1

HowtoNeutralizeaFiniteClauseBoundary:

PhaseTheoryandtheGrammarofBoundPronouns

ThomasGrano

HowardLasnik

Abstract:ThispaperisconcernedwithafactaboutEnglishsyntaxthathasbeen

brieflyobservedinahandfulofplacesintheliteraturebutneversystematically

investigated:aboundpronouninthesubjectpositionofafiniteembeddedclause

renderstheclauseboundaryrelativelytransparenttoprocessesorrelations

ordinarilyconfinedtomonoclausal,control,andraisingconfigurations.Forexample,

too/enoughmovementstructuresinvolvingafiniteclauseboundaryaredegradedin

sentenceslike*Thisbookistoolong[forJohntoclaim[thatBillread__inaday]]but

improvedwhenthefiniteclausehasaboundpronominalsubjectasin?Thisbookis

toolong[forJohn1toclaim[thathe1read__inaday]].Ontheempiricalside,we

showthatthisboundpronouneffectholdsacrossawiderangeofphenomena

includingbutnotlimitedtotoo/enoughmovement,toughmovement,gapping,

comparativedeletion,antecedent-containeddeletion,quantifierscopeinteraction,

multiplequestions,pseudogapping,reciprocalbinding,andmultiplesluicing;and

weconfirmtheeffectviaasentenceacceptabilityexperimenttargetingsomeof

thesephenomena.Onthetheoreticalside,weproposeanaccountofthebound

pronouneffectthathastwocrucialingredients:(1)boundpronounsoptionally

To appear in Linguistic Inquiry

2

enterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-featuresand(2)phasesaredefinedinpart

byconvergence,sothatundercertainconditions,unvaluedfeaturesvoidthephasal

statusofCPandtherebyextendthelocalitydomainforsyntacticoperations.

Keywords:boundpronouns,phasetheory,clause-mateconditions

1Introduction

Englishexhibitsanumberofwellstudiedsyntacticphenomenaallinvolvingsome

kindofoperationorrelationthatcanbecharacterizedtoaveryroughfirst

approximationasclause-bound,i.e.,unabletospanaclauseboundary.These

phenomenaincludebutarenotlimitedtotoo/enoughmovement,gapping,

comparativedeletion,antecedent-containeddeletion,quantifierscopeinteraction,

andmultiplequestions.Thus,thesentencesin(1)areallperfectlyacceptable,

whereastheminimalvariantsin(2)arealldegradedinvirtueoftheclause

boundaryfoundinthebracketedportionofeachsentence.1

(1) a.Thismagazineistoolow-brow[forJohntoread__]. too/enoughMVMT

b.Johnlikesapplesand[Bill<likes>oranges]. GAPPING

c.Morepeoplelikeapplesthan[<like>oranges]. CMPTV.DELETION

d.Johnreadseverything[Billdoes<read>]. ACD

e.[Atleastoneprofessorreadseveryjournal].(∀>∃) QSCOPE

f.Tellme[whoreadswhichjournal]. MULTIPLEQUEST.

3

(2) a.*Thismagazineistoolow-brow[forJohntoclaimthatBillreads__].

b.*JohnclaimsthatMarklikesapplesand[Bill<claimsthatMarklikes>

oranges].

c.*MorepeopleclaimthatBilllikesapples[than<claimthatBilllikes>

oranges].

d.*JohnclaimsthatMarkreadseverything[Billdoes<claimsthatMark

reads>].

e.*[AtleastoneprofessorclaimsthatBillreadseveryjournal].(∀>∃)

f.*Tellme[whoclaimsthatJohnreadswhichjournal].

Onewellknownexceptiontotheclause-boundednesswitnessedin(1)-(2)is

thatnonfinitecontrolandraisingclauseboundariesdonothavethesame

deleteriouseffectasdofiniteclauseboundaries.Thus,ifwecomparetheexamples

in(2)tominimalvariantsinwhichthefiniteclauseboundaryisreplacedbya

nonfiniteclauseintroducedbycontrolverbclaimorraisingverbtend,wefindthat

theexamplesbecomeacceptableonceagain.Thisisshownin(3).2

(3) a.Thismagazineistoolow-brow[forJohntoclaim/tendtoread__].

b.Johnclaims/tendstolikeapplesand[Bill<claims/tendstolike>oranges].

c.Morepeopleclaim/tendtolikeapples[than<claim/tendtolike>oranges].

d.Johnclaims/tendstoreadeverything[Billdoes<claim/tendtoread>].

e.[Atleastoneprofessorclaims/tendstoreadeveryjournal].(∀>∃)

f.Tellme[whoclaims/tendstoreadwhichjournal].

4

Alesswidelyrecognizedexceptiontoclause-boundedness—andthefocus

ofthispaper—istheobservationthatevenfiniteclauseboundariescanbe

renderedrelativelyinnocuousinthephenomenainquestion,providedthatthe

subjectoftheembeddedfiniteclauseisaboundpronoun.WecallthistheBOUND

PRONOUNEFFECT.Itisillustratedin(4).3

(4) a.?Thismagazineistoolow-brow[forJohn1toclaimthathe1reads__].

b.?John1claimsthathe1likesapplesand[Bill2<claimsthathe2likes>

oranges].

c.?Morepeople1claimthatthey1likeapples[than<claimthatthey1like>

oranges].

d.?John1claimsthathe1readseverything[Bill2does<claimsthathe2

reads>].

e.?[Atleastoneprofessor1claimsthathe1readseveryjournal].(∀>∃)

f.?Tellme[who1claimsthathe1readswhichjournal].

Inthispaper,wepresentwhatistoourknowledgethefirstexperimental

documentationoftheboundpronouneffect—intheformofasentence

acceptabilityexperimentdesignedusingthetoolsdescribedinErlewine&Kotek

(2016)andconductedviaAmazon’sMechanicalTurk—aswellasthefirstattempt

atanaccountofit.Theaccounthastwocrucialingredients:first,boundpronouns

optionallyenterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features(cf.Kratzer1998a,2009;

5

Rullmann2004;Heim2008;Landau2016).Second,phasesaredefinedinpartby

convergence,sothatundercertainconditions,anunvaluedfeaturevoidsthe

otherwisephasalstatusofCP(cf.Chomsky2000:107andFelser2004)andthereby

extendsthelocalitydomainforsyntacticrelations.

Theorganizationoftherestofthepaperisasfollows.Insection2,we

providesomebackground,situatingtheboundpronouneffectwithrespectto

previousliteratureandtothebroaderlandscapeofclause-boundednessandrelated

phenomena.Insection3,welayoutthecoredatathatmotivateourtheoretical

proposalsanddescribeourexperimentalfindings.Insection4,wepresentour

phase-theoreticaccountoftheboundpronouneffectandshowhowitcanbe

embeddedintoexistingformulationsofthePhaseImpenetrabilityConditionsoasto

derivethecrucialfacts.Insection5,weoffersomepreliminaryremarksonthe

boundpronouneffectasitrelatestoislandphenomena.Finally,weconcludein

section6.Anappendixlaysoutingreaterdetailthestatisticalanalysisthatwe

performedonourexperimentalresults.

2Somehistoricalandempiricalcontext

2.1Clause-boundednessandthefinite/nonfinitedistinction

Theideathatsomesyntacticprocessesandrelationscannotcrossaclauseboundary

hasplayedaroleingenerativetheorizingsincethe1950s.(SeeLasnik2002foran

overview.)Ithasalsolongbeenobservedthatnotallclauseboundariesarecreated

6

equal:Chomsky’s(1973)TensedSentenceConditionandSpecifiedSubject

Conditionbothacknowledgetherelativeweaknessofnonfiniteclauseboundaries.

Inarelatedvein,Postal(1974)usestheterm“quasi-clause”(acoinageheattributes

toDavidPerlmutter)forraisingandcontrolcomplements,andhesuggeststhat

quasi-clauseboundariesare“notasstrongabarriertoatleastsomesyntactic

phenomenaasfullclauseboundaries”(p.232).Postalinvokesquasi-clausesin

discussingarangeofprocessesandrelationsincludingcomplexNPshift

(extraposition),comparativedeletion,toughmovement,multiplequestions(cf.also

Kuno&Robinson1972),anddoublenegation(thelatterobeyingan“anti-clause-

mate”condition).

Otherphenomenaforwhichclause-boundednessandthefinite/nonfinite

distinctionhavesincebeenfoundtoberelevantincludereciprocalbinding

(Higginbotham1981),slangNPIlicensing(Lasnik2002),multiplesluicing

(Nishigauchi1998;Merchant2001;Barrie2008;Lasnik2014),“familyofquestions”

readingsofinterrogativesentencesthatcontainauniversalquantifier(May1977,

1985;Williams1986;Sloan&Uriagereka1988;Sloan1991;Lasnik2006;Agüero-

Bautista2007),andACDandquantifierscopeinteraction(May1985;Larson&May

1990;Hornstein1994;Farkas&Giannakidou1996;Kennedy1997;Wilder1997;

Kayne1998;Fox2000;Cecchetto2004;Moulton2008;Hackl,Koster-Hale&

Varvoutis2012;Wurmbrand2013,2015a).

7

2.2ComplicationOne:Restructuring

Forsomephenomena,notallauthorsclaimthattherelevantdistinctionissimply

betweenfiniteclausesandnonfiniteclauses.Onetrendintheliteraturebuildson

Rizzi’s(1978)seminalworkonItalian,wherecliticclimbingandrelatedphenomena

areshowntobeordinarilyclause-boundexceptinsomebutnotallsentences

involvingnonfinitecomplementation.Crucially,Rizzishowedthattheavailabilityof

cliticclimbingacrossanonfiniteclauseboundaryisconditionedbythechoiceofthe

embeddingverb,generalizingthatonlymodal,motion,andaspectualverbsextend

locality.4Thereisnowasizeableliteratureonrestructuringthatcorroborates

versionsofthisclaimforanalogouseffectsinSpanish(Aissen&Perlmutter1983),

German(Wurmbrand2001andLee-Schoenfeld2007),andpotentiallyamuchwider

rangeoflanguagesaswell(Cinque2004;Grano2015;Wurmbrand2015b).

DrawingonthistraditionandbuildingalsoonJohnson(1996),Lechner

(2001)claimsthatgappingandcomparativedeletioninEnglishonlyapplyacross

nonfiniteclauseboundariesiftheembeddingverbisarestructuringverb.Hornstein

(1994)makesthesameclaimforquantifierscopeinteractionandACD,althoughthis

viewisquestionedbyKennedy(1997)andWurmbrand(2013);seealsoMoulton

2008forrelevantexperimentalworkoninversescope.Anotherphenomenonfor

whichrestructuringhasbeeninvokedinEnglishisinfinitivaltocontractionin

locutionslikewanna(fromwantto)orhafta(fromhaveto):seeGoodall1991.5

8

2.3ComplicationTwo:TheBoundPronounEffect

Theboundpronouneffectinvestigatedinthispaperconstitutesyetanother

challengetothecharacterizationoflocalitydomainsintermsofasimple

finite/nonfinitecontrast:justastherestructuringliteraturehasshownthatnotall

nonfiniteclausesarecreatedequal,theboundpronouneffectsshowsthatnotall

finiteclausesarecreatedequal.Asmentionedinnote3above,variousscholarshave

observedtheboundpronouneffectasitpertainstoparticularphenomena(Sloan

1991;Nishigauchi1998;Merchant2001;Lasnik2006,2014;Syrett&Lidz2011),

butthefullrangeofdatabearingontheeffecthasyettobesystematically

documentedandaccountedfor.Wenowturnourattentiontothis.

3Thedata

Inthissection,welayoutthedatathatwillinformouranalysisinsection4below.

Webeginbydocumentingtherangeofphenomenathatexhibittheboundpronoun

effect(section3.1).Wethenshowthattheeffectissubject-oriented(onlybound

pronounsthatareinsubjectpositioninducetheeffect)(section3.2)andthatnon-

boundpronounsdonotinducetheeffect(section3.3).Wethenpresentour

experimentalfindingsthatconfirmtheseobservations(section3.4)andmake

explicitourhypothesisabouthowtheobservedcontrastsinacceptabilitymaponto

thegrammaticalitycutsmadebytheaccountwepursue(section3.5).

9

3.1Therangeofphenomenathatexhibittheboundpronouneffect

In(1)-(4)above,weillustratedtheboundpronouneffectforsixphenomena:

too/enoughmovement,gapping,comparativedeletion,ACD,inversescope,and

multiplequestions.Hereweillustratetheeffectforsixadditionalphenomena,

namely,pseudogapping,reciprocalbinding,multiplesluicing,“familyofquestions”

readings,extraposition,andtoughmovement.Baselinemonoclausalexamplesare

illustratedinthebracketedportionsof(5a-f)respectively.Aswiththeothersix

phenomena,weseedegradedacceptabilitywhenthebracketedportionofthe

sentenceincludesafiniteclauseboundary(6),substantialimprovementwhenthe

embeddedclauseisanonfiniteclauseintroducedbyacontrolorraisingverb(7),

andmoderateimprovementwhentheembeddedfiniteclausehasabound

pronominalsubject(8).

(5) a.Johnlikesapplesand[Billdoes<like>oranges].

b.[JohnandBilllikeeachother.]

c.SomeoneisworriedaboutsomethingbutIdon’tknow[who<isworried>

aboutwhat].

d.[Whichjournaldoeseveryoneread__]?

Anticipatedanswertype:JohnreadsLI,BillreadsNLLT,etc.

e.[Johnreads__verycarefully]—allthemajorlinguisticsjournals.

f.Thisbookiseasy[forJohntoread___].

10

(6) a.*JohnclaimsthatMarklikesapplesand[Billdoes<claimthatMarklikes>

oranges].

b.*[JohnandBillclaimthatMarklikeseachother].

Intendedreading:JohnclaimsthatMarklikesBillandBillclaimsthat

MarklikesJohn.

c.*SomeoneclaimsthatJohnisworriedaboutsomethingbutIdon’tknow

[who<claimsthatJohnisworried>aboutwhat].

d.*[WhichjournaldoeseveryoneclaimthatJohnreads__]?

Anticipatedanswertype:BillclaimsthatJohnreadsLI,Timclaimsthat

JohnreadsNLLT,etc.

e.*[JohnclaimsthatBillreads__everytimeIaskaboutit]—allthe

majorlinguisticsjournals.

f.*Thisbookiseasy[forJohntoclaimthatBillread___].

(7) a.Johnclaims/tendstolikeapplesand[Billdoes<claim/tendtolike>

oranges].

b.[JohnandBillclaim/tendtolikeeachother].

Intendedreading:Johnclaims/tendstolikeBillandBillclaims/tendsto

likeJohn.

c.Someoneclaims/tendstobeworriedaboutsomethingbutIdon’tknow

[who<claims/tendstobeworried>aboutwhat].

d.[Whichjournaldoeseveryoneclaim/tendtoread__]?

Anticipatedanswertype:Johnclaims/tendstoreadLI,Billclaims/tendsto

11

readNLLT,etc.

e.[Johnclaims/tendstoread__everytimeIaskaboutit]—allthemajor

linguisticsjournals.

f.Thisbookiseasy[forJohnto{claimtohaveread___/tendtoread___}].

(8) a.?John1claimsthathe1likesapplesand[Bill2does<claimthathe2likes>

oranges].

b.?[[JohnandBill]1claimthatthey1likeeachother].

Intendedreading:John1claimsthathe1likesBillandBill2claimsthathe2

likesJohn.

c.?Someone1claimsthatthey1areworriedaboutsomethingbutIdon’t

know[who2<claimsthatthey2areworried>aboutwhat].

d.?[Whichjournaldoeseveryone1claimthatthey1read__]?

e.?[John1claimsthathe1reads__everytimeIaskaboutit]—allthe

majorlinguisticsjournals.

f.?Thisbookiseasy[forJohn1toclaimthathe1read].

Thetwelvephenomenaexemplifiedin(1)-(4)oftheintroductionand(5)-(8)here

constitutewhatweconsiderthecorecasesoftheboundpronouneffectforthe

purposeofthispaper,butseealsosection5belowforapreliminarydiscussionof

theboundpronouneffectasitpertainstoislandphenomena.6

12

3.2Subjectorientation

Inthisandthenextsubsectionwediscussinturntwodimensionsofthebound

pronouneffectthatwetaketobecrucialindevelopingouraccountofit:thesubject

orientationoftheeffectandthefactthatthereisnocomparable“non-bound

pronouneffect”.

Bysubjectorientation,wemeanthatonlyboundpronounsthatareinsubject

positiongiverisetotheboundpronouneffect.Thisisillustratedin(9)-(13)for

too/enoughmovement,multiplequestions,andcomparativedeletion,respectively.

