Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:59:04.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2018

BENJAMIN BRUENING  and
EMAN AL KHALAF
BENJAMIN BRUENING*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
EMAN AL KHALAF*
Affiliation:
The University of Jordan
*
Author’s address: University of Delaware, 125 E Main Street, Newark, DE 19716, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: The University of Jordan, Queen Rania Street, 11942, Jordan[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding Condition C. We find absolutely no evidence of an argument–adjunct distinction in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Neither arguments nor adjuncts reconstruct for Condition C. We suggest that those speakers who report such a contrast (linguists, primarily) are following a pragmatic bias, and not Condition C. While we do not find reconstruction of dependents of fronted NPs for Binding Condition C, we do find reconstruction of fronted PPs. That is, the NP complement of a fronted P must reconstruct for Binding Condition C. The literature also finds reconstruction of NP complements of verbs and adjectives. This means that fronted Ns are special in not requiring reconstruction of their arguments and adjuncts. We suggest that, syntactically, arguments of Ns are treated as adjuncts: semantic arguments simply adjoin in the same manner as true adjuncts. Syntactic adjuncts can be left out of lower copies in chains, something that we suggest follows from a left-to-right syntactic derivation plus an economy condition on copying.

Keywords

adjunctsargumentsBinding Condition Creconstructionwh-movement
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , 01 April 2019 , pp. 247 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the audience of WCCFL 35 for their comments and feedback. We also thank two anonymous Journal of Linguistics reviewers for their helpful comments which helped to improve the paper noticeably.

References

Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adger, David, Drummond, Alex, Hall, David & van Urk, Coppe. 2016. Is there Condition C reconstruction? NELS 47. UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Al Khalaf, Eman. 2017. First conjunct agreement is an illusion. Ms., University of Jordan (available at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003250).Google Scholar
Balaban, Noga, Belletti, Adriana, Friedmann, Naama & Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. Disentangling principle C: A contribution from individuals with brain damage. Lingua 169, 1–20.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68, 255–278.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew. 1988. Paths, connectivity, and featureless empty categories. In Cardinaletti, Anna (ed.), Constituent structure, 9–34. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 1–46.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina.1995. Consequences of antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. Ph.D. dissertation, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90, 342–388.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara H. & Turner, Raymond (eds.), Properties, types and meaning vol. 2, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 1999. Copy theory, the nature of covert movement and the interpretation of A-bar chains. Presented at MIT.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D. & Norquest, Peter (eds.), The 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18), 132–144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In Lust, Barbara (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, 151–188. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steve & Fedorenko, Kristina. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language & Linguistics Compass 5, 509–524.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott & McNally, Louise. 2013. No ordered arguments needed for nouns. In Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael & Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), The 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 123–130. Amsterdam: ILLC, (available at http://events.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/Proceedings/index.html).Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott & McNally, Louise. 2015. The -ing dynasty: Rebuilding the semantics of nominalizations. In D’Antonio, Sarah, Moroney, Mary & Little, Carol Rose (eds.), SALT 25, 82–102. eLanguage. http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/index.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, Brent. 2007. Matching and raising unified. Lingua 117, 202–220.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 547–570.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 395–420.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103–138.Google Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14, 111–137.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 2004. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In Horn, Laurence & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 315–343. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1998. Some reconstruction riddles. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Lee, Hikyoung, Moisset, Christine & Williams, Alexander (eds.), The 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5.1), 83–98. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2017. Condition C violations and strong crossover. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, 2nd edn. 1052–1078. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Distributed by GLSA, Amherst, MA.]Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1992. Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of the derivation. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25), 209–239. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leddon, Erin M. & Lidz, Jeffrey L.. 2006. Reconstruction effects in child language. The 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 328–339. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2013. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax 16, 250–291.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70, 491–538.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Gross, Thomas. 2017. Left node blocking. Journal of Linguistics 53, 641–688.Google Scholar
Payne, John, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Scholz, Barbara C. & Berlage, Eva. 2013. Anaphoric One and its implications. Language 89, 794–829.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.]Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 539–556.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.]Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2011. What’s nominal in nominalizations? Lingua 121, 1283–1296.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin. 1981. NP-structure. The Linguistic Review 1, 171–217.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 587–620.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA.]Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, 205–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2017. Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry(to appear).Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43, 155–167.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Wholesale late merger in Ā-movement: Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 47, 89–126.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi & Hulsey, Sarah. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/A distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 387–426.Google Scholar