Some Wh/Operator Interactions

Some Wh/Operator InteractionsAuthor(s): Charles JonesSource: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Autumn, 1990), pp. 577-589Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178696 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 02:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.185 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 02:13:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178696?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REMARKS AND REPLIES 577

Jackendoff, R. (1977) X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts.

Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Mas- sachusetts, Amherst.

Kratzer, A. (1988) "Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates," ms., University of Massa- chusetts, Amherst.

Laka, I. (1989) "Negation: Constraints and Strategies," paper presented at GLOW 1989, Utrecht. Lasnik, H. (1981) "Restricting the Theory of Transformations," in N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot,

eds., Explanation in Linguistics, Longman, London. Lasnik, H. and R. Fiengo (1974) "Complement Object Deletion," Linguistic Inquiry 5, 535-571. Linebarger, M. (1987) "Negative Polarity and Grammatical Representation," Linguistics and Phi-

losophy 10, 325-387. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP," Linguistic

Inquiry 20, 365-424. Raposo, E. (1987) "Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portu-

guese," Linguistic Inquiry 18, 85-109. Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,

Massachusetts. Sportiche, D. (1988) "A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Struc-

ture," Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449. Travis, L. (1988) "The Syntax of Adverbs," to appear in McGill Working Papers in Linguistics:

Proceedings of the IVth Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.

Department of Linguistics and Philosophy 20 D-219 MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

[email protected]

Some Wh/Operator Interactions

Charles Jones

The scope that a quantificational operator may have with respect to a wh-element de- pends on its syntactic position. Wh/operator interactions call for some kind of theoretical characterization, and two such characterizations are the Logical Form (LF) representations of May (1985, 1988 (henceforth: May)) and the Scoped S-Structure (SSS) representations of Williams (1986, 1988 (henceforth: Williams)). May proposes that LF representations are subject to a version of the Path Containment Condition (PCC) of

This article integrates, and expands on, two conference papers. The first was given at NELS 19, at Cornell University, in November 1988, and the other was given at the December 1988 LSA meeting in New Orleans. Thanks to J. Higginbotham, C. Roberts, and K. Safir for discussing some of these things with me. Thanks also to two LI reviewers for their encouragement and clear sight. Opinions, errors, and omissions are my own.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 21, Number 4, Fall 1990 577-589 ?O 1990 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology



578 REMARKS AND REPLIES

Pesetsky (1982). Williams argues that although the PCC can be defined at a properly annotated S-Structure as well as at LF, it does not in general satisfactorily characterize the interactions between wh-elements and other operators. Williams proposes a different constraint on scope: Q-Superiority. The crucial configurations that are relevant to Q- Superiority are essentially S-Structure configurations. In this article I will examine some wh/operator interactions that support a Q-Superiority account over a PCC account. Evidence that favors the essentially S-Structure Q-Superiority erodes support for a separate LF level of representation.

The kinds of operators that I will consider are nonthematic operators like the comparative more in (la) and the result clause so in (lb).

(1) a. John has more money than Mary. b. John was so crazy that he acted irrationally.

Elements like more and so quantify over things like "extents."' I will refer to such elements as (-operators.

This article is about how (-operators interact with wh-elements. In section 1 I discuss the quantificational notation in which the rest of the article will be cast, and in section 2 I discuss certain aspects of the syntax of the extraposed complements of c-operators. In section 3 1 discuss interactions between wh-operators and (-operators. We will see that these interactions are not accounted for by the embedded paths required by the PCC but that they are characterized straightforwardly by Q-Superiority.

1. Notation

Williams (1988) points out that, with the appropriate formulation of the notion of path, the PCC can work for his Scoped S-Structures (SSS) as well as it does for May's LF. For the remainder of this article we will adopt the single-level SSS representations.2

SSS has the following forms: extracted quantificational elements are characterized by the adjunction structure in (2), and unmoved quantificational elements are characterized by the in situ scheme in (3), where o.:i indicates that the scope of [Q N], which itself functions as the variable, extends to the ox-node.

' See the semantic treatments of comparatives in Klein (1980) and Larson (1988), in which a simple comparative like that in (ia) is analyzed (very roughly) along the lines in (ib), where I use g as a variable over extents.

(i) a. John is taller than Mary. b. 3t [- Mary is e tall & John is e tall]

Dresher's (1977) theory also involves existential quantification over extents, although his formulation is not Boolean, involving as it does a pair of existentially quantified extents that are compared directly, as in (ii).

