Cra en en Broeck

7/28/2019 Cra en en Broeck

1/13

Ellipsis and EPP RepairAuthor(s): Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Marcel den DikkenReviewed work(s):Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Autumn, 2006), pp. 653-664Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4179389 .

Accessed: 30/07/2012 14:15

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4179389?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4179389?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/13

SquibsandDiscussion

ELLIPSIS AND EPP REPAIRJeroen van Craenenbroeck

CatholicUniversityofBrusselslFacultesUniversitairesSaint-Louis

Marcel den DikkenCUNYGraduate Center

1 IntroductionMerchant 2001) presentsan interestingargumentbased on the liftingof Subject Conditioneffects under sluicing for the idea that ellipsissuspends the requirement hat the subjectraise to Spec,IP (the Ex-tendedProjectionPrinciple,EPP).Lasnik andPark(2003) have takenissue with that argumentand have called into question a conceptionof the EPP as a PF condition. After showing that Lasnik and Park'sobjections to Merchant 2001 are unfounded,we will presentthreenovel argumentso the effect that the EPP is indeedsuspendedunderellipsis andthat,on an approach o theellipsis phenomena n questionthat takes them to involve PF deletion (or failure of transmission oPF, with concomitantnonapplication f Spell-Out; ee footnote3), theEPP is hence likely to be a PF condition.2 The Sluicing Argument2.1 TheArgumentAs is well known,extraction romsubjectsof finite clausesis impossi-ble in English.' Thus,the sentencesin (1) are ungrammatical.Those

We would like to thank Idan Landauand the two anonymousreviewersfor LinguisticInquiryfor their useful comments and suggestions.1In recent work, Chomsky (2004) has claimed that subjects of finiteclauses are not always islands for extraction, adducing examples involvingadnominal wh-PPs (Of which Marx brother (did a biography appear/wasabiographypublished} this year? vs. *Of which Marx brotherdid a biographycause a scandal?) to support he idea thatderivedsubjectsare transparent.Ourexamplein (la) involves a derived subject as well, but it fails. The differencebetween Chomsky' examples and ours s that helattermust nvolve extractionfrom the subject while the formerare amenable o an analysis not implicatingsubextraction romNP at all: adnominalPPs can often be "extraposed"fromderivedsubjects(more specifically,fromsubjectsof VPs expressing"no morethan the appearanceof the subject in the world of the discourse" (Gu6ron1980:663)-for example,A biography appearedl*fellabout one of the Marxbrothers). Since "PP-extraposition"arguablydoes not involve movement butinsteadinvolves base generationof PP in an NP-externalposition (see, e.g.,Rochemont and Culicover 1990), it seems unlikely thatChomsky's exampleswill bear on the question of whether subextraction rom (derived) subjectsispossible or not.

653


3/13

654 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSIONin (2), however, areperfectly well formed(as Chung, Ladusaw,andMcCloskey (1995) first noted for similarexamples). These are exam-ples of sluicing, featuringellipsis of the IP following the wh-phrasewhich (Marx brother). Apparently,sluicing eliminates the SubjectConditioneffect seen in (1). The question s how it managesto do so.

(1) a. *Which Marx brotheri s [a biographyof ti] going toappear/lbeublishedthis year?b. *Which Marx brotheridid [a biographyof ti] cause ascandalearlier this year?

(2) a. A biographyof one of the Marx brothers s going toappear/be published this year-guess which (Marxbrother).

b. A biographyof oneof the Marxbrothers auseda scandalearlier this year, but Bill doesn't recall which (Marxbrother).

Merchant's(2001) answerto this question runs as follows. As-sume first of all that the Subject Conditionis a constraintbarringextractionout of the subjectof a finite clause in its derivedposition,Spec,IP,and thatthere s no banon extraction rom the subjectwhenitis in its VP-internalbaseposition (whether t bethe verb'scomplementposition,as in theergative/passive a)-examples,or the specifierposi-tion,2 as in the (b)-examples).Assume in addition that in sluicingcontexts, the requirementhat the subjectraise to Spec,IP(the EPP)is suspended.Thenthe absence of SubjectConditioneffects in (2) isas expected: which(Marx brother)extracts fromits containingnounphrasewhile the latter s inside VP (see (3)).

