Backwards anaphora constraint..………………..……………………………………….3 1.1.2 Backwards ellipsis is RNR.………………………..…………………………………….5 1.2 Properties of RNR………………………………………….………………………………….9 1.2.1 Syntactic properties…………………………………..………………………………….9 1.2.2 Semantic properties.……………………………………….…………………………...14 1.2.3 Prosodic properties……………………………………………………………………..17 1.2.4 Pragmatic properties……………………………………………………………………22 1.3 Overview………………….………………………………………………………………….23
Chapter 2 Syntax of right node raising……………………..……………………………27 2.1 Movement analyses…….…………………………………………………………………….31 2.1.1 Arguments for movement…………..…………………………………………………..32 2.1.2 Arguments against movement………………………..………………………………...36 2.1.2.1 Preposition stranding……………………………………………..………………...36 2.1.2.2 Island insensitivity………………………………………………………..……...38 2.1.2.3 Right roof constraint………..……………………...………………………………39 2.1.2.4 Non-constituents………….………………………………………………………..40 2.1.3 Sabbagh’s (2007) cyclic linearization…………………………….……………………41 2.1.3.1 Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) cyclic linearization………………..…………………...42 2.1.3.2 Cyclic linearization of RNR……………..…………………………………………43
xi 2.1.4 Challenges for Sabbagh’s analysis………..……………………………………………47 2.2 Non-movement accounts………….………………………………………………………….55 2.2.1 Strict phonological deletion account…………..…………………………………….…56 2.2.2 Multiple dominance account..………………………………….………………………59
Chapter 3 Right node raising is ellipsis………………………………………..………...74 3.1 Problems of the previous accounts..………………….………………………………………74 3.1.1 Vehicle change effects in RNR……………………………………..………………….75 3.1.2 Morphological mismatches in RNR…………….…………………..………………….83 3.1.3 Sloppy identity in RNR……………………………….………………..………………86 3.1.4 Parallelism in RNR………………………………………..………………………….90 3.1.5 Certain dialects of British do…………………………..…………………………….…98 3.1.6 Ellipsis vs. the strict phonological deletion……………..…………………………….100 3.2 Potential problems for the ellipsis account and solutions…………………………………103 3.2.1 Relational modifiers……………………….………………………………………….103 3.2.2 Korean relational modifier kakkak………………..…………………………………110 3.2.3 Scope differences………………………………………………..…………………….116
Chapter 4 Licensing right node raising…………………………………………..……..118 4.1 Structural isomorphism………………………………………………………….………….120 4.2 Semantic identity…………………………………………………………………………..122 4.3 The Hartmann-Féry analysis………………………………………………………………130 4.3.1 Focus structure and RNR.…………………………………………………………….131 4.3.2 Prosodic structure of RNR..…………………………………………………………..135
xii 4.4 Problems for the Hartmann-Féry analysis..………………………………………………...139
Chapter 5 The ERNR analysis……………..………………………………………..…….150 5.1 Ellipsis features…………………………………….……………………………………….150 5.1.1 Merchant (2001)………………………………………………………………………150 5.1.2 The ERNR feature…………………………….…………………………………………152 5.2 Consequences of ERNR………………………………….……………………………………159 5.2.1 RNR and deaccenting…………………………..……………………………………..160 5.2.2 Ellipsis properties………………………………..……………..……………………..162 5.2.2.1 Sloppy identity……………………………………….…………………………..162 5.2.2.2 Vehicle change……………………………………………………………………163 5.2.2.3 Morphological mismatches……………………………………………………….165 5.2.3 Double object-dative asymmetries………………..………………..…………………169 5.2.4 Korean dummy plural markers………………………………………………………..174 5.2.5 Structural mismatches………………………………………………………………..176 5.3 ERNR in verum focus…………………………………………………………………………177 5.4 Non-constituency in RNR revisited………………………………………………………...184 5.5 Right edge restriction under the ERNR analysis………………………………………………192 5.6 Summary of the ERNR analysis……………………………………………………………….193
Chapter 6 Across-The-Board constructions…………………………………...………..195 6.1 Coordinate structure constraint………………………………………………….…………196 6.2 Challenges for the CSC…………………………………………………………….…….…197 6.2.1 Multiple copies from movement………………………………………………..…….198
