Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the CopyTheory of Movement Danny Fox

Antecedent-containeddeletion poses a problemfor theories of ellipsis, aproblemthat, according to much literature, is solved by Quantifier Raising.The solution, however, conflicts with the copy theory of movement.This article resolves this new conflict with the aid of a theoryof extraposition and covert movement proposed by Fox and Nissenbaum(1999), together with certain assumptions about the struc- tureof relativeclauses and the way chains are interpreted. The resolu- tionmakes various new predictions and accounts for a rangeof other- wisepuzzling facts.

Keywords: antecedent-containeddeletion,copy theory, extraposition, heavyNP shift,adjunction, late merger, covert movement, Quantifier Raising,Trace Conversion, conservativity

Structureswith antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) havefigured prominently in attempts to understandthe mechanisms that account for theinterpretation of quantifiers in natural language. Theinterest in thesestructures stems from thefact that they provide one ofthe strongest arguments thatcovert movement is anecessarypiece of theaccount (Sag 1976, Larson and May 1990, and manyothers). However, the argument turns out to conflict with a fairlywell motivated idea regardingthe nature of movementrules, namely, that movement is acopyingoperation that does noteliminate an element from itsbase position (the copy theory of movement). Inthis article I arguein favorof aspecificresolution for theconflict. I beginby introducing someassumptions about the interpretation of chains and the structure of relative clauses. Once theseassumptions are in place, the conflict is resolvedwith the aid of Lebeaux’s (1988)proposal thatmovement can be followed by ‘ ‘latemerger’ ’ ofan adjunct, extended to covert movement byFox and Nissenbaum (1999, in preparation). In other words, the resolution turns out to have afamiliarlogic: the conflict is very similar to the one that Chomsky (1993) notes between the copytheory of movement and the observation that movement can sometimes obviate Condition C,andthe resolution in bothcases is basically identical. Furthermore, the resolution accounts for

Thisarticle was presentedat McGillUniversity, MIT, the Kaken Project in Kyoto, and UCLA. I thankthe audiences at these institutionsfor valuable comments. Iwouldalso like to thank the LI reviewers, MichaelBrody, Kai vonFintel, Irene Heim, PollyJacobson, Chris Kennedy, Jason Merchant, David Pesetsky, Tanya Reinhart, Bernhard Schwartz, and especially JonathanBobaljik, Noam Chomsky,Kyle Johnson, Jon Nissenbaum, and Uli Sauerland.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 33, Number 1,Winter 2002 63–96 q 2002 bythe Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology 63 64 D A N N Y F O X awiderange of otherwise puzzling facts, thus supporting the assumptions that it utilizesas well asthosethat enter into the formulation of theconflict itself.

1TheProblem Itis well known that VP-deletion is possible only if the elided VP bearssome resemblance to anantecedentVP. Iwillstate this parallelism requirement in the simplest possible way, ignoring interestingquestions that arise from variouscounterexamples. 1 (1) Parallelism Anelided VP mustbe identical to an antecedent VP atLogical Form (LF). 2 Parallelismcan be used to investigate the nature of LF structures.In particular, ACD suggests thatquantificational phrases are sometimes not interpreted in their base position. To see this, considerthe sentence in (2). If theuniversal quantificational phrase were interpretedin its base position,the antecedent VP wouldcontain the elided VP, andconsequently the two VPs would notbe identical.This means that if Parallelism is tobe satisfied, the object in sentencessuch as (2) cannotbe interpreted in its base position.

elided VP

(2) John [VP likes every boy Mary does k likes tl ]. antecedent VP

If, however,the object is interpretedin a VP-externalposition, the structure satisfies Parallelism. (3) [everyboy Mary does k likes tl ] John likes t Thisobservation argues that there is a covertoperation that can move a DP from itsbase position withoutaffecting the phonology of asentence(Quantifier Raising, QR). Theargument has been reinforcedby the corroboration of various intricate predictions regarding the scope of aDPthat hasto move for ACDresolution.(See Sag1976, Larson and May 1990; see also section 5.1.)

1 One (potential)counterexample, which bears onthe issues discussedhere, has todo with the fact thatsome propertiesof DPsthat are relevantfor binding theory do not seem tohave effects inthe elided VP (vehiclechange, VC). Brody(1995) and Vanden Wyngaerd and Zwart (1991)argue that VC resolvesthe conflict between thestructure in (2) andParallelism. However,this is notobvious. There are manyways tothink of VC underwhich the conflict is not eliminated.It is possible, for example, that VC shouldbe dealt with not by relaxing Parallelism, butby revisingcertain assumptionsabout the way bindingtheory should apply to elided material. (See Fox1993 and Williams 1995for proposals alongthis line.) One problemwith the idea thatVC resolvesthe conflict is that(in and of itself) itdoes not account for Sag’ s (1976) correlationbetween ACD andscope (section 5; butsee Brody’s proposal,which deals withthis problem), or foradditional evidencethat ACD resolutionrequires QR (Pesetsky2000). My hope is thatthe results of this article willprovide further evidencefor a definitionof Parallelism thatrules out LF structuressuch as (2). 2 Throughoutthis article Iwillpretend that variable names donot matter forParallelism. Thetruth is, however, thatthey do matter: variablesthat bear differentnames mustbe boundfrom parallel positions(see Rooth1992 for an accountof this generalization). Nevertheless, ignoringvariable names willnot have harmful effects since thevariables willalways beboundfrom parallel positions(but see footnotes33 and 34). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 65

Inmy view the argument is quite impressive. A syntacticoperation, which is neededunder whatis arguably the simplest theory of semantics(of thetype developed, for example,in Heim andKratzer 1998),seems to provide a simpleaccount of ACD thatgenerates nontrivial yet correctpredictions. However, the account of ACD(andconsequently the argument) relies on the assumptionthat traces are fairly impoverished in theirrepresentations, and as aresultit conflicts withthe copy theory of movement. 3 Underthe copy theory of movement traces are copies of theirantecedents, as in (4),and it istherefore far from obviousthat (covert) movement can account for thefact that ACD constructionssatisfy Parallelism. (4) [everyboy Mary does k likes tl ] John likes[every boy Mary likes t] 4 Tofurther appreciate the conflict, let us consideran argument for thecopy theory of move- mentthat relies on ConditionC ofbindingtheory. The argument is based on theobservation that certaintypes of movementdo notaffect Condition C, anobservationthat is mysteriousif traces areinformationally impoverished but is expectedunder the copy theory of movement. In(5a), for example, wh-movementremoves the name John from thec-command domain ofthe pronoun he. Nevertheless,coreference between the two elements is impossible (but see footnote10). Similarly, in (5b) QR canmove the universal DP outsidethe c-command domain ofthepronoun him. (Noticethe availability of inversescope in Someoneintroduced John i to every friendof his i.)Onthe simplest assumption that binding theory applies to interpretedstructures, QR shouldallow coreference between the pronoun and a namecontained within the DP, butit does not.

(5) a.??Guess [which friend of John’s i ] hei visited t.

b.??/ *Someoneintroduced him i toeveryfriend of John’s i . [everyfriend of John’s i ] ! someoneintroduced him i to t Neither wh-movementnor QR canreverse the verdict of Condition C. Thisobservation is mysteriousif traces are informationally impoverished as in (6) butis expected under the copy theoryof movement,which postulates the structures in (7).

(6) a.[which friend of John’ s i ] hei visited t

b.[every friend of John’s i ]someoneintroduced him i to t

(7) a.[which friend of John’ s i ] hei visited[which friend of John’s i ]

b.[every friend of John’s i ]someoneintroduced him i to[every friend of John’s i ]

3 Thisconflict was notedin Fox 1995. There theresolution was basedon an economy condition that allowed the copyat thetail of the chain to be eliminatedwhen needed for ACD resolution.(See alsoFox 1999b, 2000, Sauerland 1998,and Merchant 2000.) Here Idemonstratethat the approach to extraposition developed in Fox and Nissenbaum 1999 allowsus toeliminate theeconomy condition with some empirical advantages(see footnotes9 and42). 4 One mightwonder about how t shouldbe representedunder the copy theory of movement.To answer thisquestion, certain assumptionsabout the structure of relative clauses needto be made precise. Specifically,one needs to be precise aboutthe nature of thephrase that undergoes wh-movementin relative clauses. See section3.2. 66 D A N N Y F O X

Theargument for thecopy theory of movement is based on theobservation that movement cannot changethe verdict of ConditionC. Thisargument is in conflictwith the argument for movement basedon ACD. Thelatteris based on the ideathat movement can change the verdict of Parallelism andcrucially depends on representingtraces as simple variables (as intherepresentation in (3)). If tracesare copies as in (4),it isnot clear that the output of QRcanyield structures that satisfy Parallelism. Whyare Condition C andParallelism so different? Why is movement incapable of obviating aviolationof Condition C, yetcapable of obviatinga violationof Parallelism?If we adoptthe copytheory of movement,we seemto get the right results for ConditionC butthe wrong results for Parallelism.If we adopta theoryof movement that postulates impoverished traces, we get theright results for Parallelismbut the wrong results for ConditionC. Inthis article I attemptto provide a solutionto thispuzzle. The basic idea is that, contrary toappearance, Condition C andParallelism are not different. Movement is a copyingoperation andas such is incapableof obviatinga violationof Parallelismin the same way that it is incapable ofobviatinga violationof ConditionC. Theappearance that movement is obviating a violation ofParallelismis verysimilar to the appearance that movement in othercases (discussed in Lebeaux 1988)is capable of obviating a violationof Condition C. Inboth cases it is not movement per sethat obviates the violation. Rather, movement allows for thelate merger of an adjunct, thus circumventingthe need to ever create a configurationin which the violation occurs. Butbefore this idea can be presentedin any detail, some mechanism needs to be proposed toallow for theinterpretation of the syntactic structures derived by movement (viewed as a copyingoperation). I dothis in section 2. In section 3 Ishowhow the proposed mechanism, togetherwith certain assumptions about late merger and the structure of relative clauses, yields theproposed resolution. In the remainder of thearticle I derivevarious predictions and attempt tocorroborate them.