(3) a. a biographyof one of the Marx brothersis going toappear/bepublishedthis year-guess [cp which (Marxbrother)ilp is [vP goingto bc publ.ihed*jj this-year~]]]b. a biographyof one of the Marxbrothers auseda scandalearlier his year,butBill doesn't recall [cp which (Marxbrother)i [Ip I [vp[ b] cau3cd a scandalearflief this yeafr]]]

What s it thatallows thesubject o stayin VP in sluicing contexts,while this is evidently impossible in constructions n which no IP-ellipsis takesplace? Merchant'sanswer s that the EPP is a PF condi-tion. Specifically,therequirementhatSpec,IPbe filled is encodedintermsof an uninterpretableeatureof I that is visible at PF and hencemust be eliminatedpriorto PF, by movementto Spec,IP-if, that is,I itself remainspresent n the PF representation.f, on the otherhand,I is elided at PF, as it is in the sluicing examples,then the EPP is not

2 It is immaterial orpresentpurposeswhetherone takesthebasepositionof subjectsof unergativeand transitive verbs to be Spec,VP or the specifierposition of a light verb v.


4/13

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 655in effect, and the subject will perforcestay inside theVP.3 For extrac-tion from the subject, this has the beneficial effect of legitimizing itin sluicing contexts.4

Lasnik andPark(2003) argueagainst Merchant'saccountof thecontrastbetween(1) and(2) by showingthat the idea that movementto Spec,IPdoes not take place in sluicing contexts causes troubleinconnectionwith quantificationand binding. Specifically, they pointto scope and bound variablefacts that Merchanthimself points outand takes care of, but they argue that Merchant's way of handlingthesefacts cannotbe correct.5Let us quicklyrunthrough heargumenthere.2.2 The Problemsand Their SolutionsMerchant's 2001)keyclaim that hesubjectstays nsideVP in sluicingconstructionswould lead one to expect that the subjectobligatorilytakes narrowscope vis-a-vis negation n (4a) and thatthe pronoun tscannot be construedas a boundvariable n (4b). These expectations,however,are contrary o fact:(4a) does allow the subject o take scopeover the negation,and (4b) does allow a boundvariablereading.

3 Perhapsa morestraightforward ay of thinkingaboutellipsis is to saythat elliptical material s morphosyntacticmaterial hatfails to be shippedtoPF (i.e., does not undergoPF Spell-Out).If an ellipticalI node is nevershippedto PF, it can neverbe thecauseof a PFviolation; he EPPbeinga PFcondition,the desired result thenfollows directly.Thanksto Idan Landau pers. comm.)for discussionof this matter;see also Landau2005.4 If the Subject Condition were itself a PF condition, the question ofwhetheror not the EPP is satisfied in sluiced IPs would become moot: if theSubject Condition loses its force underellipsis, extractionof a sluiced wh-phrase out of the subject should be legitimateeven if that subject occupiedSpec,IP.LasnikandPark 2003:651)claim that Merchant 2001:162) suggeststhat the SubjectCondition s indeed a PF effect; but althoughhe does considerthis possibility, he ends up settingit aside as "a route I will not pursuehere"

(Merchant 2001:186). Accordingly, we will stick to the implementationasoutlined in the text. A possible way to tease the two options apart would beto look at island-sensitive types of ellipsis (such as fragment answers; seeMerchant2004) and to test whetherthey nonetheless allow extractionout ofsubject slands.If theydo, thenprobably t is not the SubjectConditionviolationitself that s being repaired n (2), but the lack of EPP satisfaction.Since thereare a numberof issues cloudingthe picture,however,we leave this as a topicfor futureresearch.5 Lasnik and Park's approachdiffers from Merchant's n thatLasnik andPark focus mainly on the so-called sprouting type of sluicing (see Chung,Ladusaw,andMcCloskey 1995). As faras we can see, this does not affect theargumentdeveloped here in any substantialway. Inparticular, he data Lasnikand Parkpresentto support he claim that the subjectin a sluiced IP resides

in Spec,IP is in all relevantrespects identical to the examples discussed byMerchantand in section 2.2 of this squib.