(Althoughwebelievesubjectorientationholdsforalltherelevantphenomena,we

restrictourattentionherejusttothesethreecasesforreasonsofspace.)(9)shows

thebaselinemonoclausalexamples,(10)showstheminimalvariantswithfinite

clauseboundariesandnoboundpronoun,and(11)showstheboundpronouneffect

forsubject-positionboundpronouns.Crucially,whatweseein(12)isthatabound

pronouninapositionlowerintheclausethansubjectpositiondoesnothavethe

sameacceptability-boostingeffectasdoesaboundpronouninsubjectposition.Ina

similarvein,(13)showsthattheboundpronouneffectisalsonotoperativefor

subject-internalboundpossessors:fromthisweconcludethattheboundpronoun

hastobetheentiresubjectoftherelevantclauseinorderfortheeffecttobe

operative.Seesection3.4belowforexperimentaldocumentationoftheclineof

acceptabilityimpliedbythejudgmentmarksweusein(9)-(13):sentenceslike(9)

aremoreacceptablethansentenceslike(11)whichareinturnmoreacceptable

thansentenceslike(10),(12),and(13).7

13

(9) a.Thisbookistoovaluable[forJamestolend__toBill].

b.Sandywondered[whichmanboughtGeorgewhichshirt].

c.Moreteachersgavethestudentspencilsthan[gavethestudentspens].

(10) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJamestoclaimthatMarklent__toBill].

b.*Sandywondered[whichmanclaimedthatJamesboughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

c.*Moreteachersclaimedthattheprincipalgavethestudentspencilsthan

[claimedthattheprincipalgavethestudentspens].

(11) a.?Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthathe1lent__toBill].

b.?Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthathe1boughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

c.?Moreteachers1claimedthatthey1gavethestudentspencilsthan[claimed

thatthey1gavethestudentspens].

(12) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthatBilllent__tohim1].

b.*Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthatBillboughthim1which

shirt].

c.*Moreteachers1claimedthattheprincipalgavethem1pencilsthan

[claimedthattheprincipalgavethem1pens].

14

(13) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthathis1fatherlent__to

Maria].

b.*Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthathis1fatherboughtGeorge

whichshirt].

c.*Moreteachers1claimedthattheir1assistantsgavethestudentspencils

than[claimedthattheir1assistantsgavethestudentspens].

3.3Non-boundpronouns

In(14)-(16),weseethattheboundpronouneffectgoesawayiftherelevant

pronounisnotbound,thatis,ifthepronounisafreethird-personpronoun(14),a

first-personpronoun(15),orasecond-personpronoun(16).Althoughour

experimentalinvestigationdiscussedinsection3.4belowdoesnotinclude

sentenceswithfreethird-personpronounslike(14),itdoesincludesentenceswith

first-andsecond-personpronounslike(15)-(16),andtheresultsareconsistent

withtheviewthatsentenceslike(15)-(16)areindeednomoreacceptablethanthe

correspondingvariantsin(10)abovethathavefulllexicalsubjects.

(14) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthatshe2lent__toBill].

b.*Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthatshe2boughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

c.*Moreteachers1claimedthatshe2gavethestudentspencilsthan[claimed

thatshe2gavethestudentspens].

15

(15) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthatIlent__toBill].

b.*Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthatIboughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

c.*Moreteachers1claimedthatIgavethestudentspencilsthan[claimedthat

Igavethestudentspens].

(16) a.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJames1toclaimthatyoulent__toBill].

b.*Sandywondered[whichman1claimedthatyouboughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

c.*Moreteachers1claimedthatyougavethestudentspencilsthan[claimed

thatyougavethestudentspens].

Theabsenceoftheeffectforfirst-andsecond-personpronounsasseenin

(15)-(16)isparticularlyimportantbecauseitspeaksagainstanalternative

characterizationoftheboundpronouneffectthatwouldlenditselftoanaccount

substantiallydifferentfromwhatweproposebelow.Inparticular,Syrett&Lidz

(2011),notingthedegradedstatusofACDacrossafiniteclauseboundaryandthe

amelioratingeffectofaboundpronoun,speculatethatthefactscouldbedueto“the

extraprocessingloadintroducedbytheinterpretationofTenseandanewdiscourse

referentinthesubjectoftheembeddedclause”(p.330).Inotherwords,onthis

view,whatiscrucialaboutboundpronounsisthattheydonotintroduceanew

discoursereferentandhenceleadtoeasierprocessingofdependenciesthatspan

16

them.Similarly,JasonMerchant(pers.comm.),reportingondiscussionwithIvan

Sag,suggeststhepossibilitythattheboundpronouneffectisnotreallyaboutthe

boundstatusofthepronounpersebutratheraboutaccessibilityinthesenseof

Ariel(1988):roughly,theeasieritistoresolvetheunderstoodreferentofthe

pronoun,themoreinnocuoustheclauseboundaryistothephenomenainquestion.

Consistentwiththissuggestion,MerchantreportsthatSag’slinguisticintuitionwas

thatfirst-andsecond-personpronounswerejustaseffectiveasboundpronounsin

amelioratingfiniteclauseboundariesinphenomenasuchasgapping.Inyetanother

relatedvein,ananonymousreviewerclaimsthatspeakersfindgappingacrossa

finiteclauseboundarytobejustasacceptablewithafreepronounasitiswitha

boundpronouninexampleslike(17).Cruciallyin(17)thereisadiscourse-salient

antecedentfortherelevantpronounandhence(17)isconsistentwiththeSyrett-

Lidz-Sag-Merchantlineofreasoning.

(17)a.WhatdidtheysayaboutBill’spreferences?

b.?Joeclaimsthathelikesapplesbetter,andTim<claimsthathelikes>oranges.

Insofarasdiscourseparticipantsarealwayssalientoraccessibleinthe

relevantsense,wetakeourexperimentalfindingsconcerningfirst-andsecond-

personpronominalsubjectsasevidenceagainsttheviewthattheboundpronoun

effectissubsumedunderamoregeneralaccessibilityordiscourse-salienceeffect.

Thatbeingsaid,wedonotmeantodenythepossibilitythataccessibilityor

somethinglikeitcouldexistasanindependentfactorthataffectsacceptability

17

ratingsforthekindsofsentencesinquestion.Weleaveafullinvestigationofthis

issuetofuturework.

3.4Anexperimentalinvestigationoftheboundpronouneffect

Here,wereportontwosentenceacceptabilityexperimentsdesignedusingthetools

describedinErlewine&Kotek(2016)andconductedviaAmazon’sMechanical

Turk.TheprotocolfortheexperimentsdescribedherewasgrantedExemptstatus

bythe[REDACTED]HumanSubjectsOfficeonJune9,2016(Protocol#1605885354,

‘Anexperimentalinvestigationoftheboundpronouneffect’,[REDACTED],PI).In

whatfollows,wediscussinturntheconstructionofstimuli(section3.4.1),

recruitmentofparticipantsandexperimentalapparatus(section3.4.2),results

(section3.4.3),andsummaryofthestatisticalanalysis(section3.4.4).Thecomplete

detailsassociatedwiththestatisticalanalysisaresuppliedintheappendix.

3.4.1Constructionofstimuli

Wetargetedthreephenomenaforinvestigation:multiplequestions,too/enough

movement,andcomparativedeletion.Oneofthereasonsforchoosingthesethree

particularphenomenaisthat,unlikewhathappenswithsomeoftheother

phenomena,thereisnoneedtocontrolfortheavailabilityofuncontroversially

grammaticalbutirrelevantparsesofsomeofthetargetsentences.Forexample,the

degradedinstancesofinversescope,ACD,andgappingin(18)aresurface-string

18

identicaltotherespectivegrammaticalparsesin(19).Bycontrast,thestrings

associatedwiththedegradedinstancesofmultiplequestions,too/enough

movement,andcomparativedeletionin(20)havenoalternativeuncontroversially

grammaticalparse.

(18) a.*[AtleastoneprofessorclaimsthatBillreadseveryjournal].(∀>∃)

b.*JohnclaimsthatMarkreadseverything[Billdoes<claimsthatMark

reads>].

c.*JohnclaimsthatMarklikesapplesand[Bill<claimsthatMarklikes>

oranges].

(19) a.[AtleastoneprofessorclaimsthatBillreadseveryjournal].(∃>∀)

b.JohnclaimsthatMarkreadseverything[Billdoesread>].

c.JohnclaimsthatMarklikesapplesand[Bill<likes>oranges].

(20) a.*Sandywondered[whichmanclaimedthatJamesboughtGeorgewhich

shirt].

b.*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJamestoclaimthatMarklent__toBill].

c.*Moreteachersclaimedthattheprincipalgavethestudentspencilsthan

[claimedthattheprincipalgavethestudentspens].

19

Foreachofthe3targetedphenomena,weconstructed5baselinesentences

inwhichtherelevantdependencyoccursinamonoclausalframe,yieldingatotalof

15sentences,shownin(21)-(23).

(21)BaseLine(Multiplequestions)

a.SandywonderedwhichmanboughtGeorgewhichshirt.

b.Kimdoesn’trememberwhichmanlentJillwhichmagazine.

c.AbbyfoundoutwhichmantoldBarrywhichjoke.

d.MaryaskedwhichmansentFredwhichletter.

e.MarkdiscoveredwhichmanthrewBobbywhichball.

(22)BaseLine(too/enoughmovement)

a.ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestolendtoMaria.

b.ThisballistooheavyforLindatothrowatBrian.

c.ThisjokeistooinappropriateforPaultotelltoSteve.

d.ThisshirtistooexpensiveforBarbaratobuyforMike.

e.ThisletteristoooutrageousforJennifertosendtoSusie.

(23)BaseLine(Comparativedeletion)

a.Moreteachersgavethestudentspencilsthanpens.

b.Morepoliticianssentthevoterspostcardsthanletters.

c.Moreemployeestoldthebossstoriesthanjokes.

d.Moreauthorssentthepublishernovelsthanshortstories.

20

e.MorepeopleboughtJakeshoesthansocks.

Foreachthese15baselinesentences,weconstructed10variantsthatinvolvea

biclausalconfigurationatthecrucialsite.5ofthe10variantsuseclaimasthe

embeddingverbandtheother5usepromise.Eachgroupof5representsthe5

crucialconditionstestedinExperiment1:anonfiniteclauseboundary,afinite

clauseboundarywithaboundsubject,afiniteclauseboundarywithabound

(prepositional)object,afiniteclauseboundarywithaboundsubject-internal

possessor,andafiniteclauseboundarywithnoboundpronoun.Forexample,the10

variantsconstructedaroundthebaselinesentencein(22a)areasgivenin(24)-

(25).8

(24) Embeddingverb=claim

a.NonFinite

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimtohavelenttoMaria.

b.BoundSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthathelenttoMaria.

c.BoundObj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthatMarialenttohim.

d.BoundPoss

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthathisfatherlenttoMaria.

e.NoBinding

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthatKarenlenttoMaria.

21

(25) Embeddingverb=promise

a.NonFinite

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisetolendtoMaria.

b.BoundSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisethathewilllendtoMaria.

c.BoundObj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisethatMariawilllendtohim.

d.BoundPoss

ThismovieistoovaluableforJamestopromisethathisfatherwilllendto

Maria.

e.NoBinding

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisethatBillwilllendtoMaria.

3phenomenaX5sentenceframesX(1baselinecondition+[5non-baseline

conditionsX2embeddingverbs])yieldsatotalof165testsentences.Weused

these165sentencestocreate75listsinsuchawaythateachlistcontains33test

sentences,eachtestsentenceappearson15lists,andnolistcontains2non-baseline

testsentencesthatinstantiatethesamephenomenonandthatvaryalongonlyone

factor(therelevantfactorsbeingsentenceframe,condition,andembeddingverb).

UsingErlewine&Kotek’s(2016)Turktoolssoftware(availableat

http://turktools.net),eachlistwasseparatelyrandomizedandinterspersedwith33

22

fillersentencesofvaryingdegreesofacceptabilityandofcomplexitysimilartothat

ofthetestsentences.

Forthesecondexperiment,theconstructionofstimuliandlistswasidentical

tothatforthefirstexperiment,exceptthattheBoundObjandBoundPossconditions

werereplacedbyconditionsinwhichthefiniteembeddedclausecontainedno

boundpronounbutinsteadcontainedafirst-personsingularpronominalsubject

andasecond-personpronominalsubject,respectively.Forexample,(24c-d)/(25c-

d)fromabovewerereplacedwith(26a-b)-(27a-b),respectively.

(26) a.1pSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthatIlenttoMaria.

b.2pSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestoclaimthatyoulenttoMaria.

(27) a.1pSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisethatIwilllendtoMaria.

b.2pSubj

ThisbookistoovaluableforJamestopromisethatyouwilllendtoMaria.

3.4.2Recruitmentofparticipantsandexperimentalapparatus

75experimentalparticipantswererecruitedviaAmazon’sMechanicalTurk,sothat

eachofthe75listswasseenbyoneparticipant.Participantswererequiredtobe

23

nativespeakersofAmericanEnglishatleast18yearsofageandresidinginthe

UnitedStates.Participantswereaskedtorateeachsentenceonascaleof1(least

acceptable)to7(mostacceptable),wherean“acceptable”sentencewasdefinedin

theinstructionsas“somethingthatanativespeakerofEnglishwouldsay,evenifthe

situationthesentencedescribessoundsimplausible”.9

75participantswhohadnotparticipatedinExperiment1wererecruitedto

participateinExperiment2.Recruitmentandinstructionswereotherwiseidentical

tothoseforExperiment1.

3.4.3Results

TheresultsofExperiment1areshowninTable1,whichindicatestheraw

distributionofeachratingforeachofthecrucialconditionsasinstantiatedbyeach

ofthethreephenomenatested.

Table1:Experiment1Results

Key:BL=BaseLine;NF=NonFinite;BS=BoundSubj;

BO=BoundObj;BP=BoundPoss;NB=NoBinding

EXPERIMENT1RESULTSComparativeDeletion MultipleQuestions ƚŽŽͬĞŶŽƵŐŚMovement

RATING BL NF BS BO BP NB BL NF BS BO BP NB BL NF BS BO BP NB1 1 7 6 12 12 10 3 8 21 24 25 22 1 5 8 18 27 202 2 10 12 23 19 14 3 14 32 30 30 32 0 12 17 30 17 303 3 12 21 16 26 34 7 14 33 31 35 30 3 15 22 32 40 354 7 15 14 22 25 21 4 28 19 25 20 19 1 19 21 19 25 155 10 24 28 27 17 34 18 39 20 23 22 23 7 33 32 28 24 276 20 35 42 25 37 25 29 36 19 15 13 21 16 42 33 15 11 187 32 47 27 25 14 12 11 11 6 2 5 3 47 24 17 8 6 5

TOTAL 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150

EXPERIMENT2RESULTSComparative Deletion MultipleQuestions Tough Movement

RATING BL NF BS 1P 2P NB BL NF BS 1P 2P NB BL NF BS 1P 2P NB1 3 5 5 15 17 10 2 6 18 29 30 24 0 7 9 20 23 222 4 6 6 26 26 24 7 9 23 32 38 30 2 11 25 34 28 283 5 16 21 29 22 29 8 30 38 27 32 30 2 18 23 26 25 334 7 25 28 20 34 22 12 29 29 28 22 25 2 17 23 25 23 235 11 23 26 22 16 38 15 33 28 23 21 25 11 32 30 20 32 276 14 39 44 26 24 18 17 30 10 9 5 14 8 35 27 17 15 137 31 36 20 11 9 9 14 13 4 2 2 2 50 30 13 8 4 4

TOTAL 75 150 150 149 148 150 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150

24

TheresultsofExperiment2areshowninTable2.10

Table2:Experiment2Results

Key:BL=BaseLine;NF=NonFinite;BS=BoundSubj;

1P=1pSubj;2P=2pSubj;NB=NoBinding

3.4.4Summaryofstatisticalanalysis

StatisticalanalysiswasperformedinIBMSPSSStatisticsVersion24.Asdescribedin

greaterdetailintheAppendix,anIndependent-SamplesKruskal-WallisTest,when

appliedtotheresultsofExperiment1,indicatesthatthedistributionofratingsis

notthesameacrossthedifferentconditions(𝑋!(5)=325.701,p<0.01).More

specifically,pairwisecomparisonsshowthateachconditiongivesrisetoarating

profilethatissignificantlydifferentfromeachothercondition(p<0.01),exceptfor

theBoundPoss,BoundObj,andNoBindingconditions,whicharenotsignificantly

differentfromoneanother(p=1).Asschematizedin(28),BaseLinesentenceswere

ratedasmostacceptable(MeanRank=1841.69),followedbysentenceswitha

EXPERIMENT1RESULTSComparative Deletion MultipleQuestions Tough Movement

RATING BL NF BS BO BP NB BL NF BS BO BP NB BL NF BS BO BP NB1 1 7 6 12 12 10 3 8 21 24 25 22 1 5 8 18 27 202 2 10 12 23 19 14 3 14 32 30 30 32 0 12 17 30 17 303 3 12 21 16 26 34 7 14 33 31 35 30 3 15 22 32 40 354 7 15 14 22 25 21 4 28 19 25 20 19 1 19 21 19 25 155 10 24 28 27 17 34 18 39 20 23 22 23 7 33 32 28 24 276 20 35 42 25 37 25 29 36 19 15 13 21 16 42 33 15 11 187 32 47 27 25 14 12 11 11 6 2 5 3 47 24 17 8 6 5

TOTAL 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150

EXPERIMENT2RESULTSComparativeDeletion MultipleQuestions ƚŽŽͬĞŶŽƵŐŚMovement

RATING BL NF BS 1P 2P NB BL NF BS 1P 2P NB BL NF BS 1P 2P NB1 3 5 5 15 17 10 2 6 18 29 30 24 0 7 9 20 23 222 4 6 6 26 26 24 7 9 23 32 38 30 2 11 25 34 28 283 5 16 21 29 22 29 8 30 38 27 32 30 2 18 23 26 25 334 7 25 28 20 34 22 12 29 29 28 22 25 2 17 23 25 23 235 11 23 26 22 16 38 15 33 28 23 21 25 11 32 30 20 32 276 14 39 44 26 24 18 17 30 10 9 5 14 8 35 27 17 15 137 31 36 20 11 9 9 14 13 4 2 2 2 50 30 13 8 4 4

TOTAL 75 150 150 149 148 150 75 150 150 150 150 150 75 150 150 150 150 150

25

nonfiniteembeddedclause(MeanRank=1494.58),followedbysentenceswitha

finiteembeddedclausecontainingaboundpronominalsubject(MeanRank=

1258.58).Atthelowendoftheacceptabilityscalearesentenceswithanembedded

finiteclausecontainingaboundpronominalobject(MeanRank=1064.88),abound

subject-internalpossessor(MeanRank=1024.02),ornoboundpronounatall

(MeanRank=1046.09).Theselatterthreeconditionsgiverisetoratingsthatare

notsignificantlydifferentfromoneanother.

