Explorations in the Typology of Anaphora A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ BEYOND DEEP AND SURFACE: EXPLORATIONS IN THE TYPOLOGY OF ANAPHORA A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Andrea Thompson June 2014 The Dissertation of Andrea Thompson is approved: Professor Jorge Hankamer, chair Professor James McCloskey Associate Professor Pranav Anand Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies x Table of Contents Abstract iv Dedication v Acknowledgments vi 1 Introduction 1 2 The Typology of Anaphora 5 2.1 Theacceptedtypology ............................ 9 2.1.1 Therecord............................... 10 2.1.2 The record, reference, and mixed anaphors . 13 2.1.3 Thetests................................ 14 2.1.4 Methodofinterpretation . 14 2.1.5 Testing for syntactic complexity . 23 2.1.6 OvertA-bardependencies . 25 2.1.7 UnpronouncedA-bardependencies . 29 2.1.8 Adependencies............................ 31 2.1.9 Headmovement ........................... 33 2.2 Thecommonanalyses ............................ 34 2.2.1 Thestructuralapproaches . 35 2.3 Mixedanaphors................................ 43 2.4 Buildingananalysis............................. 49 2.4.1 Deepanaphoricapproaches . 49 2.4.2 A general problem for derivational theories of ellipsis .... 63 2.5 Acopyinganalysisformixedanaphors . .. 82 3 A Dependencies in Mixed Anaphora 89 3.1 ThenatureofAdependencies . 90 3.2 TheuseofAdependenciesastests . 92 iii 3.2.1 Morphological dependencies in A phenomena . 93 3.2.2 Syntactic dependencies in A phenomena . 96 3.2.3 The morphosyntactic nature of the antecedent and its inter- actionwithanaphorstructure. 99 3.3 Theanaphors ................................. 104 3.3.1 British do ...............................105 3.3.2 DutchMCA .............................. 119 3.3.3 Do so ..................................152 3.3.4 Swedish det ..............................166 3.4 Amovementandmixedanaphors . 195 4 A-bar Dependencies in Mixed Anaphora 197 4.0.1 A-bar dependencies and mixed anaphora: The data . 199 4.1 Theanalysisofextractingmixedanaphors . 203 4.1.1 Inversescope ............................. 204 4.2 TheformationofACDdependencies . 226 4.2.1 BackgroundonACD. 227 4.2.2 ACDinnon-extractingmixedanaphors . 233 4.2.3 Anote on that-relatives....................... 239 4.2.4 Aquicknoteaboutparallelism . 240 4.3 Theapplicationoftheanalysis. 242 4.3.1 British do ...............................243 4.3.2 DutchMCA .............................. 247 4.3.3 Do so and Swedish det .......................251 4.4 Summary ................................... 256 5 Conclusion 258 A A Step-by-Step Derivation 262 iv Abstract Beyond Deep and Surface: Explorations in the Typology of Anaphora by Andrea Thompson The dissertation takes as its subject the typology of anaphora, that class of ex- pressions which in some intuitive sense ‘refer back’ to previously mentioned ma- terial. Although anaphora have been fairly well-studied, there has been little in the way of work on the typology of anaphora since landmark work in the 1970s and 1980s. The ultimate goal of this dissertation is to examine that typology, and to show that the typology as it currently stands is too coarse to account for the many subtle variations that we see in anaphoric expressions; it must be made more fine-grained. I take as my focus the category of surface anaphors, which are anaphors that must look to the linguistic discourse for their interpretation. Using several case studies from Germanic languages, I show that the traditional cate- gory of surface anaphora should be divided into several sub-categories, based on the type of internal structure which the anaphor contains; in particular, I divide surface anaphora into the traditional ellipses, which have internal syntax, and what I term mixed anaphora, which behave as if they have no internal structure in the narrow syntax. I go on to show that the wide variety of behavior we see can be accounted for if natural language allows both deletion and copying as possible strategies for deriving anaphors. v To Mary Jane and Dave Thompson, for everything vi Acknowledgments Whenever we think of a dissertator, we always seem to conjure up the image of a lonely student, sitting silently in the recesses of some dusty library. This image has always seemed to me to be abjectly wrong. The actual act of putting words on paper may be solitary, but the process of creating a dissertation is fundamentally social; dissertations are shaped by the care and efforts of numerous individuals. My dissertation is certainly not exceptional, and it owes its existence to years of interactions with many, many people. The first of these many people is my advisor: I owe a huge debt to Jorge Hankamer. Jorge is an amazing advisor, on both an intellectual and human level, and he has shaped my work and my life in innumerable ways. Working in syntax often feels like tramping through a dark, humid jungle with a broken machete; when