(ii) 3g [3 > k' & John is ( tall & Mary is t' tall] 2 We could look at things in the other direction. The requirements of Q-Superiority, although they are

essentially S-Structure requirements, could be read off from LF, since the QR movements that map S-Structure to LF leave traces. I choose not to adopt the LF notation here because making the reader read S-Structure through LF would tend to beg the question of the necessity of a separate level of LF representation.




(2) [a[Q N]iJ[ . ti .]]

(3) [aot i. .. [Q N]i . . .] Williams's (re)definition of path in (4) characterizes paths in either the adjoined or

the in situ scheme.

(4) The path of a quantification structure is the smallest set of nodes connecting the parts of the quantification structure (the quantifier, the scope, and the variable). (Williams (1988, (8)))

The PCC requires that, if paths intersect, then one path must properly contain all of the member nodes of the other path.3

Williams's generalized formulation of Q-Superiority is in (5).

(5) Q-Superiority

If the scope of Qi includes the scope of Q, then Qi c-commands the variable of Q. (Williams (1988, (21)))

The scope-assigning properties of more and so are indicated by the well-known ambiguities of sentences like (6) and (7).

(6) Mary thinks John has more money than he has. (7) Mary believed Harry was so crazy that he acted irrationally.

The comparative in (6) has a reading in which Mary believes a contradiction, as well as a reading in which the amount of money Mary mistakenly believes John has exceeds the amount he actually has. These readings can be represented as differences in the scopes of the (-operators, as in (8a,b), respectively.4

(8) a. Mary thinks [L:i John has morei money than he has]. b. [y:i Mary thinks John has morei money than he has].

The category of the node at which the (-operator establishes its scope, which I label here as y, will be a crucial matter in the discussion to follow. In section 2.2 I show that, in Gueron and May's (1984; henceforth: G&M) theory of extraposition, y must be S'. Since May (1985) adopts G&M's theory of (-operators virtually intact, I will at times refer to their common theory as the LF theory.

3 Because all quantificational paths in May's LF are derived by movement, path intersection is in all cases characterized in terms of common path segment. Certain paths that overlap at a segment created by adjunction in LF, as in (i), merely share a node, or touch, in SSS, as in (ii). Hence, the SSS notation requires that the notion of path intersection include cases like (ii) where paths touch.

(i) . [X (.. ti . . tj . .] .i

.. .... . .. . .. . .. .

(ii . . . [L jj . . . Xi . . .Yj . . .] J

4 This is essentially the scope theory of Dresher (1977). For somewhat different theories of the scope of (-operators, see Postal (1974), Williams (1977), Klein (1980), and Larson (1988).




The result clause in (7) has a reading in which what Mary believed was that Harry's craziness caused his irrational behavior, and another reading in which it is Mary's belief about Harry's craziness that caused his irrational behavior. These two construals can be represented as in (9a,b), respectively.

(9) a. Mary believed [,,i Harry was soi crazy that he acted irrationally]. b. [y:i Mary believed Harry was soi crazy that he acted irrationally].

2. Syntax of t-Complements

In this section I briefly review some syntactic tests that show that (-complement clauses extrapose to S' at S-Structure, and then I present the government requirement that G&M suggest on the LF syntax of t-operators and their complements.

2.1. S-Structure

The complements of (-operators must extrapose to a position outside VP, since they can be attached outside a temporal adverbial, which is (optionally) outside the domain of VP-deletion. (lOc) shows that complements extraposed from NP can land outside VP as well.

(10) a. Fewer people voted for John [yesterday] [than he expected], but more did A [at the last minute] [than the polls predicted].

b. Too few guests had arrived [by noon] [for John to start drinking], but so many had A [by 1: 00] [that Mary thought of pouring herself a stiff one].

c. Some people have arrived [in the last couple of minutes] [who like Mary], but only one has A [in the past hour] [who likes John].

When a (-operator complement and an element extraposed from NP stack up at the end of an S, the (-operator complement must be outside the NP-extraposed element.

(11) a. i. More people voted for John [whom he didn't know] [than he expected]. ii. *More people voted for John [than he expected] [whom he didn't know].

b. i. So many guests have arrived [that Mary hates] [that she's getting sick]. ii. *So many guests have arrived [that she's getting sick] [that Mary hates].

Williams (1974), whom G&M cite, points out that this distribution follows for free if NP- extraposed elements attach to S and (-operator-extraposed complements attach to S'.