(28)BaseLine>NonFinite>BoundSubj>{BoundObj=BoundPoss=NoBinding}

AppliedtotheresultsofExperiment2,theIndependent-SamplesKruskal-

WallisTestsimilarlyshowsthatthedistributionofratingsisnotthesameacrossthe

differentconditions(𝑋!(5)=349.406,p<0.01).Pairwisecomparisonsshowthat

eachconditiongivesrisetoaratingprofilethatissignificantlydifferentfromeach

othercondition(p<0.01),exceptforthe1pSubj,2pSubj,andNoBindingconditions,

whicharenotsignificantlydifferentfromoneanother(p=1).Asschematizedin

(29),BaseLinesentenceswereratedasmostacceptable(MeanRank=1802.87),

followedbysentenceswithanonfiniteembeddedclause(MeanRank=1534.98),

followedbysentenceswithafiniteembeddedclausecontainingabound

pronominalsubject(MeanRank=1285.35).Atthelowendoftheacceptabilityscale

aresentenceswithanembeddedfiniteclausecontainingafirst-personpronominal

subject(MeanRank=1030.64),asecond-personpronominalsubject(MeanRank=

26

992.41),ornopronounatall(MeanRank=1054.39).Theselatterthreeconditions

giverisetoratingsthatarenotsignificantlydifferentfromoneanother.

(29)BaseLine>Nonfinite>BoundSubj>{1pSubj=2pSubj=NoBinding}

Takentogether,thetwoexperimentssupporttheconclusionthatthebound

pronouneffectisreal(Experiments1and2),thatitissubject-oriented(Experiment

1),andthatnocomparableeffectholdsforfirst-orsecond-personpronominal

subjects(Experiment2).FormoredetailsconcerningtheresultsoftheKruskal-

WallisTest,aswellasindependentconfirmationofthecoreresultsusingamore

powerfulstatisticaltechnique(inparticular,aGeneralizedEstimatingEquations

analysis),seetheAppendix.

3.5Therelationshipbetweenthedataweobserveandthetheorywepursue

ThegoalfortherestofthispaperistodevelopatheorythattreatstheBaseLine,

NonFinite,andBoundSubjsentencesasgrammaticaltotheexclusionofthe

BoundObj,BoundPoss,1pSubj,2pSubj,andNoBindingsentences,assummarizedin

(30).

(30)Summaryofthegrammaticalitycutsmadebythetheorywepursue

a.Grammatical:BaseLine,NonFinite,BoundSubj

b.Ungrammatical:BoundObj,BoundPoss,1pSubj,2pSubj,NoBinding

27

Wepursueatheorythatmakestheseparticularcutsingrammaticalitynotbecause

wethinkthatthesecutscanbereaddirectlyoffthedata(obviously,datacannottell

uswhatisgrammatical,onlywhatismoreorlessacceptable)butratherbecause

thesecutsareconsistentbothwiththeobservedclineofacceptabilityandwithan

independentlyplausibletheoryofphasesandofphi-featurevaluationonbound

pronouns.

Tobesure,(30)isonlyoneofmanyconceivablewaysofconstructinga

theorythatisconsistentwiththeobserveddata,andweleaveittofutureworkto

pursueotherpossibilities.11Onematterinparticularthatourtheorywillnothave

anythingtosayaboutiswhy,amongthosesentencetypesthatourtheorytreatsas

grammatical,thereisaclineofacceptabilitythatcanbecharacterizedas:BaseLine>

NonFinite>BoundSubj.Butwewouldliketosayafewwordsaboutthiscline,

beforeconfiningourselvesintheremainderofthepapertobuildingatheorythat

derives(30).Inparticular,wethinkitisplausiblethattheBaseLine>NonFinite>

BoundSubjclinereflectsdifferencesinprocessingcost.Thereissomeprecedentfor

theideathatacceptabilityjudgmentsareaffectedbyfactorsconcerningthematerial

inbetweentwoelementsinvolvedinadependency,evenwhenthehypothesized

grammaticalityofthedependencyisheldconstant.Forexample,Pickering&Barry

(1991)arguethatthedistancebetweenagapanditsfilleraffectsacceptability.Ina

similarvein,Kluender&Kutas(1993)arguethatwh-movementacrossaclause

boundaryincursaprocessingcost,andSprouse,Wagers&Phillips(2012)showthat

wh-dependenciesthatcrossafiniteclauseboundaryareindeedsomewhatless

28

acceptablethanonesthatdonot.Finally,McElree,Foraker&Dyer(2003)showthat

accuracyinrejectingungrammaticaldependenciesdecreaseswiththenumberof

interveningclauses.Therearestillmanyopenquestionshere:itisnotclearwhether

theeffectsdocumentedintheseworksreflectprocessingcostsassociatedwith

clauseboundariesinparticularorwithmoregeneralfactorssuchaslengthortime.

Butinanyevent,wetaketheseworkstoreinforcetheplausibilityofviewingthe

BaseLine>NonFinite>BoundSubjclineasreflectingdifferingprocessingcosts

amonggrammaticalsentencesratherthanreflectingcutsingrammaticality.

4Aphase-theoreticaccountoftheboundpronouneffect

4.1Theaccountinanutshell

Anattractivefirstapproximationofanaccountoftheboundpronouneffectwould

takethebasicshapein(31).Ifthelocalitydomainforthephenomenaofinterestis

thephase,andboundpronounsenterthederivationinawaythatvoidsthe

otherwisephasalstatusofthecomplementclause,thentheboundpronouneffect

fallsout.

(31) Accountoftheboundpronouneffect(version1of3)

a.Unvaluedphi-featuresvoidphasehood.

b.Thelocalitydomainforthephenomenathatgiverisetothebound

pronouneffectisthephase.

29

c.Boundpronounsenterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.12

Butasitstands,(31)overgenerates.Asschematizedinformallyin(32),althoughit

accuratelypredictsthecutbetweenfiniteclauseswithnoboundpronoun(32a)and

finiteclauseswithaboundpronominalsubject(32b),italsoincorrectlyrulesin

caseswheretherelevantfiniteclausehasaboundpronounsomewhereotherthan

subjectposition(32c-d).

(32)Predictionsoftheaccountin(31)

a.Thebookistoodear[forJimtoclaim[PHASEthatMarklent__toBill]].

àcorrectlyruledout

b.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[NON-PHASEthathe1lent__toBill].

àcorrectlyruledin

c.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[NON-PHASEthatBilllent__tohim1]].

àincorrectlyruledin

d.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[NON-PHASEthathis1dadlent__toBill]].

àincorrectlyruledin

Toremedythis,weproposeamodificationto(31)(andwearegratefulforHisa

Kitaharaforsuggestingthisapproachtous):

(33) Accountoftheboundpronouneffect(version2of3)

a.Unvaluedfeaturesontheheadofthecomplementtothephaseheadkeep

30

thephaseopen.

b.Thelocalitydomainforthephenomenathatgiverisetothebound

pronouneffectisthephase.

c.Boundpronounsenterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.

By(33),itwillnotdotohaveanunvaluedfeaturejustanywhereinthecandidate

phase;rather,theunvaluedfeaturemustbesufficientlyclosetotheedgeofthe

phase,morespecifically,ontheheadofthecomplementtothephasehead.The

crucialpropertyofthesubjectposition,onthisview,isthatthephi-featuresofthe

subjectvaluethephi-featuresonT(subject-verbagreement).Soifthesubject’sphi-

featuresareunvalued,thentheagreeingphi-featuresonTarenecessarilyalso

unvalued.AndTistheheadofthecomplementtothephaseheadC.Asschematized

in(34),thisrevisedaccountmakesalltherightcuts.

(34)Predictionsoftheaccountin(33)

a.Thebookistoodear[forJimtoclaim[PHASEthatMarklent__toBill]].

àcorrectlyruledout

b.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[NON-PHASEthathe1lent__toBill].

àcorrectlyruledin

c.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[PHASEthatBilllent__tohim1]].

àcorrectlyruledout

d.Thebookistoodear[forJim1toclaim[PHASEthathis1dadlent__toBill]].

àcorrectlyruledout

31

Butwearestillnotquitedoneyet,becausealthough(33)makestheright

predictionsforthesentencesofinterest,italsoseverelyundergenerateswhenit

comestomorebasicsentences.Inparticular,wewanttomakesurethatinprinciple

(whennophase-bounddependenciesareatstake),aboundpronouncanbe

arbitrarilydistantfromitsantecedent,asin(35).Butifboundpronounsobligatorily

enterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-featuresandifthesephi-featuresare

eventuallyvaluedwhentheantecedentismergedin,thesimplestviewwouldbe

thatthisvaluationprocedureisitselfphase-bound.Andthenweincorrectlyruleout

(35).

(35)John1said[PHASEthatMarythought[PHASEthatKimsawhim1]].

Soweproposeonefinalrevisiontoouraccount:

(36) Accountoftheboundpronouneffect(version3of3)

a.Unvaluedfeaturesontheheadofthecomplementtothephaseheadkeep

thephaseopen.

b.Thelocalitydomainforthephenomenathatgiverisetothebound

pronouneffectisthephase.

c.Boundpronounsoptionallyenterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-

features.

32

Ifboundpronounshavetheoptionofenteringthederivationwithvaluedphi-

features,thensentenceslike(35)havealicitderivation.

Havingsketchedthebasicgistofouraccount,wenowdiscusseachofthe

threeingredientsin(36)ingreaterformaldetail.Inparticular,wewanttorelate

themtopreviousideasintheliterature,andwewanttoshowthattheycanbe

successfullycombinedbothwithexistingformulationsofthePhaseImpenetrability

Conditionandwithmoreconcreteassumptionsaboutthesyntaxoftherelevant

phenomena.

4.2Phasehoodandfeaturevaluation

Chomsky(2000:107)entertainstwopotentialwaysofdefiningphases:

(37) a.Phasesarepropositional.

b.Phasesareconvergent.

ForChomsky,propositionalobjectsaredefineddisjunctivelyaseither“averb

phraseinwhichallθ-rolesareassigned”(p.106)(i.e.,avP)or“afullclause

includingtenseandforce”(p.106)(i.e.,aCP).13Bycontrast,aconvergentobjectis

onethatitislegibleatallinterfaces(p.95).So,onewayinwhichanobjectcouldfail

tobeconvergentwouldbetocontainunvaluedphi-features.Thepresenceof

unvaluedphi-featureswouldmaketheobjectillegibletothePFinterface,since

33

thesephi-featuresareneededtodeterminethemorphologicalshapeoftheoutput

form.

Theoreticalparsimonyfavorstheviewthatifeitheroftheseapproachesto

phasehoodiscorrect,thenitiscompleteinitself;i.e.,aphraseXPisaphaseifand

onlyifitispropositional(on37a)orifandonlyifitisconvergent(on37b).And

indeed,Chomskyultimatelyarguesinfavorof(37a)andagainst(37b).Butthe

boundpronouneffectanditssubjectorientationleadsustoentertaintheviewthat

propositionalityandconvergencebothneedtoplayaroleindefiningwhataphase

is.14Inparticular,wehypothesizethatthelocalitydomainfordependenciessuchas

too/enoughmovementin(38)isviolatedinvirtueoftheCPstatusofthebracketed

constituenteventhoughthatCPcontainsunvaluedfeatures(ontheboundpronoun

him),whereasthelocalitydomainfortoo/enoughmovementissatisfiedin(39)

becauseeventhoughthebracketedconstituentisaCP,thatCPcontainsunvalued

features(ontheboundpronounhe)thatareinasufficientlylocalconfigurationwith

theedgeofthephasesoastokeepthephaseopen.

(38)*ThisbookistoovaluableforJames1toclaim[thatBilllent__tohim1].

(39)?ThisbookistoovaluableforJames1toclaim[thathe1lent__toBill].

Whatcountsas“sufficientlylocal”?Supposethatacandidatephasedoesnotcount

asaphaseiftheheadofthecomplementtotheheadofthecandidatephasecontains

unvaluedfeatures.Then,thecontrastbetween(38)and(39)followsinvirtueofthe

34

factthatTismergedintothederivationwithunvaluedphi-featuresthatarevalued

inagreementwiththesubject.In(38),therelevantTisvaluedbyBill,sotheCP

countsasaphase.In(39)bycontrast,adoptingthehypothesisthatheentersthe

derivationwithunvaluedphi-features,therelevantTremainsunvalued,sotheCP

doesnotcountasaphase.

Inthefollowingsubsection,weembedthisideaintomoreconcrete

assumptionsabouthowandwhyphasesmatterforthephenomenainquestion.

Beforedoingthis,though,wewouldliketobrieflyconsiderChomsky’s(2000)

empiricalargumentagainstdefiningphasesintermsofconvergenceandexplain

whyitdoesnotunderminethehybridapproachtophasehoodthatwepropose.

Chomsky’sargumentagainsttheconvergenceapproachgoesasfollows.First,

Chomskyconsidersthecontrastinacceptabilitybetween(40a)and(40b)and

appealstoa“MergeoverMove”principletoexplainit:atthepointinthederivation

whenembedded[Spec,TP]isbuilt,thenaïveexpectationwouldbethatthegrammar

canfilliteitherbyraisingmanylinguistsorbymerginginexpletivetherefromthe

lexicalarray.Butapparently,onlythelatteroptionyieldsagrammaticalderivation,

whichfollowsifMergeoverMoveexistsasageneralprinciple.

(40) a.Therearelikely[TPtheretobemanylinguistsatthisconference].

b.*Therearelikely[TPmanylinguiststobemanylinguistsatthisconference].

Butnowconsider(41).Here,atthepointinthederivationwhenembedded

[Spec,TP]isbuilt,raisingmanylinguistsinsteadofmerginginthereyieldsa

35

grammaticalderivation,againsttheexpectationsofMergeoverMove.Thisisnota

problem,however,ifwefurtherassumethatMergeoverMoveappliesonlyover

lexicalsubarrays,andlexicalsubarraysareorganizedintophases.Ifwefurther

supposethattheembeddedCPin(41)isaphase,thenthereisinaseparatelexical

subarrayandisnoteligibletobemergedinattherelevantpointinthederivation.

Consequently,Movedoesnotcompetewithitandthederivationgoesthrough.

(41) Thereissomelikelihood[CPthat[TPmanylinguistswillbemanylinguistsat

thisconference]].

Butifthisisright,then(42)isunderivableonaconvergence-basedapproachto

phasehood,providedthatwh-phrasesenterthederivationwithuninterpretable

features:theuninterpretablefeatureonwhichshouldvoidthephasalstatusofthe

embeddedCP.Consequently,givenMergeoverMove,thereshouldbeforcedto

mergeinat[Spec,TP]ofwill.Butevidentlyitisnotsoforcedbecausethisdoesnot

happenin(42)andyet(42)isgrammatical.Ontheviewthatphasesaredefinedas

vPandCP,ontheotherhand,thereisnoproblemderiving(42),sincetheembedded

CPisphasaldespiteitsuninterpretablefeature,therebypreventingasituation

whereinMergeoverMoveappliesandforcesprematuremergingofthere.

