Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the Problem of Copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017

Movement in Minimalism, Class 2: Linearization and the problem of copies July 11, LSA Summer Institute 2017

This class:

. We discuss Nunes’s (1995, 2004) proposal that copy deletion derives from the demands of the linearization algorithm at PF . We look at cases for which a copy theory has an advantage over a trace theory, involving multiple spell-out in predicate clefting/V-fronting constructions as well as wh-copying . We examine exceptional cases of copy spell-out, including deletion of the highest copy and scattered deletion

1 Two approaches to copy deletion

As we discussed last week, Merge provides us with a single structure-building mechanism. Merge can create long-distance dependencies as long as we adopt the Copy Theory of Movement:

(1) Which book did you read which book? CP

DP C’

which book did TP

you T’

did VP

read which book

However, getting rid of traces in this way means that we need to posit a rule of copy deletion. But where does copy deletion come from?

1.1 Three sources of wellformedness constraints

In the Minimalist Program, constraints on wellformedness have only three possible sources: 1. Constraints on the PF interface

2. Constraints on the LF interface

3. Natural principles of computation, often referred to as “economy constraints” =⇒ Copy deletion too should derive from one of these sources.

1 Two of these options have been explored in previous work, and we will discuss them this week:

1. Copy deletion as a result of linearization at PF (Nunes 1995, 2004; cf. Fox and Pesetsky 2005; Johnson 2012):

. One of the things that must happen when interpreting a syntactic tree at PF is a process of converting a syntactic structure into a linear string (2), a process of linearization. . One prominent approach to copy deletion proposes that the existence of copies creates a problem for linearization, because you don’t know which copy to use to determine the position of a moved phrase.

2. Copy deletion as the result of economy (Fanselow and Ćavar 2001; Landau 2006; Van Urk, to appear):

. Another feature of dependencies with copies is that they involve repetitive material. We might imagine that a natural principle of computation could be not to pronounce material that you don’t need to. . Landau (2006) develops a model in which an economy constraints that maximizes deletion is the source of copy deletion.

1.2 Could copy deletion derive from constraints on LFs?

It is worth brieﬂy entertaining what the third option might look like. One reason why an LF-based approach could be promising is that copies are diﬃcult to interpret at LF. A big advantage of traces is that they can straightforwardly be interpreted as variables:

(2) [which book] λx. did you see x

Interpreting copies is much trickier. If you just interpret each copy in place, you can’t actually make sure that they refer to the same thing and they’ll be interpreted as independent semantic objects. (This is why an operation like Fox’s (1999) Trace Conversion is necessary!)

In principle, we could imagine that deletion of a lower copy could be forced by this semantic problem, as long as deleting a copy replaces it with a variable, giving you the representation in (2).

What problem does this idea of variable replacement run into?

2 Copy deletion and linearization

. In today’s class, we will start by looking at the idea that copies create problems of linearization, an approach developed by Nunes (1995, 2004).

. The basic idea is that a structure containing copies will always lead to linearization conﬂicts, because you are forced to order a copy relative to itself.

2 2.1 Kayne (1994) and the Linear Correspondence Axiom

The starting point for Nunes’s approach is Kayne’s (1994) proposal that syntactic structures undergo a process of linearization at PF:

(3) TP

DP T’ Linearization =⇒ =⇒ Lee algorithm Lee > will > read > a > book T VP will V DP read a book

Kayne (1994) proposes that linearization is achieved through the Linear Correspondence Axiom:

(4) Linear Correspondence Axiom: Precedence relations are determined by asymmetric c-command (if α asymmetrically c-commands β, α precedes β).

The LCA incorporates a principle of Totality (orderings must be complete) and a principle of Antisym- metry (orderings cannot be symmetrical).

(5) For every distinct syntactic item x and y in a tree, either x < y or y < x Totality and not (x < y and y < x) Antisymmetry

2.2 Adapting the LCA for copies

Nunes (1995, 2004): The LCA, as originally stated, ignores traces. Suppose, however, that copies count for calculating ordering statements and, furthermore, that copies are non-distinct.

(6) Jess was hugged Jess. Ordering statements for (6): TP Jess > was was > hugged Jess > hugged was > Jess Jess > Jess DP T’ Jess hugged > Jess T VP was V DP hugged Jess

This set of ordering statements contains two types of linearization conﬂicts: . Jess is ordered both before and after was, hugged . Jess is ordered both before and after itself

3 =⇒ Any set of ordering statements containing copies will contain contradictions. This means that copy deletion must apply to allow for a syntactic structure to be interpretable at PF. Deleting the lower copy in (7) gives us the ordering statements below, which are consistent.