xiii 6.2.2 Single-identity reading…………………………………………………………..……198 6.2.3 Extractions out of only one conjunct………………………………………………....200 6.2.4 Lack of LF ATB movement………………………………………………………..…201 6.3 Alternative accounts………………………………………………………………………...203 6.3.1 Sideward movement…………………………………………………………………..203 6.3.2 Parasitic gap analysis…………………………………………………………………212 6.3.3 Multiple dominance…………………………………………………………………..215 6.3.3.1 Citko’s (2003, 2005) parallel merge……………………………………………..215 6.3.3.2 Bachrach and Katzir’s (2006a) delayed spellout…………………………………217 6.3.4 Conceptual problems for the multiple dominance accounts……………….…………224 6.3.4.1 Problems for the delayed spellout account………………………….……………224 6.3.4.2 Problems for the parallel merge account………………………………….……...226
Chapter 7 A RNR account of ATB constructions………….………….………..………229 7.1 Williams’ (1978) insight……………………………………………………………………230 7.2 Ellipsis and the apparent ATB movement…………………………………………….…….232 7.2.1 Similarity between RNR and ATB…………………………………………………...232 7.2.2 ERNR and successive cyclic wh-movement…………………………………………….235 7.2.3 The CSC revisited: Multidimensional analysis……………………………………….237 7.2.4 ERNR and the multidimensional view of the CSC……………………………………..240 7.2.5 ERNR and weak crossover effects………………………………………………………246 7.2.6 ERNR and ATB extractions from double object positions……………………………...247 7.3 Consequences…………………………………………………………………….…..……..250 7.3.1 Single-identity vs. paired answers…………………………………………..………250
xiv 7.3.1.1 Deriving paired answers…………………………………………………….……251 7.3.1.2 Deriving single-identity answers……………………………………………..…..252 7.3.2 Functional readings of bound pronominals…………………………………………...253 7.3.3 Movement out of the second conjunct………………………………………………..255 7.3.3.1 Selectional properties………………...…………………………………………..255 7.3.3.2 Crossover effects……….………………………………………………………...256 7.3.3.3 Island effects……………..……………………………………………………….258 7.3.3.4 Binding facts………..…………………………………………………………….261 7.4 Comparing analyses………....……………………………………………………………...263 7.4.1 The source of movement: Evidence against parasitic gap analyses..……………….263 7.4.2 The elided copy: Evidence against multiple dominance analyses……………..……..269 7.4.2.1 The paired interpretations…………..……………………………………..……...269 7.4.2.2 ATB left branch extraction and the right edge condition……….………………..270 7.4.3 Interim summary……………………………………..……………………………….274 7.5 ERNR and LF ATB constructions………………………….………………………………….275 7.5.1 ATB quantifier raising………………………………..………………………………275 7.5.2 Relational modifiers in RNR revisited……………………….……………………….279 7.6 ATB constructions irrelevant to RNR……………………………….……………………...283 7.6.1 DP coordination and the CSC…………………………………………………..…….283 7.6.2 Subject ATB constructions……………………………………………………………284 7.7 Gapping: ATB movement vs. vP-ellipsis…………………………………………………..286 7.8 Exceptional cases and information structure………………………………………………..287 7.8.1 Williams’ example revisited…………………………………………………………..287 7.8.2 Information structure………………………………………………………………….289
xv 7.8.3 ATB out of an ECM subject position…………………………………………………292
Table 1. Comparison between non-movement accounts…………………………………………98 Table 2. Resemblance vs. non-resemblance…………………………………………………….291
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Pitch contour of (30a)……..……………………………………………………………18 Figure 2. Pitch contour of right node raising (30b)…………………………………………….18 Figure 3. The upstep-downstep pitch contour in RNR…………………………………………..19 Figure 4. The upstep-downstep pitch contour in RNR………………………………………….135 Figure 5. Upstep in a RNR sentence……………………………………………………………137 Figure 6. Upstep and phrasing in gapping…...………………….………………………………144 Figure 7. Gapping without downstep……………………………………………………………145
xviii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A