(42) Whichconferenceistheresomelikelihood[CPthatmanylinguistswillbeat

whichconference]?

36

WehavetwothingstosayinresponsetoChomsky’sargument.First,aspointedout

byFelser(2004),theargumentreliesontheviewthatmovementcompeteswith

mergingofthere.But,Felserpointsout,itcouldbethatthereisnotatrueexpletive

andhencethatitsmergesiteisconstrainedthematicallybythechoiceofthe

predicate.Inthiscase,itdoesnotcompetewithmovement,andsotheargument

doesnotgothrough.Second,evenifweassumeforthesakeofargumentthatthere

isatrueexpletive,ourhybridapproachtophasesisimmunetoChomsky’s

argument,becausein(42),theuninterpretablefeatureonwhichhasnobearingon

thestatusofT.TheTheadoftheembeddedCPisfullyvalued,therebyensuringthe

phasalstatusofCP.Consequently,thereisnotintherelevantlexicalsub-array,so

MergeoverMovedoesnotpreventraisingofmanylinguists,andthederivationis

successful.

4.3Phasesaslocalitydomains

In(43),welistallofthephenomenathatwereshowninsections1and2togiverise

totheboundpronouneffect.

(43) a.too/enoughmovement

b.gapping

c.comparativedeletion

d.ACD

e.quantifierscopeinteraction

37

f.multiplequestions

g.pseudogapping

h.reciprocalbinding

i.multiplesluicing

j.familyofquestions

k.extraposition

l.toughmovement

Eachofthesephenomenahasinspiredaliteraturemuchtoovasttodojusticeto

here.Butoneconsistentthemeemerges:allofthesephenomenahavebeenargued

toinvolvesomekindofmovementdependency.See,amongmany,manyothers:

Chomsky1977ontoo/enoughmovementandtoughmovement;Pesetsky1982on

gapping;Kennedy2002oncomparativedeletion;May1985,Hornstein1994and

Kennedy1997onACDandquantifierscopeinteraction;Saito1994andKotek2014

onmultiplequestions;Lasnik2002andGengel2013onpseudogapping;Heim,

Lasnik&May1991onreciprocalbinding;Lasnik2014onmultiplesluicingand

extraposition,andLasnik&Saito1992onfamilyofquestions.

Wetakeitthatthemovementdependenciesinvolvedinthephenomenain

(43)aresubjecttophase-theoreticlocalityconstraints;morespecifically,for

concreteness,weassumethatsomeversionofChomsky’s(2000,2001)Phase

ImpenetrabilityCondition(PIC)asdepictedin(44)holds.Chomsky(2001)

entertainstwovariantsofthePIC,onewhereinthecomplementtoaphaseheadH

becomesinaccessibletosubsequentsyntacticoperationsassoonasHPisbuilt(the

38

so-calledstrongPIC)andonewhereinthecomplementtoHbecomesinaccessible

oncethephraseheadedbythenexthighestphaseheadisbuilt(theso-calledweak

PIC).Foranoverviewofmanyoftheissuesatstakeindecidingbetweenthetwo

variants,seeCitko(2014);wewillultimatelyconcludethatthestrongPICmakesfor

thebestoverallfitwithourtheoreticalaims.

(44)PhaseImpenetrabilityCondition

ThecomplementtoaphaseheadHisnotaccessibletooperations…

a. outsideHP.(strongPIC)

b.atZP(whereZPisheadedbythenexthighestphasehead)(weakPIC)15

(adaptedfromChomsky2001:13-14)

Whatcountsasaphasehead?Inlinewiththeproposalfromtheprevious

subsection,wedefinephaseheadasin(45).

(45)AheadXisaphaseheadiff:

a.Xisacandidatephasehead,and

b.TheheadofthecomplementtoXhasnounvaluedfeatures.

Whatcountsasacandidatephasehead?Wecontrasttwopossibilities,statedin

(46).Ononeview,candidatephaseheadsincludeatleastCandv,whereasonthe

otherview,candidatephaseheadsincludeatleastCbutnotv.SeeLegate(2003)for

39

argumentsinfavorofthephasalstatusofvanddenDikken(2006)forareply.The

viewthatvisnota(candidate)phaseheadisadmittedlynonstandard,butasitturns

out,wewillseebelowthatthisviewfitsthebestwiththerestofourassumptionsto

derivetheboundpronouneffect.Itwillbebeyondthescopeofthispaperto

reconcilethisconclusionwiththeargumentsinthepreviousliteratureinfavorofv’s

phasalstatus,butseenote14belowforasuggestion.Italsobearsnotingthatsince

ourconcernhereiswithclausalsyntax,wetakenostanceonwhatotherkindsof

categories,suchasPorD,mightalsocountascandidatephaseheads;seeCitko

(2014)fordiscussion.

(46)Candidatephaseheadsinclude:

a.Hypothesisa:atleastCandv

b.Hypothesisb:atleastCbutnotv

CrossingthetwovariantsofthePICin(44)withthetwohypothesesabout

theinventoryofcandidatephaseheadsin(46)yieldsthefourtheoretical

possibilitieslistedin(47).

(47)a.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv

b.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv

c.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv

d.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv

40

Inwhatfollows,weassesshowsuccessfuleachofthepossibilitiesin(47)is

ininteractingwithourotherassumptionstoderivetheboundpronouneffect.For

concreteness,wefocusontoo/enoughmovement,andconsidertwocrucialsyntactic

configurations:oneinwhichmovementproceedsfromafiniteclausethatdoesnot

containaboundpronominalsubject(whichwewantourtheorytoruleout)andone

inwhichmovementproceedsfromafiniteclausethatcontainsaboundpronominal

subject(whichwewantourtheorytorulein).Bywayofpreview,wewillconclude

thatfortoo/enoughmovement,(47b)and(47d)succeedbut(47a)and(47c)donot.

Wethenconsiderhowsuccessful(47b)and(47d)areinscalinguptotheother

phenomenathatexemplifytheboundpronouneffect,ultimatelyconcludingthat

(47b)yieldsthebestfitwithourdataandtheory.

Beforeproceeding,twonotesareinorder.First,weintendthisexercisenot

asaforcefulargumentinfavorofaparticularformulationofthePICbutratherasa

“proofofconcept”thatourphase-theoreticaccountoftheboundpronouneffectand

ourviewthatphasesaredefinedinpartbyconvergencearecompatiblewithsome

existingvariantsofthePIC.Weareopentothepossibilitythattherecouldbeother

variantsofthePIC(orevenotherapproachestophasesthatdonotrelyonanything

likethePIC)thatwouldalsointeractwithourotherassumptionsinawaythat

wouldderivethecrucialfacts.Second,weassumeinwhatfollowsthatthe

movementoperationsinquestiondonothavetheoptionofproceedingina

successivecyclicfashion:theelementundergoingmovementmustimmediately

targetitsfinallandingsite.Wewillreturntoandelaborateonthisassumptionafter

wewalkthroughthederivations.

41

Considerfirstthetoo/enoughmovementstructurein(48)thatwewantour

theorytoruleout.Weassumethattoo/enoughstructuresinstantiateA-bar

movementofanoperatorto[Spec,CP]ofthecomplementtotheembedding

predicate(inthiscase,theembeddingpredicateisvaluable).Priortothis

movement,thebracketedportionof(48)hasthestructureindicatedin(49).

(48)*Thisbookistoovaluable[forJohntopromisethatBillwillbuy__].

(49)[CP1C1for[TPJohnTto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPBillTwill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

Thequestionthatwenowwanttoaskis:whichofthefourtheoreticalpossibilities

listedin(47)accuratelyrulesout(48)byensuringthatmovementofOpto

[Spec,CP1]in(49)inducesaPICviolation?Inwhatfollows,weconsidereach

possibilityinturn.

a.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv:Onthisview,v2isa

phaseheadanditscomplementbecomesinaccessibleassoonasvP2iscomplete.

Therefore,Opcannottarget[Spec,CP1]andthederivationiscorrectlyruledout.We

schematizethisin(50),where|-----|indicatestheportionofthestructurethat

becomesinaccessibleatthesiteindicatedbytheasterisk(*).

(50)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPBillTwill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

*|----------|

42

b.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv:Onthisview,

thefirstphaseheadencounteredisC2,thecomplementofwhichbecomes

inaccessibleassoonasCP2iscomplete.Asinthepreviousscenario,Opcannottarget

[Spec,CP1]andthederivationiscorrectlyruledout.Thisisschematizedin(51).

(51)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPBillTwill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

* |-------------------------------------|

c.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv:Onthisview,v2isa

phaseheadanditscomplementbecomesinaccessiblewhenthenexthighestphase

head,namelyC2,ismergedin.Asschematizedin(52),Opcannottarget[Spec,CP1]

andthederivationiscorrectlyruledout.

(52)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPBillTwill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

* |------------|

d.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv:Finally,onthe

mostpermissiveview,thefirstphaseheadencounteredisC2,anditscomplement

becomesinaccessibleoncethenexthighestphasehead,namelyC1,ismergedin.As

intheotherthreescenarios,Opcannottarget[Spec,CP1]andthederivationis

correctlyruledout.Thisisschematizedin(53).

(53)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPBillTwill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

* |-------------------------------------|

43

Theinterimconclusion,then,isthatregardlessofwhetherweadoptthe

strongortheweakversionofthePICandregardlessofwhetherwecountCandvor

justvascandidatephaseheads,(48)iscorrectlyruledout.

Considernow,bycontrast,thetoo/enoughmovementsentencein(54),

whichinstantiatestheboundpronouneffectandwhichwewantourtheorytotreat

asgrammatical;i.e.,wewantourtheorytobeabletoderiveitwithoutincurringa

PICviolation.Thebracketedportionof(54)isasindicatedin(55).Therelevant

parseisoneinwhichtheboundpronounentersthederivationwithunvaluedphi-

features,forwhichweusethenotation“pro[ɸ:__]”in(55).

(54)?Thisbookistoovaluable[forJohntopromisethathe1willbuy__].

(55)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPpro[ɸ:__]Twill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

Similarlytowhatwedidforthepreviousstructure,whatwenowwanttodo

isassesswhichofthetheoreticaloptionsin(47)correctlypredictthatOpcantarget

[Spec,CP1]in(55)withoutincurringaPICviolation.

a.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv:Onthisview,v2isa

phasehead,anditscomplementbecomesinaccessibleassoonasvP2iscomplete.

ThereforeOpcannottarget[Spec,CP1]andthestructureisincorrectlyruledout.

Thisisschematizedin(56).

44

(56)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPpro[ɸ:__]Twill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

*|-----------|

b.StrongPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv:AlthoughC2isa

candidatephasehead,itsstatusasanactualphaseheadisvoidheresincethe

elementsittinginthelower[Spec,TP]position,andbyextensionTitself,has

unvaluedfeatures.Consequently,thefirstphaseheadencounteredisC1.Its

complementbecomesinaccessibleonceCP1isbuilt,whichiscruciallylateenoughin

thederivationforOptotarget[Spec,CP1].Asschematizedin(57),thestructureis

correctlyruledin.

(57)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPpro[ɸ:__]Twill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

*|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

c.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCandv:Onthisview,the

firstphaseencounteredisv2.Itscomplementbecomesinaccessibleassoonasv1is

mergedin.Therefore,Opcannottarget[Spec,CP1],andthestructureisincorrectly

ruledout.Thisisshownin(58).

(58)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPpro[ɸ:__]Twill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

* |------------|

45

d.WeakPIC;CandidatephaseheadsincludeCbutnotv:Onthisview,the

firstactualphaseheadencounteredisC1,anditscomplementisspelledoutassoon

asthenexthighestphasehead(callitC0)ismergedin.Consequently,Opcantarget

[Spec,CP1]andthestructureiscorrectlyruledin,asschematizedin(59).

(59)C0…[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2that[TPpro[ɸ:__]Twill[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

* |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Insummary,inorderforthetoo/enoughsentencesthatinstantiatethebound

pronouneffecttosatisfythePICandbecorrectlyruledin,boththestrongandthe

weakvariantsofthePICareviable,butitmustbethecasethatvisnotacandidate

phasehead.16

Itisalsoimportanttoverifythatouranalysiscorrectlypredictsthatcontrol

andraisingclausesextendlocality.Forcontrolclauses,twoanalyticaloptionsare

available.Thefirstistotakethepositionthatcontrolledsubjectsareinstantiatedby

PROandPROisanunvaluedpronoun,àlaKratzer2009;Landau2015,asin(60).

Then,evenifcontrolclauseshaveallthesamephasalpropertiesasfiniteclauses,

localityisextendedinvirtueofthesameproposalsthatsupportedouranalysisof

theboundpronouneffect.

(60)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise[CP2C2[TPPRO[[ɸ:__]Tto[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

46

TheotheroptionforcontrolclausesistoadopttheMovementTheoryofControl

(seee.g.Hornstein1999)wherebycontrolledsubjectsdonotharborunvalued

featuresbutratheraretheresidueofmovement.Inthatsituation,itwouldhaveto

bethecasethatcontrolclauseseitherlackCorhaveanon-phasalCinorderto

ensurethatlocalityisextended.Thisissketchedin(61).Onthisview,thereisno

candidatephaseheadbetweenOpandC1,soweaccuratelypredictthattherelevant

movementdependencycanbeestablished.

(61)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPpromise([C2)[TPJohnTto[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]]

Asforraisingclauses,weadoptthestandardviewthattheyprojectonlyTP,

asin(62).Aswiththesecondofthetwoapproachestocontrolclauses,thismeans

thatthereisnocandidatephaseheadbetweenOpandC1,soweagainaccurately

predictthattherelevantmovementdependencycanbeestablished.

(62)[CP1C1for[TPJohn[Tto[vP1v1[VPtend[TPJohnTto[vP2v2[VPbuyOp]]]]]]]

Thenextquestiontoaddressis:willtheanalysissketchedabovefor

too/enoughmovementextendstraightforwardlytotheotherelevenphenomena

thatwehaveidentifiedasgivingrisetotheboundpronouneffect?Sincetheseother

phenomenaseemtopatterninexactlythesamewaywithrespecttothebound

pronouneffect,itisverytemptingtotrytoaccountfortheminthesameway.At

leastsomeofthephenomenafallinlinestraightforwardlywithtoo/enough

47

movementsincetheyalsoinvolveamovementoperationthattargets[Spec,CP];

theseincludetoughmovementandpossiblyalsocomparativedeletion.Asan

anonymousreviewerpointsouttous,however,someoftheotherphenomenahave

beenanalyzedasinvolvingamovementoperationthattargetssomepositionbelow

CP.Gengel(2013),forexample,analyzespseudogappingasmovementofthe

remnanttoa[Spec,FocP]positionbetweenTPandvP,sothatthebracketedportion

of(63)hasastructurelike(64).

(63)Johnlikesapplesand[Billdoes<like>oranges].

(64)[TPBillTdoes[FocPoranges1[vPv[VPliket1]]]]

Ifthisisright,thenthesuccessoftheanalysiswehavejustsketchedinaccurately

predictingthat(65)cannotbegeneratedbut(66)candependsonensuringthatin

(67),orangescannottarget[Spec,FocP]whereasin(68)itcan.Continuingtoassume

thatvisnota(candidate)phasehead,theweakPICenablesorangestotarget

[Spec,FocP]in(67);orangesisembeddedinaCPthatwillnotbecomeinaccessible

untilthenextphaseheadismergedin.ThestrongPIC,ontheotherhand,accurately

rulesoutthemovementin(67),sincetheCPthatembedsorangeswillbecome

inaccessibleassoonasCPisbuilt,beforeFocPentersthederivation.Meanwhile,in

(68),theboundpronounvoidsthephasalstatusofCsothattherearenophase

headsbetweenorangesandFocP,enablingmovement.

48

(65)*JohnclaimsthatMarylikesapplesand[Billdoes<claimthatMarylikes>

oranges].

(66)?John1claimsthathe1likesapplesand[Bill2does<claimthathe2likes>

oranges].

(67)[TPBillTdoes[FocP[vPv[VPclaim[CPthat[TPMary[vP[VPlikesoranges]]]]]]]]

(68)[TPBillTdoes[FocP[vPv[VPclaim[CPthat[TPpro[ɸ:__][vP[VPlikesoranges]]]]]]]]

Wethereforeconcludethatthephase-theoreticaccountsketchedabovefor

too/enoughmovementstructurescanbesuccessfullyextendedtothosephenomena

thatinvolvemovementtoapositionlowerthan[Spec,CP],providedweadoptthe

strongratherthantheweakvariantofthePIC.