(7) Jess was hugged Jess. Ordering statements for (7): TP Jess > was was > hugged Jess > hugged

DP T’ Jess T VP was V DP hugged Jess

To derive structures like (7), we adopt an operation of Chain Reduction, which eliminates copies:

(8) Chain Reduction (soon to be revised): Delete the constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suﬃce for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA. (adapted from Nunes 2004:27)

2.3 Restricting Chain Reduction

An issue arises with copies that consist of multiple words. Consider an example like (9).

(9) [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]?

There are lots of ways of applying Chain Reduction to create a structure that is linearizable. In addition to (10a), the scattered deletion options in (10b–d) should also be ﬁne:

(10) a. [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]? b. [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]? c. [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]? d.[ which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]?

Nunes: We can rule out the options in (10b–d) by appealing to economy. All scattered deletion options must involve more than one deletion operation, while (10a) achieves a linearizable structure with just one application of deletion. We’ll revise the deﬁnition of Chain Reduction to build in this intuition:

(11) Chain Reduction: Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suﬃces for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the LCA. (Nunes 2004:27)

4 2.4 Choosing a copy

Problem: How do we decide which copy to delete?

In principle, all of the options in (12a–d) solve the problem of linearization equally well, and all involve only one application of deletion.

(12) a. [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]? b.[ which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]? c. [Jess] was hugged [Jess]. d.[ Jess] was hugged [Jess].

Nunes: . Suppose movement is always driven by the need to check a feature (Chomsky 1995), like a wh-feature for the example in (12a–b) or a Case feature for (12c–d). . The presence of such a feature means the two copies in examples like (12a–d) are not equal. The higher copy will contain a checked feature and the lower copy an unchecked one:

(13) a. [which tiny spider]-uWH did you see [which tiny spider]-uWH b. [Jess]-uCase was hugged [Jess]-uCase

=⇒ Deleting the lower copy will at the same time get rid of an unchecked feature. In contrast, deleting the higher copy means that the unchecked feature on the lower copy must still somehow be eliminated.

2.5 Copy formation vs. multidominance

Nunes’s approach makes use of a mechanism of copy formation. Movement of X means that a copy X’ is made of X and, although non-distinct for the purposes of linearization, can be manipulated independently (e.g. undergo deletion or feature checking).

Gärtner (2002), Johnson (2012), and others: Internal Merge can be modeled without copy formation, by assuming a multidominant representation (15), in which one item is linked to diﬀerent positions:

(14) Copy formation: (15) Multidominance: F F

B C C

A B A

The main diﬀerence here is that B cannot be manipulated independently in diﬀerent positions (e.g. once you value a feature of B in one, it is valued in the other). What are the consequences of adopting a multidominant view for the Nunes approach to linearizing movement chains?

5 3 Multiple spell-out

We can derive copy deletion from the demands of linearization at PF. We will now turn to an advantage of the copy theory over trace theory, which is that it can handle multiple spell-out constructions.

3.1 Predicate clefting/V-fronting

Much work since Koopman (1984) on Vata has pointed out that many languages possess predicate clefting or V-fronting constructions, in which a verb A-moves¯ into the left periphery, but is pronounced in its base position also:

(16) Verb copying in Hebrew, Russian, and Nupe: a. lirkod, Gil lo yirkod ba-xayim. dance.inf Gil not will-dance in-the-life ‘As for dancing, Gil will never dance.’ (Hebrew; Landau 2006:32) b. Citat’ Ivan eë citaet, no nicego ne ponimaet. read.inf Ivan 3fs.acc reads but nothing not understands ‘Ivan DOES read it, but he doesn’t understand a thing.’ (Russian; Abels 2001:1) c. Bi-ba Musa à ba nakàn sasi èsun làzi yin o red-cut Musa fut cut meat some tomorrow morning prt foc ‘It is CUTTING that Musa will do to some meat tomorrow morning.’ (Nupe; Kandybowicz 2007:83)

As evident in the translations above, this is typically accompanied by topic/focus on the verb, like other instances of A-movement.¯