2TheInterpretation of Chains

Chomsky(1995) points out that the copy theory of movement simplifies syntax in two ways. First,it eliminatesthe need to postulatenew objects (traces) beyondrun-of-the-mill lexical items. Inthis sense it bringsus closerto aviewof syntaxas a recursiveprocedure that does not access anythingbut the lexicon. Second, the copy theory turns movement into a simpleroperation; it is practicallyidentical to the elementary structure-building operation ( Merge),differingonly in that ittakes as input an object that has served as input for anearlier merger ( Move is Remerge). How dothe copy theory of movementand the traditional alternative compare with respect tosemantic interpretation? The traditional alternative creates structures for whichinterpretable mechanismshave been postulated: traces are interpreted as boundvariables, and moved operators (second-orderpredicates) are integrated into the structure (by function application) once the opera- tion of l-abstractionis postulated. (See, among others, Heim and Kratzer 1998.)Can the same mechanismsbe used when the copy theory of movementis adopted? Probably so: the semantic componentcan treat lower copies as variables.But the adoption of thecopy theory of movement ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 67 opensother possibilities as well.Specifically, if operator-variable constructions are to be formed, thecopy at thetail of thechain can be convertedto anelement that contains a variablein various ways.In Fox 1999b I suggestedthat this copy is converted to a definitedescription, yielding interpretationssimilar to those of thefollowing paraphrases: 5 (8) whichboy Mary visited which boy Paraphrase:Which is theboy, x, such that Mary visited the boy x? (9) everyboy a girltalked to every boy Paraphrase:For everyboy, x, there is a girlwho talked to the boy x. The boy x inthe paraphrase is modeledon definite descriptions in natural language such as the man John. Iassumethat these definite descriptions are interpreted by predicate modification of man¢ and lx(x4John¢ ),withthe resulting predicate serving as argumentof the determiner. This meansthat two operations are needed to convertthe copy at the tail of the chain to an interpretable object.6 (10) TraceConversion a.Variable Insertion: (Det) Pred (Det) [Pred ly(y4x)] ! b.Determiner Replacement: (Det) [Pred ly(y4x)] the [Pred ly(y4x)]7 ! WithTrace Conversion together with l-abstraction,the structures created by Move/ Remergeare interpretable. 8

Trace Conversion (11)which boy Mary visited which boy } } } } } } ! which boy lx[Maryvisited the boy x]

5 Thesuggestion was basedon a proposalmade inadifferentcontext by Rullmannand Beck (1998).Here Ispell outmy suggestion in greater detail,and the resulting proposal is simpler (forreasons mentionedin footnote3). 6 Irene Heim (personalcommunication) points out that the definite article isthe only determiner thatcan appear in naturallanguage in theenvironment —— NP a, where a denotesan element oftype e. Thisobservation, she suggests, mightmake itpossible to deriveDeterminer Replacement as anecessary consequenceof Variable Insertion. Trace Conversionis defined as anoperation that applies to DPs. Jonathan Bobaljik (personal communication) asks whetherit can begeneralizedto apply to other categories. I havenot investigated this question. However, I wouldlike topoint out that DPs are special inthat their movement can havesemantic consequences.The interpretation of other categories mightinvolve (total) reconstruction (see Heycock1995). 7 Inthe remainder ofthisarticle theoutput of Trace Conversionwill be stated withinformal paraphrases as in(9), andsometimes toaid the reader Iwilladd the words identicalto between pred and x (as in(13)). 8 Trace Conversionyields the right interpretation for chains that are headedby DPs inwhich D is conservative. Because naturallanguage determiners denoteconservative two-place predicates, there are noempirical problemsthat arise fromTrace Conversion.Furthermore, Trace Conversionmight play a rolein an account of conservativity.Assume thatthere was adeterminer whosedenotation D was notconservative. In most cases discussedin the literature, this means thatfiguring out the truth value of D(A,B)requires verifying membership in B forindividuals that are notmembers of A.However,given the copy theory of movement and Trace Conversion,the (characteristic functionof the) second argument of D is apartialfunction defined only for elements thatare members ofA(B: 4 lx.B(theAx) 4 lx:A(x).B(x)). Itis reasonableto assume thatthis situation would yield systematic presuppositionfailure (of the sort we observein Most studentsdon’ t havea car andevery studentdrives hiscar toschool ;Beaver 1995).Chierchia (1995) also suggests that there is apossiblelink between conservativityand the copy theory of movement. Foradditional evidence in favor of Trace Conversion,see Fox,in preparation, and Sauerland, in preparation. 68 D A N N Y F O X

Trace Conversion (12)every boy a girltalked to every boy } } } } } } ! every boy lx[a girltalked to the boy x] TraceConversion, which allows chains to beinterpreted,affects the representation of traces.This willplay a crucialrole in the solution I providefor thepuzzle outlined in section 1. Butwe are notthere yet. At themoment Trace Conversion does not change the consequences of the copy theoryof movementthat we havediscussed. It is stillpredicted that movement will not obviate aviolationof ConditionC andParallelism; we stillget the right results for ConditionC andthe wrongresults for Parallelism.To see this, consider the effects that Trace Conversion has on the structuresin (7b) and (4). A copyof John isstillpresent in the representation of thetrace in (7b) andthe violation of ConditionC isstill correctly predicted.

(13)[every friend of John’s i ]someoneintroduced him i to[every friend of John’s i] ! [everyfriend of John’s i ] lx.someoneintroduced him i to [thefriend of John’ s i (identicalto) x ] Similarly,a copyof theantecedent VP isstillpresent in therepresentation of the trace in (4) and aviolationof Parallelism is stillwrongly predicted. 9 (14)[every boy Mary does k likes tl ] John likes [theboy Mary likes t (identicalto) x ]

3TheProposed Solution For thecopy theory of movement to allow ACD, twoadditional ingredients are needed beyond TraceConversion. We needa mechanismthat will allow a relativeclause to be merged with an NPaftera DPthatcontains the NP hasundergone movement (late merger). Furthermore,we will needto adopt a particularassumption regarding the representation of relative clauses. These additionalingredients are spelled out in sections 3.1 and 3.2.

3.1Late Merger Recallthe observation that wh-movementand QR areincapable of obviating a violationof Condi- tionC, whichwas accountedfor bythe copy theory of movement. It is well known that the observationdoes not always hold. Specifically, wh-movementcan bleed Condition C aslong as theCondition C violationis dueto a namecontained within an adjunct to the wh-phrase(Freidin 1986).To seethis, compare (5) (repeatedas (15a) and (15b)) with (15c). (See alsoVan Riemsdijk andWilliams 1981.) 10

9 Iam stillignoring the representation of the trace withinthe relative clause (see footnote4 andsection 3.2). InFox 1999b, 2000, developing ideas inFox 1995, I proposedthat grammar allowsfor a more radical reductionof traces thanthat which results from Trace Conversion.In addition, I proposedthat reduction is restricted byaprinciple ofeconomy(see footnotes3 and42). 10 Notall speakers geta clear contrastbetween (15b)and (15c). One possibilityis thatthe variation in judgment reflects avariationin the analyses ofcertain constituentsas complements oras adjuncts(see Schu¨tze 1995,Dowty 2001, Partee andBorchev 1998). See Kuno1997 and Lasnik 1998 for skepticism regarding the significance of the contrast in (15),and Safir 1999 for an argument that the contrast emerges ina domainwhere theskepticism does not apply. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 69

(15)a. ??/ *Someoneintroduced him i toevery friend of John’ s i. ! [everyfriend of John’ s i]someoneintroduced him i to t

b.??/ *Guess[which friend of John’ s i ] hei visited t.

c.Guess [which man that John i likes] hei visited t. In(15c), in contrast to (15a) and (15b), movement is capable of bleeding a ConditionC violation.Is thiscompatible with the copy theory of movement?Chomsky (1993) suggests that itis, once one adopts Lebeaux’ s (1988)proposal that relative clauses, and moregenerally adjuncts, canbe addedto a structurecountercyclically. The relative clause that Johni likes canbe merged with the NP man after wh-movement,yielding the structure in (16a), which (under the assumptions madehere) is convertedby Trace Conversion (and l-abstraction)to the structure in (16b).

(16)a. [which man that John i likes] hei visitedwhich man

b.[which man that John i likes] lx.hei visitedthe man x Inorder to accountfor theunacceptability of (15b),Chomsky claims, again following Lebeaux, thatcomplements cannot be added countercyclically because of the Projection Principle. Given theassumptions adopted here, this idea can also be stated in terms of properties of the final representation.Adding the complement of John’si in(15b)after movement would yield the struc- turesin (17),which are uninterpretable (owing to a violationof the u-Criterion). 11 Therelational noun friend inthebase position is missing an argument,and the definite description is consequently uninterpretable. 12

Trace Conversion (17)[which friend of John’s i ] hei visitedwhich friend } } } } } } ! [whichfriend of John’s i ] lx.hei visitedthe friend x Solate merger of an adjunct derives a structurein which the adjunct is missing from the tailof thechain. This accounts for thecircumvention of aConditionC violationin (15c), and it