Finally,beforemovingon,animportantquestionwhichwealludedtoabove

andwhichstillneedstobeaddressedis:sincemost,ifnotall,ofthephenomenathat

instantiatetheboundpronouneffectinvolveA-barmovement,whycan’talong-

distancedependencybeestablishedinaccordancewiththePICviasuccessivecyclic

A-barmovementthroughintermediate[Spec,CP]positions,asisthecasefor

ordinarywh-movement?17Infact,thisistheoppositeofwhatFelser(2004:547)

callsthetriggeringproblemforwh-movement:

49

(69)TheTriggeringProblem:

Ontheassumptionthatagreement(andhence,movement)istriggeredby

matchingbutuninterpretablefeaturesoftheprobe,whattriggersmovement

ofawh-expressiontothespecifierofintermediatenon-interrogativeheads?

(Felser2004:547)

Seenfromthisperspective,therealpuzzleisnotwhytoo/enoughmovementandthe

otherphenomenathatinstantiatetheboundpronouneffectdisallowsuccessive

cyclicitybutratherwhyordinarywh-movementasfoundinstructuressuchas

interrogativeandrelativeclausesdoesallowit.Andthisfar-reachingpuzzleiswell

beyondthescopeofthispaper.Buthereisonepotentiallyfruitfulpossibilityto

explore.Supposeintermediatenon-interrogativeCheadshaveanoptionalwh-

featurethatattractswh-elementsto[Spec,CP].ThisissimilartoChomsky’s(2000)

proposalthatphaseheadshaveanoptionalEPPfeature.Butifweinsteadtreatthe

relevantoptionalfeatureasawh-feature,thisprovidesabasisfordistinguishingwh-

movementinthestrictsensefromotherkindsofA-barmovement:successive

cyclicityisavailableforthoseelementsundergoingA-barmovementthat

themselveshavematchingwh-features,butitisnotavailableforthekindsof

operatorsandphrasesthatundergomovementinthephenomenathattriggerthe

boundpronouneffect.Thisstrikesusasaplausibleavenuetopursue,thoughit

remainstobeseenwhetheritisultimatelyworkable.Oneissuethatwouldneedto

beworkedoutishowitisdeterminedwhetheramovedelementhaswh-features.

50

Theexistenceofwh-featuresonthemovedelementinawh-questionis

straightforward,asistheexistenceofsuchfeaturesonrelativeoperators,giventhat

theysometimesinvolveanovertwh-constituent.Buttopicalizationseemstopattern

likewh-questionsandrelativeclauseformationinbeingunbounded,despitethe

apparentabsenceofanyindependentevidenceforwh-featuresonthemoved

elementintopicalization.AnotherrelevantconsiderationhastodowithQR,which

hasbeenarguedtoallowforsuccessivecyclicmovement,albeitonlywheneachstep

inthemovementissemanticallymotivated(Fox2000;Cecchetto2004).Hencewe

leavethisasanareaforfurtherinvestigation.18

4.4Phi-featuresonboundpronouns

Finally,werevisitthelastcrucialpieceofourproposal,namelythatbound

pronounshavetheoptionofenteringthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.By

wayofbackground,considerasentencelike(70)onitsboundvariable

interpretation.Bywhatprincipleis(61)ruledinbutthegendermismatchedvariant

in(71)ruledout?

(70)Everyman1thinksthathe1isagenius.

(71)*Everyman1thinksthatshe1isagenius.

51

Ingeneraltherearetwokindsofapproachesthatcanbeentertained.Ononeview,

schematizedin(72),aboundpronounentersthederivationwithunvaluedphi-

features(72a),andacquiresthosefeaturesviatransmissionfromitsbinderata

laterstageinthederivation(72b).19Sincethebinderinthiscasehasmasculine

gender,thepronounisultimatelyspelledoutasheratherthanshe(72c).Onthis

view,(71)isruledoutbecauseitcanneverbegeneratedinthefirstplace.For

variousversionsofthisview,seeKratzer1998a,2009;Rullmann2004;Heim

2008.20

(72)a.[Everyman][ɸ:3.sg.masc]thinksthatpro[ɸ:__]isagenius

b.[Everyman][ɸ:3.sg.masc]thinksthatpro[ɸ:3.sg.masc]isagenius

|__________________________↑

c.pro[ɸ:3.sg.masc]→he

Onanotherview,boundpronounsenterthederivationwithfullyspecified

phi-features,sothatastructurelike(71)caninprinciplebebuiltbythesyntax.But

itisdeviantbecauseitinducesapresuppositionfailure.Inparticular,supposethat,

justasisoftenassumedforfreepronouns,phi-featuresonboundpronounsactas

presuppositionalfiltersthatrestricttherangeofvaluesthatthevariabledenotedby

thepronouncantake(seeespeciallyCooper1983andHeim2008).Onthisview,

focusingjustongenderfeaturesandignoringpersonandnumberfeatures,shehas

thedenotationin(73).

52

(73)Foranyassignmentfunctiongandindexn:

[[shen]]gisdefinedonlyifg(n)isfemale.Wheredefined,[[shen]]g=g(n)

(cf.Heim2008:36)

ThispresuppositionprojectsupthroughthestructuresothatthematrixVPendsup

denotingthepartialfunctionin(74)whosedomainisrestrictedtothesetof

females.21

(74)[[1t1thinksthatshe1isagenius]]g=λx:xisfemale.xthinksthatxisagenius

(cf.Heim2008:38)

FollowingHeim(2008:39)inassumingthateverycomeswithitsown

presupposition,namelythatthesetassociatedwithitsNPargumentisasubsetof

thedomainassociatedwithitsVPargument,asin(75),thesentencein(71)endsup

presupposingthatallmenarefemale,asin(76).Thisfaultypresuppositionthen

accountsfortheperceiveddevianceofthesentence.

(75)[[every]]=λPλQ:{x:P(x)=1}⊆dom(Q).{x:P(x)=1}⊆{x:Q(x)=1}

(Heim2008:39)

53

(76)[[Everyman1t1thinksthatshe1isagenius]]gisdefinedonlyifthesetofmen

isasubsetofthesetoffemales.Wheredefined,…

Aswasthecaseforthetwopotentialdefinitionsofphasesentertainedin

section4.2above(phasesaspropositionalobjectsvs.phasesasconvergentobjects),

theoreticalparsimonyfavorstheviewthatifeitheroftheseapproachestobound

pronounsiscorrect,itiscorrectinallcasesandtheotheroneisalwaysincorrect.

Butaswasthecasewithphases,wethinkthattheboundpronouneffectpoints

towardtheviewthatbothoftheseapproachesarecorrect:inprinciple,pronouns

havetheoptionofenteringthederivationeitherwithorwithoutphi-features.22If

theyenterthederivationwithoutphi-features,thentheyhavetobeboundsothat

theirfeaturescanbedetermined(cf.Kratzer’s2009:195FeatureTransmission

underBinding).Butcrucially,bindingisalsoconsistentwithaconfigurationin

whichthepronounentersthederivationwithitsphi-featuresalreadyvaluedand

theappearanceofphi-featureagreementisachievedviatheworkingsof

presuppositionprojection.Weneedtheformeroptionaspartofouraccountofthe

boundpronouneffect,andweneedthelatteroptioninordertoensurethat

structureslike(77)canbebuilt.In(77),theboundpronounisseparatedfromits

antecedentbyatleasttwophaseheads,andsoshouldnotbeaccessibleforfeature

transmission.23Instead,wegetwhatlookslikelong-distancephi-feature

“agreement”asaconsequenceofthefactthatpresuppositionprojectionisnot

subjecttothePIC.

54

(77)Everyman1thinks[CPthatAnnsaid[CPthatMarysawhim1]]

5Islands

Beforeconcluding,weoffersomepreliminaryremarksinthissectiononthe

relevanceoftheboundpronouneffecttoislandphenomena.Inparticular,forat

leastsomeislandtypesincludingadjunctislandsandwh-islands,weseethesame

clineofacceptabilityfamiliarfromthephenomenawefocusedoninthispaper:

extractionoutofanonfiniteclauseisfairlyacceptable(78a/79a),extractionoutofa

finiteclausewithaboundpronominalsubjectissomewhatdegraded(78b/79b),

andextractionoutofafiniteclausewithnoboundpronominalsubjectisthemost

degraded(78c/79c).24

(78) a.What2didJohn1gohome[afterPRO1readingt2]?

b.?What2didJohn1gohome[afterhe1readt2]?

c.*What2didJohngohome[afterMaryreadt2]?

(79) a.What2didJohn1wonder[whetherPRO1toreadt2]?

b.?What2didJohn1wonder[whetherhe1shouldreadt2]?

c.*What2didJohnwonder[whetherBillshouldreadt2]?

Inthisconnection,itisinterestingtonotethatRoss(1967)questioned

Chomsky’s(1964)wh-islandconstraintonthebasisthatitwastoostrong,andthe

55

dataRossofferedtosupportthispositioninvolvedcontrolledinfinitivalembedded

questions(80a-d)aswellassixexamplesofembeddedfinitequestionswithbound

pronominalsubjects(80e-g,81).(AlthoughRossdidnotactuallysaythatthese

pronounswerebound,thisissurelytheintendedinterpretation,sincethereisno

contexttosupportafreereading.)Thedatain(80)-(81)aretakenfromRoss

1967:27withthejudgmentmarksastheyappearintheoriginal.

(80)HetoldmeaboutabookwhichIcan’tfigureout

a.whethertobuyornot.

b.howtoread.

c.wheretoobtain.

d.whattodoabout.

e.whyheread.

f.?whetherIshouldread.

g.??whenIshouldread.

(81)Whichbooksdidhetellyou

a.whyhewantedtoread?

b.?whetherhewantedtoread?

c.??whenhewantedtoread?

Rossnotedthatextractionoutofinfinitivalembeddedquestionsseemedtobemore

acceptablethanextractionoutoffiniteembeddedquestions.Healsonoted

56

regardinghisexamplesofextractionoutofafiniteembeddedquestionthat“there

aremanysentenceswhichdifferinnowaywhichIcandiscernfromthosein[80e-g,

81]butwhichIfindtotallyunacceptable.(Chomsky’sexample,‘*whatdidhe

wonderwhereJohnput?’isagoodcaseinpoint)”(p.27).Theboundpronouneffect

suggestsasolutiontoRoss’spuzzle:(80e-g,81)allcontainaboundpronominal

subject.

Wehypothesizethattheboundpronouneffectasmanifestinislandsis

amenabletothesamekindofphase-theoreticproposalweadvancedforthecore

casesconsideredinthispaper.Inparticular,supposethatwhatmakesaclausean

islandforextractionisthatithassomepropertythatdisablesmovementtoitsedge.

Thisisofcoursetheclassictreatmentofwh-islands,andmayalsoextendtoatleast

someadjunctislandsifweadoptLarson’s(1990)proposalthatsomeadjunct-

introducingprepositionslikebeforeandaftercombinewithCPcomplementswhose

Specpositionisfilledbyanoperator.If[Spec,CP]isalreadyfilled,thenitisnot

availableasanintermediatelandingsite.Consequently,iftheCPisaphase,then

extractionwillincuraPICviolation.Butifaboundpronominalsubjectvoidsthe

phasalstatusofCP,aswehaveproposed,thenextractioncanproceedwithoutthe

needforanintermediatelandingsite.

Thatbeingsaid,asDavidPesetsky(pers.comm.)remindsus,itremainsthe

casethatextractionofadjunctsoutofislandsisrobustlyungrammatical,regardless

ofthestatusoftheembeddedsubject,asillustratedin(82).Consequently,weleave

forfutureworkamorecompleteinvestigationofboundpronounsinislands.25

57

(82) a.*How2didJohn1gohome[afterPRO1solvingtheproblemt2]?

b.*How2didJohn1gohome[afterhe1solvedtheproblemt2]?

c.*How2didJohngohome[afterMarysolvedtheproblemt2]?

6Conclusions

Thispaperbeganwiththeobservationthataboundpronouninthesubjectposition

ofafiniteembeddedclauserenderstheclauseboundaryrelativelytransparentto

syntacticprocessesandrelationsordinarilyconfinedtomonoclausal,control,and

raisingconfigurations.Weshowedthatthiseffectholdsforawiderangeof“quasi-

clause-bound”phenomenaincludingtoo/enoughmovement,gapping,comparative

deletion,ACD,quantifierscopeinteraction,multiplequestions,pseudogapping,

reciprocalbinding,multiplesluicing,familyofquestions,extraposition,andtough

movement.Andwedocumentedtheeffectexperimentallyfortoo/enough

movement,comparativedeletion,andmultiplequestions.

Towardanexplanation,wesuggestedthattherelevantlocalitydomainforall

ofthesephenomenaisthephase,andthatboundpronounshavetheoptionof

enteringthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features,therebyvoidingphasehood.

Thisbasicpictureiscomplicatedbythefactthattheboundpronounmustbein

subjectpositioninordertoextendthelocalitydomain,andinresponsetothiswe

entertainedtheviewthatonlyunvaluedfeaturesthatstandinasufficientlylocal

relationshiptothephasehead(inparticular,ahead-to-headrelationship)void

phasehood.

58

Thisaccounthastwoprimarytheoreticalimplications.Thefirstisthatnotall

boundpronounsarecreatedequal:boundpronounscaneitherenterthederivation

phi-complete,orenterthederivationunvaluedandtherebyinteractwithcore

grammaticalprocesses.ThisconclusionechoesChomsky’s(1955/1975)treatment

ofthird-personpronounsaswellasmorerecentworkonboundpronounsby

Kratzer(2009)(seenote20).Thesecondtheoreticalimplicationisthatnotallfinite

CPsarecreatedequal,specificallywithrespecttotheirphasalstatus.Thebound

pronouneffectoffersnovelevidencefortheviewthatfeaturevaluationhasaroleto

playinphasetheory.

ReferencesAgüero-Bautista, Calixto. 2007. Diagnosing cyclicity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry

38:413–443.

Aissen, Judith, and David Perlmutter. 1983. Postscript to republication of “Clause

reduction in Spanish”. In Studies inRelationalGrammar, ed. David Perlmutter,

383–396.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Ariel,Mira.1988.Referringandaccessibility.JournalofLinguistics24:65-87.

Barrie,Michael.2008.Controlandwh-infinitivals.InNewhorizonsintheanalysisof

control and raising, ed. William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 263– 279.

Dordrecht:Springer.

Cable, Seth. 2005. Binding local person pronouns without semantically empty

features.Ms.,MIT.

Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004.Explaining the locality conditionsofQR:Consequences for

thetheoryofphases.NaturalLanguageSemantics12:345-397.

59

Chomsky,Noam.1964.Currentissuesinlinguistictheory.TheHague:Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris

Halle, ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt,

RinehartandWinston.

Chomsky,Noam.1975.Thelogicalstructureoflinguistictheory.NewYork:Plenum.

(Originalworkpublished1955)

Chomsky,Noam.1977.Onwh-movement.InFormalsyntax,ed.PeterCulicover,Tom

Wasow,andAdrianAkmajian,71–132.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures.

Holland:ForisPublications.

Chomsky,Noam.1986.Barriers.Cambridge:MITPress.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays onminimalist

syntax in honor ofHoward Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan

Uriagereka,89–155.Cambridge:MITPress.

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed.

MichaelKenstowicz,1–52.Cambridge:MITPress.

Cinque,Guglielmo.2004.‘Restructuring’andfunctionalstructure.InStructuresand

beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3, ed. Adriana Belletti,

132–191.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Cooper,Robin.1983.QuantificationandSyntacticTheory.Dordrecht:Reidel.

60

denDikken,Marcel.2006.AreappraisalofvPbeingphasal—AreplytoLegate.ms.,

CUNYGraduateCenter.

Erlewine, Michael and Hadas Kotek. 2016. A streamlined approach to online

linguisticsurveys.NaturalLanguage&LinguisticTheory34:481-495.

Farkas, Donka F., and Anastasia Giannakidou. 1996. How clause-bounded is the

scopeofuniversals? InSALTVI, ed.TeresaGallowayand JustinSpence,35–52.

Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity.

Felser,Claudia.2004.Wh-copying,phases,andsuccessivecyclicity.Lingua114:543–

574.

Fiengo,Robert,C.-T. JamesHuang,HowardLasnik,andTanyaReinhart.1988.The

syntax of Wh-in-situ. In Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on

FormalLinguistics,ed.HagitBorer,81-98.

Fox,Danny.2000.Economyandsemanticinterpretation.Cambridge:MITPress.

Frank, Robert and Dennis Storoshenko. 2015. Experiencing scope: Inverted

expectationsofQRinraising.PaperpresentedatLinguisticSocietyofAmerican

AnnualMeeting,Portland,OR,1/8/15.

Gengel,Kirsten.2013.Pseudogappingandellipsis.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Goodall, Grant. 1991. Wanna-contraction as restructuring. In Interdisciplinary

approachestolanguage:EssaysinhonorofS.-Y.Kuroda, ed.CarolGeorgopoulos

andRobertaIshihara,239–254.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Grano,Thomas.2015.Controlandrestructuring.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hackl,Martin,JorieKoster-HaleandJasonVarvoutis.2012.QuantificationandACD:

Evidencefromreal-timesentenceprocessing.JournalofSemantics29:145-206.

