Download - Eliminating d Structure

ON ELIMINATING D-STRUCTURE:THE CASE OF BINOMINAL EACH

Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

Abstract. This paper provides a minimalist analysis of the binominal each phenomenon.The analysis incorporates key ideas behind Sar and Stowells (1988) seminal paper butavoids the complications that this approach entails. Our proposal provides one moreempirical argument for movement into h-position, sideward movement, the primacy ofmovement over binding inmatters of construal, and the virtues of a very derivational viewof syntax. It is also consistentwith a framework that dispenseswith LFmovement entirely.

1. Introduction: The Status of D-Structure

Chomsky (1993) argues that minimalist reasoning leads to excluding a levellike D-structure from UG. The argument can be schematized as follows:

(1) a. The faculty of language (FL) generates objects that pair sounds andmeaning.

b. Thus, FL objects must interface at least with the interpretive com-ponents that ascribe a sound and meaning to each generated object.By assumption, interfacing takes place through levels of represen-tation.1 Call the interface level for sound PF (Phonetic Form) and theinterface level for meaning LF (Logical Form). Both PF and LFfollow from virtual conceptual necessity.

c. Given the necessity of the interface levels LF and PF, minimalistreasoning suggests that UG has no more than these. In fact, minim-alist reasoning leads to the conclusion that grammar-internal levelsshould be eliminated, leaving only interface levels like LF and PF.

d. If so, D-Structure (DS), a phrase marker formed by phrase structureoperations and lexical insertion and that feeds movement operations,should not exist.

This reasoning imposes potentially strong restrictions on the organization ofUG. In particular, we should not expect to nd it necessary to advert to DS forthe statement of grammatical generalizations and conditions. In currentparlance, all such generalizations should reect Bare Output Conditions,requirements imposed on grammatical objects in virtue of their receiving asound and a meaning. Thus, we do not expect to nd generalizations thatexploit the properties of grammar-internal levels like DS (or Surface

1 This is by no means a necessary conclusion. It could be that UG is not organized into levels, inwhich case the grammar will still interface with AP and CI but not necessarily via levels. Epstein,Groat, Kawashima, and Kitahara (1998), Uriagereka (1999), and Chomsky (2000, 2001) explorethis possibility. For present purposes, we keep to the more traditional assumption of interfacelevels, which by and large seem well motivated empirically.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Syntax 8:1, April 2005, 2343

Structure). Put another way, such generalizations are, at best, an empiricalchallenge to the Minimalist Program and at worst an argument against itsviability. In this paper, we consider one such empirical challenge and exploreits implications for the Minimalist Program (MP).

2. The Properties of Binominal Each2

The challenge we want to consider centers around the distribution ofbinominal each (BE), exemplied in (2).3

(2) a. The men read one book each.b. The men read one book apiece.

As discussed extensively in Burzio 1986 and Sar and Stowell 1988 (S&S),the phrase containing each in (2) (one book each) (henceforth the BE phrase)must be licensed by an appropriate plural antecedent for the sentence to beacceptable. (The same requirement holds for apiece phrases.4)The problem posed by BE for the MP is that the evidence suggests that the

licensing of BE holds at DS. In fact, as discussed in this section, if we assumethat BE phrases must be locally bound at DS (i.e., they are DS anaphors), wederive virtually all of their salient properties.Consider rst the salient properties of BE.

2.1 BEs Require Antecedents

That BE requires an antecedent is illustrated by the unacceptability of (3).

(3) *Three men each/apiece have arrived at Penn Station.

This contrasts with (4), an instance of Q-oat.

(4) Three men have each arrived at Penn Station.

The generalization illustrated by (2) and (3) is that BEs only occur in clauseswith multiple nominals, one of which is plural. This follows if one assumes

2 The reader should note that we focus exclusively on properties of English binominal each inthis paper. We leave a crosslinguistic investigation for future research. For work on binominal eachin other languages, see Gil 1982, and Zimmermann 2002, which draws in part on Choe 1987 (onKorean) and Link 1998 (on German).

3 The name comes from Sar and Stowell 1988. Our discussion heavily leans on this earlieranalysis. We steal shamelessly from their earlier efforts. Their work, in turn, was based on a prioranalysis and discussion in Burzio 1986, where the BEs were rst extensively discussed.

4 Very often in this paper we exemplify core generalization by means of apiece. We do so fortwo reasons. First, the apiece data is often clearer than the each facts (for reasons that we do notunderstand). Second, there is little temptation to analyze apiece as a quantier rather than anadverb. The fact that BEs with apiece have all the same properties as those with each suggests thatwhatever is going on here should not be traced to the QP status of each.

24 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

(i) that BEs are constituents of some nominal argument, for example, the eachphrase is part of the object nominal one book each in (2); and (ii) that BEs areanaphoric and hence require antecedents.There are various interesting restrictions on the kind of phrase that can host

BEs.5 The central one is that the host of BE must be indenite.

(5) a. The boys read (one/two/many/several) books each/apiece.b. *The boys read the/all/most books each.

2.2 The Antecedent Must C-Command the BE

Consider the sentences in (6).

(6) a. *Three men each/apiece read the books.b. The men read three books each/apiece.c. (?)John talked to/with the men about three books each/apiece.d. *John talked to three men each/apiece about the books.e. *John talked beside the men about three books each/apiece.

The contrast between (6a) and (6b) follows on the assumption that the subjectasymmetrically c-commands the object in simple transitive clauses. Toaccommodate the contrast in (6c,d) we need to assume that the prepositionsthat accompany indirect objects and commitatives do not block binding. Thisseems necessary even in simple cases of reciprocal binding.

(7) John talked to/with the men about each other.