11 Thismight be viewed as anadvantage since iteliminates theneed to postulate the u-Criterionas aconstrainton derivations(i.e., the Projection Principle). The u-Criterion(as aconstrainton representations) follows from the assumption thatLF structuresneed to be interpreted,and is thusa ‘‘bare outputcondition’ ’ (see Chomsky1995, Heim andKratzer 1998).In general, the proposal made here doesnot depend on propertiesof thederivation and could probably be stated interms ofconstraintson the final representations (see Brody1995). However,Uli Sauerland (personal communication) points out that the Projection Principle might be neededto rule outa derivationof (15b)in which the NP friendof John’s is merged tothe determiner which after thelatter has undergone wh-movement.Alternatively, one could imagine that movement of thedeterminer withoutits complement would be ruled outby thelocality conditions on head movement. 12 Optionalcomplements mightappear problematic.However, it is notobvious that they raise problemsthat are uniqueto this context. That is tosay, many things that one might postulate in order to reconcile optionalcomplements with the u-Criterioncould be adopted here withno additionalcomplications. Suppose, for example, that one adopts the assumptionthat optionality results from two distinct lexical items (onerequiring a complement,type k e,etl , the other disallowingit, type et).Thecomplement can bemerged withan interpretable result under only one circumstance, namely, if the type k e,etl element is selected fromthe lexicon, in which case late merger wouldbe ruled out for the reasons specifiedin the text. What if one assumes thatoptionality results from an operation that shifts the type of an k e,etl element to et?Nothingchanges if the operation applies in thelexicon. If theoperation applies in the syntax, there willhave to beaconstraintthat rules out countercyclic application of the operation at thetail of thechain. 70 D A N N Y F O X willplay a centralrole in theproposal for ACD. Butfirst we needto discussthe way late merger mightinteract with covert movement. Undera modelof grammar inwhichcovert operations must follow all overt operations, late merger(an overt operation) cannot follow covert movement. However, Fox and Nissenbaum (1999,in preparation) argue that late merger can interact with covert movement in exactly the sameway that it interactswith overt movement (though see Nissenbaum 2000 for animportant caveat).More specifically, they argue that extraposition of adjunctsfrom DPshouldbe analyzed asinvolvingQR oftheDP followedby late merger of anadjunct. Tounderstand the nature of theclaim, consider the sentence in (18a). Fox and Nissenbaum arguethat this sentence is derivedby covertQR followedby latemerger; the DP a painting (the DPfrom which,under traditional accounts, the adjunct has extraposed; henceforth, the source DP)undergoesQR toVP, wherethe NP painting islater merged with the adjunct by John.

(18) a. We saw a painting yesterday by John. b. i.

wei VP

yesterday

ti

saw a painting ii. QR (ìcovert” ) iii. Adjunct merger (ìovert’ ’)

wei wei

VP VP

a painting a painting by John yesterday yesterday

ti ti

saw a painting saw a painting c. [a painting by John] l x.we saw [the painting x]

Thisorder of operationsis impossiblein a modelof grammar inwhich covert operations apply ‘‘after’’ allovert operations. However, it is expected under the simpler assumption that covert ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 71 andovert operations apply on the same cycle (as proposedin Brody 1997). 13 Morespecifically, itis a directconsequence of a viewof covert movement proposed by Bobaljik (1995, 1999), Groatand O’ Neil(1996), and Pesetsky (1998), which might be called the phonologicaltheory of QR. Underthe phonological theory of QR, movement is sometimes covert not because phonol- ogycan pronounce premovement representations but because it can pronounce the copy at the tailof a chain.The correct word order in (18) is derived under the assumption that QR applies tothe right: 14 thesource DP ispronouncedin its base position because the movement is covert, andthe adjunct is pronouncedat theright periphery where it is merged. 15 Foxand Nissenbaum (1999, in preparation) derive various predictions from thisanalysis, andI willpresent those that will be important for ourdiscussion of ACD, namely,those that haveto do with scope and Condition C. 16 Theprediction for scopeis straightforward.Because extrapositioninvolves covert movement of the source DP tothe position where the adjunct is merged,and because, owing to the late merger, reconstruction is impossible,it ispredictedthat thescope of thesource DP willbe atleast as high as the extraposition site. 17 Thatthis prediction iscorrect was alreadynoted by Williams (1974:chap. 4). 18 (19) Williams’s generalization Whenan adjunct b isextraposed from a‘‘sourceDP’ ’ a,thescope of a isat least as highas the attachment site of b (theextraposition site).

13 After arguingfor a singlecycle, Brodyargues that derivations should play no role in grammar (see footnote11 as well as Brody1995). Brody’s single-cyclegrammar has nocovert phrasal movementand (as pointedout by JonathanBobaljik, personal communication)is notobviously compatible with the analysis that Fox and Nissenbaum provide for extraposition, at least notthe way thatthis analysis is stated. 14 Theassumption that QR appliesto theright appears tobeinconsistent with Kayne’ s (1994)Linear Correspondence Axiom(LCA). But it is likely that whatever needsto be said to make otherapparent cases ofrightward movement consistentwith the LCA can alsoresolve this inconsistency (e.g., leftward movementof NP followedby leftward move- ment ofa remnantVP); though see footnote20. In fact, Kayne(1998) argues that QR shouldbe reducedto these other apparentcases ofrightward movement. Interestingly, his proposal is inconsistentwith Fox and Nissenbaum’ s analysis ofextraposition(and subsequently with my proposal for ACD), since heclaims thatQR isalways overt.See Foxand Nissenbaum,in preparation, for some discussion.See alsofootnote 54. 15 See Nissenbaum2000 for a viewof grammar wherebythe derivation in (18) does not depend on thephonological theoryof QR. Nissenbaum presents intriguing arguments in favor of his alternative proposal. However, the content of thisarticle doesnot depend on the choice between thetwo, and I willtherefore keep to the more familiar proposal. 16 If thisanalysis is correct, variousquestions arise. One questionis whataccounts for the (apparently necessary) assumptionthat QR appliesto the right. Another question relates tocases ofextrapositionto which the analysis does not extendstraightforwardly (such as extrapositionfrom subjects and overtly moved wh-phrases).For some discussionsee Foxand Nissenbaum, in preparation. 17 If anadjunct is present only at thehead of achain,and if scope reconstruction results from interpreting only the tailof a chain(i.e., the head of thechain is deletedat LF),then late merger willblock reconstruction; the adjunct would notbe interpretable as amodifierof the source NP. Exactlythese considerationsare neededindependently (as pointed outin Fox 1999b) to account for correlations between scopereconstruction and Condition C. Notice thatin both cases there is anargument against ‘ ‘semantic reconstruction.’’ If semantic reconstruction(via higher type traces) were possible, itwould not conflict with late merger ofanadjunct. 18 UnlikeFox and Nissenbaum, Williams focusedon comparative and result extraposition, not on extraposition from NP.It is alsoworth noting that he did not make thecomplement/ adjunctdistinction, which is central forFox and Nissenbaum(see (27)below and footnote 23). 72 D A N N Y F O X

Toillustrate the correctness of Williams’ s generalization,I willmake use of ascopalambigu- itydiscussed by Sag (1976) and Williams (1977) and illustrated by thesentences in (20).(For a morecomplete illustration of thegeneralization see Fox and Nissenbaum, in preparation.) (20)a. I reada bookbefore you did. b.I readevery book before you did. Tounderstand the ambiguity, focus on (20a). Under one interpretation the sentence asserts that thereexists a booksuch that the speaker read it before the addressee read it. Under another interpretationthe sentence asserts that the speaker read a bookbefore the addressee read one. As bothSag and Williams argue, one interpretation results from astructurein which the indefinite a book isinsidethe antecedent for VP-ellipsis,while the other results from astructurein which theindefinite is outside the antecedent VP andbinds a variablein both the elided and antecedent VPs.19 Thecorrectness of Williams’ s generalizationis illustrated by the contrast in (21) and (22). (21)a. I reada bookthat John had recommended before you did. b.I reada bookbefore you did that John had recommended. (22)a. I readevery book that John had recommended before you did. b.I readevery book before you did that John had recommended. The(a) examplesare ambiguous in the same way that the examples in (20)are. The (b) examples, bycontrast, are restricted to the interpretation in which the source DP isoutsidethe antecedent VPandbinds a variablein the elided VP. Thereason is straightforward. The extraposition site is above the before-clause,hence outside the antecedent VP. 20 Consequently,by Williams’s gener- alization,the source DP mustbe interpreted outside the antecedent VP. Interms of the theory, for the(b) sentencesto be derived, the source DP mustmove to a positionabove the before- clausewhere the relative clause can be merged, and therefore the source DP musthave scope outsidethe antecedent VP. Letus now move to the predictions that the analysis of extraposition makes for Condition Cofthe bindingtheory. Because extraposition involves post-QR merger of adjuncts, it ispredicted tohave effects on Condition C (identicalto the effects that were observedin the case of wh- movement,(15c)). Evidence that this prediction is correctis provided by the following contrast from Taraldsen1981:

(23)a. I gavehim i abookyesterday that John i liked.

b.??I gavehim i abookthat John i likedyesterday. Althoughthe contrast is subtle (for reasonsthat will be addressed shortly), it seems that the

19 As areviewer pointsout, the latter (widescope) interpretation (in the case of(20b)) might also result from pseudoscope(in the sense ofReinhart1997 and Kratzer 1998).This, of course, does not affect theargument that is made inthis context, which is thatthe former (narrowscope) interpretation is unavailablewhen the extraposed constituent is outsidethe antecedent VP. 20 Thisis notso obvious if one adopts Kayne’ s (1994)LCA. See footnote14. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 73 indicatedcoreference is possible in (23a), but slightly marked in (23b). This is expected under Foxand Nissenbaum’ s approachto extraposition: in (23a) Condition C isobviated because the adjunct thatJohn liked ismerged with the source DP atthe landing site of QR, yieldingan interpretablestructure in which the name John isnotc-commanded by thecoindexed pronoun. 21

(24) I [[VP t gave himi abookyesterday] a bookthat John i liked] ! [a bookthat John i likes] lx.I gave himi [the book x] Theexplanation that Taraldsen offers for thecontrast in (23) is based on the assumption thatextraposition is a movementoperation and as such is capable of bleeding Condition C. Evidenceagainst this explanation and in favorof anexplanationbased on late merger is provided bythe contrast in (25).

(25)a. ?I toldhim i aboutyour new argument the other day that supports John’ s i theory.

b.*I toldyou about his i newargument the other day that supports John’ s i theory. In(25a) extraposition obviates a violationof Condition C. 22 Thisfollows from thestandard explanationas well as from theone based on latemerger. However, the fact that in (25b)extraposi- tiondoes not obviate a violationof Condition C isextremelypuzzling under Taraldsen’ s explana- tion;the pronoun himi in(25a) is in a higher(surface) positionthan the pronoun hisi in (25b); therefore,if extrapositionis a movementoperation capable of bleedingCondition C in(25a), it shouldalso be ableto do so in (25b). Onthe late merger account, the contrast in (25) is expected. If theeffects on Condition C aredue to late merger, very specific predictions result: a violationof the condition should be obviatedonly if theproblematic pronoun ( himi in (25a) and hisi in(25b))is not contained within thesource DP. Thisis seen in the representations of the sentences in (25) that are derived by post-QRmerger.