61

Heim, Irene. 2008. Features onboundpronouns. InPhi theory:Phi-featuresacross

modulesandinterfaces,ed.DanielHarbour,DavidAdger,andSusanaBéjar,35–

56.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Heim,IreneandAngelikaKratzer.1998.SemanticsinGenerativeGrammar.Malden,

MA;Blackwell.

Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik, and Robert May. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality.

LinguisticInquiry22:63-101.

Higginbotham,James.1981.Reciprocalinterpretation.JournalofLinguisticResearch

1:97–117.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1994. An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-

containeddeletion.LinguisticInquiry25:455–480.

Hornstein,Norbert.1999.Movementandcontrol.LinguisticInquiry30:69-96.

Huang,C.-T.James.1982a.Movewhinalanguagewithoutwh-movement.The

LinguisticReview1:369-416.

Huang,C.-T.James1982b.LogicalrelationsinChineseandthetheoryofgrammar.

PhDdissertation,MIT.

Jacobson,Pauline.2012.Directcompositionalityand“uninterpretability”:Thecase

of (sometimes) “uninterpretable” features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics

29:305-343.

Johnson, Kyle. 1996. In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of

Massachusetts,Amherst.

Kayne,RichardS.1998.Overtvs.covertmovement.Syntax1:128–191.

62

Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of

quantification.LinguisticInquiry28:662–688.

Kennedy,Christopher.2002.Comparativedeletionandoptimalityinsyntax.Natural

Language&LinguisticTheory20:553-621.

Kenward,MichaelG.,EmmanuelLesaffre,andGeertMolenberghs.Anapplicationof

maximum likelihood and generalized estimating equations to the analysis of

ordinaldatafromalongitudinalstudywithcasesmissingatrandom.Biometrics

50:945-953.

Kluender,RobertandMartaKutas.1993.Subjacencyasaprocessingphenomenon.

LanguageandCognitiveProcesses8:573-633.

Kotek,Hadas.2014.Composingquestions.PhDdissertation,MIT.

Kratzer,Angelika.1998a.Morestructuralanalogiesbetweenpronounsandtenses.

InProceedingsofSemanticsandLinguisticTheoryVIII,ed.DevronStrolovitchand

AaronLawson,92–109.CornellUniversity:CLCPublications.

Kratzer,Angelika.1998b.Scopeorpseudoscope?Aretherewide-scopeindefinites?

In Events and Grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 163–196. Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the

propertiesofpronouns.LinguisticInquiry40:187–237.

Kuno,SusumuandJaneJ.Robinson.1972.MultipleWhQuestions.LinguisticInquiry

3:463-487.

Landau,Idan.2015.Atwo-tieredtheoryofcontrol.Cambridge:MITPress.

63

Landau, Idan. 2016. Agreement at PF: An argument from Partial Control. Syntax

19:79-109.

Larson, Richard K. 1990. Extraction and multiple selection in PP. The Linguistic

Review7:169-182.

Larson, Richard K., and Robert May. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous

movement:ReplytoBaltin.LinguisticInquiry21:103–122.

Lasnik,Howard.2002.Clause-mateconditionsrevisited.GlotInternational6:94–96.

Lasnik, Howard. 2002. On repair by ellipsis. In Proceedings of the 2002 LSK

InternationalSummerConference,vol.1,Forumlecturesandpaperpresentations,

23–36.Seoul:I.ThaaehaksaPublishers,KyungHeeUniversity.

Lasnik,Howard.2006.Afamilyofquestions.Handout,USC.

Lasnik,Howard.2014.MultiplesluicinginEnglish?Syntax17:1–20.

Lasnik,HowardandMamoruSaito.1984.Onthenatureofpropergovernment.

LinguisticInquiry15:235–289.

Lasnik,HowardandMamoruSaito.1992.Moveα:ConditionsonItsApplicationand

Output.Cambridge:MITPress.

Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. A course in minimalist syntax:

Foundationsandprospects.Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.

Lechner,Winfried. 2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives.NaturalLanguage&

LinguisticTheory19:683–735.

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2007. Beyond coherence: The syntax of opacity in German.

Amsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Lee-Schoenfeld,Vera.2008.Binding,phases,andlocality.Syntax11:281-298.

64

Legate, Julie. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry

34:506-515.

May,Robert.1977.Thegrammarofquantification.PhDdissertation,MIT.

May,Robert.1985.Logicalform:Itsstructureandderivation.Cambridge:MITPress.

McElree,Brian,StephaniForaker,andLisbethDyer.2003.Memorystructures that

subservesentencecomprehension.JournalofMemoryandLanguage48:67-91.

Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of

ellipsis.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Moulton,Keir.2008.Clausalcomplementationandthewager-class.InProceedingsof

NELS38,ed.AnisaSchardl,MartinWalkow,andMuhammadAbdurrahman,165–

178.Amherst,MA:GLSAPublications.

Nishigauchi,Taisuke.1998.‘Multiplesluicing’inJapaneseandthefunctionalnature

ofwh-phrases.JournalofEastAsianLinguistics7:121–152.

Partee,BarbaraH.1989.Bindingimplicitvariablesinquantifiedcontexts.InCLS25.

Part one, the general session, ed. Caroline Wiltshire, Randolph Graczyk, and

BradleyMusic,342–365.Chicago:ChicagoLinguisticSociety.

Pesetsky,David.1982.PathsandCategories.PhDdissertation,MIT.

Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories.

Languageandcognitiveprocesses6:229-259.

Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical

implications.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Reuland, Eric. 2010. Minimal versus not so minimal pronouns: Feature

transmission, featuredeletionandtheroleofeconomyinthe languagesystem.

65

In The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in

linguistics, ed. Martin B.H. Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein

Nilsen,andArjenZondervan,257–282.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Rizzi,Luigi.1978.Arestructuringrule inItaliansyntax. InRecenttransformational

studies inEuropean languages, ed. Samuel J. Keyser, 113–158. Cambridge:MIT

Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency

condition.InIssuesinItalianSyntax,ed.L.Rizzi,49–76.Dordrecht:Foris.

Ross,JohnR.1967.Constraintsonvariablesinsyntax.PhDdissertation,MIT.

Rullmann, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables.

LinguisticInquiry35:159–168.

Ruys,E.G.1992.Thescopeofindefinites.PhDdissertation,UtrechtUniversity.

Saito,Mamoru.1994.AdditionalWHeffectsandtheadjunctionsitetheory.Journal

ofEastAsianLinguistics3:195-240.

Sheskin, David. 2003. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical

procedures.BocaRaton,FL:Chapman&Hall/CRC.

Sloan, Kelly. 1991. Quantifier-wh interaction. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics

15:219–237.

Sloan, Kelly, and Juan Uriagereka. 1998. What does ‘everyone’ have scope over?

GLOW.Budapest.

Spathas,Georgios.2010.FocusonAnaphora.Utrecht:LOT.

Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation:

Commutativitydoesnotholdforacceptabilityjudgments.Language87:274-288.

66

Sprouse, Jon,MattWagers,andColinPhillips.2012.A testof therelationbetween

workingmemorycapacityandsyntacticislandeffects.Language88:82-123.

vonStechow,Arnim.2003.Featuredeletionundersemanticbinding.InProceedings

oftheNorthEastLinguisticSociety(NELS)33,ed.MakotoKadowakiandShigeto

Kawahara,377–403Amherst:UniversityofMassachusetts,GLSA.

Sudo,Yasutada.2012.Onthesemanticsofphifeaturesonpronouns.PhDdissertation,

MIT.

Syrett,KristenandJeffreyLidz.2011.Competence,performance,andthelocalityof

quantifierraising:Evidencefrom4-year-oldchildren.LinguisticInquiry42:305-

337.

White, Aaron Steven, and Thomas Grano. 2014. An experimental investigation of

partial control. InProceedingsof SinnundBedeutung18, eds. Urtzi Etxeberria,

AnamariaFălăuş,AritzIrurtzun,andBryanLeferman,469–486.

Wilder, Chris. 1997. Phrasal movement in LF: de re readings, VP-ellipsis and

binding.InProceedingsoftheNorthEastLinguisticSocietyAnnualMeeting27,ed.

byKiyomiKusumoto,425–439.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusetts,GLSA.

Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the function of LF. Linguistic Inquiry

17:265–299.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin:

MoutondeGruyter.

Wurmbrand,Susi.2011.Onagreeandmerge.RevisedcoursenotesfromProblemsin

Syntax(Spring2011),UniversityofConnecticut,accessed5/17/13.

67

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. QR and selection: Covert evidence for phasehood. In

ProceedingsoftheNorthEasternLinguisticsSocietyAnnualMeeting42,ed.Stefan

Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 277–290. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,

GLSA.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2015a. The cost of raising quantifiers. Ms., University of

Connecticut.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2015b. Restructuring cross-linguistically. In Proceedings of the

North Eastern Linguistic Society Annual Meeting 45, ed. Thuy Bui and Deniz

Özyıldız,227-240.Amherst:UniversityofMassachusetts,GLSA.

(Grano)

DepartmentofLinguistics

IndianaUniversity

BallantineHall844

1020E.KirkwoodAvenue

Bloomington,IN47405

tgrano@indiana.edu

(Lasnik)

DepartmentofLinguistics

UniversityofMaryland

1401MarieMountHall

68

CollegePark,MD20742

lasnik@umd.edu

Appendix:StatisticalanalysisofexperimentalresultsInthisappendix,wedescribeingreaterdetailthestatisticalanalysisofthe

experimentalinvestigationdescribedinsection3.4above.Inselectingtestsfor

statisticalanalysis,weassumefollowingSprouse(2011)andothersthatsentence

acceptabilityjudgmentsdonotnecessarilyconformtoaratioscale;thatis,we

assumethatparticipantstreatthesevenpointsontheLikertscaleasdefininga

ranking,butwedonotassumethatthedifferencebetweenaratingof2andarating

of3,forexample,isthesameasthedifferencebetweenaratingof3andaratingof

4.Thismeansthattheresultingdatahavetobetreatedasordinaldataratherthan

asratio-scaledata.

TheinputtothestatisticalanalysisforExperiment1is2,475testsentences

ratedonascaleof1to7.Wetreattheratingasthedependentvariable.Eachofthe

2,475sentencesiscodedfortwofactorsthatconstitutetheindependentvariables.

Thephenomenonfactorconsistsofthethreecategorieslistedin(A1a)andthe

conditionfactorconsistsofthesixcategorieslistedin(A1b).

(A1)a.Phenomenon:ComparativeDeletion,MultipleQuestions,too/enough

Movement

b.Condition:BaseLine,NonFinite,BoundSubj,BoundObj,BoundPoss,NoBinding

69

ThefirsttestweemployisanIndependent-SamplesKruskal-WallisTest,a

rank-basednonparametrictestsimilartoaone-wayANOVAbutappropriatefor

ordinal(non-ratio-scale)data(seeSheskin2003).Thistestallowsustodetermine

whetherornotthedistributionofsentenceratingsisthesameacrossthedifferent

categoriesofachosenfactor.Torunthistestandalltheotherstatisticaltests

describedinwhatfollows,weuseIBMSPSSStatisticsVersion24.

Appliedtothephenomenonfactor,theKruskal-WallisTestindicatesthatthe

distributionofratingsisnotthesameacrossthedifferentcategoriesofthe

phenomenonfactor(𝑋!(2)=107.130,p<0.01).Furthermore,pairwisecomparisons

revealthateachphenomenongivesrisetoaratingprofilethatissignificantly

differentfromeachotherphenomenon.Thesepairwisecomparisonsareshownin

TableA1,withsignificancevaluesadjustedbytheBonferronicorrectionformultiple

tests.TakentogetherwiththemeanrankforeachphenomenonindicatedinTable

A2,thisanalysissupportstheconclusionthatthethreephenomenainvestigatedin

theexperimentconformtotheacceptabilityclinein(A2):onthewhole,comparative

deletionsentences(MeanRank=1422.17)wereratedhigher(p<0.01)than

too/enoughmovementsentences(MeanRank=1229.29),whichwereinturnrated

higher(p<0.01)thanmultiplequestions(MeanRank=1062.54.Whileinteresting

andworthyoffurtherstudy,wetakethisresulttobeorthogonaltoourmain

purpose,whichistoestablishhowratingsvaryasafunctionoftheconditionfactor.

Thatbeingsaid,theclinethatemergesheremaybearaninterestingcross-linguistic

connectiontoRizzi’s(1978)claimthatItaliandoesnotallowmultiplequestions.

70

(A2)ComparativeDeletion>too/enoughMovement>MultipleQuestions

Sample1 - Sample2 Test Statistic

Standard Error

Standard Test Statistic Significance

Adjusted Significance

Multiple Questions – too/enough Movement

-166.750 34.776 -4.795 .000 .000***

Multiple Questions - Comparative Deletion

359.627 34.776 10.341 .000 .000***

too/enough Movement - Comparative Deletion

192.877 34.776 5.546 .000 .000***

TableA1:Experiment1pairwisecomparisonsofphenomena

Phenomenon Mean Rank Comparative Deletion 1,422.17 too/enough Movement 1,229.29 Multiple Questions 1,062.54

TableA2:Experiment1meanranksforphenomena

Appliedtotheconditionfactor,theKruskal-WallisTestindicatesthatthe

distributionofratingsisnotthesameacrossthedifferentconditions(𝑋!(5)=

325.701,p<0.01).Pairwisecomparisonsrevealthateachconditiongivesrisetoa

ratingprofilesignificantlydifferentfromeachothercondition(p<0.01),exceptfor

theBoundPoss,BoundObj,andNoBindingconditionswhicharenotsignificantly

differentfromoneanother(p=1).ThesepairwisecomparisonsareshowninTable

A3.Takentogetherwiththemeanranksforeachcondition(TableA4),thisanalysis

supportstheconclusionthatthesixconditionsinvestigatedinExperiment1

conformtotheclineofacceptabilityindicatedin(A3):BaseLinesentenceswere

ratedasmostacceptable(MeanRank=1841.69),followedbysentenceswitha

nonfiniteembeddedclause(MeanRank=1494.58),followedbysentenceswitha

finiteembeddedclausecontainingaboundpronominalsubject(MeanRank=

1258.58).Atthelowendaresentenceswithanembeddedfiniteclausecontaininga

71

boundpronominalobject(MeanRank=1064.88),aboundsubject-internal

possessor(MeanRank=1024.02),ornoboundpronoun(MeanRank=1046.09).

Thesethreegiverisetoratingsnotsignificantlydifferentfromoneanother.

(A3)BaseLine>NonFinite>BoundSubject>{BoundObj=NoBinding=BoundPoss}

Sample1 - Sample2 Test Statistic

Standard Error

Standard Test Statistic Significance

Adjusted Significance

BoundPoss-NoBinding -22.074 47.087 -.469 .639 1BoundPoss-BoundObj 40.861 47.087 .868 .386 1BoundPoss-BoundSubj -234.564 47.087 -4.982 .000 .000***BoundPoss-NonFinite -470.560 47.087 -9.993 .000 .000***BoundPoss-BaseLine 817.672 57.669 14.179 .000 .000***NoBinding-BoundObj 18.787 47.087 .399 .690 1NoBinding-BoundSubj 212.490 47.087 4.513 .000 .000***NoBinding-NonFinite -448.486 47.087 -9.525 .000 .000***NoBinding-BaseLine 795.598 57.669 13.796 .000 .000***BoundObj-BoundSubj -193.703 47.087 -4.114 .000 .000***BoundObj-NonFinite -429.699 47.087 -9.126 .000 .000***BoundObj-BaseLine 776.811 57.669 13.470 .000 .000***BoundSubj-NonFinite -235.996 47.087 -5.012 .000 .000***BoundSubj-BaseLine 583.108 57.669 10.111 .000 .000***NonFinite-BaseLine 347.112 57.669 6.019 .000 .000***

TableA3:Experiment1pairwisecomparisonsofconditions

Condition Mean Rank BaseLine 1,841.69 NonFinite 1,494.58 BoundSubj 1,258.58 BoundObj 1,064.88 NoBinding 1,046.09 BoundPoss 1,024.02

TableA4:Experiment1meanranksforconditions

AlimitationoftheKruskal-WallisTestisthatitonlyallowsustotestone

factoratatime:phenomenonorcondition.Toremedythis,weemployamore

powerfulstatisticaltechnique:aGeneralizedEstimatingEquations(GEE)analysis.

72

GEEisatechniqueappropriateforordinaldatawithmultipleindependent

variables,similartoageneralizedmultiplelinearregressionbutdifferentinthatit

requiresfewerassumptionsaboutthedataanditmodelspopulationaverages

ratherthanyieldingsubject-specificestimates(seee.g.Kenward,Lesaffreand

Molenberghs1994foradiscussionofGEEinthecontextofapsychiatricstudy).