When the extrapositions take place from object position, the same distribution results. 5

5 I am grateful to an LI reviewer for pointing out that the S' attachment of a (-complement extraposed from object may not be as straightforwardly supported as that of one extraposed from subject. VP-deletion in a construction in which the (-complement is extraposed from object is impossible, which may seem to show that a (-complement, when extraposed from object, must adjoin within VP.

(i) *John saw so many people that he laughed, and Mary did A that she cried.




(12) a. i. John saw more people at the party [today] [whom he didn't know] [than he expected to see].

ii. *John saw more people at the party [today] [than he expected to see] [whom he didn't know].

b. i. Mary saw so many people [today] [whom she hated] [that she got sick]. ii. *Mary saw so many people [today] [that she got sick] [whom she hated].

I assume, then, with G&M, that the c-complement extraposes in general to S'.

2.2. Government at LF

G&M suggest that the head-complement relation between a (-operator and its complement must be reconstructed at LF, as in (13) (= G&M's (11)).

(13) In a sequence of categories xi, j, . . . , in a structure 1, . . . , 7 are complements to oxi only if oti governs . 1.

This requirement makes it necessary for the (-operator to move to a syntactic position from which it can govern its complement, where government is taken to be the Aoun and Sportiche (1981)-style government characterized in (14) (= G&M's (12)).

(14) ot governs = df Ot, 1 are dominated by all the same maximal projections, and there are no maximal projection boundaries between a and 1.

If the (-operator complements characteristically extrapose to S', as argued in section 2.1, then the (-operator head must move in LF to S' as well, in order to satisfy the head- complement reconstruction requirement in (13).

3. Wh/g-Operator Interactions

We are now in a position to see how (-operators interact with Wh-Movement. In section 3.1 I discuss certain wh/k-operator interactions within the LF theory, as outlined in section 2.2. We will see that LF theory, as it stands, predicts violations of the PCC. In section 3.2 I list other operators that seem to act in the same manner as the (-operators

(i), however, may be ruled out independently. Note that in (i) there is no (-operator to govern the would- be (-complement at the end of the sentence. This absence of a (-governor in (i) may be sufficient to rule it out. However, let us pursue this matter a step further.

Let us assume that the (-complement extraposes to S'. Suppose that a VP containing a (-governor for the extraposed element could be reconstructed at some level (say, LF), as in (ii). Would such an analysis predict (i) to be acceptable?

(ii) . . . and [s i [s Mary did [vP(= A) see (i many people]] [that she cried]j] (ii) illustrates an instance in which a constituent containing an unbound variable is deleted. Such a deletion

would be ruled out in a theory like that of Williams (1977). Though I will not work out the details and consequences of an alternative analysis of (i) here, I think I

have shown that it is not an inescapable counterexample to the claim made with respect to (11) and (12) for a general S'-adjunction site for (-complement extraposition.




more and so. In section 3.3 I discuss how much of the LF theory we would have to abandon in order to explain the results in section 3.1. We will see that what has to be abandoned is the requirement in (13) that the head-complement relation between a (-operator and its complement must be reconstructed at LF. In the remainder of section 3.3 I discuss various consequences of abandoning this requirement.

3.1. The Interactions

Consider (15b), which is the ambiguous (15a) (= (6)) with the embedded subject extracted. (15b) is as ambiguous as (15a) between the contradictory belief and mistaken belief readings corresponding to the two (-scope possibilities represented in (8a,b). This kind of ambiguity is problematic for the PCC.

(15) a. Mary thinks John has more money than he has. b. Whoj does [Mary think [tj has more money than he has]]?

If the quantification path of the nonthematic (-operator more in (15) must extend to S', then the contradictory and mistaken belief readings will be characterized as in (16a,b), respectively. The contradictory reading of (15) in (16a) has paths that intersect, at the embedded {S',S} path segment. Neither path properly contains the other, in vio- lation of the PCC.

(16) a. [s5:j whoj [s:j Mary think [s:ij[s:i, tj has more' money than he has]]]]

i~~~~~~~~~ J J

b. [s':ij whoj [S:ij Mary think [s'i,j[s:ij tj has more' money than he has]]]] i_ i

Q-Superiority has a straightforward account of the readings that are possible in (15). At S-Structure, since more does not c-command the trace of who, it cannot have wider scope than the wh-operator. However, any scope up to but not past wh is allowed. This flexibility in the scope of more allows both readings of (15), with no special stipulations about the characteristic scope of the comparative operator.