5/13

656 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION(4) a. five picturesof one of the victims weren't distributed o

thepress, but Bill can't rememberwhichonei [lPweren't[vp distfibtted [ -ie- picturs of t,] toftessr3]]b. [everybiographyof one of the Marxbrothers]i eemedto its, author o be definitive,but Bill doesn't remember(of) which(Marxbrother)jIPI [VPseeeEdto its, authorto be [ecyry biographyof t]l defiftifieJ]

Merchantpresentsthese potentialcounterexampleshimself andsuggests that they can be accommodatedby having the subject ofthe sluiced IP undergo covert phrasal A-movement o Spec,IP. Butaccordingto LasnikandPark(2003), allowing for covert phrasalA-movement would makethe wrong predictions n the domainof verb-particleconstructions uch as those in (5).

(5) a. The DA madeevery defendantiout to be guilty duringhisi trial.b. *The DA made out every defendanti o be guilty duringhisi trial.

There is nothing wrong, per se, with the wordorderdepictedin(5b): the sentence is grammatical o long as his is not construedas abound variable.That his cannotbe so construed n (5b) while it canin (5a) follows, Lasnik and Parkargue,if (a) every defendant n (5a)hasundergoneobjectshift into anA-position(Spec,AgroPonLasnik's(2001a) assumptions)asymmetrically -commandinghetemporalad-verbialduring his trial (whichis assumedto be VP-adjoined),and (b)the QP in (5b) does not so move-either overtly (as is evident fromthe fact that it surfaces to the right of out) or, crucially, covertly.If we allowed every defendant n (Sb) to undergocovert phrasalA-movement to Spec,AgroP,we would fail to predictthe unavailabilityof a bound variablereadingfor his in this sentence.As VanCraenenbroeck2004:243) pointsout, however,thisargu-ment is underminedby Lasnik's (2001a) assumptionsregarding heword order freedom in English verb-particleconstructions. Lasniktakes the alteruationbetween Theymade John out to be a liar andTheymade out John to be a liar to be a functionof the presence orabsence of anAgroPinto whose specifierJohncouldraise.Thus,withAgroP radically absentfrom the structureof They made out John tobe a liar, John could not possibly move into Spec,AgrOP-eitherovertly or, crucially, covertly. On Lasnik's own assumptions, here-fore, there is no point at which every defendantin (5b) could evercome to c-commandhis andbind it. In Merchant's luicing examples,by contrast, here s no questionaboutthepresenceof IP: theellipticalclauses arefinite,hence musthave a locus for tense, at the veryleast.WithIPpresentn thestructure,ts specifierpositioncould beexploitedas a landingsite for covert A-movementof the subject.The problemsposed by (4) can thus be solved in Merchant'sway without makingunwantedpredictionsabout(Sb).With thoseproblemsoutof theway,


6/13

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 657Merchant's(2001) analysisof the data in (2) in termsof EPP repairunder ellipsis stands.63 The Negative Polarity Item Connectivity Argument3.1 Negative PolarityItem Connectivity n SpecificationalPseudocleftsand Question-AnswerPairsEllipsis, exploitedby Merchant 2001) in his accountof sluicing,alsoprovidesan elegant solutionto theotherwisequite ntractable roblemof negative polarityitem (NPI) connectivityin specificationalpseu-doclefts (SPCs) and question-answerpairs (QAPs), illustratedin(6a-b).

(6) a. Whatthey didn't buy was any wine.Whatnobody boughtwas any wine.b. Whatdidn't they buy?-Any wine.