Antecedent
ACC
Accusative case
ACD
Antecedent Contained Deletion
ATB
Across-The-Board
BAC
Backwards Anaphora Constraint
CONJ
Conjunction
CP
Complementizer Phrase
CSC
Coordinate Structure Constraint
DEC
Declarative marker
DM
Distributive Marker
DP
Determiner Phrase
DPM
Dummy Plural Marker
E
Ellipsis or Ellipsis feature
ECM
Exceptional Complement Marker
F
Focus marker
F-clo
Focus-closure
FocP
Focus Phrase
FUT
Future tense
H
High tone
IP
Intonation Phrase
L
Low tone
LBE
Left Branch Extraction
xix LCA
Linear Correspondence Axiom
LF
Logical Form
NPI
Negative Polarity Item
NOM
Nominative case
Op
Operator
PF
Phonological Form
PhP
Phonological Phrase
PL
Plural marker
PPI
Positive Polarity Item
PRES
Present tense
RER
Right Edge Restriction
RM
Relation Modifier
RNR
Right Node Raising
RRC
Right Roof Constraint
QR
Quantifier Raising
SG
Singular marker
TOP
Topicalization marker
TP
Tense Phrase
U
Utterance
VP
Verb Phrase
&P
Coordination Phrase
1
CHAPTER 1 RIGHT NODE RAISING AND ELLIPSIS
Right Node Raising (RNR) is a construction formed normally under coordination, where a gap appears in the first conjunct, as shown in (1a-c). It appears as if a single constituent has simultaneously moved out of each conjunct to the right edge of the sentence. This was the usual analysis of RNR and, in fact, the source of the name for the construction.
(1)
a. Mary LIKES, but Jane HATES – baseball. b. Mary CAN, but Bill CAN’T– swim across the river. c. John gave TO MARY, and Mary gave TO SUE – an expensive present.
RNR was first described and analyzed within generative grammar by Ross (1967) (under the name Backward Conjunction Reduction). The commonly used name Right Node Raising was invented by Postal (1974). Those traditional analyses treat RNR as being derived by rightward movement. There have been a couple of other approaches to the examples in (1) that do not appeal to movement; in some, the RNR target is deleted at PF under identity with its antecedent in the second conjunct (phonological deletion accounts), and in others the RNR target is shared by the conjuncts (multiple dominance accounts). However, the name “RNR” is still used in those analyses, despite its suggestion that movement is involved. In this dissertation, I will also use the
2 term “RNR” with no implication of movement. Rather, RNR refers to a variant of ellipsis in the first conjunct here.1 The aim of this dissertation is to dissolve the uniqueness of the RNR construction and provide a way to accommodate RNR within the more common phenomenon of ellipsis. To do so, I will discuss various properties of RNR at length, find commonalities between ellipsis and RNR, and account for some apparent differences between them. In the end, I will propose an ellipsis analysis of RNR. Another goal of this dissertation is to shed a new light on analyses of AcrossThe-Board (ATB) constructions. I will propose that the underlying structure of ATB constructions is RNR.2 The structure of this introductory chapter is as follows. In section 1.1, I will define what IS, and what is NOT – a RNR sentence.3 In particular, we will see evidence that what has been referred to as backwards ellipsis is, in fact, RNR. I will provide evidence that the distribution of backwards sluicing is closer to RNR than it is to forward sluicing, and that backward VP-ellipsis does not fit in licensing conditions of forward VP-ellipsis. 4 In section 1.2, I will outline the general properties of RNR in terms of syntax, semantics, prosody, and pragmatics, and address how they are similar to or different from forward ellipsis. This section will also provide background to the discussions in the subsequent chapters of this dissertation. In section 1.3, I will lay out the overview of the rest of the dissertation.