Indirect objects and commitatives are argument-like adjuncts (quasi-arguments) in that they are typically thought to be generated lower thanthose headed by other prepositions (like before/after). In many languages theyaffect the morphology of the verb and they readily allow for prepositionstranding, as shown in (8).

(8) a. Which men did John talk to/with t about Bill?b. *Which men did John read my book before/after?

It is plausible that these prepositions function more like Case-markers than liketrue PPs. If this is so, then the men can bind the BEs in (6c) but not in (6d,e).

2.3 BE Must Be Locally Bound

The plural antecedent of BE cannot be in a different domain than BE. If weassume that being in the same minimal clause puts two expressions in the same

5 See S&S for a fuller description than the one we provide here.

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 25


domain (see Lasnik 2002 and already Postal 1974 for discussion of clausemateconditions), we account for the unacceptability of the examples in (9).

(9) a. *The men expect/believe/said that three books each/apiece areexciting.

b. *The men want/expect/believe Bill to be reading three bookseach/apiece.

The BE in both examples is in the embedded clause and its antecedent, the men,is in thematrix. Consequently, BE cannot be locally bound and thereby licensed.So far none of the requirements listed in this section require the assumption

that the licensing of BEs be at DS (though they are consistent with it). Theexplanations would remain the same if we assumed that the bindingrequirement was an LF condition. However, two additional sets of datasupport the assumption that BEs are DS-anaphors.

2.4 ECM Contexts

The rst set of facts shows that BEs are not licensed when in the subjectposition of nonnite clauses. As is well known, subjects of nonnite clausesact with respect to binding as if they occupied the next higher clause. Thus,ECM subjects can be bound by an antecedent in the next higher clause andpronouns must be obviative with respect to elements in this clause.

(10) a. John believes/expects/wants himself1/*him1 to be in great demand.b. John considers himself intelligent.c. The boys made/saw each other leave.

This follows if we assume that the ECM subject actually raises to the clause ofits case checker/assigner in overt syntax or LF (see Postal 1974 and Lasnik &Saito 1991). If so, then movement renders the ECM subject a part of the upperclause.With this in mind, consider the following BE data.6

(11) a. *The men wanted/expected/believed one eld each/apiece to bereserved.

b. *The girls considered one boy each/apiece insufferable.c. *The boys made/let one ball each/apiece bounce.

The sentences in (11) show that BEs are not acceptable as ECM subjects. Thisfollows if BE is not part of the same clause as its antecedent at the point where

6 Some examples sound better than others. Consider (i).

(i) ??The mathematicians proved three numbers each/apiece to be prime.

We return to this matter in note 18.



it must be licensed. This in turn follows if we assume that this licensing is aDS condition, applying prior to any movement operations. In short, if weassume that BEs are DS anaphors, whereas regular anaphors are licensed ata later point in the derivation (say, LF), then the contrast between (10) and (11)immediately follows.

2.5 C-Command Again

BEs are acceptable in a variety of constructions in which they asymmetricallyc-command their antecedents in overt syntax. This is due to movement of theBE phrase.

(12) a. One interpreter each/apiece1 was assigned to the diplomats t1.b. One book each/apiece1 appears to have been given to the boys t1.

(13) a. How many books each/apiece1 did the boys read t1?b. One book each/apiece1 is what they want to read t1.

7

(14) One book each/apiece1 is easy for the boys to read t1.

(12) involves A-movement operations, (13) involves A-movement, and (14)is a tough-construction. All are acceptable, and all involve displacement of anexpression from a position in which it would be c-commanded by itsantecedent. The standard minimalist approach to such data is to assume thatthe displaced element can reconstruct to these positions at LF. Morespecically, it is assumed that reconstruction is the product of the copy theoryof movement. A copy occupies the launch position and, at LF, it can be usedfor binding purposes. If we assume that the traces in (12)(14) are copies ofthe moved expressions and we assume that reconstruction may obtain at LFfor all kinds of movement, then the acceptability of BEs in these cases isaccounted for.However, one can get the same results simply by assuming that BEs are

licensed prior to movement (i.e., at DS). All that reconstruction accomplishesin these cases is to recover the base conguration of expressions.Consequently, the assumption that BEs are licensed at DS sufces to explainthe data in (12)(14). DS licensing is forced if A-movement (in contrast to

7 Note that the (i) is also acceptable.

(i) One book each/apiece is the assignment that they requested.

These sorts of cleft sentences display all the connectedness effects found in standard reconstructioncases. As such, we assume that they too would be formed via movement (see Kim 1998 and Boeckx1999 for possible analyses). Note, moreover, that if reconstruction is relevant here, then cleft andtough-constructions like (14) cannot be formed via null-operator movement (see Hornstein 2001and Kiguchi 2002 for independent arguments that this is the case for tough-constructions). Thereason is that null operators will not provide an opportunity for reconstruction. We need an actualcopy, and given current assumptions, only movement of the actual expression will sufce.



A-movement) does not license reconstruction (see Chomsky 1993 and Lasnik1999).The facts in sections 2.4. and 2.5 support a DS licensing condition for BEs.

More precisely, as it stands, a binding approach to BE licensing is empiricallyinadequate unless it holds at DS. If we assume that BEs are licensed like allother anaphors at LF under possible reconstruction, then we need to explainwhy it is that they must reconstruct all the way down to their base positions, incontrast with more standard anaphors. In other words, an LF-based analysis ofBEs of the type the MP would support can track the facts but cannot explainthem. This is the challenge for the MP that we would like to address.