What did nobodybuy?-Any wine.On the assumption hat the postcopularconstituentsof the SPCsin (6a) andtheanswers n (6b) arefull-fledged,albeitelliptical,clauses

(as illustrated n (7)), licensing of the NPI by the negationunderc-command s entirelystraightforwardsee DenDikken,Meinunger,andWilder2000).7

(7) [lp nobody bought/theydidn't buy any wine]The fact that,bothin QAPsand(somewhatmarginally)n SPCs,the NPI can indeed surfacein a fully spelled-outclause as well (i.e.,

the IP in (7) does not have to be elliptical; see Ross 1972:89, Kayne1998:163-164, and Schlenker1998, though Higgins (1979:86) findsSPCswithfully spelled-outpostcopular lauses "irremediably naco-luthic") lends furthersupport o the analysis of (6a-b).8

6 We note in passing that, with the identification of the EPP as a PFphenomenon, covert phrasal movement (A- or A-) cannot be driven by theEPP. That leaves open the possibility that other factors might trigger suchmovement, ncludingones havingto do withestablishing emantically nterpret-able configurations see Barbiers1995 for a concrete proposal to this effect).On such an outlook, Merchant'sapproach o (4) is entirely coherent.7Den Dikken, Meinunger,and Wilder(2000) address n detail the prob-lems that nonelliptical accountsof NPI connectivity in SPCs and QAPs runinto. The bottom line is that on such approaches see, e.g., Boskovi6 1997,Heycock and Kroch 1999), the stage in the derivation at which the NPI iseventually c-commanded by its licensing negationcomes too late (at LF oreven later)to help out the NPI. On the ellipsis approach n (7), by contrast,the NPI is c-commandedby the negationthroughout he derivation.8 See Den Dikken, Meinunger,andWilder2000 for furtherdiscussionofthe details of this analysisand for a varietyof supportingevidence.


7/13

658 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION3.2 Negative Polarity Item Connectivityand the SubjectApparentlyproblematic or an ellipsis-basedapproach o NPIlicensingin SPCs and QAPs is the fact that it is possible to embed an NPI ina constituent that, in the fully spelled-outIP counterweight/answer,would not be c-commandedby the negation.That the examplesin (8)aregrammaticalwhile (9) is not is an apparent mbarrassment.

(8) a. What didn't work was any of the printingequipment.b. What didn't work?-Any of the printingequipment.

(9) *Any of the printingequipmentdidn't work.Den Dikken, Meinunger,and Wilder(2000:sec. 2.4) argue,how-

ever, that a solution readily presents itself if it is assumed that thesubjectof a clause whoseI undergoes llipsis is not attracted o Spec,IP(see (10); and see Wilder 1997 for detailed discussion of the kind ofellipsis at workhere).

(10) [Ip I-Neg [vp any of the printingequipmentwork]]Thus,thehypothesis hat he EPP s not in effect whenIundergoes

ellipsis provides a straightforward ccount,based on an ellipsis ap-proach to NPI connectivity in SPCs and QAPs that can be shownindependentlyo be a necessity,forthe grammaticality f the examplesin (8) andthe contrastbetween them and (9).4 The Clitics-and-Agreement ArgumentThe thirdargumentrevolves around he fact that clitics andcomple-mentizeragreementendings are disallowedto the rightof sluicedwh-phrases.Given that the occurrenceof both these phenomenacruciallydependson the subject occupyingthe highestavailablesubjectposi-tion, their absence under sluicing suggests that when IP is elided,the subjectdoes not raise to that position. This line of reasoningiscorroborated y a previouslyundiscussedtype of ellipticalconstruc-tion, in which the elided subject s base-generatedn the high subjectpositionand subjectclitics and agreementendingsare allowed.4.1 TheArgumentAs pointedoutby Lobeck(1995:58-60) and Merchant 2001:72-74),neither subject clitics nor complementizer agreement endings canoccur to the rightof sluiced wh-phrases,as is shown by the contrastbetween(1la)/(12a) on the one hand and (1 lb)/(12b) on the other.9

9Note that,as Merchant 2001:67) alreadypointed out, the ungrammati-cality of the agreement n (1 Ib) and the clitic in (12b) is not due to the (obliga-tory) absence of the complementizer n sluiced clauses. In particular,dialectsthat allow agreementendings and subject clitics to occur directlyon the wh-phrase(rather hanon the complementizer ollowing thatwh-phrase) how thesame pattern.