1
I will indicate RNRed materials with strikethrough inside an angled bracket. The properties of ATB constructions will be discussed in chapter 7. 3 Capital letters refer to accented materials, and what follows a hyphen (–) indicates a RNR target. 4 Forward ellipsis is defined as omitting material that follows the antecedent. Backwards ellipsis is just the opposite in the sense that the omitted material precedes its antecedent. 2
3
1.1 Right Node Raising This section is concerned with what counts as RNR. In this dissertation, RNR is defined as any sentence in coordination where a gap occurs in the first conjunct and its antecedent in the second. Therefore, all the examples in (1) are considered as RNR. RNR can even target expressions below the word-level in the first conjunct. A part of the word under-generation is elided in the first conjunct in (2a), and a similar case in German is observed in (2b), due to Hartmann (2000).
(2)
a. This analysis suffers from both UNDER- and OVER-generation. b. Frühlingsblumen
und Herbstblumen
Springtime flowers and autumn flowers (Hartmann 2000: 57)
An interesting question arises as to whether the gap in the first conjunct counts as VP-ellipsis or RNR in (1b). Apart from the fact that VP is elided in the first conjunct, rather than in the second, it appears be reasonable to assume that VP-ellipsis occurs here. Or we cannot tell at best whether it is RNR or VP ellipsis. In the next subsection, I will argue that (1b) is not an example of VP-ellipsis since the sentence does not follow licensing conditions of forward VP-ellipsis, and that it bears the same properties with RNR, which I will discuss in chapter 5 in more detail.
1.1.1 Backwards Anaphora Constraint In this subsection, I will examine whether backwards ellipsis is RNR. The first proposal about constraints on backwards ellipsis found in literature is the Backwards Anaphora Constraint (BAC), proposed by Langacker (1969), as given in (3).
4 (3)
Backwards Anaphora Constraint An anaphora preceding its antecedent needs to be contained in a subordinate clause.
Let us consider the examples in (4). In the case where backwards anaphora is contained in an adjunct clause, as in (4a), the BAC is satisfied because the adjunct is a subordinate clause of the antecedent. On the other hand, in a coordination of two matrix clauses as in (4b), the clause containing a cataphoric pronoun is not subordinated to the matrix clause; the first conjunct ccommands the second conjunct, assuming Boolean Phrase of the coordinate structure (Munn 1993, Zoerner 1995). Thus, the BAC would be disobeyed and the sentence is ungrammatical in (4b).
(4)
a. After shei bought a lot of apples from the farmer, Maryi sold them to her neighbors. b. *Shei bought an apple, and Maryi sold it to her neighbors.
Assuming that a null anaphora occupies the ellipsis site, Langacker claims the constraint applies to backwards ellipsis, too, with examples in (5a-b). If the clause containing ellipsis exists in the adjunct clause, as in (5a), the backwards anaphora is correctly predicted to be acceptable. On the other hand, when the ellipsis site is in the first conjunct of the coordinate structure, the backwards anaphora is predicted to be unacceptable, as shown in (5b).5
(5)
a. Because Billie didn’t pro, John drank beer. b. *Billie didn’t pro, but John drank beer.
5
The judgment is Langacker’s.
5 However, according to my informants, sentences, like (5b), have been judged grammatical with the focus in didn’t and beer as in (6). Winkler (2000) also shares this judgment. She claims that there may be a context where (5b) would be acceptable. For example, in the question-answer pair in (7), the answer becomes acceptable. This type of sentence will be revisited in chapter 5.
(6)
BILLIE DIDN’T , but JOHN drank beer.
(7)
Q: Who did and who didn't watch Casablanca? (Talking of Anne and Manny) A: ANNE DID but MANNY DIDN'T – watch Casablanca. (Winkler 2000: 6, fn 5)
If this is correct, it leads us to two important conclusions: First, the BAC is not applicable to backwards ellipsis, on the grounds that backwards anaphora in (4) CAN – but backwards ellipsis in (6) CANNOT – be explained by the BAC. Second, this implies that the site for backwards ellipsis is something other than a null anaphor. We will see more evidence in chapter 2.