3. Some Problems for a DS-Binding Analysis

The problem outlined above rests on two premises: (i) that BEs are licensed bysome form of binding, in effect principle A; and (ii) that the binding of BEsmust apply at DS. S&S provide two arguments against a binding approach toBEs, which we review briey here.First, as we already noted, the application of principle A to BEs is not the same

as the one that applies to reexives and reciprocals. In particular, the fact thatECMBEs are illicit whereas ECM reexives are not implies that the formermustbe bound at DSwhile the latter need not be (cf. the contrast in (10) and (11)). Onecan stipulate this difference and so accommodate the data, but it greatlycomplicates the binding theory to do so. It not only requires that we apply thebinding theory at both DS and LF (which could be achieved by taking ConditionA to be an anywhere condition along the lines of Belletti & Rizzi 1988 andLebeaux 1994), it also forces us to specify which elements are licensed at whichlevel. All things being equal, this is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.Second, S&S note that there are cases in which one can license BEs in the

absence of c-command, at least at DS. Consider (15).

(15) a. John proved the prisoners guilty with one accusation each/apiece.b. Bob made/let Sam and Tom leave on two occasions each/apiece.

The relevant reading of these sentences is the one in which the PP headed bywith modies the matrix verb. Under this reading, the PP is situated in thematrix clause and so is not c-commanded by the small clause subject (theprisoners, Sam and Tom) at DS. The BEs are, however, c-commanded by LF ifECM subjects must raise to the matrix for case reasons (see Lasnik & Saito1991). Thus, examples like (15) are problematic if one assumes that BEs arelicensed at DS via anaphoric binding.8

8 S&S were working under the GB assumption that ECM subjects do not raise to the domain oftheir Case checker and so concluded that there was no c-command in such cases. Subsequentresearch (see Lasnik & Saito 1991), however, has shown that a return to Postals (1974) analysis ofECM as subject-to-object raising is superior.



There is a third argument, not provided by S&S, against a DS-bindingapproach given conventional approaches to control. As (16) shows, it isperfectly acceptable to license BEs under control.

(16) a. Mary persuaded the men to bring one book each/apiece.b. *The men persuaded Mary to bring one book each/apiece.

If we assume that PRO is licensed after DS, a necessary assumption givensentences like (17), then it becomes difcult to account for the facts in(16).9

(17) John1 wants PRO1 to appear to be believed to have been arrested t1.

The three arguments in this section suggest that an account like the one weseemed to be led to in section 2 is not adequate. S&S offer an alternativeanalysis, which we review in section 4. We point out problems for theiranalysis in section 5 and propose an alternative in section 6. Section 7 is theconclusion.

4. Sar and Stowell 1988:10 LF Movement

The conclusion we can draw from sections 2 and 3 is that a binding approach isempirically problematic. What then accounts for the distribution and interpret-ation of BEs? S&S propose to rethink the basic facts in terms of LF movementrather than binding.11 Their analysis rests on the following assumptions.

(18) a. BEs have a dyadic argument structure.b. The complement of the BE is an empty category (EC) bound by the

plural antecedent.c. BE is adjoined to an indenite nominal generated inside VP.d. At LF, the each/apiece head and its complement move out of the

nominal.e. This LF movement is required so as to allow A-binding of the EC

complement.f. This A-binding is subject to locality of a generalized binding

variety.g. Movement is possible from reconstruction sites.

9 If control is accounted for in terms of A-movement (Hornstein 1999, 2001; Manzini &Roussou 2000; ONeil 1997; Kayne 2002), this argument is neutralized. However, to get off theground, a movement approach to control must dispense with notions like DS.

10 Our focus on S&S should not imply that S&Ss analysis is the only one worth considering.We decided to concentrate on S&S because we think that its spirit can be easily accommodated tothe Minimalist Program, as we will show.

11 S&S conclude that a binding approach is inadequate. They do not fully discuss the notion thatBEs are DS anaphors. Thus, our discussionin particular, our emphasis on the role of DSis areconstruction of their paper.



It is possible to visualize S&S analysis by considering the phrase markers in(19) and (20).

(19) The men read [NP [NP two books] each/apiece EC]

(20) [TP The men1 [TP [apiece EC1]2 [TP t1 read [two books t2]]]]

(19) represents the underlying structure. The each/apiece phrase is an adjunctto the nominal that it modies. Observe the EC complement of each/apiece.This expression must be bound at LF to be licensed as a variable. S&S assumethat this expression is an A-anaphor in the sense of Aoun 1985 and must belocally bound. They assume that this binding is blocked when the EC is withinthe nominal headed by two books. To make EC accessible to binding, theeach/apiece phrase moves out of the nominal by a QR-like operation andadjoins to TP. The subject then can also adjoin to TP via something like QRand binds the EC, thereby licensing it.(18) handles the simple cases of BE. If one assumes that LF movement is

subject to island conditions, then the ECM facts in section 2.4, illustrated hereby (21), follow as Subject Condition violations.

(21) a. *The men wanted/believed one eld each/apiece to be unreserved.b. [TP The men1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP t1 wanted/believed

[TP [one eld t2] to be unreserved]]]]

In (21) the each-phrasemoves out of an embedded subject on itsway tomatrixTP.There is one more assumption that S&S need to accommodate all of the relevantdata. They need to assume that it is possible to move from reconstructedpositions. This is required to handle the facts in section 2.5. Recall that it ispossible to have subject BEs so long as these are derived subjects formed byraising or passive. We have just observed that S&S prevent LF movement out ofsubjects to explain the ECM facts. This leaves cases like (22) a problem.

(22) One interpreter each/apiece was assigned to the diplomats.

The LF in (22), shown in (23), is illicit as the each-phrase has moved from thesubject.

(23) [TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP [one interpreter t2] wasassigned t2 to t1]]]

To nesse this problem, S&S assume that one can reconstruct the derivedsubject to its object position and move from there. The correct LF, therefore, is(24), with the LF movement taking place from the underlying object position.