(26) a. I [[VP t told himi aboutyour new argument the other day] your new argument that

supportsJohn’ s i theory] ! [yournew argument that supports John’ s i theory] lx.I told himi about[the new argument x]

b. I [[ VP ttoldyou about his i newargument the other day] his i newargument that

supportsJohn’ s i theory] ! [hisi newargument that supports John’ s i theory] lx.Itold you about [the new argu- ment x] Additionalevidence in favorof Foxand Nissenbaum’ s accountcomes from theobservation

21 Notice,however, that it is notclear why(23b) cannot be derived in the same way (i.e.,with string-vacuous extraposition).Below, I suggestthat it can, and that the contrast reflects aparsingpreference thatdisfavors string-vacuous extraposition(see thediscussion surrounding (30)). 22 Thesentence is slightlymarginal, but this judgment is unrelated to Condition C: replacingthe R-expression with apronoundoes not improve the status of thesentence. Inany event, the contrast between (25a)and (25b) is reasonably sharp. 74 D A N N Y F O X notedabove that late merger is possiblefor adjunctsbut not for complements.This observation leadsto the prediction that complement extraposition will differ from adjunctextraposition in failingto bleed Condition C. Thecontrast in (27) suggests that the prediction is correct.

(27)a. I gavehim i anargument yesterday thatsupports John’ s i theory.

b.??/ *Igavehim i anargument yesterday that John’si theoryis correct. (27a)is derivedby post-QRmerger of therelative clause (in italics), an operation that is expected toobviate Condition C. (27b),by contrast, cannot be derived by late merger of the italicized phrasesince this constituent is a complement.Instead, it isderived by rightwardmovement of a complement,which (given the copy theory of movement)does not obviate Condition C. 23 Finally,the account in terms of late merger predicts a correlationbetween the ability of extrapositionto circumvent Condition C andthe scope of the source DP. Tounderstand this prediction,consider (28).

(28)a. ?I wantedhim i notto talk to a (certain)girl yesterday that John i hasknown for years.24

b.*I wantedhim i notto talk to any girl yesterday that John i hasknown for years.

c.I wantedJohn i notto talk to any girl yesterday that he i hasknown for years. In(28a) extraposition to the matrix clause is expectedto yield the following structure in which ConditionC isnotviolated:

(29) I [[VP twantedhim not to talk to a (certain)girl yesterday] a (certain)girl that John hasknown for years] ! [a (certain)girl that John has known for years] lx.Iwanted him not to talkto [the girl x] yesterday However,obviation of Condition C byextraposition has predicted consequences for thescope ofthe source DP: itmust be at least as high as the extraposition site. In the case of (28a) the indefinite a(certain)girl that John has known for years musttake scope outside both negation andthe intensional verb want. Thispredicted consequence seems to be correct(as far asspeakers canaccess the judgments). More importantly, the unacceptability of (28b)verifies the prediction: thesource DP isa negativepolarity item, which is not allowed to take scope outside negation andthus brings about a conflictwith the requirement imposed by ConditionC. ((28c)is accept-

23 Aderivationof adjunct extraposition via rightward movement needs to be blocked; otherwise, the explanation forWilliams’ s generalizationwould be lost. Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) achieve thisblocking by appealing to the observationthat in general movement out of NPs is restricted tocomplements. See Foxand Nissenbaum 1999, in prepara- tion,for a varietyof arguments that complement extraposition and adjunct extraposition have very different analyses. 24 (28a)is marginalfor some speakers. However,it is definitelybetter than (28b). The marginality of (28a)would followif we assume thatthe parsing preference thatdisfavors string-vacuous extraposition would extend in an appropriate way (see thediscussion of (30)).Specifically, we couldassume thatthere isa preference fora structurein which constituents are attached as lowas possible(see Phillips1996). Such a preference wouldfavor a parse inwhichthe relative clause is attached tothe embedded VP (see footnote43). (28b) is worse than(28a) since theformer requires anunacceptable parse (whilein thelatter thisis onlya preference). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 75 ablesince Condition C imposesno requirements and extraposition to the embedded VP is available.) Beforewe moveon, it is important to comment on a questionthat arises from thecontrast in(23). Why can’ t extrapositionapply string-vacuously in (23b), thus circumventing Condition C?Theanswer to thisquestion (which arises for boththe account provided by Taraldsenand the alternativeadvocated here) is related, I wouldlike to suggest, to thefollowing three-way contrast:

(30)a. I gavehim i anewargument the other day that supports John’ s i theory.

b.??I gavehim i anewargument that supports John’ s i theory.

c.*I gavehim i anewargument that John’ s i theoryis correct. Mysuspicionis thatstring-vacuous extraposition is possiblebut that it is disfavoredbecause of aparsingpreference (perhaps a preferencefor lowattachment of thesort argued for inPhillips 1996).Specifically, I wouldlike to suggest that the markednessof (23b)/ (30b)should be attributed toa parsingpreference that chooses an analysis with no extraposition whenever possible. This preferenceis notvery strong (perhaps even nonexistent) for somespeakers. However, for other speakersthe preference has some effects and accounts for thecontrast between (23a)/ (30a)and (23b)/(30b).(30c) is worse for allspeakers. In this case the parsing preference is irrelevant;the name John isembedded in a complementto NP andcountercyclic merger is impossible. Soscope and Condition C arguethat it ispossible for acovertlymoved constituent to merge withan adjunct after movement has taken place. This possibility will explain the fact that a violationof Parallelism can be obviated despite the copy theory of movement. But first I will spellout my assumptions regarding the structure of relative clauses.

3.2Relative Clauses FollowingKayne (1976), Cinque (1981 –82),and Sauerland (1998), I willassume that relative clausesare both head external and head internal (see alsoCresti 2000 and Kennedy 2000). More specifically,I willassume that the derivation of relativeclauses involves ‘ ‘movementto Comp’ ’ ofaCP-internalNP, whichis deletedunder identity with a CP-externalNP. 25

(31)every boy [ CP boyMary likes boy] Furthermore,I willassume that the NP in[Spec,CP] isnotinterpreted but that movement turns therelative clause into a predicatethat combines with the CP-external NP bypredicate modifica- tion.More specifically, given Trace Conversion, the following structure results:

(32)every [boy lx.Marylikes the boy x] Meaning: lP.; x((boy(x)& Marylikes the boy x) P(x)) !

25 Icannotassume thatrelative clauses are totallyhead internal in the sense ofVergnaud1974. Vergnaud’ s suggestion conflictswith the idea thatrelative clauses are adjunctsthat can begeneratedindependently of the head they modify and are therebycandidates for late merger. However,as an LI reviewer pointsout, there mightbe away tomake theproposal consistentwith the idea thatrelative clauses are sisters ofD‘‘ifone understands ‘ adjunct’as ‘notselected bya lexical item’.’’ 76 D A N N Y F O X

3.3Explaining Antecedent-Contained Deletion If (32)is theinterpreted structure of aDPcontaininga relativeclause, and if therelative clause canbe mergedwith NP afterDP hasbeen shifted from itsbase position, then structures involving ACDcanhave the following derivation:

DP-movement (33) [VP Johnlikes every boy] } } } } } } ! adjunct merger [[VP Johnlikes every boy] every boy] } } } } } } ! [[VP Johnlikes every boy] every boy thatMary does k likes boyl ] Thefirst step of thederivation outlined in (33)is rightward movement of every boy. Thismovement iseither overt (in which case the head of thechain is pronounced)or covert(in which case the tailis pronounced).In the former casethe resolution of ACDinvolvesheavy NP shift(HNPS), andin the latter case it involves extraposition. 26 Inboth cases Trace Conversion yields the structure in(34), which satisfies Parallelism.

(34)[every boy lx.Mary does k likesthe boy x l ] ly.John likesthe boy y Giventhe copy theory, ACD cannotbe resolvedby movementalone (whether it is overtor covert).However, movement allows for thelate merger of an adjunct that circumvents the effects thatwould otherwise result from theexistence of theadjunct at the tail of the chain. Late merger circumventsa violationof Parallelismin the case of ACD, justas it circumvents Condition C in thecases discussed by Lebeaux (1988). Moreaccurately, the resolution depends on threeassumptions. Late merger is needed since iteliminates antecedent containment. The theory of relative clauses that assumes a copyof the headNP insidethe relative clause is neededsince the elidedVP intherelative clause must contain thiscopy if itis tobeidenticalto theantecedent VP. Finally,Trace Conversion is neededsince iteliminates certain differences between the element that is moved in relative clause formation andthe moved constituent to which the relative clause attaches. Inthe following sections I willprovide additional evidence in support of this proposal. In sections4 –6Iwillshow that certain phenomena, which were quitemysterious under the standard approachto ACD, areautomatic consequences of this alternative proposal. In section 7 Iwill discussLarson and May’ s (1990)criticism of a proposalmade by Baltin (1987), which bears somesimilarity to theproposal made here. However, there are also important differences. It will turnout that because of these differences some of the criticism does not apply to the current

26 Theidea thatextraposition is necessary forACD has beenproposed by Baltin(1987) and has resurfaced invarious forms (see Lasnik1995, Wilder 1995, Abe andHoshi 1999). I share withBaltin and with the other researchers (besides Wilder,whose claim ismore intricate)the idea thatthe relative clause containingthe ellipsis site is outsidethe antecedent VP(andthus ‘ ‘antecedent-containeddeletion does not exist’ ’). However,my proposal is (as far as Ican see) theonly onethat derives the link with extraposition from independently motivated principles (see footnote27 and section 7.1). Furthermore,it is theonly one that provides a resolutionto Kennedy’ s puzzle(section 5). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 77 proposal,and in section8 Iwillargue that the portion that does apply turns out, on furtherscrutiny, toprovide additional support.