8/13

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 659(11) a. Jan weet niet wie darr-e wiej gezien hebt.

Jan knows not who that-AGRwe seen have'Jan doesn't know who we have seen.'

b. Wiej hebt 'r ene ezeen, en Jan weetwe have there someone seen and Jan knowsniet wie(*-e).not who-AGR'We have seen someone, andJan doesn't know who.'(HellendoornDutch)

(12) a. Ik weet nie wou dat-n aai gezien eit.I know not who that-he.CLITIce.STRONG seen has'I don't know who he saw.'

b. Jef eid iemand gezien, mo ik weet nie wou(*-n).Jef has someone seen but I know not who-he.cLITIc'Jef saw someone, but I don't know who.'(WambeekDutch)

Lobeck suggests that the ungrammaticalvariants of (1 lb) and(12b) arean indication hatsluicingis the result not of PF-deletingIPbut of merginganullIP-proform.Given thatsuch anemptypronominalhas no internal structure in particular,no I), there is no source foreither theclitic or the agreement nding.Merchant 2001:69-72) pre-sents a detailedcritiqueof thisapproach nddiscussesample ndepen-dentevidence in favor of a PF deletionanalysisof sluicing.10As faras the data in (11) and (12) are concerned,he suggests that I-to-Cmovement whichhe assumestobe atthe heartof bothcliticplacementandcomplementizeragreement) s bled by the ellipsis of IP.Elegant though such an analysis is at first sight, however, theidea thatheadmovement s responsible orcomplementizer greementis one that has recentlybeen challenged by a numberof researchers(see Ackema and Neeleman2001, Carstens2003, Van Craenenbroeckand Van Koppen 2002, Van Koppen 2005). Particularlyproblematicfor movement approachesare instances of so-called first conjunctagreement,such as (13) (fromVan Koppen 2005:40).

(13) Ich dink de-s doow en ich 6s treff-e.I thinkthat-2sGyou.SG and I ourselvesmeet-PL'I thinkthatyou andI will meet.'(Tegelen Dutch)

In thisexample,thecomplementizer greeswith the firstconjunctof the coordinated ubject,while I agreeswith the entirecoordination

10Merchant'smainobjection o Lobeck'sapproachs thatwhatevermech-anism s responsible orbase-generatinghe sluicedwh-phrase utsidetheellip-sis site (i.e., left-adjacent o the IP-proform) hould also be allowed to treatsubjectclitics andagreement ndings n the sameway.His two mainargumentsin favor of a PF deletion analysisof sluicing involve connectivityeffects be-tween the sluicedwh-phrase nd the elided IP withrespectto Case andpreposi-tion stranding.


9/13

660 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION(as can be seen from the pluralmarkingon the verb and the choiceof the anaphor).Such data suggest that complementizeragreementshouldbe implementednot via head movement,but via Agree.'1 Butif that is the case, Merchant'saccount for the absence of agreementendings on sluiced wh-phrasescannothold, as it is well known thatAgree (unlike certainmovementoperations; ee, e.g., Richards2001:131-141 andLasnik 1999a,b,2001b) is not bled by ellipsis. Considerin thisrespectthe VP-ellipsisexample n (14), where I can freely enterinto an Agree relation with the associate of there inside VP, eventhoughVP has been elided.