(24) [TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP t1 was assigned [oneinterpreter t2] to t1]]]

Why the reconstruction possibility is blocked in (21) is unclear.



5. Some Problems for Sar and Stowell 1988

There are some problems with the details, though not the spirit, of S&Ssanalysis if translated into a more contemporary minimalist idiom. Take rst theidea that movement is possible from reconstructed positions. Reconstruction iscurrently understood as ultimately due to the copy theory of movement. Tracesare actually copies of displaced elements. Lets assume that this is so. Then thecorrect structure of (24) is (25).

(25) [TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP [one interpretereach/apiece EC] was assigned [one interpreter [each/apiece EC]2]to [the diplomats]1]]]

Note that the movement has taken place from the second copy and so shouldnot violate the Subject Condition. The problem is that there is evidence thatsuch movement is not generally licit. If it were, we would expect to nd noSubject Condition effects even for overt movement. Consider (26).

(26) *What2 does John believe [[books about t2]1 to have been burned t1?

Overt movement from a derived subject is illicit, presumably due to theSubject Condition or whatever principle underlies it. However, what wouldprevent movement from the copy in the object position along the same lines as(26)? One way of ruling out such a derivation is to assume that NP movementdoes not leave a trace/copy, as Lasnik (1999) has suggested. If so, the optionof so moving is unavailable. However, this would also block the derivation in(25). Another option is to trace the unacceptability of (26) with movementfrom the object to a violation of chain uniformity (see Takahashi 1994, Collins1994). However, this too would apply to (25) to block LF movement from thereconstructed object. In other words, if reconstruction is understood in termsof the copy theory, as it is currently so understood, then the S&S assumptionthat movement from reconstructed positions is possible is problematic.Second, A-binding, which is crucial to license the EC in (25) has no clear

status in minimalism (see Boeckx 2001, 2003a on this point). And the drivingforce forQR is far from clear, hence at variancewith a strict reading of LastResortand the minimalist tenet that movement is driven to check off formal features.Third, even if QR is assumed, it is not clear that it can act as desired in (25).

Note that QR acts to make the EC complement of each/apiece bindable by thediplomats. In effect, QR acts to widen the binding domain of the EC.However, in this regard BEs once again contrast with other anaphorsembedded within quanticational expressions. Chomsky (1993) extensivelydiscusses the relevant sorts of cases. (See already Chomsky 1981.)

(27) a. *John1 said that Mary likes every book about himself2.b. John1 said that books about himself1, Mary likes.c. *Which man knows which woman likes which picture of himself?d. John1 knows which picture of himself2 Mary likes.



If QR can move an entire quanticational DP, then we expect that (27a,b) and(27c,d) should be on a par if binding holds at LF. For example, QR shouldmove every book about himself in (27a) and adjoin it to IP. This would makethe LF of (27a) analogous to the overt structure of (27b). The fact that there isa contrast in potential binding of the reexives in these structures can bereconciled, but only if we assume that QR moves only the quanticationalelement, leaving the rest of the DP behind. Similarly for wh-raising in (27c,d).However, if we were to assume this, then we could not move the EC

complement of each/apiece out if its containing DP at LF and thus it wouldremain unbindable at LF. These problems suggest that we try to execute thebasic idea in S&S a different way, a task we turn to in the next section.

6. Overt Movement in BEs and Derivational Licensing

The S&S analysis involves three main assumptions, given in (28ac).Additionally, S&S (p. 430 (10)) specify an interpretation for BEs in (28d).

(28) a. BEs are binary predicates with internal nominal arguments.b. BEs are adjuncts that modify (are predicated of) the nominal

(S&Ss D[istributing]-NP) they are next to in overt syntax.c. The complement position of the BE is anaphorically related to an

antecedent (S&Ss R[ange]-NP)that licenses it.d. The individuals in the set denoted by the R-NP are exhaust-

ively mapped onto sets denoted by the D-NP such that no twoR-individuals are mapped onto the same D-set.

We adopt these assumptions, but provide a different implementation of S&Ssbasic ideas. Specically, we propose to analyze (29) as in (30).

(29) The men read one book each/apiece.

(30) [TP [Themen]1 T0 [vP t

0t [VP read [NP [NP one book] [BE-P each/apiece t1]]]]]

The overt syntax structure in (30) is achieved by assuming that the R-NP themen begins its derivational life as a complement of each/apiece, which in turnsheads the BE phrase. This phrase is adjoined to and modies the D-NP onebook (see (28b)). The D-NP and R-NP are interpretively related to one anotheralong the lines of (28) in this conguration. The anaphoric dependence in(28c) translates as a structural dependence akin to the relation assumed to holdbetween a clitic and its double in clitic-doubling structures (Kayne 1972,Torrego 1986, Uriagereka 1995) and between a resumptive pronoun and itsantecedent (Boeckx 2001, 2003a)12 and indeed between an anaphor and itsantecedent (Kayne 2002, Zwart 2002).

12 A doubling structure has also been suggested to capture the relationship between an anaphorand its antecedent (Kayne 2002, Zwart 2002). We do not adopt this analysis for anaphors, forreasons developed in Hornstein 2004, and Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2004. (We favor a viewthat takes anaphors to be [possibly morphologically modied] copies of their antecedents.)



The surface form of (29) results from moving the R-NP rst to Spec,vP13

and then to Spec,TP. The rst movement endows the R-NP with a h-role andthe second movement relates to Case.The primary differences between this analysis and the one in S&S are that

here the relation between the R-NP and complement position of the BE ismediated by movement rather than binding and this movement is overt. Thisimplementation leans on the conjecture advanced in Hornstein 2001 thatmovement is preferred to binding.Several assumptions that lie behind this implementation require discussion.