4Tiedeman’s Puzzle Larsonand May (1990) claim that the unacceptability of thesentences in (35)is dueto a locality conditionon QR (ClauseBoundedness). (35)a. *I expectthat everyone you do will visit Mary. b.*I saidthat everyone you did arrived. However,this claim is challenged by the acceptability of the ACD constructionsin (36), which were notedby Tiedeman (1995) and discussed extensively by Wilder (1995). (36)a. I expectthat everyone will visit Mary that you do. b.I saidthat everyone arrived that you did. Thecontrast between (35) and (36) is quitepuzzling under the standard approach to ACD. 27 However,it is a directconsequence of the proposal made here (once Clause Boundedness is abandoned). 28 Underthe current proposal, for ACD tobe resolved,rightward movement of aDP (overtor covert) must be followed by late merger of the relative clause that contains ellipsis (RCE).In (35), in contrast to (36), word order indicates that the RCE hasnot been added after rightwardmovement. Tounderstand this explanation in furtherdetail, consider the derivation of thesentences in (36),focusing on (36a).

QR (37)I expectthat everyone will visit Mary. } } ! adjunct merger I[[expectthat everyone will visit Mary] everyone] } } } } } } ! I[[expectthat everyone will visit Mary] everyone that you do k expectone will visit Maryl ]29 Inthe first step of the derivation, QR adjoinsthe quantifier everyone tothe matrix VP. This movementis covert,which means that the copy at the tail of thechain is pronounced. After QR theRCE ismerged at the head of the chain. The resulting structure is converted (by Trace Conversionand l-abstraction)to the structure in (38), which satisfies Parallelism.

27 As far as Ican see, all previousattempts toaccount for this contrast are basedon the postulation of anad hoc constraint.Wilder (1995), for example, claims thatthe contrast argues that the ellipsis site cannotbe PF-contained (a notionthat he defines)within the antecedent VP. However,he does not derive this constraint from independent principles. 28 Forvarious independent challenges to Clause Boundedness,see May1988, Reinhart 1991, and Wilder 1997. 29 Wilder(1995) claims thatthe RCE in (36) is dominatedby the antecedent VP. His claim is motivatedby the RightRoof Constraint (RRC), which should block extraposition out of atensedclause. Itake thefacts in(36) as arguments againstthe RRC. Furthermore, I (andmy informants) disagree withWilder that the following sentence isunacceptable: (i)I saidthat everyone would visit Mary when we talkedthat you did. 78 D A N N Y F O X

(38)every [one lx.you k expectthe one x willvisit Mary l ] ly.Iexpect the one y willvisit Mary Thesentences in (35), by contrast,cannot be derived in any way that would satisfy Parallel- ism.As was shownin theprevious section, Parallelism can be satisfiedonly if the RCE isadded aftermovement of the relevant quantifier. Because movement takes place to the right, the RCE cannotbe followedby material from theantecedent VP. Thesolution for Tiedeman’s puzzleis straightforwardunder the approach to ACD advocated here.ACD ispossible only if aDPismovedrightward out of the antecedent VP andonly if the RCEisadded after this movement. Whether the movement is overt or covert, it is predicted that theRCE willnot be followed by materialthat belongs to theantecedent VP 30 —hencethe contrast between(35) and (36). 31

5Kennedy’s Puzzle Kennedy(1994) noticed a problemfor thestandard account of ACDthatis exemplified by the sentencesin (39) (see alsoWilliams 1995 and Heim 1997).

(39)a. I saw abookabout the man j you did k *saw tj l .

b.I likethe car that belongs to the man j you do k *like tj l . Inthese sentences the elided VP cannotreceive the interpretation indicated in theangle brackets. Thus,(39a), if it is interpretable at all, cannot express the proposition that the man you saw is suchthat I saw abookabout him. 32 Similarly,(39b) cannot be interpreted as a propositionthat thecar belonging to the man you like is likedby me.This is surprising given the standard theory ofACD. Thestandard theory derives the unavailable interpretation by QR ofthematrix object, asshownin (40).

(40)a. [a bookabout the man j you k saw tj l ]i

I saw ti

b.[the car that belongs to the man j you k like tj l ]i

I like ti

30 As we willsee insections 7.2 and 8, this prediction needs to be qualified given the availability of rightward movementthat can extract variousconstituents from within the antecedent VP. The explanation of Tiedeman’ s puzzle willnot be affected bythisqualification since aVPcannotbe shiftedrightward outside of afiniteVP thatcontains it. (See section8.1.) 31 One mightwonder why there isnoparallel derivationin which the embedded subject is overtlymoved (HNPS). Thisquestion arises independentlyof theproposal made here; subjectsof finite clauses cannotundergo HNPS also in theabsence ofACD. As an LI reviewer pointsout, the impossibility of HNPS is probablyan instance of the that-trace effect. Theavailability of QR in(36) suggests that this effect resultsfrom phonological considerations, perhaps of the typeargued for by Pesetsky (1998). Very interestingquestions arise whencomparing (36) with the subject/ objectasymme- tries discussedby Kayne(1981). 32 Thesentence mighthave an alternative (and irrelevant) interpretation in which the content of the elided VP is sawa bookabout. Thisinterpretation (if it is available) results from a structurederived by QR of the man (followedby late merger ofan RCE). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 79

Underthe standardprocedure for theinterpretation of chains,these structures would obey Parallel- ism.(See Heim1997 for adetailedillustration of this point.) 33 Theunavailability of theintended interpretation has received much attention in theliterature (Heim 1997,Jacobson 1998, Sauerland 1998). In this section I willpresent Sauerland’ s (1998) suggestionthat the explanation of thephenomenon relies on the copy theory of movement. Al- thoughI believethe basic idea to be correct,we willsee that Sauerland’ s implementationfaces somedifficulties that stem from hisassumption that ACD resolutionrelies on QR ofaDPthat containsthe RCE. As pointedout in sections 1 and2, this assumption is itself at odds with the copytheory of movement, a factthat leads Sauerland to a fairlycomplex set of assumptions aboutthe interpretation of chains. Under the proposal made here there is no conflict between ACDandthe copy theory of movement, and Sauerland’ s insightis captured with no ancillary complexities.

5.1Sauerland’ s Proposal Sauerland(1998) suggests that the unacceptability of (39)follows from thecopy theory of move- mentand from thefact that this theory yields less impoverished traces than those in (40). More specifically,he assumesthat the sentences in (39)have the following representation at the level wheresemantic interpretation applies:

(41)a. *[a book about the man j you k saw manj l ]i

I saw booki

b.*[the car that belongs to the man j you k like manj l ]i

I like cari Assumingthat these are the correct structures, the antecedent and the elided VP arenot identical, andthe unavailability of theintended interpretation is derived from Parallelism. As furtherevidence that the copy theory is involvedin theexplanation, Sauerland presents thecontrast in (42).

(42)a. *I visiteda citynear the lake j John did k visited tj l . 34 b.I visiteda citynear the city j John did k visited tj l .

33 Notice that(as pointedout in Kennedy 1994 and Heim 1997)the variable names are notidentical. The question is,are thevariables bound from parallel positions(see footnote2)? After spellingout the relevant notion of parallel binding(Rooth’ s (1992)theory of ellipsis),Heim presentstwo possible sets ofassumptions about the syntax-semantics interface, each ofwhich yields different answers tothis question: the standard set ofassumptions, the ‘ ‘predicate hypothe- sis,’’ yieldsa positiveanswer, whereas analternative that Heim entertains,the ‘ ‘formulahypothesis,’ ’ yieldsa negative answer. Shepresents Kennedy’ s observationas anargument in favor of the formula hypothesis, but, as Sauerland(1998) pointsout, the contrast in (42)appears toreverse theverdict (see footnote34). 34 Sauerland(1998) has identifiedvarious speakers whoclaim thatalthough (42a) is worse than(42b), the latter is stillworse thana standardACD construction.If these judgmentsare correct, theycan beaccommodated bya theorythat combinesHeim’ s (1997)hypothesis about the way traces are interpreted(the formula hypothesis) with the copy theory ofmovementand Trace Conversion.In the resulting theory (42a) would involve two violations of Parallelism while(42b) wouldinvolve only one. However, see Sauerland1998 for a simpler alternativebased on the observation that (42b) improvesfor the relevant speakers whenthe second instance of city is replaced bythe anaphor one. 80 D A N N Y F O X

Thiscontrast, which does not follow under alternative approaches to the facts in (39), follows from Sauerland’s approach,which assumes the structures in (43). 35

(43)a. *[a city near the lake j John k visitedlake jl ]i

Ivisitedcity i

b.[a citynear the city j John k visitedcity j l ]i

Ivisitedcity i

5.2The Relevance of LateMerger Thecontrast in (42) is veryinstructive. It suggests the source of the problem in (39):the NP that restrictsthe quantifier that raises for ACDresolution( book, car)isnot identical to the head that ismodified by the RCE ( man). Furthermore,the structures that Sauerland (1998) postulates explainwhy this identity is crucial. However, the principles of grammar thatdetermine these structuresare not obvious. Sauerlandsuggests that the copy theory of movement is one of the principles involved. However,as we havealready seen, the copytheory of movementis inconflict with the assumption thatQR (alone)resolves ACD. Inorder to resolve this conflict, Sauerland adopts an economy principleproposed in Fox1995, 1999b, along with some ancillary assumptions that together end uppredicting the desired structures. 36 For thepurposes of thisarticle it is notnecessary to goover Sauerland’ s proposalin detail. Itis sufficientto note that the structures that Sauerland’ s accountneeds (or rather,ones that are similarenough for theexplanation to follow) are an automatic consequence of the approach to ACDdevelopedhere. In other words, neither the economy principle proposed in Fox1995, 1999b (whichwas itselfdesigned to resolvethe conflict between ACD andthe copytheory of movement) norSauerland’ s additionalassumptions are needed any longer (see footnote3). As outlinedin section 3.3, garden-variety ACD isderived in the following way: 37

QR (44) a. [VP Johnlikes every boy] } } ! adjunct merger [[VP Johnlikes every boy] every boy] } } } } } } ! [[VP Johnlikes every boy] every boy that Mary does k likes boyl ] b.[every boy lx.Mary does k likesthe boy x l ] ly.John likesthe boy y