(14) I didn't think therewouldbe manypeople at the party,butthere were manypeople at thc party.So far, we have seen that neither Lobeck's analysis nor Mer-chant's can successfully account for the data illustratedn (11b) and

(12b). A solutionpresentsitself, however, from the pointof view ofthis squib.As was firstpointedoutby Ackemaand Neeleman(2001),complementizer greement s subject o verystringent ocalityrequire-ments (see (15), from Van Craenenbroeck ndVanKoppen2003:67).The same holds for subjectclitic placementon C in thedialects underconsiderationhere (see (16), fromVan Craenenbroeck 004:246).(15) a. ... darr-e wiej allichte de wedstrijdwinne zolt.

that-AGRwe probably he game win willb. * ... darr-e allichte wiej de wedstrijd winne zolt.

that-AGRprobablywe the game win willc. ... dat allichte wiej de wedstrijdwinne zolt.thatprobablywe the game win will

.... that we will probably win the game.'(HellendoornDutch)

(16) a.... da(-se) zaailn gisteren nie wistenthat-they.cLITIc they.STRONG yesterday not knewwa duun.what do

b.... da(*-se) gisteren zaailn nie wistenthat-they.cLITIc yesterday they.sTRoNG not knewwa duun.what do

.... that they were bored yesterday.'(WambeekDutch)

11 As Van Koppen(2005:198-199) notes, similardatacan be constructedfor clitic doubling as well (see (i)), suggesting that there too, an account interms of I-to-C movementfails.(i) Ik venj da-k ik en gou makanneremuutn elpen.I find that-I.CLITIC ISTRONGand you each.other must help

'I think that you and I shouldhelp each other.'(WambeekDutch)


10/13

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 661These datashow that he presenceof subjectclitics and agreement

endingson the complementizern Dutch dialects is dependenton thesubjectoccupyingthehighestavailablespecifierpositionin theinflec-tional domain.12 This implies thatin the elliptical examplesin (llb)and (12b), where subjectclitics and agreementendings areradicallyabsent, the subject never raises to such a specifier-in otherwords,that the EPP is not in effect in such clauses. Thus, the absence ofsubjectclitics andcomplementizeragreementendingson sluiced wh-phrases provides an additionalargument n favor of the hypothesisthatEPP-driven ubjectmovement to Spec,IPcan be bled by ellipsis(in fact, it must be, in the case at hand) and, by extension, that theEPP is a PF requirement.4.2 CorroboratingEvidenceThe analysis we have presented n the previoussection does notpre-dict-unlike Lobeck's(1995) andMerchant's 2001)-that theoccur-rence of subject clitics and complementizeragreementendings is apriori incompatiblewith ellipsis of IP. That this is a desirableresultis suggested by the data in (17) (Van Craenenbroeck 004:224). Inseveral Dutch dialects, the discourseparticlesfor 'yes' and 'no' canbe combinedwitha subjectclitic (and n some cases,as in theexamplein (17B), an agreementaffix as well) coreferentialwith the subjectofthe preceding yes/no question.13

(17) A: Ee-n ze gewonnen?have-PLhey wonB: Ja-n-s.yes-PL-they.CLITIC'A: Have they won? B: Yes, they have.'

(WaregemDutch)On the(uncontroversial) ssumptionhatsuch discourseparticlesarenotinherently-that is, interpretably-markedfor+-features,such

replies constituteellipticalconstructions n which (the structure on-taining)the goal foragreementhasbeen elided. In lightof thepreced-ing discussion, then,a veryclearpredictionarises:given that the head

12 It is orthogonal to our concerns here how exactly one interprets orimplements) his observation.Specifically, it might be the case thatthe subjectDP in (15c)/(16b) does not raise to the highest availablesubject position andremains n a lower specifier of the IP domain(as arguedby Haeberli(1999)).(Note that in this case it is arguablythe fronted adverb that checks the EPP;see among othersHolmberg 2000 and Hoekstraand Mulder 1990 for relateddiscussion on nonsubjectssatisfying the EPP.) However, it could also be thatthe subjectDPoccupies the innerspecifierof the inflectionalhead n a multiple-specifierconfiguration.Eitherway, the argumentdevelopedin the text holds.13 Note thatthe agreementoccurringon 'yes' and 'no' is always identical

to the agreementoccurringon the complementizer n these dialects;thatis, itis clearly the same phenomenon n bothcases.