AppliedtothedatainExperiment1,GEEyieldstheresultsindicatedinTableA5.

OfmostrelevancetousaretherowslabeledA-CantherowslabeledD-I

respectively.LookingfirstattherowslabeledA-C,thetoo/enoughMovement

categoryinrowCis(arbitrarily)selectedasabaseline,andtheBcolumnshowsthe

increaseinlogoddsfortheothercategoriesinthisfactor,namelyMultiple

QuestionsandComparativeDeletion,yieldingaratingthatishigherthantherating

foratoo/enoughMovementsentence.TheExp(B)columntranslatesthisfigureinto

anoddsratio:oddsratiosthataregreaterthan1indicateanincreasedlikelihoodof

ahigherratingwhereasratioslessthan1indicateadecreasedlikelihoodofahigher

rating.Hence,weseeconfirmationoftheconclusionfromthepairwisecomparisons

thatratingsfortoo/enoughMovementsentencesaresignificantlyhigherinodds

ratiothanratingsforMultipleQuestionssentences(Exp(B)=0.618,p<0.01)and

significantlylowerinoddsratio(0.62)thanratingsforComparativeDeletion

sentences(Exp(B)=1.570,p<0.01).

TurningtotherowslabeledD-I,theNoBindingconditionis(arbitrarily)

selectedasabaseline,andtheExp(B)columnindicatestheoddsratioforeachofthe

otherconditionsinyieldingaratingthatishigherthanthatforNoBinding.Wesee,

alsoconsistentwiththepairwisecomparisonsshownabove,thattheoddsratiosfor

73

theNoBindingsentencesarenotsignificantlydifferentfromthoseforBoundObj

(Exp(B)=1.016,p=0.917)orBoundPosssentences(Exp(B)=0.959,p=0.786),but

aresignificantlylowerthanthoseforBoundSubj(Exp(B)=1.680,p=0.002),

NonFinite(Exp(B)=3.272,p<0.01),andBaseLine(Exp(B)=9.608,p<0.01)

sentences.

Parameter Estimates

Parameter B Std. Error

95% Wald Confidence Interval Hypothesis Test

Exp(B)

95% Wald Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

Lower Upper Wald Chi-Square df Sig. Lower Upper

Threshold [Choice_DV=1] -2.041 0.1520 -2.339

-1.743

180.362 1 0.000 0.130 0.096 0.175

[Choice_DV=2] -0.939 0.1350 -1.203

-0.674

48.296 1 0.000 0.391 0.300 0.510

[Choice_DV=3] -0.075 0.1382 -0.346

0.196 0.293 1 0.588 0.928 0.708 1.217

[Choice_DV=4] 0.516 0.1363 0.249 0.783 14.317 1 0.000 1.675 1.282 2.188

[Choice_DV=5] 1.375 0.1456 1.090 1.661 89.291 1 0.000 3.957 2.975 5.263

[Choice_DV=6] 2.666 0.1574 2.358 2.975 286.817 1 0.000 14.385 10.566 19.584

A. [Multiple Questions] -0.482 0.1118 -0.701

-0.263

18.553 1 0.000 0.618 0.496 0.769

B. [Comparative Deletion] 0.451 0.1202 0.215 0.686 14.066 1 0.000 1.570 1.240 1.987

C. [too/enough Movement] 0a 1

D. [BaseLine] 2.263 0.2115 1.848 2.677 114.497 1 0.000 9.608 6.348 14.543

E. [NonFinite] 1.185 0.1601 0.872 1.499 54.832 1 0.000 3.272 2.391 4.477

F. [BoundSubj] 0.519 0.1644 0.196 0.841 9.950 1 0.002 1.680 1.217 2.319

G. [BoundObj] 0.016 0.1532 -0.284

0.316 0.011 1 0.917 1.016 0.753 1.372

H. [BoundPoss] -0.042 0.1548 -0.346

0.261 0.074 1 0.786 0.959 0.708 1.299

I. [NoBinding] 0a 1

(Scale) 1

Dependent Variable: Choice_DV Model: (Threshold), Phenomenon, Condition a. Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.

TableA5:Experiment1GeneralizedEstimatingEquationParameterEstimates WenowturnourattentiontotheanalysisofthedatainExperiment2.Since

Experiment2isidenticalinsetuptoExperiment1exceptthatthesentences

instantiatingtheBoundObjandBoundPossconditionsarereplacedbysentences

thatinstantiate1pSubjand2Subjconditions,respectively,weemploythesame

statisticaltests.Asexpected,theKruskal-WallisTestappliedtothephenomenon

74

factorintheExperiment2dataindicatesthatthedistributionofratingsisnotthe

sameacrossthedifferentcategoriesofthephenomenonfactor(𝑋!(2)=86.409,p<

0.01).AsshowninTablesA6andA7,weseethesameclineofacceptability

schematizedin(A2)aswedidfortheExperiment1data.Alsoasexpected,the

Kruskal-WallisTestappliedtotheconditionfactorindicatesthatthedistributionof

ratingsisnotthesameacrossthedifferentconditions(𝑋!(5)=349.406,p<0.01).

ThepairwisecomparisonsandmeanranksareshowninTablesA8-A9.Taken

together,theysupporttheconclusionthatthesentencestestedinExperiment2

conformtotheclineofacceptabilityschematizedin(A4).Ofparticularinterestisthe

observationthatthe1pSubjand2pSubjconditionsgiverisetoratingprofilesthat

arenotsignificantlydifferentfromthatoftheNoBindingcondition.

(A4)BaseLine>NonFinite>BoundSubject>{1pSubj=2pSubj=NoBinding}

Sample1 - Sample2 Test Statistic

Standard Error

Standard Test Statistic Significance

Adjusted Significance

Multiple Questions – too/enough Movement

-197.550 34.744 -5.686 0.000 0.000***

Multiple Questions - Comparative Deletion

320.315 34.775 9.211 0.000 0.000***

too/enough Movement - Comparative Deletion

122.764 34.775 3.530 0.000 0.001***

TableA6:Experiment2pairwisecomparisonsofphenomena

Phenomenon Mean Rank Comparative Deletion 1,384.37 too/enough Movement 1,261.61 Multiple Questions 1,064.06

TableA7:Experiment1meanranksforphenomena

75

Sample1 - Sample2 Test Statistic

Standard Error

Standard Test Statistic Significance

Adjusted Significance

2pSubj-1pSubj 38.236 57.122 .811 .417 12pSubj-NoBinding 61.978 47.096 -1.316 .188 12pSubj-BoundSubj -292.945 47.096 -6.220 .000 .000***2pSubj-NonFinite -542.577 47.096 -11.521 .000 .000***2pSubj-BaseLine -819.462 57.659 -14.056 .000 .000***1pSubj-NoBinding -23.742 47.070 -.504 .614 11pSubj-BoundSubj -254.709 47.070 -5.411 .000 .000***1pSubj-NonFinite -504.341 47.070 -10.715 .000 .000***1pSubj-BaseLine -772.225 57.637 -13.398 .000 .000***NoBinding-BoundSubj 230.967 47.043 4.910 .000 .000***NoBinding-NonFinite -480.599 47.043 -10.216 .000 .000***NoBinding-BaseLine 748.483 57.616 12.991 .000 .000***BoundSubj-NonFinite -249.632 47.043 -5.306 .000 .000***BoundSubj-BaseLine 517.517 57.616 8.982 .000 .000***Nonfinite-BaseLine 267.884 57.616 4.649 .000 .000***

TableA8:Experiment2pairwisecomparisonsofconditions

Condition Mean Rank BaseLine 1,802.87 NonFinite 1,534.98 BoundSubj 1,285.35 NoBinding 1,054.39 1pSubj 1,030.64 2pSubj 992.41

TableA9:Experiment2meanranksforconditions

Finally,theresultsoftheGEEanalysisasappliedtothedatafrom

Experiment2areasindicatedinTableA10.Hereweseeresultsthatareconsistent

withtheconclusionsfromtheKruskal-Wallistest.AsseeninrowsA-C,too/enough

MovementsentencesareratedsignificantlyhigherthanMultipleQuestions(Exp(B)

=0.567,p<0.01)butlowerthanComparativeDeletionsentencesinawaythat

trendstowardsignificance(Exp(B)=1.322,p=0.014).AsseeninrowsD-I,ratings

76

forNoBindingsentencesarenotsignificantlydifferentthanthosefor2pSubj

sentences(Exp(B)=0.848,p=0.302)or1pSubjsentences(Exp(B)=0.919,p=

0.590),butsignificantlylowerthanthoseforBoundSubjsentences(Exp(B)=1.773,

p<0.01),NonFinitesentences(Exp(B)=3.334,p<0.01),andBaseLinesentences

(Exp(B)=8.405,p<0.01).

Parameter Estimates

Parameter B Std. Error

95% Wald Confidence Interval Hypothesis Test

Exp(B)

95% Wald Confidence Interval for Exp(B)

Lower Upper Wald Chi-Square df Sig. Lower Upper

Threshold [Choice_DV=1] -2.076 0.1527 -2.375

-1.777

184.771 1 0.000 0.125 0.093 0.169

[Choice_DV=2] -0.933 0.1357 -1.199

-0.667

47.339 1 0.000 0.393 0.301 0.513

[Choice_DV=3] -0.099 0.1338 -0.361

0.164 0.545 1 0.460 0.906 0.697 1.178

[Choice_DV=4] 0.615 0.1359 0.348 0.881 20.455 1 0.000 1.849 1.417 2.413

[Choice_DV=5] 1.493 0.1418 1.216 1.771 110.921 1 0.000 4.453 3.372 5.879

[Choice_DV=6] 2.610 0.1597 2.297 2.923 267.078 1 0.000 13.602 9.946 18.602

A. [Multiple Questions] -0.568 0.1207 -0.804

-0.331

22.096 1 0.000 0.567 0.447 0.718

B. [Comparative Deletion] 0.279 0.1138 0.056 0.502 6.001 1 0.014 1.322 1.057 1.652

C. [too/enough Movement] 0a 1

D. [BaseLine] 2.129 0.2434 1.652 2.606 76.489 1 0.000 8.405 5.216 13.544

E. [NonFinite] 1.204 0.1409 0.928 1.480 73.029 1 0.000 3.334 2.529 4.394

F. [BoundSubj] 0.572 0.1374 0.303 0.842 17.356 1 0.000 1.773 1.354 2.320

G. [1pSubj] -0.085 0.1572 -0.393

0.223 0.291 1 0.590 0.919 0.675 1.250

H. [2pSubj] -0.164 0.1594 -0.477

0.148 1.064 1 0.302 0.848 0.621 1.160

I. [NoBinding] 0a 1

(Scale) 1

Dependent Variable: Choice_DV Model: (Threshold), Phenomenon, Condition a. Set to zero because this parameter is redundant.

TableA10:Experiment2GeneralizedEstimatingEquationParameterEstimatesAcknowledgments:Forvaluablecommentsonvariousaspectsofthework

presentedhere,wewouldliketothankTomoFujii,NorbertHornstein,NickHuang,

AtakanInce,HisaKitahara,IdanLandau,GesoelMendes,JasonMerchant,Jon

Sprouse,andtwoanonymousLIreviewers.Wearealsogratefultoaudiencesata

numberofvenueswherewehavepresentedversionsoftheworkreportedhere.

77

ThesevenuesincludeHarvard,IndianaUniversity,Krakow(KrakówSyntaxLab

2016,JagiellonianUniversity),RiodeJaneiro(XCongressoInternacionalda

ABRALIN),Princeton(JerseySyntaxCircle:ProspectsfortheTheoryofSyntax),

UniversityofArizona,UCLA,UniversitätLeipzig,UniversityofMaryland,University

ofMassachusettsatAmherst,andUniversitätTübingen(Pronouns@Tübingen2).

Finally,weowespecialthankstoAnnBungerforhelpwithourexperimentaldesign

andanalysis,JeffLidzforcommentsontheexperimentaldesign,andBingyueLiof

theIndianaStatisticalConsultingCenterforindispensableguidanceconcerningthe

statisticalanalysisofourexperimentalresults.Naturally,allremainingerrorsare

ourown.

1Regardingthemultiplequestionin(2f),itbearsnotingthatthereisonestrandin

theliteraturethattakesthepositionthatthewh-elementsinamultiplequestioncan

infactbeseparatedbyafiniteclauseboundaryandthattheinsituwh-elementcan

evenbeembeddedinanisland;see,e.g.,Huang1982a;Lasnik&Saito1984;Fiengo,

Huang,Lasnik&Reinhart1988.Herewedepartfromthisviewandinsteadfollow

Kuno&Robinson(1973)andPostal(1974)intreatingexampleslike(2f)as

ungrammatical.Forrelevantexperimentalfindingsontherelativeacceptabilityof

multiplequestionsthatspanafiniteclauseboundary,seesection3.4andthe

appendix.

2SeePostal1974foranearlyversionofthisobservationinconnectionwithtough

movement,comparativedeletion,andmultiplequestions(onthelattercf.alsoKuno

andRobinson1972).ThegappingfactsarediscussedbyJohnson(1996)and

Lechner(2001).Andthesizeableliteratureonlocalitydomainsforquantifierscope

78

andACDistoovasttodojusticetohere,butincludesMay1977,1985;Larson&May

1990;Hornstein1994;Farkas&Giannakidou1996;Kennedy1997;Wilder1997;

Kayne1998;Fox2000;Cecchetto2004;Moulton2008;Hackl,Koster-Hale&

Varvoutis2012;Wurmbrand2013,2015a.

Incidentally,itisworthaskingwhetherthecrucialdistinctionbetween(2)

and(3)isthe(non-)finitenessoftheembeddedclauseorthenullness/overtnessof

theembeddedsubject.Inprincipleitshouldbepossibletoadjudicatethismatterby

consideringminimalvariantsinwhichtheembeddedclauseisnonfinitebuthasan

overtsubject,asin(i).Inpractice,though,thejudgmentsconcerning(i)arenot

crystal-clearandsowerefrainfromtakingastanceonwhetherthegrammarshould

rulethemout.Thetheoryweendupproposingpredictsthatthesentencesin(i)

shouldbeungrammaticalifthenonfinitecomplementtowantisaphasalcategory,a

questionweleaveopenforfutureresearch.

(i) a.?Thismagazineistoolow-brow[forJohntowantFredtoread__].

b.?JohnwantsFredtolikeapplesand[Bill<wantsFredtolike>oranges].

c.?MorepeoplewantFredtolikeapples[than<wantFredtolike>oranges].

d.?JohnwantsFredtoreadeverything[Billdoes<wantFredtoread>].

e.?[AtleastoneprofessorwantsFredtoreadeveryjournal].(∀>∃)

f.?Tellme[whowantsFredtoreadwhichjournal].

79

3ThisobservationandmanyoftherelevantfactsarelaidoutbyLasnik(2006),who

reportsonmaterialbasedinsubstantialpartonunpublishedjointresearchwith

TomohiroFujiiandNorbertHornstein.Versionsoftheobservationasitrelatesto

particularphenomenaarefoundinscatteredplacesthroughouttheliterature.These

includeSloan1991(onfamilyofquestions),Nishigauchi1998(onmultiple

questions,multiplesluicing,andgapping),Merchant2001:113,note4(ongapping

andmultiplesluicing),Syrett&Lidz2011(onantecedent-containeddeletion),and

Lasnik2014(onmultiplesluicingandextraposition).

4Inthisconnection,itisnoteworthythatthereisnoboundpronouneffectforclitic

climbing;inotherwords,cliticclimbinginlanguageslikeSpanishandItalianis

alwaysbannedacrossafiniteclauseboundary,evenwhenthesubjectofthe

embeddedfiniteclauseisaboundpronoun.Presumablythisisrelatedtothefact

thatunliketheclause-matephenomenaunderinvestigationinthispaper,noteven

allnonfiniteclausessupportcliticclimbing;whateverisresponsibleforthismore

severerestrictionwouldthenalsoaccountfortheabsenceoftheboundpronoun

effect.Wehopetoaddressthisissuefurtherinfuturework.

5Asidefromrestructuring,otherpotentialwaysinwhich“nonfiniteness”maybetoo

coarse-grainedanotionincharacterizinglocalitydomainsincludecontrol/raising

asymmetries(thereisagreementthatinversescopeispossibleoutofcontrol

complementsbutdisagreementaboutwhetheritispossibleoutofraising

complements:Wurmbrand2013andFrank&Storoshenko2015)andasymmetries

betweencontrolandraisingcomplementsontheonehandvs.ECMorraising-to-

objectcomplementsontheotherhand.

80

6Forthesakeofcompleteness,wedocumentinthisnoteoneotherpotential

manifestationoftheboundpronouneffect.Kratzer(1998b:5),followingRuys

(1992),observesthatboundpronounsfacilitateintermediatescopereadingsfor

indefinitesinsentenceslike(i)(cf.(ii)forthevariantwithouttheboundpronoun).