35 Sauerlandmentions that sentences suchas thosein (i) have the status of (42a)rather thanthat of (42b).He shows thatthis is expectedgiven the approach to Parallelism arguedfor in Fox 1999a. (i)a. Ivisiteda citynear theplace youdid. b.I visiteda townnear thecity you did. 36 Inaddition to Fox’ s economyprinciple, Sauerland needs to assume thatall DPs quantifyover choice functions, thusensuring that a copywill not be replaced byasimple variablein orderto resolve ACD. 37 Forexpository purposes I focuson the case inwhich DP movementis covert.The explanation is identical if the movementis overt; what is importantis thatthe restrictor of the raised quantifiermust be identicalto the head internal tothe RCE, modulo material inthe adjunct that is merged postcyclically. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 81

Thefinal structure is acceptable since late merger obviates a violationof Parallelism: the RCE hasbeen added after movement, thereby allowing Trace Conversion to create identical definite descriptionsin both the elided and antecedent VPs. Theexplanation of Sauerland’ s contrast(between (42a) and (42b)) will be based on the observationthat late merger can obviate a violationof Parallelism in (42b) but not in (42a). Let usstartwith the acceptable (42b), which is derived in the following way:

QR (45) a. [VP Ivisiteda city] } } ! adjunct merger [[ VP Ivisiteda city]a city] } } } } } } ! [[ VP Ivisiteda city]a citynear the city that John did k visitedcity l ] b.[a citynear the city lx.John did k visitedthe city x l ] ly.I visitedthe city y Thiscase is similar to the standard case in (44) in that late merger of an adjunct allows for an obviationof Parallelism.But there is an important difference: the second step of thederivation mergesa largeradjunct in (45) than in (44). In (45) the adjunct is the PP headedby near, which containsthe RCE, while in (44)the adjunct is smaller;it istheRCE alone.The general principle isthat all material belonging to the restrictor of the QR-ed DP thatis not identical to the head modifiedby the RCE mustbe added after QR. Otherwise,Parallelism will not be satisfied. Considernext the unacceptable (42a). Let us start with the observation that a derivation parallelto the one in (45) would result in a structurethat violates Parallelism.

QR (46) a. [VP Ivisiteda city] } } ! adjunct merger [[ VP Ivisiteda city]a city] } } } } } } ! [[ VP Ivisiteda city]a citynear the lake that John did k visitedlake l ] b.[a citynear the lake lx.John did k visitedthe lake x l ] ly.I visitedthe city y Thefinal representation does not satisfy Parallelism because the definite article has a different restrictorin the antecedent than it does in the elided VP. Moregenerally, in sentence (42a) (as wellas in Kennedy’ s casesin (39)) thereis no way for latemerger of an adjunct to obviate a violationof Parallelism. The reason is that the head of the NP thatrestricts the quantifier that undergoesQR isnot identical to the head modified by the RCE. Becausethe former isnot an adjunct,it cannot be added after QR anda violationof Parallelismcannot be obviated. 38

38 Theexplanation provided by Sauerland(1998) for Kennedy’ s puzzleappears toconflict with the availability of ellipsisin (i). (i)a. Thisis the man thatJohn likes and this is thewoman that Bill does. b.I knowwhich man Johnlikes and which woman Bill does. This(apparent) conflict carries overto the account provided here. However, Sauerland demonstrates that the conflict can beeliminatedwith more precise assumptionsabout the nature of Parallelism andthe way itrelates tofocus.See Sauerland 1998:chap.3 and,in particular,the discussion of Sauerland’s examples (71)and (72). 82 D A N N Y F O X

5.3Further Evidence We startedthis article with an observation of a conflictbetween the standard account of ACD andthe copy theory of movement.I suggestedthat the conflict is resolvedby latemerger of the RCE.Kennedy’s (1994)observation and in particular Sauerland’ s (1998)minimal pair in (42) supportthis suggestion. Specifically, both seem to indicate that when late merger cannot resolve theconflict, ACD isimpossible.We willnow see further indications that this is the case. 5.3.1Complements versus Adjuncts As mentionedin section 3.1, adjuncts can be merged coun- tercyclicallybut complements cannot. (Late merger of complementsyields uninterpretable struc- tures,as illustratedin (17).)This predicts the contrast between (47) and (48) noted by Sauerland (1998). (47)a. I visiteda city nearthe city John did k visitedl . b.I madean argument thatwas very similar to the one /argumentyou did k madel . c.I reada book thatdiscusses the book you did k readl . (48)a. *I madean argument thatwe should adopt the argument you did k madel . b.??I reada book aboutthe book you did k readl . Thesentences in (47) have derivations along the lines of (45)with the italicized adjunct added afterQR. Parallelderivations are impossible for (48)since the italicized phrase is a complement andcannot be merged countercyclically. 39 Thecurrent approach to ACD predictsthat exceptions to Kennedy’ s (1994)observation of thetype noted by Sauerlandwill be restricted to casesin which the head of the NP modifiedby theRCE iscontainedwithin an adjunct, and the facts seem to conform to this prediction. 5.3.2When Late Merger Is Visible Theaccount of Sauerland’s (1998)paradigm was basedon theassumption that exceptions to Kennedy’ s (1994)observation require late merger of a particular adjunct(the italicized phrase in (47)). This assumption can be tested in casesin which late merger hasvisible effects. Consider from thisperspective the contrast in (49). (49)a. I visiteda citynear the city that John did. b.I visiteda cityyesterday near the city that John did. c.??/ *Ivisiteda citynear the city yesterday that John did. Thiscontrast suggests that late merger is relevant for theaccount of Sauerland’ s paradigm.In (49a)and (49b) the constituent appropriate for satisfyingParallelism has been added countercycli-

39 Ihopethat the contrast between thetwo sentences in(48) is areflectionof anoptional analysis of about-phrases as adjuncts(cf. Thisbook is aboutJohn ;see footnote10). Unfortunately, an LI reviewer pointsout that the Condition Cfacts donot match entirelywith the ACD facts (forthe reviewer, Whichbook about Chomsky i does hei like best? is totallyacceptable, while(48b) is ‘‘odd,though not totally impossible’ ’). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 83 cally.In (49c), by contrast, the adjunct that is mergedpostcyclically is too small for Parallelism tobe satisfied. 40 Tosee this in greater detail, let us consider the derivations. The derivation of (49a) was providedin (45). (49b) has a parallelderivation but in this case the effects of late merger are visiblegiven the presenceof theadverb yesterday. As we cansee, the final representation satisfies Parallelism.

QR (50) a. [[VP Ivisiteda city]yesterday] } } ! adjunct merger [[[VP Ivisiteda city]yesterday] a city] } } } } } } ! [[[VP Ivisiteda city]yesterday] a citynear the city that John did k visitedcity l ] b.[a citynear the city lx [John did k visitedthe city x l ]] ly [I visitedthe city y] yesterday Finally,consider (49c), in which a smallerconstituent has been added countercyclically.

QR (51) a. [VP Ivisiteda citynear the city] } } ! adjunct merger [[ VP Ivisiteda citynear the city] a citynear the city] } } } } } } ! [[ VP Ivisiteda citynear the city] a citynear the city that John did k visitedcity l ] b.[a citynear the city lx.John did k visitedthe city near the city x l ] ly.I visitedthe city y Thisderivation yields a representationthat does not satisfy Parallelism and therefore (49c) is unacceptable. 41

6Antecedent-Contained Deletionand Condition C Fiengoand May (1994) claim that instances of QR thatare needed for ACDresolutionhave consequencesfor ConditionC. Thisclaim is basedon theacceptability of sentences such as those in (52).

40 Unfortunately,(49c) seems tobe unacceptable independently of the presence ofACD andtherefore cannot be usedto argue that late merger is responsiblefor the obviation of Kennedy’ s generalization.However, this objection does nothold for the following paradigm, the appreciation of which requires understanding Sauerland’ s explanationof the compatibilityof (ia) withthe discussion in section 5.1. (See footnote35.) (i)a. Ivisiteda townnear thecity that John did. b.I visiteda townyesterday near thecity that John did. c. ??/*Ivisiteda townnear thecity yesterday that John did. d.?I visiteda townnear thecity yesterday that was describedin the newspaper. Logically(49c) is irrelevantfor the argument and should therefore be replaced with(ic). It is includedin thetext since (despitethe confound) it makes thelogic of theargument more transparent. 41 We alsoneed to consider a derivationof (49c) in which there are twoinstances ofQR, each followedby late merger: thematrix object undergoes string-vacuous QR; then the PP ismerged;this is followedby QR oftheembedded definitephrase to the right of theadverb where theRCE is merged.Such a derivationshould be ruledout bythe Condition onExtractionDomain (CED). 84 D A N N Y F O X

(52)a. You sent him i theletter that John i expectedyou would.

b.You introduced him i toeveryone John i wantedyou to.

c.I reportedhim i toevery cop John i was afraidI would. Inthese sentences ACD resolutionrequires that the DP (containingthe deletion site) undergo QR,andQR hasconsequences for ConditionC. Theobvious question that arises is why instances ofQR neededfor ACDresolutiondiffer from normalinstances of QR, which, as we saw, are incapableof affectingCondition C. (See section1 andin particular the discussion of (5b).) Fiengoand May have provided one answer to this question, and I havetried to argue for analternative(Fox 1995, 1999b). However, both proposals are based on extraneousassumptions thatcan be eliminatedonce the approach to ACDadvocatedhere is adopted. 42 Underthe proposal madehere it is not QR thatobviates Condition C butrather late merger, which is neededto satisfy Parallelism.Specifically, for theconstruction in (52) to satisfy Parallelism, the RCE mustbe mergedwith an NPonlyafter rightward movement. This sequence of operationsyields the follow- ingstructures, which do not violate Condition C:

(53)a. [the letter lx.Johni expectedyou would k send himi the letter xl ] ly.you sent himi the letter y b.[every one lx.Johni wantedyou to k introducehim i to the one xl ] ly.you introducedhim i to the one y c.[every cop lx.Johni was afraidI would k report himi to the cop xl ] ly.you reportedhim i to the cop y Fiengoand May also report a contrastbetween sentences such as those in (52) and similar sentencesthat lack ACD.