First, we crucially rely on the possibility of movement into thematic positions.The licit character of such an operation has now been motivated bothempirically and conceptually for a wide range of constructions. We refer thereader to Boskovic 1994; Boskovic and Takahashi 1998; Hornstein 1999, 2001;Hornstein andMotomura 2002; Lasnik 1999; Boeckx 1998; Nunes 1995, 2004;Kiguchi 2002; Rodrigues 2003; and Grohmann 2003, among others.Second, movement out of adjuncts is licit in well-dened contexts. In

particular, Boeckx (2001, 2003a) argues in detail that movement out ofadjuncts is possible so long as no agreement relation involving the movingelement takes place.14 Because moving into a h-position plausibly does notinvolve any agreement relation, movement out of the adjunct BE-phrase islicit.15 That movement out of an adjunct phrase contained inside an NP ispossible is in fact assumed by everybody who takes nouns like book to lackh-assigning possibilities. Accordingly, movement of who out of the aboutphrase in (31) is in fact movement out of an adjunct.16

(31) Who1 did you read [NP a book about t1]?

With so much as background, lets quickly consider the facts concerning BEsreviewed at the outset and see how they follow given this proposal.The rst fact is that BEs require antecedents. In particular, if a sentence

contains a nominal and a BE, then it must contain at least one other nominal aswell. We illustrated this (following S&S) by contrasting BEs with clausesinvolving oated quantiers.

(32) a. The men have each eaten one pie.b. The men have eaten one pie each.c. The men have each eaten.d. *The men have eaten/arrived each.e. *The/three men apiece have eaten/arrived.17

13 Locality conditions such as Minimality/Shortest Move are observed, as the R-NP and D-NPare plausibly equidistant from Spec,vP.

14 See also Hornstein 2001 and Nunes 1995, 2001, 2004.15 Let us note that several authors have independently argued that adjuncts contained inside VP

are porous; see Uriagereka 1988 and Landau 1999, among others.16 See Yoshida 2003 for a related point.17 We include subjects with numeral quantiers. As S&S note, the R-NP typically has this form.



Note that (32a,b) are tolerably good paraphrases. However, though one cannd oated each without overt objects, this is not possible for BEs. Neither(32d) nor (32e) is acceptable. The reason can be traced to the fact that BEsrequire two nominal arguments and (32d,e) have but one.18 Thus, in (32d)there is nothing for the BE to adjoin to and Full Interpretation rules thissentence out. As for (32e), it cannot have an internal argument. For, were it tohave one, it would have no place to move into the thematic domain. It wouldthen lack a h-role. Consider the derivation of (32e) with arrive.

(33) [Three men apiece DP] have arrived [[three men] apiece DP]

(33) assumes that there is some DP in the complement position of the BE. Itneeds a h-role to be licensed.19 But three men apiece DP occupies the onlythematic position, so there is no way for it to get one. Another derivationaloption is (34).

(34) [Three men apiece t1] have arrived [[three men]1 apiece t1]

Here we move three men from the complement position of apiece andpromote it in a kind of relativization strategy. This too leads tounacceptability, given the interpretive requirements of BEs outlined in (28).As S&S observe, (28) requires that no two R-individuals map to the same set.However, given the derivation in (34), there is only one set, that provided bythe moved three men. As such, the requirement in (28) cannot be met and thesentence is thus interpretive gibberish. As these are the only two possiblederivations for the sentence, its unacceptability follows.20

The second fact that our analysis captures is that the R-NP cannot be anexternal argument. For example, sentences like (35), with a derivation like(36), are unacceptable. (The sentence has the intended interpretation in whichthe books is the R-NP and three men apiece the D-NP.)

(35) *Three men apiece/each read the books.

(36) [[Three men apiece t1] T0 [[three men apiece t1][read [the books]]]]

Under (36), the book moves from the complement of apiece to the internalargument position of read, thereby getting a h-role. Three men apiece thenraises to Spec,TP for Case-checking purposes. The problem is that the rstmovement involves lowering in overt syntax, and this is prohibited. Lowering

"j

18 A reviewer wonders how adjoined material like the each phrase can function as a predicatetaking the element it is adjoined to as its argument. We refer the reader to Hornstein andUriagereka 2002 and Boeckx 2003b for discussion of how quantiers function as predicates at LFvia a mechanism of reprojection.

19 More exactly, we assume that it needs a verbal/h-role. Even if it has some interpretive rolein virtue of being the complement of apiece, we assume this is not enough. We follow Baker 2003in taking adjectives (/adjuncts) to be unable to assign h-roles of their own.

20 S&S note that there may also be a Case Filter violation here.



(in overt syntax) can be ruled out in various ways given current minimalistassumptions. For example, the indicated operation violates the ExtensionCondition.21

The third feature of BEs captured by our analysis is that the R-NP must belocally related to the D-NP. This is illustrated in (37).

(37) a. *The men believed that three books each were exciting.b. *The men believe Bill to be reading one book apiece.

The derivations of these sentences violate generally accepted conditions onmovement, as the derivations in (38) indicate.

(38) a. The men believed [that [three books each the men] were exciting]

b. The men believed Bill to be reading one book apiece the men.

(38a) moves the men out of a subject of an embedded nite clause, whereasin (38b) we move the nominal the men over an intervening c-commandingnominal Bill in violation of minimality. Both movements are illicit and so thederivations are blocked.22

Our analysis is also able to derive the reconstruction cases that turned outto be problematic for S&S.23 Take, for example, (39).

(39) How many books each did the boys read?

(39) has the derivation in (40).