Predicate clefting involves movement Predicate clefting constructions have all the properties of familiar long-distance dependencies:

. Predicate clefts are unbounded, and can span across multiple clauses:

(17) Nupe and Hebrew predicate clefts are unbounded:

a. Si-si Musa gàn [CP gànán Nànaˇ kpe [CP gànán Gana si eci]] o. red-buy Musa say c Nana know c Gana buy yam foc ‘It was BUYING that Musa said that Nana knows that Gana did to a yam.’ (Nupe; Kandybowicz 2007:84) b. la’azor le-Rina, eyn li safek [CP še-Gil hivtiax [CP še-hu ya’azor]]. to.help to-Rina there-isn’t to.me doubt that-Gil promised that-he will.help ‘As for helping Rina, I have no doubt that Gil promised that he will help.’ (Hebrew; Landau 2006:11)

. Predicate clefts are island-sensitive:

(18) Nupe predicate clefts are impossible in Complex NP islands and subject islands:

a.* Gi-gi Musa si [DP bise [CP na gi eyì na] o. red-eat Musa buy hen c eat corn prt foc ‘Musa bought the hen that ATE the corn.’

6 b.* Si-si [CP gànán etsu si doko] tán Musa o. red-buy c chief buy horse pain Musa foc ‘That the chief BOUGHT a horse pained Musa.’ (Nupe; Kandybowicz 2007:85)

(19) Hebrew predicate clefts are impossible in Complex NP islands and subject islands:

a.* likro, Gil daxa [DP et ha-te’ana [CP še-hu kvar kara et ha-sefer]. to.read Gil rejected acc the-claim that-he already read acc the-book ‘As for reading, Gil rejected the claim that he had already the book.’ b.* likro, [CP še-yevakšu me-Gil [CP še-yikra et ha-sefer] ze to.read that-will.ask.3pl from-Gil that-will.read.3sg acc the-book it ma’aliv. insulting ‘As for reading, that they would ask Gil to read the book is insulting.’ (Hebrew; Landau 2006:12–13)

Why should A-movement¯ of a verb diﬀer from other types of A-movement¯ in this way? In Nupe, for example, focusing an object or modiﬁer doesn’t result in multiple pronunciation:

(20) Object and modiﬁer focus in Nupe: a. Nakàn sasi Musa à ba èsun làzì yin o. meat some Musa fut cut tomorrow morning prt foc ‘Some meat, Musa will cut tomorrow morning.’ b. Èsun làzì Musa à ba nakàn sasi yin o. tomorrow morning Musa fut cut meat some prt foc ‘Tomorrow morning, Musa will cut some meat.’ (Nupe; Kandybowicz 2007:83)

The interaction of copy deletion and complex head formation Verbs diﬀer from other items that can enter into long-distance dependencies in that they also often combine with inﬂectional morphology, such as through head movement to T:

(21) CP

Verb ...

... TP

Subject T’

T VP

Verb T Verb Object

7 Nunes’s proposal: Head movement is accompanied by the formation of complex heads/words. Suppose that this formation of a complex head renders the verb distinct for the purposes of linearization, such that multiple pronunciation does not lead to a linearization conﬂict.

=⇒ This mechanism will yield multiple spell-out with verbs, but not with subjects, objects, and modiﬁers, since they do not typically undergo head movement into the extended projection.

3.2 Wh-copying as multiple copy spell-out

This perspective predicts that we should ﬁnd multiple spell-out with subjects and objects when they do undergo complex head formation. A type of multiple spell-out that might instantiate this is wh-copying (e.g. Hiemstra 1986; McDaniel 1989; Felser 2004; Bruening 2006). Wh-copying refers to instances of wh-movement in which the wh-phrase is pronounced at the edge of an intermediate clause also:

(22) a. Wen glaubst du, [CP wen sie getroﬀen hat]? who think you who she met has ‘Who do you think she has met?’ (German; Felser 2004:544) b. Wêr tinke jo [CP wêr-’t Jan wennet ]? where think you where-that Jan lives ‘Where do you think that Jan lives?’ (Frisian; Hiemstra 1986:99) c. Tayuwe kt-itom-ups [CP tayuwe apc k-tol-i malsanikuwam-ok ]? when 2-say-dub when again 2-there-go store-loc ‘When did you say you’re going to the store?’ (Passamaquoddy; Bruening 2006:26)

Like predicate clefting/V-fronting, these dependencies are unbounded (23a) and island-sensitive (23b).