Now consider (17b), which is the ambiguous (17a)(= (7)) with the embedded subject extracted. (17b) is as ambiguous as (17a).

(17) a. Mary believed Harry was so crazy that he acted irrationally. b. Which guyj did [Mary believe [tj was so crazy that he acted irrationally]]?

This ambiguity of the scope of so presents exactly the same problem for the PCC that more does. The narrow scope path of so will intersect with the wh-path along the embedded {S',S} segment, without embedding, as in (18).




(18) 15': which guy1 IS:j Mary believe [s':ij [s:ij tj was soi crazy i i

J J that he acted irrationally]]]]

On the other hand, in the same manner as it does above, Q-Superiority allows so any scope up to but not past the wh-operator. Both available readings are allowed, and again without any special stipulation about the characteristic scope of the (-operator so.

Similar ambiguities of scope arise in examples in which the wh-element is extracted from object position. Consider the examples in (19). By itself, the embedded S in (19ai) is a contradiction; and the embedded S in (l9bi) by itself is a statement of direct causation. In the embedded constructions, (19ai) allows a reading about Mary's mistaken belief, and (19bi) allows a reading of Mary's indirect causation of Harry's arrogance. These ambiguities persist when the object is wh-moved, as in (19aii,bii).

(19) a. i. Mary thinks [more people will vote for Jackson than actually will]. ii. [s':i, whoj does [s Mary think [s i[s morei people will vote for tj](]])

i .. i- i J J

[than actually will](]])] b. i. Mary believed [so many people liked Harry that he became arrogant].

ii. [s :ij whoj did [s Mary believe [s1i[s so' many people liked tj](]]) i, __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . i - i

[that he became arrogant](]])]

In these cases the wh-path properly contains the (-paths, so the PCC is not violated. In light of the subject-extraction examples above, however, this nonviolation of the PCC must be an accident.

Q-Superiority accounts for these examples in essentially the same way as it does the subject extractions. The standard assumption about the (-operator is that it is the head of a QP (see G&M for review, discussion, and references). The c-command domain of the (-operator, then, is within the maximal projection that immediately contains its QP. In both examples in (19), for instance, the (-operators c-command only into the people-NP, so in neither case does the (-operator c-command the wh-trace. On the other hand, the wh-element in both examples c-commands the t-operator. Q-Superiority, then, predicts wide scope for wh and any scope up to but not past wh for the t-operator.6

6 Something we have not considered in the above examples is the possibility of the (-operator taking wider scope than the wh-operator. Recall, for example, the wide scope comparative examples in (16b) and (19aii), the essentials of which are repeated here in (i) and (ii).

(i) [s :ij whoj [s Mary think [si[s tj has morei money than he has]]]] i i i i




3.2. Some Other (-Operators

The structures we have been considering have had the general forms illustrated in (20), where the scope of g is ambiguous between the embedded clause or the matrix clause.

(20) a. [(s: i) whj ... [(s i) j .* .... [QP .i * * ]

b. [(s i) whj ... [(s'i) ... [QP (i * * .] ... tj .]]

In general, we have seen that narrow scope construals for (-operators in the (20a) configuration cause problems for the PCC, on the assumption that nonthematic operators have S' scope. Other operators can be found having similarly ambiguous construals in configurations like (20). These operators will all cause problems for the PCC. In this section I present examples only in the troublesome (20a) configuration. Similar ambiguities exist in the (20b) configuration.

Dresher (1977) notes that a scopal analysis can be extended to account for as and too operators. The enough operator can be added to the list as well. Consider the examples in (21)((21a,b) = Dresher's (65a,b)).

(21) a. John believes that chess is as hard as it is enjoyable. b. John believes that chess is too hard for him to be able to enjoy it. c. John believes that chess is easy enough for him to enjoy it.

These sentences have a narrow operator scope reading where the content of John's belief is expressed by the complement of believes. They also all have a wide scope reading where the complement of the operator expresses an independent characterization of the content of John's belief, as in (22).7

(ii) [S':ij whoj does [s Mary think [s [s morei people will vote for tj than actually will]]]] i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

J j In the LF theory, the two quantifiers are in a position, at S', to interact. In particular, the comparative

(-operator should be able to have scope over the wh-operator. In the Q-Superiority theory, wide scope for more would be impossible in both (i) and (ii), since in neither case does more c-command the trace of who.