Thatis,itiseasierin(i)thanin(ii)tounderstandsomestudentasvaryingfromone

professortothenextbutnotvarying,foreachprofessor,fromoneclasssessionto

thenext.

(i) [Everyprofessor]1gotaheadachewheneversomestudenthe1hatedwas

inclass.

(ii) [Everyprofessor]1gotaheadachewheneversomestudentMaryhated

wasinclass.

Whetherornotthecontrastin(i)/(ii)canbesubsumedunderthesamekindof

phase-theoreticaccountthatweadvanceforthecorecasesoftheboundpronoun

effectisunfortunatelynotsomethingthatwewillbeabletoestablishinthispaper,

butitmaybeaninterestingtopicforfutureinvestigation.

7Anotherpotentialsubjectorientationeffectconcernstheantecedent.Inadditionto

theboundpronounhavingtobeinsubjectpositioninorderfortheboundpronoun

effecttohold,datalike(ia-b)suggestthattheantecedenthastobeinsubject

positionaswell.

81

(i) a. *Joe1 persuaded Bill2 that he2 should read Pride & Prejudice and Tim3

<persuadedBill2thathe2shouldread>Sense&Sensibility.

b.*Joe1promisedBill2 thathe2hadalreadyreadPride&PrejudiceandTim3

<promisedBill2thathe2hadalreadyread>Sense&Sensibility.

Anticipatingourphase-theoreticaccountoftheboundpronouneffectinsection4

below,aninitiallyattractivewayofmakingsenseofthisconstraintonthe

antecedentwouldbetoproposethattransferofacandidatephasehead’s

complementoccursassoonastheboundpronounisvaluedbyitsantecedent,so

thatvaluationoftheboundpronounbysomethinglowerthanthesubjectwouldnot

delaytransferlongenoughtoextendlocality.Unfortunately,however,thisapproach

facesdifficultygiventhatsomeoftheclause-matephenomenathattriggerthe

boundpronouneffect(includingforexampletoughmovement,whichalsoraisesa

numberofotherwellknownproblems)involvedependenciesthatspanacrossthe

valuingantecedentsubject.Sointhesecases,weseethattransfermustcontinueto

bedelayedevenaftertheboundpronounisvalued.Consequently,thisisnot

somethingthatwewillbeabletoaccountforinthispaper,thoughwehopeto

addressitinfuturework.

8Anotablelimitationofthisdesignisthatthesentencesthatinstantiatethevarious

boundpronounconditions(24b-d,25b-d)canalsobereadinsuchawaythatthe

relevantpronounisfreeratherthanbound.Sincewedidnotaskexperimental

participantstoratesentencesrelativetoanyparticularinterpretation,thereisno

guaranteethattheirjudgmentsreflecttheboundreading.Buttheexpectationisthat

82

sinceeachsentenceisjudgedinisolationwithoutacontextthatcouldsupplya

referentforafreepronoun,theonlysalientreadingistheboundreading.

9ThiswordingintheinstructionsisborrowedfromWhite&Grano’s(2014)

experimentalinvestigationofpartialcontrol,whosematerialsareavailableat:

https://github.com/aaronstevenwhite/PartialControlExperiments

10TotalsforComparativeDeletionconditions1Pand2PinTable2areslightlylower

thantheyshouldbe(149and148insteadof150and150,respectively)becauseone

oftheparticipantsinExperiment2neglectedtosupplyaratingforthreeofthe

targetitems.Buttheratingsfortheother30targetitemsthatthisparticipantdid

rateareincludedinthetableandinthestatisticalanalysis.

11Seee.g.Wurmbrand(2015a)onquantifierscopeinteraction.Wurmbrand

proposesthatquantifierraisingisnotclause-boundandthatinstead,quantifier

raisingacrossmultiplefiniteclauseboundariesincursaprocessingcostthat

accountsforitsdegradedacceptability.Onthiskindofapproach,thebound

pronouneffectwouldhavetobeunderstoodassomekindofprocessingfacilitation

ongrammaticalsentencesratherthansomethingthatmakesthedifferencebetween

agrammaticalsentenceandanungrammaticalsentence.Itremainstobeseenhow

suchaprocessingaccountwouldfareincomparisonwiththegrammaticalaccount

weproposebelow.

12Theway(31c)isformulatedpresupposes(possiblyproblematically)thatbound

pronounsaredistinguishedfromfreepronounsinthelexicon(i.e.,itisdetermined

assoonasthepronounismergedintothederivationwhetheritwillbeboundor

not;cf.alsonote20below).Wepresentthingsthiswayforexpositoryconvenience,

83

andsimplywishtonoteherethatthefinalversionofouraccount,statedin(36c)

andfurtherelaboratedinsection4.4,doesnotrequiresuchanassumption.Byway

ofpreview,whatwewillultimatelysayisthatpronouns(irrespectiveofany

free/bounddistinction)optionallyenterthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.

Ifapronounentersthederivationwithunvaluedphi-featuresandendsupbeing

free,thederivationcrashes,sincephi-featurevaluationpiggybacksonbinding.By

contrast,ifthepronounendsupbeingbound,itsunvaluedfeatureswillbe

determinedbythebinder.

13Itisnotentirelycleartoushowtounderstand“propositional”insuchawaythat

itpicksoutCPandvPasanaturalclasstotheexclusionofothercategoriessuchas

TP.Thisleavesuswitha“listproblem”:thesetofphasalcategorieshastobe

stipulatedratherthanfollowingfromsomethingmoregeneral.Itisinterestingto

notethatversionsofthe“listproblem”arefoundelsewhereinChomsky’swork;for

example,Chomsky’s(1973)TensedSentenceConditionandSpecifiedSubject

ConditionarebothsubsumedunderthenotionofGovernmentinChomsky1981,

butburiedinthedefinitionofGoverningCategoryisthetermofartSUBJECT(all

caps),whichChomskydefineswithalist:finiteAGR(supplantingtheTensed

SentenceCondition)andthesubjectofanonfiniteclause(supplantingtheSpecified

SubjectCondition).Yetanotherexampleofthelistproblemisthedefinitionof

“cyclicnodes”asNPandSinclassicSubjacency,somethingChomsky(1986)

attemptstoremedyinBarriers.Inanycase,thephasalstatusofvPhasnotgone

unquestioned(denDikken2006),andtheanalysiswepursueinthispaperinfact

84

seemstobeabetterfitwiththeviewthatCPsarephases(undersomeconditions)

whereasvPsarenot.Seesection4.3belowforfurtherdiscussion.

14PredecessorsofthisideaincludeFelser2004,whoproposesthat“phasesshould

bestbedefinedintermsofconvergence,withthe‘propositional’categoriesCPand

vPbeingpotentialcandidatesforlocalSpelloutonly”;Wurmbrand2011,who

proposesthat“onlyinterpretationallycompleteunitscanbetransferred…iF:___ina

potentialphaseprojectionpostponestransfer”(where“iF:___”isanunvalued

interpretablefeature)(p.69);andUriagereka(pers.comm.),whosuggests,building

onLasnik&Uriagereka(2005),that“transferissuspendedwhenananaphoric

dependencyisatstake(untiltheantecedententersthepicture)”.

15Ananonymousreviewerpointsoutthat“atZP”in(44b)canbeinterpretedin

morethanoneway:doesinaccessibilityariseassoonasZismergedin,ornotuntil

ZPiscomplete?Inwhatfollows,weadoptCitko’s(2014)interpretation:“Thetwo

definitions[i.e.,strongPICandweakPIC]differwithrespecttowhenthedomainof

thephaseheadHbecomesinaccessible:assoonasHPiscompleteversusatthe

pointthenextphasehead(Z)ismerged”(p.33).Inotherwords,onthestrongPIC,

inaccessibilityariseswhenthephraseassociatedwiththephaseheadiscomplete,

whereasontheweakPIC,inaccessibilityarisesassoonasthenexthighestphase

headismerged.

16Acompromiseisavailable:ourtheoryisconsistentwiththepossibilitythatvisa

candidatephasehead(whichcouldaccountforwhyitseemstopatternlikeaphase

headincertainrespects:seee.g.Legate2003;Lee-Schoenfeld2008;Citko2014).

Butitisneveranactualphasehead,becausetheheadofitscomplement(i.e.,V)

85

alwayshasmorphologicaltenseandagreementfeaturesthatarenotvalueduntil

higherintheclause.

17WealsoassumeintheforegoingthatOpcannottargetintermediate[Spec,vP]

positions.Wemakethissimplifyingassumptionprimarilyforthreereasons.First,if

Opcannottargetintermediate[Spec,CP]positions,thenitseemsreasonableto

hypothesizethatitalsocannottargetintermediate[Spec,vP]positions.Second,if

successivecyclicmovementvia[Spec,vP]dependsonthestatusofvasa(candidate)

phasehead,thenourtentativeconclusionthatvisnota(candidate)phaseheadalso

constitutesareasonnottoconsiderintermediate[Spec,vP]positions.Finally,the

thirdreasonispractical:entertainingintermediate[Spec,vP]landingsiteswould

excessivelymultiplythenumberofanalyticaloptionstobeassessed.Andsinceour

goalhereisa“proofofconcept”ofaphase-theoreticaccountoftheboundpronoun

effect,weneednotconsidereveryconceivablewaythingscouldbe.

18Thereisalsomoretobesaidaboutmultiplequestions.Here,the(covertly)moved

phraseclearlyhaswh-features,reopeningthepuzzleaboutwhyitcannotmovein

successivecyclicfashion.Butregardlessofwhysuccessivecyclicityisblockedin

multiplequestions,thatitisblockedisaconclusionconvergentwithrecentworkon

multiplequestions.Kotek(2014),basedondataverydifferentfromthatwhich

concernsushere,concludesthat“thecovertmovementofthein-situwhin

superiority-obeyingquestionsisnotanunboundedlong-distancemovement,as

oftenassumed,butinsteadashortQR-likemovement,whichisonlyextendedin

extraordinarycases,…”(p.209).Similarly,Saito(1994)proposesthatthelowerwh-

86

elementinamultiplequestionLFadjoinstothehigherwh-elementratherthan

movingtoa[Spec,CP]position.

Inasimilarvein,ananonymousrevieweraskswhysuccessivecyclic

movementfailsforfamilyofquestionsandformultiplesluicingasexemplifiedin(i)

and(ii)respectively.

(i)*[WhichjournaldoeseveryoneclaimthatJohnreads__]?

Anticipatedanswertype:BillclaimsthatJohnreadsLI,Timclaimsthat

JohnreadsNLLT,etc.

(ii)*SomeoneclaimsthatJohnisworriedaboutsomethingbutIdon’tknow

[who<claimsthatJohnisworried>aboutwhat].

Forfamilyofquestions,weassumefollowingSloan(1991)andLasnikandSaito

(1992)thatthecrucialfactoristhestructuralrelationshipbetweenthequantifier

andthetraceofthewh-movement.Consequently,(i)isruledoutbecausealthough

thewh-phrasecanmovesuccessive-cyclically,itstraceisnotinasufficientlylocal

configurationwiththequantifier.Formultiplesluicing,weassumefollowingLasnik

(2014)thatthesecondwh-expressionundergoesrightwardmovement

(extraposition).Plausibly,suchmovementisnotsubjecttosuccessivecyclicityeven

whenthemovedphrasehappenstohavewh-features,thoughweleaveafull

investigationofthisquestiontofutureresearch.SeeLasnik(2014)forsome

speculationaboutwhyextrapositioncannotbesuccessivecyclic.

87

19Weassumehereforconcretenessthatboundpronounsareboundandvaluedby

theirDPantecedents.Butcf.Kratzer(2009)forthealternativeviewthatbound

pronounsareboundbyclause-localverbalfunctionalheadsCandv.Asfaraswecan

tell,thischoicepointisinprincipleorthogonaltotheconcernsofthispaper,

althoughKratzer’sparticularimplementationmaynotbecompatiblewithour

approach,insofarashersystemwouldallowCtoenterthederivationwithvalued

phi-featuresthatwouldimmediatelyvaluea[Spec,TP]pronounandrenderthe

clauseitappearsinphi-completeandhencephasal.

20Oneofthecentralargumentsinvokedinfavorofthiskindofapproachhastodo

withtheobservation,originallyduetoPartee(1989),thatsometimesphi-features

onfirst-andsecond-personboundpronounsappearasthoughtheyareignoredby

thesemantics,suchasinexampleslike(i).Suchfactscanbereadilymadesenseofif

boundpronounslikemyin(i)acquiretheirphi-featuresatastageofthederivation

thatistoolateforthesefeaturestobeinterpretedbythesemantics(cf.alsoLandau

2016fordiscussion).

(i)OnlyIdidmyhomework.

Relevantreading:Iamtheonlyxsuchthatxdidx’shomework.

Thatbeingsaid,theverdictisstilloutonwhetherlatevaluationofphi-featuresis

therightwaytoaccountforsentenceslike(i).Otheranalyticaloptionsthathave

beenentertainedincludephi-featuredeletion(vonStechow2003;Reuland2010)as

88

wellasapproachesinwhichthephi-featuresonmyin(i)areinfactinterpreted

afterall(Cable2005;Spathas2010;Jacobson2012;Sudo2012).So,itmaybe

prematuretotakesentenceslike(i)asstrongevidencethatboundpronounsenter

thederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.

Inasimilarvein,Heim,Lasnik&May(1991)arguethatundersome

conditions,boundpronounsthatrangeoveratomicindividualsarenonetheless

syntacticallypluralduetoasyntacticagreementrequirementwiththeirantecedent.

Takenatfacevalue,thiskindofsituationalsoseemstosupporttheviewthatphi-

featuresonboundpronounsareatleastsometimesvaluedlateandignoredbythe

semantics,thoughotherapproachesareconceivable.

21ForconcretenesswefollowHeim&Kratzer(1998)inassumingthatbindingofa

pronoundependsonQRoftheantecedent,whichtriggersPredicateAbstractionin

thesemantics.Whentheantecedent’smovementindexmatchestheindexonthe

pronoun,bindingresults.

22EssentiallythesameideaisproposedbyKratzer(2009),basedonaverydifferent

setofdata.ThishybridapproachtopronounsisalsoreminiscentofChomsky’s

(1955/1975:519-524)proposalthatthereare“twoelementsheandhe*,withhe*a

propernoun,andheapronounjustlikeI,you”(p.524of1975edition).For

Chomsky,though,thedistinctioncorrelatedwithwhetherthepronounhada

(sentence-local)antecedent,whereasforus,aswellasforKratzer(2009),the

suggestionisthathavinganantecedentisanecessarybutnotasufficientcondition

forhavingenteredthederivationwithunvaluedphi-features.

89

23ItisalsoconceivablethatthereareotherstructuralconstraintsasidefromthePIC

thatlimittheapplicationoffeaturetransmission.Forexample,itcouldbethat

featuretransmissionissubjecttointervention.Considertheminimalpairin(i)-(ii).

Toourear,(ii)soundsratherdegradedincomparisonwith(i),andonepossible

takeonwhyisthattheDPMaryin(ii)intervenesandtherebydisablesfeature

transmissionbetweentheboundpronounanditsantecedent.

(i) ?Thisbookistooexpensive[forJohn1topromisethathe1willbuyOp].

(ii) *Thisbookistooexpensive[forJohn1topromiseMarythathe1willbuy

Op].

Thatbeingsaid,wediscussbelowsomeexamplesfromRoss(1967)thatsuggest

thattheboundpronouneffectmaybeoperativeforsomeislandphenomena,and

someoftherelevantexamples(71e,72a-c)arenotasdegradedaswemighthave

expectedthemtobeiffeaturetransmissionissubjecttointervention.Weleaveto

futureworkamorethoroughinvestigationofthisissue.

24Inarelatedvein,parasiticgapsarewellknowntobebetterinnonfiniteadjuncts

(ia)thaninfiniteadjuncts(ic),anditseemstousthatfiniteadjunctswithbound

pronominalsubjectspatternwithnonfiniteadjunctsinbeingacceptablewitha

parasiticgap(ib).Sothisappearstobeyetanothermanifestationofthebound

pronouneffect.

90

(i)WhichpapersdidJohnreadbefore…

a.…filing?

b.…hefiled?

c.?...Billfiled?

25Classically,itwasproposedthatmovementofargumentsissubjectonlyto

SubjacencywhilemovementofadjunctsissubjectbothtoSubjacencyandtotheECP

(Huang1982b;Lasnik&Saito1984).Whileitisareasonablehypothesisthatwhat

countsasa“barrier”forSubjacencyisthesameasthatfortheECP,itisnota

logicallynecessaryone.Soonewayofinterpretingthefactsin(73)isthatwhatever

principleisresponsibleforECPeffectsisnotsubjecttothekindofphase-theoretic

constraintsthatgiverisetotheboundpronouneffectbutratherobeyssomeother

setofconstraints.