(23) a. Wen denkst du [CP wen sie meint [CP wen Harald liebt]]? who think you who she means who Harald loves ‘Who do you think she believes Harald loves?’ (Fanselow & Mahajan 2000:219) b.* Wen machte Peter [DP die Behauptung [CP wen sie liebt]]? who made Peter the claim who she loves (lit.) ‘Who did Peter make the claim that she loves?’ (Pankau 2014:20)

A multiple spell-out analysis We can analyze these constructions on a par with the predicate clefting/V-fronting cases if we assume that the intermediate wh-phrase is able to cliticize onto the intermediate C:

(24) CP

who ...

... CP

C ...

who C ... who

8 Like head movement of the verb to combine with inﬂectional morphology, this will render the intermediate copy distinct, so that it is pronounced without inducing a linearization conﬂict.

In support of this, it has often been noted that wh-copying is only possible with simplex wh-phrases:1

(25)* Welchen Mann glaubst du, [CP welchen Mann sie liebt]? which man believe you which man she loves ‘Which man do you believe she loves?’ (Felser 2004:552)

=⇒ This follows from the multiple copy spell-out analysis, since complex wh-phrases will not be able to cliticize to the intermediate C.

4 Pronunciation of lower copies and scattered deletion

There are two other types of constructions that can be handled by a copy theory, but not a trace theory: . Pronunciation of a lower copy and deletion of the highest . Scattered deletion

4.1 Pronunciation of a lower copy

In Nunes’s approach, deletion of the highest copy is favored because it is more economical. Tihs means that, if other PF considerations conﬂict with pronunciation of a higher copy, it should be possible for the lowest copy to surface.

A PF conﬂict in multiple wh-fronting Romanian is a multiple wh-fronting language. Every wh-phrase must move to the left periphery:

(26) Romanian is a multiple wh-fronting language: Cine ce a cumpărat? who what has bought ‘Who bought what?’ (Romanian; Bošković 2002:359)

Bošković (2002) points out a phonologically-motivated exception to this requirement. When both wh-words have the same phonological shape, they cannot front to the same left periphery (27a–b).

(27) Multiple fronting of ce (‘what’) not permitted: a. Cine ce precede? who what precedes ‘Who precedes what?’ b. *Ce ce precede? what what precedes ‘What precedes what?’ (Romanian; Bošković 2002:365)

1A well-known complication is that there is speaker variation when a simplex wh-phrases is accompanied by a preposition:

(i)% Mit wem glaubst du [CP mit wem Hans spricht]? with whom believe you with whom Hans speaks ‘Who do you think Hans is talking to?’ (Pankau 2014:10)

9 Instead, the lower wh-phrase must be pronounced in situ:

(28) Ce precede ce? what precedes what ‘What precedes what?’ (Romanian; Bošković 2002:365)

Nunes (2004) analyzes this as a PF constraint that forces deletion of a higher copy, overriding the economy preferences of Chain Reduction:

(29) Ce ce precede ce? what what precedes what ‘What precedes what?’

Support for the presence of movement, relating the lower and higher copy, comes from the observation that parasitic gaps an “in-situ” wh-phrase of this type still licenses a parasitic gap:

(30) a. *Cine a citit cartea [fără să claseze ]? who has read the-book without without subj.prt file-3s (lit.) ‘Who has read the book without filing?’ b. Ce precede ce [fara sa influenteze ] what precedes what without subj.prt influence-3s (lit.) ‘What precedes what without influencing?’ (Romanian; Bošković 2002:374–375)

Covert movement This type of approach can be extended to handle covert movement more generally, like QR or covert movement of an in-situ wh-phrase:

(31)[ every building] at least one guard stood on [every building].

An unanswered question: What PF constraint is responsible? See Johnson (2012) for suggestions.

4.2 Scattered deletion

The Nunes approach rules out scattered deletion like in (32) only through economy:

(32) [which tiny spider] did you see [which tiny spider]?

As with which copy to delete, this means that other PF requirements could force distributed deletion.