(40) [CP [TP the boys T [the boys [read [how many books each the boys]]]]

"j

"j

#j

"

21 There are various other potential violations. Lowering plausibly prevents linearization ofcopies if these must be within a chain, as Nunes (1995, 2004) proposes. Additionally, currentAgree-based theories (Chomsky 2000, 2001) require the targets of movement to c-command theobject moved. Either or all of these conditions sufce to prevent overt lowering.

22 Recall that movement across one book does not violate anything, as the BE is adjoined to thisnominal and so minimality does not come into play.

23 Tim Stowell (p.c.) observes that the absence of intermediate-trace reconstruction effectswith BE (unlike with regular anaphors), illustrated in (i), follows from our account, if the A-movement of [the boys] has to precede remnant movement of the wh-phrase and cannot skip overthe intervening subject. (S&S derived (i) in a similar but not identical wayby requiring QR ofeach from reconstructed wh-phrase in the original object position [CED] and from the [tensed]clause-boundedness of QR.)

(i) *How many books eachi did the boysi say the girls bought t?



First, the boys moves from the complement of each to Spec,vP (and then toSpec,TP), and then the remnant wh-moves to Spec,CP. This basic combinationof movement out of the complement of the BE to a h-position with subsequentremnant movements of an A or A variety sufce to derive the other examplesinvolving passive and raising as well.There is one more set of data left to account for. Recall that BEs cannot be

ECM subjects, despite this being a position in which standard anaphors can belicensed.

(41) a. *The men believed one eld each to be unavailable.b. *The women consider one man apiece ugly.c. *The boys expected one book apiece to be reviewed in The Times.

S&S accounted for these by assuming that they involved movement out ofembedded subjects at LF, which was illicit. Setting aside the issue of islandviolation for covert movement, S&Ss account does not go through since S&Sindependently allowed movement from reconstructed positions. However, wedo not assume movement out of a reconstructed position, and all our relevantmovements are overt, so we can appeal to an island effect to rule out (41).More precisely, we assume that (overt) movement out of an element that hasraised to matrix Spec,AgrOP is disallowed. This is Lasniks (2001) conclusion,based on cases like (42).24

(42) a. *?Who1 did you consider [pictures of t1] to be boring?b. *Who2 did John make [friends of t2] out [t1 to be smart]?c. ?Who1 did John make out [[friends of t1] to be smart]?

The generalization appears to be that extraction out of an element raised toeither Spec,AgrSP or Spec,AgrOP is barred.

25

Supporting evidence for our conclusion comes from the contrast in (43)(due to Howard Lasnik, p.c.).

(43) a. The men threw out three bags each.b. *?The men threw three bags each out.

As Lasnik (2001) extensively argues (building on earlier work by Johnson[1991]), the position of the object NP in between a verb and a particle

24 The island status of ECMed subjects is somewhat less clear than that of subjects of niteclauses (*Who did [pictures of t] impress Bill?) and appears to vary according to which ECM verbis used. Compare (ia) and (ib).

(i) a. ??Who did John prove [pictures of t] to be illegal?b. *?Who did John consider [pictures of t] to be ugly?

We do not understand this variation, but we want to relate it to the fact pointed out in footnote 5that some BEs are acceptable as ECMed subjects.

25 This relates to the idea that agreement freezes a node for extraction, as explored by Boeckx(2001, 2003a), Uriagereka (1999, 2003), and others.



that form a verbal complex (43b) indicates that Object Shift (movement toSpec,AgrOP) has taken place. Given our reasoning above, we expectextraction in such a situation to be ruled out. The expectation is borne outin (44).

(44) a. Who did you pick up [pictures of t]?b. *?Who did you pick [pictures of t] up?

That (44) closely parallels (43) supports the proposal that (overt) extractionout the BE takes place.26

Having accounted for the impossibility of BEs as ECMed subjects/raisedobjects, let us now turn to situations in which the R-NP is an ECMed subject,as in (45).

(45) a. John proved the prisoners guilty with one accusation each/apiece.b. Bob made/let Sam and Tom leave on two occasions each/apiece.

Given the logic of our analysis, the derivation for, say, (45a) would be as in (46).

(46) a. Form the adjunct containing the BE:[with [[one accusation] each the prisoners]]

b. (Sideward) Move the prisoners to the complement of guilty:[the prisoners guilty], with [[one accusation] each the prisoners]

c. Merge prove and the embedded small clause (we ignore overtObject Shift for Case reasons):[prove [the prisoners guilty]], with [[one accusation] each theprisoners]

d. Merge John with the vP:[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]], with [[one accusation] eachthe prisoners]

26 A reviewer noted the following acceptable example:

(i) Two women got the prize money and a silver medal each.

This would appear to violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint with two women moving toSpec,vP from the right conjunct. We believe this example to be somewhat misleading. Structurallysimilar cases are considerably less acceptable.

(ii) Two women swallowed a/*?this peanut and a raisin each/apiece.(iii) Two women broke a/*?this plate and a cup each/apiece.

The only acceptable this-reading of (iii) is one where there are two separate events where one andthe same peanut is swallowed twice. As this is implausible, the sentence is odd. Similarly with (iv).Why then is (i) acceptable? We suspect that this is due to the fact that two people can each receivea share of the prize money whereas shares of peanuts and plates are less common.

(iv) Two women got a share of the prize money and a silver medal each.

When the prize is made difcult to share, the oddity resurfaces.

(v) Two women got a/*?the silver dollar and a medal each.



e. Adjoin the PP:[[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]] with [[one accusation] eachthe prisoners]]

f. Merge T, raise John to Spec,TP, and Spell-Out:[John T [[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]] with [[one accu-sation] each the prisoners]]

The crucial aspect of this derivation is that we delay the adjunction of the PPcontaining BE until the matrix vP is introduced. This is possible if wecapitalize on the possibility of sideward movement (movement acrossunconnected subtrees).27 But we want to make sure that the derivation in(53) hasnt opened the door to unwanted derivations.In this context, consider again (35), repeated here as (47).