1.1.2 Backwards ellipsis is RNR Assuming that the BAC is not the correct analysis for (5), we need to consider what backwards ellipsis is. As far as I know, there has been no other specific proposal for the nature of backwards ellipsis since Langacker (1969). Researchers generally assume that backwards ellipsis is just the reverse of forward ellipsis; for example, the VP gap is found in the first conjunct in backwards VP-ellipsis, rather than in the second conjunct. Now let us consider (8). (8a) is an example of forward VP-ellipsis. It is striking that (8b) is ungrammatical. (8b) is just minimally different from (8a) with respect to where VP-ellipsis
6 occurs; that is, the ellipsis site is the first conjunct in (8b). Therefore, if (8b) were a type of VPellipsis, then whatever licensing conditions allow VP-ellipsis in (8a) should also be able to license ellipsis in (8b). The ungrammaticality of (8b) shows that this is not the case.
(8)
a. John likes the show, and Mary does, too. b. *John does, and Mary likes the show, too.
Interestingly, if the dummy do is replaced by didn’t, so that the two conjuncts are in contrast, grammaticality dramatically improves, as shown in (9).
(9)
JOHN DIDN’T, but MARY liked the show.
This indicates that there is some difference between backwards ellipsis and forward ellipsis. The gap in the first conjunct seems to be neither a regular ellipsis nor a backwards anaphora. What is rather important for the elision to occur in first conjunct is to establish contrast between the conjuncts. Crucially, the same appears to hold for RNR. For example, (10a) is acceptable, but (10b) is not. Notice that a contrastive focus is assigned on the verb in (10a), but not in (10b). I will argue that what allows RNR in (10a) is the existence of the contrastive focus in the first conjunct (Hartmann 2000).
(10) a. JOHN LOVED, but BILL HATED – going fishing. b. ?*JOHN loved, and BILL loved – going fishing.
7 The detail of licensing conditions for ellipsis in relations to contrast will be discussed in chapter 5. Here I will just assume that backwards ellipsis is RNR, as stated in (11).
(11) Backwards ellipsis Backwards ellipsis is RNR and follows the same licensing conditions as RNR.
We have already observed in (8) that backwards VP-ellipsis does not have the same distribution as forward VP-ellipsis. Let us now consider backwards sluicing, a phenomenon discussed by Giannakidou and Merchant (1998). (12a-b) are examples where sluicing occurs in the first conjunct, which Giannakidou and Merchant dub reverse sluicing.
(12) a. It is not clear WHEN and WHERE – that poor guy borrowed $10,000. b. No one was sure of IF but John proved to us WHEN – Mary won a Pulitzer Prize.
It is puzzling by the fact that (12b) is grammatical, given that its counterpart forward sluicing is not acceptable in (13).6
(13) *John told us that Mary won a Nobel Prize, but nobody was sure of if.
6
Giannakidou and Merchant (1998) distinguish reverse sluicing (i) from RNR (ii). I argue that for both of the cases, contrastive focus must be assigned on wh-phrases and if, and that with the contrastive focus, it is not necessary to have if SO between the conjuncts in this particular case. (i) Frank wondered if and when – the guests would arrive. (ii) Frank wondered if, and if SO, WHEN – the guests would arrive. (Giannakidou and Merchant 1998: 248-249)
8 Let us consider (13), first. Merchant (2001) argues that an E(lliptical) feature enters the derivation in T. He assumes that the E feature is a strong feature bundle [wh*, Q*] and needs to be checked by [+wh, +Q] in the C head. The impossibility of sluicing in (13) can be explained by a failure to check the E feature. Since the complementizer if lacks [+wh, +Q], it fails to check the E feature. Thus, sluicing cannot occur. The same would be predicted to hold in (12b) if backwards sluicing were constrained by the same conditions as forward sluicing. The prediction is not borne out. Backwards sluicing in (12b) is possible, although here too the C head lacks [+wh, +Q], which is necessary for the E feature to be checked. Therefore, this also indicates that backwards sluicing is not a regular ellipsis. If so, (12b) would be incorrectly predicted to be ungrammatical. If we assume that examples in (12) are RNR, the mystery would be easily solved. The condition for RNR we assume at this point is the assignment of a contrastive focus on any element just prior to the RNR target in the first conjunct. Since IF bears a contrastive focus with respect to WHEN in the second conjunct, it satisfies the RNR licensing condition. I will elaborate more in detail in chapter 5. To summarize this section, I presented evidence that backwards ellipsis is different from forward ellipsis; backwards VP-ellipsis and sluicing do not seem to be the same as forward counterpart ellipsis phenomena. Rather, backwards ellipsis shares a crucial property with RNR. Without contrastive focus, no backwards ellipsis is licensed, just like RNR. Therefore, the predictions made by the hypothesis in (11), that all backwards ellipsis is actually RNR, appear to be borne out; RNR refers to any gap in the first conjunct where its antecedent can be found in the second conjunct.