I think that there is no robust intuition about any ambiguity in (i) or (ii) that would suggest that who and more can switch scopes. The apparent absence of any such ambiguity might seem to favor the Q-Superiority theory over the LF theory; however, this matter is considerably more complex than it looks. I have discussed these configurations in Jones (1988, 1989). I believe that pragmatic factors are operative in general in ruling out these kinds of ambiguities, with a consequent dilution of much of the difference between these two theories with respect to these kinds of nonambiguities.

7 The de dicto/de re NP ambiguity in (i) is preserved when the embedded subject is extracted as in (ii).

(i) John believes that Mary didn't kiss [the boy she kissed]. (ii) Which girli does John believe t, didn't kiss [the boy she kissed]?

In many theories the structures that represent de dicto/de re NP ambiguities resemble the structures in (20) and hence may serve as additional examples of the kinds of PCC problems I am outlining. There are (at least) two aspects of these constructions, however, that may rule them out as supporting examples. First, it is not clear whether these ambiguities are to be characterized as matters of scope. See Montague (1974) for the classic scopal theory of these ambiguities, and Partee (1970) and Barwise and Perry (1983) for alternative views. Second, even if these ambiguities are to be scopally characterized, there is no requirement in any part of the LF theory that would require the scope of these NPs to be S', as the scope of (-operators must be. See section 3.3.2 for further discussion of the S' adjunction requirement on the (-operator in the LF theory.




(22) John believes that chess is e hard, where a. g = as much as it is enjoyable (for instance, for someone else) b. e = too much for him to be able to enjoy it c. g so much that he can enjoy playing it

Insofar as the two kinds of readings lend themselves to scopal characterizations, the narrow scope reading of the type in (21) to be represented as in (23a) and the wide scope reading of the type in (22) to be represented as in (23b), all of the above operators will cause problems for the PCC on a narrow scope reading when the embedded subjects are extracted.8

(23) a. John believes [s':i chess is asi hard as it is enjoyable]. b. [s':i John believes chess is asi hard as it is enjoyable].

3.3. Fixing LF

It should be obvious that the problem for the PCC arises as a consequence of G&M's requirement in (13) that the (-operator govern its complement at LF. It is this requirement that necessitates the S' adjunction of the (-operator that creates the illegal path segment for the narrow scope reading of the c-operator.

(16) a. [S'j whoj [s:j Mary think [S:i,j[s:ij t, has morei money than he has]]]] ii

J J

Here I discuss two ways of fixing LF so that this undesirable result can be avoided. I consider the first rather briefly, and the second, which is less ad hoc, at some length.

3.3.1. The PCC and "Uniform Binding." One way of getting around the problem that the PCC has with these kinds of constructions would be to say that we are working with apples and oranges. The dependencies that we are working with are of two different kinds: wh-dependencies and (-dependencies. It could be the case that keeping track of dependencies via the PCC gets particularized with respect to different kinds of dependencies; perhaps the PCC doesn't count (-operators when it counts other kinds of operators.

These kinds of particularized constraints are not unheard of in the literature. As Pesetsky (1982) points out, for instance, the PCC must be blind to "NP-Movement"

8 It is possible for toolenough complements to feature empty objects. (i) Which gamej does John believe tj is tooi hard [to enjoy e]i?

(ii) Which game1 does John believe tj is easy enoughi [to enjoy eti? As far as I can tell, the narrow scope reading for the (-operator is much preferred over the wide scope

reading. If these constructions allow only the narrow scope readings, then they pose a problem only if (-operators must adjoin at S'. S' is of course the node at which (-operators adjoin in principle in the LF theory. If they are ambiguous, then the narrow scope reading still poses a problem. So the empty object complements of toolenough certainly are no help for the LF theory.




paths. Kayne (1983, (45)) finds it necessary to modify his Connectedness Condition (to which the PCC is a close relative) to hold only of g-projection sets that are of the same type: empty categories, wh-phrases, negative phrases, and so on. The modified Con- nectedness Condition holds only of categories that are uniformly bound. It is conceivable that May's PCC could be modified to hold only of uniformly bound elements.

Such a move, however, would vitiate the considerations that seem to have motivated the PCC in the first place. May's move from an ECP characterization of the constraints on moved elements at LF to a PCC characterization (see May (1985, chap. 5)) was motivated precisely by the perceived desirability of generalizing away from the particular natures of the paths of quantificational operators.