11/13

662 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSIONadjacent o the ellipsis site (arguablyC; also see footnote 13) is com-binedwith an agreementaffix and a subject clitic, the elided subjectshouldoccupy Spec,IP. Underthe hypothesis (defended n this squib)that the EPPis not in effect underellipsis, this implies that the elidedsubject in (17B) is base-generatedin (ratherthan moved into) thesurface subjectposition.14

This is precisely what Van Craenenbroeck (2004:183-197,221-238) argues when discussing this phenomenon.He shows (inmuch greaterdetail than we have space for here) that it is derivedfrom a particular ypeof replyfound in thesedialects,a crucialcharac-teristic of which is that a largepartof the clausal structure includingVP and all but the highest layersof the IP domain)is replaced by anull proform.Given thatsucha covert pronominal ontainsno internalstructure,t cannothost a subject race,and the subjecthas to be base-generateddirectlyin its "derived" position.

One striking piece of evidence showing that the ellipsis site inanexamplesuch as (17B) does not containa full clausalstructure ndthat, as a result, the subject that serves as the goal for agreementhas to be base-generated n the high subject position concerns yes/no questionscontaininga there-expletive.In such constructions, heexpletiveoccupiesthehighsubjectposition,while thethematic ubjectremains n the VP. If, however,the lower half of the clausal domain sreplacedby a proformwithoutanyinternalstructure,here-expletivesshould be disallowed on the discourseparticles 'yes' and 'no': theradical absence of an associate for the expletive in such a situationshould ead irrevocably o a violation of FullInterpretation.he exam-ple in (18) (Van Craenenbroeck 004:228) shows that this predictionis borneout.

(18) A: Staan ter twee venten in den hof?stand there two men in the garden

B: Ja(*-r).yes-there.CLITIC'A:Are theretwo menstanding n thegarden?B: Yes, there

are.'(WaregemDutch)

To sum up, the fact that subject clitics and agreementendingscan show up on C only when the elided subjectcan be independently

14 Note that we are assuming that the EPP is not responsible for directMerge in Spec,IP: if it were, not just movementinto but also direct Merge inSpec,IP would be impossible in ellipsis contexts. The idea that directMergein Spec,IP satisfies the EPP is commonly deemednecessaryfor the analysisof expletive constructions.But note that therearewell-motivatedandarguablysuperioralternatives o directMergeof expletives in Spec,IP (see in particularMoro 1997, Hoekstraand Mulder1990,Den Dikken1995,Richardsand Biber-auer2005). Expletiveconstructions hus do not jeopardizeour outlook on therelationshipbetween the EPP and direct Merge.


12/13

SQUIBS AND DISCUSSION 663shown to be base-generatedn Spec,IPsuggests thatEPP-driven ub-ject movement to Spec,IP does not take place when IP is elided.5 ConclusionIn this squib, we have discussed three ndependentargumentsn favorof the hypothesisthat the EPP is suspendedwhen IP is elided. Withtheellipsis phenomena n question nvolvingPFdeletion (or nonappli-cation of late Spell-Out),thehypothesis mpliesthat the EPP is likelyto be a PF condition.ReferencesAckema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2001. Context-sensitiveSpell-Outand adjacency.Ms., UtrechtUniversityand UniversityCollegeLondon.Barbiers,Sjef. 1995. Thesyntaxof interpretation.TheHague:HollandAcademic Graphics.Boskovic, Zeljko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinitecomplementation:Aneconomy approach. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.Carstens,Vicki. 2003. Rethinkingcomplementizeragreement:Agreewith a Case-checkedgoal. LinguisticInquiry34:393-412.Chomsky,Noam. 2004. On phases. Ms., MIT,Cambridge,Mass.Chung,Sandra,WilliamLadusaw,andJamesMcCloskey.1995.Sluic-ing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3:239-282.Craenenbroeck, eroenvan. 2004. Ellipsisin Dutchdialects. LOTDis-