(47) *Three men apiece read the books.

The derivation produced in (36) relied on the fact that the books must movefrom the subject nominal three men apiece the books. This forces the books tolower, and as this is not permissible, the derivation is unsuccessful. But whatprevents the derivation in (48)?

(48) a. Merge apiece, the, books to make form the BE:[apiece [the books]]

b. Move the books sideward to read:[read the books], [apiece [the books]]

c. Add v to read the books:[v [read the books]], [apiece [the books]]

d. Merge three, men:[three men], [v [read the books]], [apiece [the books]]

e. Adjoin the BE to three men:[[three men] [apiece [the books]]], [v [read the books]]

f. Merge three men apiece the books with the vP:[[[three men] [apiece [the books]]] [v [read the books]]]

g. Finish off the derivation as usual.

So far as we can tell, (48) would render (47) grammatical. The derivation canbe blocked if we require that the BE merge to the nominal it modies as soonas it is able to do so. Recall that we followed S&S in essentially consideringBEs as headed by transitive predicates. Thus, apiece/each have internal andexternal arguments that are satised or discharged via Merge. Lets assumethat once one begins checking or assigning the h-roles of a predicate, that thismust continue until all the h-roles of that predicate are saturated. This has beenindependently assumed by Frampton and Gutmann (1999, 2002), who claim

27 Since this possibility has been amply justied empirically and conceptually in Nunes 1995,2001, 2004, and Hornstein 2001, we simply adopt it here without further justication.



that all unvalued features of the pivot must be satised before the derivationcan proceed to a new application of Select, and also by Collins (2002:46 (6)),who formulates the following Locus Principle:

(49) Let X be a lexical item that has one or more probe/selectors. Suppose Xis chosen from the lexical array and introduced into the derivation. Theprobe/selectors of X must be satised before any new unsaturatedlexical items are chosen from the lexical array. Call X the locus of thederivation.

Say that something like the Locus Principle is correct, and say that S&S areright in thinking that BEs are species of transitive predicates. If so, once webegin to form the BE, we must nish with it before moving onto somethingelse. In effect, this will block the movement in (48b) as we have not yetdischarged the external argument of the BE at the point where we move itscomplement. Thus, the net effect of assuming (49) is to force the BE intoconstituency with the nominal it modies. This will necessarily end byyielding a structure like (36), which, we have seen, is sufcient to prevent thederivation of (35).There is a nal derivation to consider for (47), one in which we build the

whole BE (saturating each/apiece), sideward move the R-NP the books to theobject of read, build up the tree up to v, Merge the entire BE in Spec,vP, and raisethree men to Spec,TP.28 This derivation is excluded as it fails to be linearized.The books would have to both precede and follow read according to Nuness(2004) linearization of chains procedure based on Kaynes (1994) LCA.All in all, an overt movement analysis of the licensing of BE successfully

covers the relevant data. We are further able to explain three additionalproperties of BEs.First, why is it that they follow the D-NP? We can, once again, adopt the

S&S proposal. They note that adjectives with complements must succeed thenominals they modify. Witness (50).

(50) a. *a happy with school boyb. a boy happy with school

If BEs have complements, as assumed here, then the same restriction canaccount for why they are barred from prenominal positions.

(51) The men read (*apiece) one book (apiece).

Second, we account for why it is that the complement in a BE is neverphonetically realized. It is an NP-trace and so phonetically null.

28 This is in essence the derivation proposed by Nunes (2004) and Kiguchi (2002) to captureparasitic gaps inside subjects and PRO-gate effects, respectively. In their case, the derivation issuccessful, as wh-movement of the sideward-moved object establishes a c-command relationamong the various copies within the relevant chain, allowing linearization to proceed unhindered.



Third, we can explain why BEs adjoin to weak nominals only. As S&Sobserve, we do not nd BEs like (52).

(52) *The men read most books each/the books apiece/every book each.

This follows once we note that movement out of nominals with strongdeterminers is generally prohibited.

(53) *Who did John read most/the books about?

Whatever blocks movement in (53), would carry over to prevent thecomplement the men from moving out of the BE in.To sum up, we have implemented S&Ss analysis of BEs in a slightly

different format. This allows us to cover the same empirical ground that theydo but without some of the problems raised in section 5. Moreover, we canalso explain why, for example, BEs never show overt complements and whythey adjoin to weak nominals.

7. Conclusion

This paper aims to achieve a minimalist goal. As Chomsky (1993)observes, if we can replicate a result that exploits D-structure conditions inan account that can dispense with this DS assumption, then all thingsbeing equal, this account is to be preferred on methodological grounds.However, we can aspire somewhat higher and show that the account thateschews DS is superior. We have here proposed an account thataccommodates the basic facts as well as some more recondite phenomena;for example, why the complement of a BE must be null. The proposalincorporates the general idea behind the S&S analysis but avoids thecomplications that this approach entails (e.g., assuming that islands extendto LF congurations or that one can move out of tails of chains but onlyin LF) by implementing the idea in terms of overt movement.Interestingly, the proposal is consistent with an approach that exploits aunique phrase marker feeding both AP and CI (thus, dispensing with LFmovement entirely). All of the grammatical work in the proposal rests onovert movements and requires no covert LF operations. There is no needto assume any QR operation or A-binding mechanism. There is also noneed to assume that A-movement reconstructs. The proposal, if correct,supports Chomskys (1995) conjecture (see also Lasnik 1999). In fact, weeliminate the core case of A-chain reconstruction mentioned by Chomsky(2001:43, n. 11).At a general level, the analysis provides one more empirical argument for

movement into h-position, sideward movement, the primacy of movementover binding in matters of construal, and the virtues of a very derivationalview of syntax.