(54)a. ??You sent him i theletter that John i expectedyou would write.

b.??You introduced him i toeveryone John i wantedyou to meet.

c.??I reportedhim i toevery cop John i was afraidof. Specifically,they argue that QR canobviate Condition C onlyif ACDisinvolved.This judgment isa littlesubtle; all speakers seem to allow coreference in the sentences in (52) but they seem todiffer on whether or not they allow coreference in the ones in (54). Iwouldlike to suggest that the difference among speakers has to do with the effects of a generalpreference against vacuous extraposition. More specifically, I wouldlike to suggestthat thecontrast between (52) and (54) is identical to Taraldsen’ s (1981)contrast in (23), repeated here.

(55)a. I gavehim j abookyesterday that John j liked.

b.??I gavehim j abookthat John j likedyesterday.

42 Fiengoand May propose a fairlyintricate principle that determines theordering of binding theory and QR. In Fox1995 I proposean economy condition on theelimination of material fromthe tail of chains.Both proposals are made toaccount for the correlation with Condition C andare notsupported independently. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 85

Theparser prefers toparse relative clauses as sisters of the pronounced NPs thatthey modify. Thegrammar allowsan alternative parse (via QR andlate merger of a relativeclause with an unpronouncedNP), butthe parser chooses this structure only when there is evidence that it is needed.In (55a) the relevant evidence comes from wordorder and in (52) it comesfrom ellipsis. In(55b) and (54) the parser has no evidencethat extraposition is needed.Therefore, extraposition isnot postulated and as a resultCondition C isviolated. 43 Finally,the account of ACD interms of late merger captures the contrast in (56) noted independentlyby Sauerland (1998) and Merchant (2000).

(56)a. I askedhim i toteach the book about Mary that John i wanted me to k ask himi to teachl .

b.*I askedhim i toteach the book about John i thatMary wanted me to k ask himi to teachl . ACDresolutionin (56)requires that the RCE bemerged after QR, yielding the structures in (57).

(57)a. [the book about Mary lx.Johni wanted me to k ask himi toteach the book about Mary x l ] ly.I asked himi toteach the book about Mary y b.[the book about John i lx.Marywanted me to k ask himi toteach the book about John i xl ] ly.I asked himi toteach the book about John i y Thesestructures explain why Condition C isnot violated in (56a). In (56b), by contrast, late mergerof the RCE wouldnot obviate Condition C, aswe seein (57b). Furthermore, the name John iscontained within a complementand there is subsequently no option for latemerger that wouldobviate Condition C. 44

7Larsonand May’ s Counterarguments Inthe previous sections I haveargued that constructions with ACD satisfyParallelism as aresult oftwooperations: a DPmovesout of the antecedent VP andthe RCE ismergedcountercyclically. Whenthe first operation is covert,the second operation yields extraposition. For thisreason my

43 Thisanalysis is similar totheone proposed in Fox 1995; both postulate a preference principlethat has (detectable) consequencesfor Condition C butnot for Parallelism. See Phillips1996:70 for other arguments that Condition C (in contrastto word order and Parallelism) doesnot affect the(detectable) preferences ofthe parser. As anextension to Fiengo and May’ s (1994)paradigm, in Fox 1995 I observethat in (i) Condition C is circumvented onlyif the matrix VP is elided.This observation can beaccommodated underthe present account if oneassumes that theparsing preference isforthe lowest possible attachment forthe relative clause (see footnote24 andsection 8.2). (i)I wantedhim to read thebooks that John thought I did. a. k *readl b. k wantedhim to read l 44 Merchant(2000) claims thatthe judgments remain thesame when(56b) is changed so that the name iscontained withinan adjunct.

(i)I reportedher i toevery cop in Abby’ s i neighborhoodyou did. Ishare thisjudgment but some ofmyinformants do not. This variation might be related tothe parsing preference that disfavorsstring-vacuous extraposition. 86 D A N N Y F O X proposalis somewhatsimilar to Baltin’ s (1987)proposal that ACD resolutioninvolves extraposi- tion. Baltin’s proposalhas been criticized quite extensively by Larson and May (1990, L&M). Thegoal of thissection is to examinethe relevance of L&M’ s criticismfor thecurrent proposal. Itwill turn out that the points that L&M make can be divided into two parts. One part, although quiterelevant under the standard analyses of extraposition, is not relevant once the approach developedby Foxand Nissenbaum (1999) is adopted.The other part, which is still relevant, will forceme to provide certain ACD constructionswith a fairlybaroque analysis. However, I will showthat this move makes some new and nontrivial predictions. My attempt to corroboratethe predictions,if successful, will provide additional evidence in favor of theproposal defended here.

7.1The No Longer Relevant Criticism Baltin(1987) argues that antecedent containment does not exist since the putative ACD construc- tionsinvolve (overt) extraposition. More specifically, he assumes that the RCE isshifted to the right,thereby removing the elided VP from withinthe antecedent VP. 45

(58) I [Antecedent-VP readevery book t i ] [Opj that you did k read tj l ]i L&Mpointout that it is not clear why extraposition should be required. It is true that extrapositionremoves the elided VP from withinthe antecedent. However, it is nottrue that the challengefor thetheory of ellipsisis eliminatedalong with this elimination of antecedentcontain- ment.Despite the lack of antecedentcontainment, the antecedent and the elided VP in(58)are not identicaland theconstruction does not satisfyParallelism. In other words, there is noindependently motivatedcondition that forces rightward movement of theRCE. If ACD constructionsinvolve extraposition,it is not clearwhy; extraposition does not play a rolein theresolutionof the problem thatthe construction brings up. 46 Thiscriticism is (of course)not relevant for theapproach to ACD advocatedhere. Under thecurrent approach extraposition does not involve movement of the RCE, butrather late merger, andthe necessity of latemerger follows from Parallelismgiven the copy theory of movement. Asecondcriticism is that the alternative makes correct predictions that Baltin’ s accountdoes notcapture. If ACDisresolvedby QR, thereare very clear consequences for scope:the QR-ed DPmustoutscope all of theelements that take their scope within the antecedentVP. Thisprediction hasbeen pointed out and corroborated by Sag(1976) and has subsequently been much discussed inthe literature. Thus, for example,the DP thatcontains ellipsis must take scope outside the intensionalverb want in(59a), and refuse in (59b).47

45 Because ofspace limitations,I willnot go overBaltin’ s proposalin greater detail.It is not crucial forthe reader tohave a complete understandingof the proposal. It is onlyimportant to understand Larson and May’ s criticism andthe way itmight apply to the current proposal. 46 Of course,one can assume QRalongwith an additional condition on ellipsisthat would ban surface antecedent containment(cf. Wilder1995). The additional condition might motivate extraposition, but as longas ithas noindependent motivation,it amounts to astipulationof extraposition(or so it seems tome). 47 (59a)is modeledon examples fromSag 1976, and (59b) was broughtup byIrene Heim (duringa class onellipsis taughtwith David Pesetsky). ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 87

(59)a. I wanta carthat you do k wantl . b.I refusedto read every book that you did k refusedto read l . UnderBaltin’ s approachto extraposition, it is not obvious that this prediction follows. There is noreasonwhy rightward movement of theRCE willhave consequences for thescope of theDP thatcontains the RCE. 48 Onceagain, this criticism does not apply to the approach to ACD arguedfor here,since underthis approach extraposition is not an alternative to QR. Extrapositionis needed because (assumingthe copy theory of movement)QR isnot enough. Extraposition of arelativeclause is itselfan indication that QR hastaken place, and the consequences for scopeare retained. L&M’s thirdcriticism relates to apotentialdiagnostic of extraposition: the complementizer that cannotbe omitted in an extraposed relative clause. This diagnostic, which is supported by theunacceptability of omissionin (60a), suggests, as (60b)shows, that extraposition is not obliga- toryin ACD constructions. (60)a. I readsomething yesterday *(that) John had recommended. b.I readsomething (that) John did k readl . Sincethe principles that govern that omissionare not understood, this argument is not as strongas the previous ones. More specifically, there is a wayto think of (60a)that will not be problematicfor theassumption that (60b) involves extraposition. It is not impossible that that omissionis restricted by phonology rather than by syntax. More specifically, it is possible that thehead of a relativeclause cannot be omittedwhen the relative clause is notstring adjacent to theNP thatthe relative clause modifies. If thisis theconstraint that accounts for (60a),there will be no ban on that omissionwhen extraposition is string vacuous, hence no conflict between Baltin’s approachto ACD andthe availability of that omissionin (60b). 49 Furthermore,even if the ban on that omissionwere adiagnosticof extraposition, it wouldnot rule out the analysis of ACD proposedhere. Under the analysis proposed here, latemerger of the RCE isobligatoryfor ACD resolution.But late merger results in extraposition onlywhen movement of the relevant DP iscovert. When movement is overt (when ACD is resolvedby HNPS), that omissionwill not be banned, thus accounting for theoptionality observedin (60b). 50

48 MarkBaltin (personal communication) points out that the prediction could be captured by hisanalysis if coupled with Gue´ronand May’ s (1984)theory of extraposition in which QR isneededin order for extraposed constructions to receive aninterpretation. This, however, makes Larsonand May’ s firstcriticism more acute. If oneassumes thatQR takes place inACD constructions,why is extrapositionneeded? The copy theory of movement, when accompanied by theassumptions made here,provides an answer. 49 Of course,the phonological constraint has noexplanatory power. Still, for L&M’ s argumentto have much force, onewould want to show that the alternative (syntactic) constraint is better. 50 Unfortunately,I cannotthink of anyproperties that might distinguish HNPS from extraposition and subsequently lead tointeresting predictions. An LI reviewer pointsout that in Germanic OV languagesextraposition is possiblein v-final environments but HNPSis not.The reviewer furthersuggests that this might be usefulif a close enoughequivalent to ACD is foundin these languages. 88 D A N N Y F O X