you work with Jorge, you find yourself gearing up to fix that machete and forge new paths. He has always pushed me to take challenges head-on—to be clearer, braver, and more forthright—and I am deeply thankful for it. I also owe a great deal to the two other members of my committee, Jim Mc- Closkey and Pranav Anand. There is also a clear intellectual debt to Jim in this dissertation: Much of the analytical portion of this dissertation riffs on his joint work with Sandy Chung and Bill Ladusaw. However, there are more subtle debts, too. Jim is thoughtful and encouraging, and his enthusiasm for language and linguistics is extremely contagious. He also has a knack for finding the hard problems for a theory (much to his advisees’ concurrent delight and dismay); this dissertation would contain many more flaws without his insights. This project would not have come to fruition without Pranav. He is an incred- vii ibly generous person, both with his time and his intellect, and I have benefitted greatly from that generosity. Pranav also always seems to take it as a given that everyone else is as capable and intelligent as he is; even when that’s not the case, it always raises the bar and inspires you to meet his expectations. I regularly left his office with new solutions and ideas, feeling energized and excited to tackle the next problem. Thank you, Pranav. There are quite a few other people who’ve discussed different parts of this dissertation with me. It’s a bit hard for me to remember everyone who I’ve ram- bled about anaphora and related topics to in the past two and a half years; I can make a best guess, though. To Nick Deschenes, Karl DeVries, Judith Fiedler, Boris Harizanov, Kyle Johnson, Katia Kravtchenko, Nicholas LaCara, Filippa Lindahl, Jason Merchant, Mark Norris, Oliver Northrup, the late and inimitable Ivan Sag, Clara Sherley-Appel, Masaya Yoshida, and the attendees of Ellipsis 2012 at Vigo, a big thank you. I owe a great many people thanks for their judgments. To Anita Greenwood, Tim Greenwood, Steve Greenwood, James Griffiths, Filippa Lindahl, Christine Newby, Matthijs Westera, and our half-dozen semi-anonymous Swedish speakers (you know who you are): Thank you. James and Matthijs, thank you for also sharing your linguistic expertise with me; it was incredibly valuable. Filippa, the Swedish portions of this dissertation would not exist without you. Thank you for your generosity, both in collecting and discussing data and in sharing your knowledge. This dissertation wouldn’t have happened without the amazing support net- work I’ve been privileged with, both inside and outside UCSC. viii Judith Aissen, Adrian Brasoveanu, Sandy Chung, Donka Farkas, Armin Mester, Jaye Padgett: Thank you for the advice, support, and help you’ve given me over the last six years. I would not have learned nearly as much as I have if it weren’t for you all, and I know I would have had a rougher road. Ashley Hardisty, Susan Welch, and Maria Zimmer: I can’t imagine our de- partment without you three. Thank you for all your help, and thank you for the constant kindness you’ve shown me. You’ve made so many of my days brighter. The UCSC Linguistics graduate students are some of my favorite people on earth, and I’m so happy to have been part of such a wonderful and support- ive community for the last six years. Thank you to all of the graduate stu- dents, past and present, but especially to Nate Arnett, Taylor Bell, Ryan Bennett, Tommy Denby, Nick Deschenes, Karen Duek, Nico Feria, Vera Gribanova, Boris Harizanov, Robert Henderson, Jesse Kirchner, Ruth Kramer, Kelsey Kraus, Nick LaCara, Oliver Northrup, Jeremy O’Brien, Deniz Rudin, Allan Schwade, Bern Samko, Matt Tucker, Paul Willis, and Lauren Winans (ssh Lauren you count). I am beyond lucky in my friends. Sleep-deprived dissertators are not the most calm and reliable people to have around, and this particular sleep-deprived dissertator would have been much less calm and reliable without all of these fantastic people. I have no clue where I would be without Clara Sherley-Appel, Katia Kravtchenko, and Anna Greenwood. You’ve been my safe harbors in a lot of storms. I’m incredibly lucky to have you all in my life, and I love you dearly. I am also grateful for the denizens of Linghaus, Judith Fiedler, Oliver Northrup, and Brianna Kaufman, with whom I have actually put out fires. You’ve helped make Santa Cruz into a real home for me, and I’m going to miss our little rag- ix tag family. Finally, to Andrea Aquino, Chelsea Barham, Emma Britton, Lauren Eggert-Crowe, Eric Lopez, Andrew Malcovsky, Mark Norris, Jason Ostrove, Nikki Salica, and Jordan Whitteberry: Thank you for making my life so much brighter and richer. Last but never, ever least, thank you to my family, and especially to my parents, Dave and Mary Jane Thompson. I can’t even begin to list the ways in which you’ve supported, helped, loved and changed me; all I can do is thank you from the deepest, deepest parts of my heart.