sertation Series 96. Utrecht: LOT. Available atwww.lotpublications.nl/index3.html.Craenenbroeck, eroenvan,andMarjovanKoppen.2002. Thelocalityof agreementand the CP-domain.Ms., Leiden University.Craenenbroeck, eroenvan,andMarjovanKoppen.2003. Congruentieen lokaliteit in de Nederlandse dialecten. Taal en Tongval,Themanummer ialectsyntaxis,63-86.Dikken,Marcelden. 1995. Binding, expletives,and levels. LinguisticInquiry26:347-354.Dikken, Marcelden,AndreMeinunger,and ChrisWilder. 2000. Pseu-doclefts andellipsis. StudiaLinguistica54:41-89.Gu6ron,Jacqueline.1980.On the syntaxand semanticsof PPextrapo-sition.Linguistic Inquiry11:637-678.Haeberli,Eric. 1999. Features,categoriesand the syntax of A-posi-tions. Doctoraldissertation,Universityof Geneva.Heycock, Caroline,andAnthonyKroch.1999.Pseudocleftconnected-ness:Implications ortheLF interface evel. Linguistic nquiry30:365-397.Higgins,F. Roger.1979.ThepseudocleftconstructionnEnglish.NewYork:Garland.Hoekstra,Teun,andReneMulder.1990.Unergativesascopularverbs:Locational and existentialpredication.TheLinguisticReview7:1-79.


13/13

664 SQUIBS AND DISCUSSIONHolmberg,Anders. 2000. Scandinavianstylistic fronting:How any

category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31:445-483.

Kayne,Richard.1998.Overtvs. covert movement.Syntax1:128-191.Koppen,Marjovan. 2005. Oneprobe,two goals: Agreementphenom-

ena in Dutch dialects. LOT DissertationSeries 105. Utrecht:LOT.Availableat www.lotpublications.nl/index3.html.Landau,Idan.2005. EPP extensions. Ms., Ben GurionUniversity.Lasnik, Howard. 1999a. On featurestrength:Three minimalistap-

proachesto overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry30:197-217.Lasnik,Howard.1999b.Pseudogappingpuzzles.InFragments:Stud-ies in ellipsis and gapping,ed. by ShalomLappinandElabbasBenmamoun,141-174. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.Lasnik, Howard. 2001a. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Objectsand othersubjects:Grammaticalfunctions,unctionalcategor-

ies, andconfigurationality,d.by William D. Davies andStan-ley Dubinsky, 103-121. Dordrecht:Kluwer.Lasnik,Howard.2001b. Whencan you save a structure y destroyingit?In NELS31, ed. by Min-JooKimand Uri Strauss,301-320.Amherst:Universityof Massachusetts,GLSA.Lasnik,Howard,and Myung-KwanPark.2003. The EPP and the Sub-

ject Conditionundersluicing.LinguisticInquiry34:649-660.Lobeck,Anne. 1995.Ellipsis:Functionalheads, licensing,and identi-

fication. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.Merchant,Jason. 2001. Thesyntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, andidentity n ellipsis. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Merchant, ason.2004. Fragments ndellipsis. Linguisticsand Philos-ophy 27:661-738.Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative nounphrases and the theory of clause structure.Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.

Richards,Marc,and TheresaBiberauer. 005. ExplainingExpl.In Thefunction of function words andfunctional categories, ed. byMarcel den Dikken and ChristinaM. Tortora,115-153. Am-sterdam:JohnBenjamins.Richards,Norvin. 2001. Movement in languages: Interactionsandarchitectures.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Rochemont,Michael, and Peter Culicover. 1990. Englishfocus con-structionsand the theoryof grammar.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ross, John Robert. 1972. Act. In Semanticsof naturallanguage,ed.by DonaldDavidson and GilbertHarman,70-126. Dordrecht:Reidel.

Schlenker,Philippe.1998. Pseudocleft connectivityand the structureof nounphrases.Ms., MIT, Cambridge,Mass.Wilder,Chris. 1997. Some propertiesof ellipsis in coordination.InStudiesin Universal Grammarand typologicalvariation,ed.

by ArtemisAlexiadou andTracyAllen Hall,59-107. Amster-dam: JohnBenjamins.

Cra en en Broeck

Documents

Transcript of Cra en en Broeck