9
1.2 Properties of RNR 1.2.1 Syntactic properties Similar to ellipsis, RNR sentences are missing some material. However, compared with ellipsis, RNR bears the elided materials not in the second conjunct, but in the first. Apart from this difference of directionality, RNR exhibits several similarities to ellipsis. VP-ellipsis can occur in the embedded clause in (14a), and so can RNR in (14b).
(14) a. John thought Mary was going to donate his car to the charity, and Mary thought John was going to . b. John thought Mary was trying to SELL , and Mary thought John was trying to DONATE – his car to the charity.
The possibility of RNR in (14b) indicates that RNR is different from gapping. Gapping can occur in the matrix clause (15a), but it cannot in the embedded clause (15b). Therefore, RNR should not be treated as a type of gapping.
(15) a. Mary ate Sushi, and Bill Teriyaki. b. *Mary said that she ate Sushi, and Bill said that he Teriyaki.
Furthermore, backwards gapping is not possible in English in (16), so if RNR were a type of gapping, we need to answer why gapping is only available in the second conjunct.
(16) *Bill the car, but Mary bought the bike.
10 RNR also shows some other hallmarks of ellipsis. I will briefly lay out three points, which will be discussed at length in chapter 3. First, Fiengo and May’s (1994) Vehicle Change effects appear in both forward ellipsis and in RNR. Fiengo and May propose that proper names and pronouns share a binary feature [±pronoun], but the reconstruction of the elided material is not sensitive to the value of this feature, so proper names can be reconstructed as pronouns. Let us consider Vehicle Change effects with examples in (17). In forward VP-ellipsis (17a), had John been faithfully reconstructed in the ellipsis site, it would have been improperly c-commanded by a coreferential noun phrase. However, Vehicle Change allows John to be recast as him, so no Principle C violation occurs. The same holds in RNR (17b) as well; the proper name in the RNR target can be shifted into a pronoun and Principle C violation does not arise.
(17) a. Sue said Bill wrote a mean joke about Johni on the blackboard, and hei told us that Mary did , too. b. Hei hopes Susan WON’T , but the secretary knows that she WILL – fire Johni at the end of this year.
Second, strict morphological identity is not required in RNR, just as in forward VP-ellipsis. Warner (1986), Lasnik (1999), and Lightfoot (1999) show that inflections need not match under VP-ellipsis in (18a). In (18a), the past tense morpheme is attached to the verb in the first conjunct, while the root form needs to be in the second. (18b) shows that tense can be mismatched in RNR, too.
11 (18) a. John slept, and soon Mary will , too. b. John WOULDN’T , but Mary HAS – negotiated her salary with the company for next year.
Finally, sloppy identity is available in RNR as it is in forward ellipsis. Let us first consider ambiguities in forward VP-ellipsis in (19). Sag and Williams (1976), among others, point out that the pronoun in the VP ellipsis can serve as a bound variable. Therefore, the pronoun can be bound by either the subject in the first conjunct (19a), or the subject of its own (19b). It can also refer to the third-party (19c).
(19) John likes his father, and Bill does , too. a. John likes John’s father and Bill likes John’s father, too.
(Strict reading)
b. John likes John’s father and Bill likes Bill’s father, too.
(Sloppy reading)
c. John likes Chris’s father and Bill likes Chris’s father, too.