3.3.2. Free Adjunction. If the (-operator were allowed to adjoin to maximal projections other than S' at LF, then the narrow scope reading would receive a licit representation like that in (24), where the (-operator adjoins to VP and the two paths do not intersect. (Note that S-adjunction will not do, because that, too, would create an illicit path intersection at S.)

(24) Is 'j whoj [s5j Mary think [S':i,Js[:ij tj [vP:i has morei money than he has]]]]] *. i*

._ __ *

. __ _ i

J I What must we do in order to allow free LF adjunction for the (-operator? Recall

from (11) and (12) that the S-Structure position of the extraposed (-complements is S'. This S-Structure position of the (-complement presents us with a choice. We could either move the S'-adjoined (-complement to a position inside VP at LF, where it can be governed by its VP-adjoined (-operator, or we could give up the requirement in (13) that the head-complement relation, at least that relation between the (-operator and its complement, must be reconstructed at LF. The first choice, LF movement of the complement back into VP, is not motivated by anything other than (13) itself; consequently, I will not discuss it further. Instead, I discuss the possibility of giving up (13). How much do we give up if we have to give up the LF requirement in (13)?

Two kinds of matters arise as a consequence of giving up (13): theory-internal matters, and matters of syntactic fact.

The theory-internal matters concern the characterization of various notions that form the foundations of the theory. Consider, for example, what G&M's definition of

variable" in (25)(= G&M's (19)) has to say about (-operator constructions.

(25) e is a variable =df e is contained in an A-position and is A-bound within S'.

In the LF theory, a (-operator that adjoins to S' will not c-command, and hence cannot bind, its trace within S', because the operator will not be dominated by every S' segment.9

9 Compare May (1985, 57): ". . . to be dominated by an occurrence of a projection, maximal or otherwise, is to be dominated by all the member nodes of that projection. Hence, a phrase that is Chomsky-adjoined to a given projection is not, in fact, dominated by that projection, but only by part of it." Also see G&M (p. 9).




(26) [s (i [s, .[ . ei... ]]]

Thus, if (-operators move to S', then the traces of nonthematic (-operators fail both criteria in the definition of "variable." G&M's theory makes crucial use of the distinction between a thematic operator, which binds a "variable of individuals," and a nonthematic operator, like a a-operator, whose variable does not fit the definition in (25). It is no accident for G&M, but is rather a result to be desired, that c-variables have the properties (or nonproperties) that they do.

Suppose now that (-operators are allowed to freely adjoin at LF, as suggested in (24). (24) then contains an element that is A-bound within S', but that is not in an A- position. This element is a kind of hybrid variable, having properties of two mutually exclusive kinds of variables. Such an element may not present insuperable difficulties to G&M's theory, but it may call for some reworking of their definition of "variable."

Abandoning (13) also entails that the head-complement relation will have to be established at some level other than at LF, if it is to be established at all. G&M state that "it is hard to imagine any theory that does not contain some condition linking heads and extraposed constituents" (p. 29). Abandoning (13) would call for just such hard imagining, although, again, such imagining is not impossible. It is possible to imagine, for instance, a theory in which the head-complement relation is established at D-Struc- ture, and that subsequent discontinuities created by extraposition are simply acceptable.

It is difficult to evaluate the impact that giving up (13) might have on such theory- internal matters, since it is always possible to rethink the details of the fundamentals on which the theory rests. When we move to matters of syntactic fact, however, the picture clears up considerably.

G&M list three syntactic differences between NP-extraposed elements and extraposed a-complements that follow from their theory, which includes the LF government requirement in (13). However, not one of the differences follows strictly as a consequence of (13).

The first property to be accounted for is the boundedness of extraposition of NP- extraposed elements, as opposed to the apparently unbounded nature of the extraposition from a (-operator, a difference that gives rise to the different possibilities of coreference in sentences like those in (27) (= G&M's (5)).

(27) a. I told her that so many people attended last year's concert that I made Mary nervous.

b. *I told her that many people attended last year's concert who made Marv nervous.

This difference, however, arises as a consequence of an interaction between the hypothesis that LF movement of a (-operator does not "pied-pipe" the constituent that contains it and a prohibition against vacuous quantification (see G&M, 18).

The second property to be accounted for is the possibility of extraposing (-operator complements from islands, illustrated in (28) (= G&M's (6)).