References

AOUN, J. 1985. A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.BAKER, M. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

BELLETTI, A. & L. RIZZI. 1988. Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 6:291352.

BOECKX, C. 1998. Traces of argument structure. Ms., University of Connecti-cut, Storrs. [Presented at the University of Texas Conference on Argument Struc-ture (1998). To appear in the Proceedings, Texas Linguistic Forum, Austin,Tex.]

BOECKX, C. 1999. A strongly derivational view on (pseudo-)clefts. Ms.: University ofConnecticut, Storrs.

BOECKX, C. 2001. Mechanisms of chain formation. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs.

BOECKX, C. 2003a. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.BOECKX, C. 2003b. (In)direct binding. Syntax 6:213236.BOECKX, C., N. HORNSTEIN & J. NUNES. 2004. A movement theory of localreexives. Ms., Harvard University, University of Maryland, and USPE.

BOSKOVIC, Z. 1994. D-structure, Theta Criterion, and movement into theta-positions.Linguistic Analysis 24:247286.

BOSKOVIC, Z. & D. TAKAHASHI. 1998. Scrambling and Last Resort. LinguisticInquiry 29:347366.

BURZIO, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CHOE, J.-W. 1987. Anti-quantiers and a theory of distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

CHOMSKY, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.CHOMSKY, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The view fromBuilding 20, ed. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 152. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.[Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.]

CHOMSKY, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CHOMSKY, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed.R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

CHOMSKY, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed.M. Kenstowicz, 150. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

COLLINS, C. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding con-dition. Linguistic Inquiry 25:4561.

COLLINS, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Explanation and derivation in the Minim-alist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 6442. Oxford: Blackwell.

EPSTEIN, S. D., E. GROAT, R. KAWASHIMA & H. KITAHARA. 1998. Thederivation of syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FRAMPTON, J. & S. GUTMANN. 1999. Cyclic computation: A computationallyefcient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2:127.

FRAMPTON, J. & S. GUTMANN. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Derivation andexplanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 90105.Oxford: Blackwell.

GIL, D. 1982. Distributive numerals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, LosAngeles.

GROHMANN, K. K. 2003. Prolic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.HORNSTEIN, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:6996.HORNSTEIN, N. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford:Blackwell.

HORNSTEIN, N. 2004. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. Ms., University of Maryland,College Park.



HORNSTEIN, N. & M. MOTOMURA. 2002. Psych verbs, theta roles, andreconstruction. In Proceedings of 2002 LSK International Summer Conference. 2:3958. Seoul: Linguistics Society of Korea.

HORNSTEIN, N. & J. URIAGEREKA. 2002. Reprojections. In Derivation andexplanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 106132.Oxford: Blackwell.

JOHNSON, K. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9:557636.

KAYNE, R. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Generative studies inRomance languages, ed. J. Casagrande & B. Saciuk, 70126. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.

KAYNE, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.KAYNE, R. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation inthe Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 133166. Oxford:Blackwell.

KIGUCHI, H. 2002. Syntax unchained. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland,College Park.

KIM, K. 1998. (Anti-)connectivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, CollegePark.

LANDAU, I. 1999. Elements of control. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.LASNIK, H. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, ed. S. D. Epstein &N. Hornstein, 189215. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

LASNIK, H. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Objects and other subjects, ed.W. Davies & S. Dubinsky, 103121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

LASNIK, H. 2002. Clause-mate conditions revisited. Glot International 6:9496.LASNIK, H. & M. SAITO. 1991. On the subject of innitives. Papers from the 27thregional meeting of CLS, ed. L. Dobrin, L. Nichols & R. Rodriguez, 324343.Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Reprinted in Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalistanalysis, 724. Oxford: Blackwell.].

LEBEAUX, D. 1994. Where does the binding theory apply? Ms., NEC.LINK, G. 1998. Algebraic semantics. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.MANZINI, M. R. & A. ROUSSOU. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement andcontrol. Lingua 110:409447.

NUNES, J. 1995. The copy theory of movement and the linearization of chains in theMinimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

NUNES, J. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:303344.NUNES, J. 2004. Sideward movement and linearization of chains in the MinimalistProgram. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

ONEIL, J. 1997. Means of control. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge,Mass.

POSTAL, P. M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.RODRIGUES, C. 2003. Thematic chains. Ms., University of Maryland, CollegePark.

SAFIR, K. & T. STOWELL. 1988. Binominal each. In Proceedings of NELS 18, ed.J. Blevins & J. Carter, 246250. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA Publications.

TAKAHASHI, D. 1994. Minimality of movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs.

TORREGO, E. 1986. Determiners and pronouns: A DP analysis of noun phrases inSpanish. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston.

URIAGEREKA, J. 1988. On government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connec-ticut, Storrs.

URIAGEREKA, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in WesternRomance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79123.



URIAGEREKA, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism. ed. S. D. Epsteinand N. Hornstein, 251282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

URIAGEREKA, J. 2003. Spell-Out consequences. Ms., University of Maryland,College Park.

YOSHIDA, M. 2003. The specicity condition: PF-condition or LF-condition? InProceedings of WCCFL 22, 547560. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.

ZIMMERMANN, M. 2002. Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax andsemantics of distance-distributivity. Utrecht: LOT Publications.

ZWART, C. J.-W. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Deri-vation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely,269304. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cedric BoeckxHarvard University

Department of LinguisticsBoylston Hall, Third Floor

Cambridge, MA 02138USA

[email protected]

Norbert HornsteinUniversity of Maryland

Department of Linguistics1401 Marie Mount Hall

College Park, MD 20742-7505USA

[email protected]