(Third-party reading)
The same holds for RNR. The pronoun his in (20) is also multiply ambiguous: sloppy (20a), strict (20b), and a third-party reading (20c).
(20) Johni likes, but Billj hates – hisi/j father. a. John likes John’s father, but Bill hates Bill’s father.
(Sloppy reading)
b. John likes Bill’s father, but Bill hates Bill’s father.
(Strict reading)
c. John likes Chris’ father, but Bill hates Chris’ father.
(Third-party reading)
12 The phenomena discussed above have been argued to be properties of forward ellipsis in literature. Thus, there is a good reason to believe that RNR is also an ellipsis phenomenon. On the other hand, RNR also has some unique properties, which distinguishes it from forward ellipsis, so let us examine the differences. Forward ellipsis is known to be able to draw its antecedent from outside its own sentence. For example, in (21), the antecedent of the elided VP go to the ball game is found in another sentence.
(21) Jill and her friends decide to go to the ball game this Saturday. Well, I’m not particularly interested in baseball, but I will , too.
On the other hand, (22) indicates that a VP outside the sentence boundary cannot be an antecedent for the RNR target in RNR.
(22) a. *After a long consideration, Jill and her friends decided to . Well, I’m not a huge fan of the baseball, so I’m not gonna – go to the ball game. b. *Mary used to LOVE . Well I’m sure that she’s changed her mind now, but Bill still LIKES – David Letterman show.
It has been assumed in ellipsis literature that only constituents can be elided, but it appears that the RNR target does not have to form constituents (Yoon and Lee 2005). 7 In a Korean 7
The typical sentences given to show that non-constituent ellipsis is impossible include examples like (i) (p.c. Kyle Johnson). Given that the counterpart RNR version is also ruled out in (ii), (i-ii) are not conclusive examples to show that constituency has to be obeyed in ellipsis, but not necessarily in RNR. In fact, I was not able to find any pair of examples that could tease apart RNR and forward ellipsis with respect to constituency. (i) a.*John considers Mary smart, but Sally doesn’t happy. b.*John didn’t stand near Sally, but Mary did Sue.
13 example (23), the embedded and the matrix VPs are RNRed. Since they do not form constituents, (23) would be predicted to be ungrammatical, contrary to fact, if we simply assume that RNR is the same as ellipsis.
(23) [Bill-un B.-TOP
[Mary-ka ] kuliko M.-NOM math-ACC well do-C
[John-un
[casin-i
J.-TOP
self-NOM math-ACC well do-C
think-PRES-DEC
CONJ
swuhak-ul cal hanta-ko] sayngkak-han-ta]. think-PRES-DEC
‘Bill thinks that Mary does math well, and Johni thinks hei does.’
This is one of the puzzles that I will try to solve in this dissertation. Constituency in this kind of example will be re-evaluated in chapter 5, where I will propose that RNR observe constituency as forward ellipsis does. In a nutshell, I will argue that there are multiple deletion processes in (23) so that the embedded and the matrix clause are deleted independently. RNR affects the entire right edge of the first conjunct whereas there is no such restriction in forward ellipsis. The constraint is known as the Right Edge Restriction in literature (Postal 1974, McCawley 1982, Swingle 1993, Wilder 1997, 1999, Hartmann 2000, Sabbagh 2007). Once RNR starts in the first conjunct, pronunciation cannot resume until the coordinator is reached (at least, in English).8 (24) is ungrammatical, since the VP adjunct in the first conjunct remains pronounced.
(ii) a. * Sally doesn’t happy, but John considers Mary smart. b. *Mary did Sue, but John didn’t stand near Sally. 8
In Korean, on the other hand, RNR targeting only a middle expression seems to be possible. Notice that in the Korean example in (i), only the object DP is elided in the first conjunct, and the sentence is acceptable. It is unlikely that (i) arises from the use of a null pronoun in object position, given that null pronouns are prohibited in other backwards contexts, such as (ii). (i) Bill-i sse-ess-ko, Mary-ka ku chayk-ul caymiisske ilk-ess-ta. B.-NOM the book-ACC write-past-CONJ M.-NOM the book-ACC joyfully read-PAST-DEC.