(28) a. Plots by so many conspirators have been hatched that the government has jailed them.

b. *Plots by many conspirators have been hatched who the government has jailed.

This property however follows from the hypothesis that the trace of LF a-operator movement is not regulated by the ECP (see G&M, 22, Safir (1982)).

The third property to be accounted for is the possibility of split antecedents for g- operator complements, illustrated in (29) (= G&M's (7)).

(29) a. So many people liked so many pictures at the gallery that the exhibition was held over for two weeks.

b. *Every man saw some woman last year who is similar.

This property follows from the possibility that the QP specifier of an XP can have an index distinct from the category that contains it (see G&M's (25)).

In G&M's theory, then, no matters of syntactic fact hinge crucially on the LF government requirement in (13). All that the requirement in (13) does in the theory is necessitate the syntactic movement of the (-operator so that it can govern its complement at LF. The above considerations suggest that there is little independent support for such movement. 10

4. The Status of LF

The main concern here, as in Williams's (1986) original proposal, has not been to "get rid of LF" but only to show that the constraints on a significant portion of phenomena that are usually associated with a separate level of LF can be stated on a properly annotated S-Structure. I have shown that the adjunction structures created by the map- ping between S-Structure and LF are superfluous to the characterization of a certain kind of interaction between operators. This demonstration vitiates a correspondingly significant measure of the motivation for a separate LF level of representation. Put plainly, we may be able to make the LF theory work for these interactions, but we can't make the LF theory necessary for them.

References

Aoun, J. and D. Sportiche (1981) "On the Formal Theory of Government," The Linguistic Review 2, 211-236.

Barwise, J. and J. Perry (1983) Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

'0 Epstein (1989) reaches a similar conclusion with respect to LF in his discussion of pronominal variable binding. Epstein shows how LF can be "fixed" but notes that there is no independent motivation for the solution he proposes. A difference between Epstein's problem for LF and the problem for LF outlined here is that, whereas the Leftness Condition that Epstein uses to fix LF with respect to pronominal variable binding can be incorporated into LF virtually without consequence, the abandonment of (13) discussed in section 3.3.2 seems to have fairly deep, theory-internal consequences.




Dresher, B. E. (1977) "Logical Representations and Linguistic Theory," Linguistic Inquiry 8, 351-378.

Epstein, S. D. (1989) "Adjunction and Pronominal Variable Binding," Linguistic Inquiry 20, 307- 319.

Gueron, J. and R. May (1984) "Extraposition and Logical Form," Linguistic Inquiry 15, 1-31. Jones, C. (1988) "Some Wh/Operator Interactions," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the LSA, New Orleans, December 1988. Jones, C. (1989) "Q-Superiority vs. Path Containment in Wh/Operator Interactions," Proceedings

of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting, NELS, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Kayne, R. (1983) "Connectedness," Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223-249. Klein, E. (1980) "A Semantics for Positive and Comparative Adjectives," Linguistics and Phi-

losophy 4, 1-45. Larson, R. K. (1988) "Scope and Comparatives," Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 1-26. May, R. (1985) Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. May, R. (1988) "Ambiguities of Quantification and Wh: A Reply to Williams," Linguistic Inquiry

19, 118-135. Montague, R. (1974) "The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English," in R. Thom-

ason, ed., Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Partee, B. H. (1970) "Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns," Synthese 21, 359-385. Pesetsky, D. (1982) Paths and Categories, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Postal, P. (1974) "On Certain Ambiguities," Linguistic Inquiry 5, 367-424. Safir, K. (1982) Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cam-

bridge, Massachusetts. Williams, E. (1974) Rule Ordering in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachu-

setts. Williams, E. (1977) "Discourse and Logical Form," Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101-139. Williams, E. (1986) "A Reassignment of the Functions of LF," Linguistic Inquiry 17, 265-299. Williams, E. (1988) "Is LF Distinct from S-Structure? A Reply to May," Linguistic Inquiry 19,

135-146.

English Department George Mason University 4400 University Drive Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff

Richard K. Larson

Jackendoff (1990) discusses the analysis of double objects proposed in Larson (1988), taking issue with the general analysis and many of its specific claims. In this article I review Jackendoff's points concerning linear order and binding (section 1), structure projection (section 2), complement alternations (section 3), Dative Shift (section 4), and

I am grateful to Lisa Cheng and Michael Hegarty for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 21, Number 4, Fall 1990 589-632 (C 1990 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology



Documents

Some Wh/Operator Interactions