XP-split constructions might instantiate this. In German and Croatian, it is possible for some phrases to split under movement:

(33) XP-splits in German and Croatian: a. Mit was hast du für Frauen gesprochen? with what have you for women spoken ‘With what kind of women did you speak?’ b. Koje je Ivan zanimljive kupio knjige? which is Ivan interesting bought books ‘Which interesting books did Ivan buy?’ (Fanselow and Ćavar 2000:1–2)

10 Fanselow and Ćavar (2000) point out that these constructions show several properties that point to a distributed deletion analysis:

. Analyzing these constructions as simple movement is tricky, because the suggested movements are often odd. The example in (33a), for example, violates left-branch extraction, and both (33a–b) would need to involve movement of a non-constituent. . At the same time, such constructions are island-sensitive:

(34) XP-splits are island-sensitive:

a.* Bücher habe ich [DP eine Geschichte [CP dass sie keine liest]] gehört. books have I a story that she no reads heard “I have a heard a story that she does not read any books.’ b.* Čijoj je Ivan vidio [DP auto [CP koji je Marija sestri kupilia]]? whose is Ivan seen car which is Mary sister buy (lit.) ‘Whose sister did Ivan see a car that Mary bought?’ (Fanselow and Ćavar 2000:10)

Why do split XPs show this mixed behavior? Fanselow and Ćavar (2000): A distributed deletion analysis oﬀers a solution to these issues:

(35)[ Mit was für Frauen] hast du [mit was für Frauen] gesprochen? with what for women have you with what for women spoken ‘With what kind of women did you speak?’

. XP-splits are island-sensitive because they involve movement. . There is no violation of left-branch extraction or extraction of a non-constituent, just deletion.

Why is distributed deletion possible in this context? Fanselow and Ćavar: XP-splits arise in a particular pragmatic context, both in Croatian and in German. Speciﬁcally, all parts of the moved phrase must receive a topic/focus interpretation. =⇒ These information-structural demands require realization of the part of the copy that is topical or focal, thereby overriding the preferences of Chain Reduction.

How do we capture multiple spell-out, top copy deletion, and scattered deletion in a multidominance approach?

References Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351–383. Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. Diﬀerences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Pas- samaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37:25–49. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. MIT Press. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Damir Ćavar. 2000. Distributed deletion. Manuscript, University of Potsdam. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Damir Ćavar. 2001. Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In Competition in syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 107–150. Mouton de Gruyter. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Anoop Mahajan. 2000. Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity. In Wh-scope marking, ed. by Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow, 195–230. John Benjamins.

11 Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114:543–574. Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. Generalized transformations and beyond: Reﬂections on minimalist syntax. Akademie Verlag. Hiemstra, Inge. 1986. Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian. NOWELE 8:97–110. Johnson, Kyle. 2012. Towards deriving diﬀerences in how Wh movement and QR are derived. Lingua 122:529–553. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press. Landau, Idan. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9:32–66. McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7:565–604. Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. MIT Press. Pankau, Andreas. 2014. Replacing copies: The syntax of wh-copying in German. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University. van Urk, Coppe. To appear. Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the Copy Theory of Movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

Appendix: Distinguishing wh-copying and scope marking

Wh-copying often co-occurs with a constructions in which the higher wh-phrase is what, which I will refer to as scope marking:

(36) Scope marking and wh-copying in German:

a. Was glaubst du, [CP wovon sie träumt ]? what believe you of.what she dreams ‘What do you believe she dreams of?’ (German; Felser 2004:551) b. Keqsey Mali itom [CP wen nil kisi-niskam-uk ]? what Mary say.3 who 1 perf-dance.with.ano-1.conj ‘Who did Mary say I danced with?’ (Passamaquoddy; Bruening 2006:28)

Felser (2004) and Bruening (2006) argue that scope marking does not involve movement, but base- generation. The higher wh-phrase is an expletive that takes the embedded CP as its associate:

(37) What do you believe whati [CP of.what she dreams of.what]i? . Scope marking is impossible with verbs that do not admit DP objects (there is no such restriction on wh-copying):

(38) Scope marking only possible with verbs that admit DP objects:

*Was scheint es, [CP wen Hans geschlagen hat ]? what seems it who Hans hit has ‘Who does it seem Hans hit?’ (Felser 2004:552)

. Scope marking is possible out of a subject island (both constructions are otherwise island-sensitive):

(39) Was ist dir klar geworden [CP wie du leben willst]? what is you clear become how you live want ‘How did it become clear to you that you want to live?’ (Pankau 2014:22)

This can be explained by the wh-expletive analysis, since was can simply originate in the subject position of the higher predicate, taking the extraposed CP as its associate.