7.2The Still Relevant Criticism If ACDrequiresextraposition, it is predicted that the RCE willbe outside the antecedent VP. However,as pointed out by L&M, theacceptability of the ACD constructionsin (61) suggests thatthis is notalways the case. In (61) the RCE (initalics) is followed by material that belongs tothe antecedent VP andis therefore plausibly contained within the antecedent VP. (61)a. I [gavea bookon linguistics that you did k givet toMary l to Mary]. b.I [gaveeveryone you did k givea bookon linguistics l abookon linguistics]. c.I [wantedthe man you did k wantto come to the party l tocome to the party]. If indeedthe RCE iscontainedwithin the antecedent VP in(61), then extraposition is not involved inthederivation of theseconstructions. This criticism of Baltin’s (1987)proposal extends to the proposaldefended here. Under this proposal the RCE ismergedafter rightward movement of a DP. Whetherthe movement is overtor covert,the RCE mustbe outsidethe antecedent VP. However,there is a possibleresponse to the criticism: the constituent that follows the RCE in(61)might also be outsidethe antecedent VP (owingto the availability of rightwardmovement). Thatthis is possible is suggested by the acceptability of the sentences in (62). These sentences seemto involve rightward movement of theconstituent that follows the RCE in(61). 51 (62)a. I gavea bookyesterday to Mary. b.I gaveeveryone yesterday a bookon linguistics. c.I wantedthis man with all my heart to come to the party. Giventhe availability of rightward movement, the sentences in (61) can be derived in the followingway:

QR or HN PS (63) [VP Igavea bookto Mary] } } } } } } adjunct! merger [[VP Igavea bookto Mary] a book] } } } } } } additional rightward ! movement [[VP Igavea bookto Mary] a bookyou did k give to Maryl ] } } } } } } } } 52 ! [[[VP Igavea bookto Mary] a bookyou did k give to Maryl ] to Mary] Thisderivation is admittedly quite baroque. However, if we canfind evidence in its favor, we willhave additional support for theaccount of ACD. Putdifferently, the account of ACD advocatedin this article makes a preciseprediction

51 Abynowfamiliar analysisof (62c) involves leftward movementof theexceptionally Case-marked subject(‘ ‘raising toobject’ ’). If thisanalysis is correct, (61c)does not challenge the account of ACD. (ACD wouldbe resolvedby object shiftfollowed by late merger oftheRCE.) As pointedout to me byChris Kennedy, (i) is a more challengingexample. Restructuringnotwithstanding, (i) would probably require an analysis of (62c) in terms ofrightward movement of the PRCE(see (64)below). Similar consequences would follow if (ii) is acceptable (see Kennedy1997). (i)I wantedto expect everyone you did k wantedto expectto come tothe party l tocome tothe party. (ii)??I wanteda pictureof everyone you did k wanteda pictureof tobe onsale l tobe onsale. 52 As we see fromthe final representation, the same wordorder is derivedwhether or not the head or the tail of a book ispronounced(whether ACD resolutioninvolves QR orHNPS). The analysis predicts both to be possible. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 89 about‘ ‘sandwiched’’ ACDconstructionsin which material from theantecedent VP followsthe RCE(SACD constructions). (64)In SACD constructionsthe post-RCE material belonging to theantecedent VP (hence- forth,PRCE) is shifted rightward outside the antecedent VP. (cf. Wilder1995) If thisprediction can be corroborated, we willhave further evidence in favor of the account.

8Further Evidence Inthis section I willtry to identify three diagnostics of rightward movement and use them to corroboratethe prediction in (64). The first diagnostic is a constraintlimiting movement of predi- catesneeded for afullaccount of thefacts discussed in section4, thesecond is ConditionC, and thethird relates to the interpretation of constructionsthat involve movement of reasonand manner adverbs(Stroik 1992). 53

8.1Rightward Movement of Predicates Aconstituentthat contains an embeddedfinite VP andexcludes its subject cannot shift rightward outof a matrixVP. Thisis exemplifiedby thefact that a matrixadverb cannot intervene between anembedded finite VP andits subject. (65)a. *I hopethat Bill with all my heart will come to the party. b.*I toldyou that Bill when we metwill come to the party. Consequently,it ispredicted that the matrix VP cannotbe anantecedentVP inan SACD construc- tionwhere the embedded VP servesas thePRCE. That this prediction is correctis exemplified byTiedeman’ s (1995)contrast discussed in section 4 andrepeated here.

53 DavidPesetsky and Lisa Travis(personal communications) mention the contrast between (i)and (ii) as potential evidenceagainst (64). (i)*Which boy did you give a bookyesterday to t? (ii)Which boy did you give a bookMary did to t? (iii)Which boy did you give a bookyesterday to a friendof t? Theunacceptability of (i)suggests that there mightbe aconstraintblocking movement out of rightward-shiftedconstituents (perhapsa consequenceof the CED), and this constraint seems toindicate that in (ii) the PRCE need not be rightward- shifted.However, the status of (iii)suggests that the situation is more complicated.Jonathan Bobaljik (personal communica- tion)suggests that the relevant difference between (i)and (ii)/ (iii)is thatin the latter there is at least oneconstituent to theright of VPthatbears focus.If theoperative constraint were theone in (iv), the paradigm would not challenge my proposalfor ACD. (iv)If there are nconstituentsto the right of VP(n 4 1,2,. ..),at least oneof these constituentsmust contain afocusedelement. Thisconstraint does not seem verynatural, but it might follow from a principlethat requires post-VP material tobe groupedinto a singlephonological domain that contains a phonologicallyprominent element. Inany event, if (iv) is correct, we shouldexpect (v) to be betterthan (i). (v)The crime willbe solvednot by findingout who the pusher NORmally sells hisdrugs to but by finding out whothe pusher sold his drugs YESterday to. 90 D A N N Y F O X

(66)a. *I expectthat everyone you do will visit Mary. (Larson and May 1990) b.I expectthat everyone will visit Mary that you do.(Tiedeman 1995; see also Wilder 1995) (67)a. *John believed that everyone you did was agenius. b.John believed that everyone was ageniusthat you did. Inthe (a) examplesthe embedded VP servesas thePRCE. Because the PRCE cannot be shifted outof theantecedent VP, theexamples are predicted to be unacceptable. Similarevidence that (64) is correct has been pointed out byMark Baltin (personal communi- cation).Embedded infinitivals headed by the complementizer for aresimilar to embeddedfinite clausesin that the postsubject phrase headed by to cannotbe shiftedout of the matrix VP. (68)*I wantfor Billwith all my heart to come to the party. We thuspredict the following contrast (examples from MarkBaltin, personal communication): 54 (69)a. *John wants for everyoneyou do to have fun. b.John wants for everyoneto have fun that you do.

8.2Condition C Rightwardmovement also has potential consequences for ConditionC. Tosee this, consider the contrastbetween (70a) and (70b).

(70)a. ??I askedhim i togive a book[to someone in John’ s j building]when I methim i .

b.I askedhim i togivea bookt j whenI methim i [tosomeone in John’s i building]j . Thiscontrast is expectedgiven the fact that in (70a)the dative argument is rightwardshifted out ofthec-command domain of thematrix pronoun him (andgiven the parsing preference for low attachment;see footnotes 24 and43). 55 Furthermore,the contrast suggests a potentialtest for the predictionthat the PRCE is rightward shifted. Considerfrom thisperspective the contrast in (71).In (71a) there is no pressureto parsethe dativeargument as a rightward-shiftedconstituent. Consequently, the sentence violates Condition

54 Kayne(1998) discusses thecontrast in (i). (i)a. Icheckedout every candidate that you did. b.??I checkedevery candidate that you did out. He accountsfor this contrast with the aid of the assumption that QR shouldbe analyzed as overtrightward movement. (He alsoassumes thatrightward movement should be analyzed as asequence ofmovementsto the left, but that is not relevantin this context; see footnotes14 and 20.) (ib) is degraded because particles donot like to shift to the right. This contrastcould serve tofurther verify the prediction in (64), especially whencombined with (ii), which, as far as Ican tell,does not follow from Kayne’ s proposal. (ii)I checkedevery candidate out that you did. However,I am alittleskeptical regarding the significance of the data in(i)– (ii). The reason is that particles donot like tofollow heavy phrases independentlyof ACD. Foran additional contrast that might fall under(64), see Jacobson1992:162, (37). 55 Remember thatthe contrast should parallel thecontrast in (30) and should therefore not hold for all speakers. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 91

C.(71b),by contrast, is an SACD constructionwith the dative argument serving as the PRCE. Given(64), the dative argument must be rightward shifted, and Condition C issubsequently obviated.

(71)a. ??I askedhim i togive the book that you read [to someone in John’ s i building].

b.I askedhim i togive the book t j that you did k ask himi to give tj l [tosomeone in

John’si building]j . Finally,consider the contrast in (72). (72a) is an SACD constructionjust like (72b) (4 (71b)).However, in (72a) ACD canbe resolvedwith the PRCE adjoining to the embedded VP. Consequently,given the parsing preference for lowattachment, Condition C isnot obviated. In(72b), by contrast, the matrix VP isthe antecedent for ellipsis,and (64) forces the PRCE to beshiftedout of this VP, therebyobviating Condition C.

(72)a. ??I askedhim i togive the book t j that you did k give tj l [tosomeone in John’ s i

building]j .

b.I askedhim i togive the book t j that you did k ask himi to give tj l [tosomeone in

John’si building]j .

8.3Movement of Reason and Manner Adverbs Considerthe contrast between the sentences in (73) and (74). (73)a. I studiednothing in order to please the teacher that you did k studyin order to please the teacherl . b.Bill read every book with great care that I did k readwith great care l . (74)a. I studiednothing that you did k *studyin order to please the teacher l in order to pleasethe teacher. b.Bill read every book that I did k *readwith great care l withgreat care. 56 Thereare a few differencesbetween the sentences. One difference, which is not relevant for our purposesbut which we shouldnevertheless be aware of,is that in (74) the pronounced adverb canbe parsedas partof theRCE. In(73) such a parseis impossible, for obviousreasons. 57 The contrastI wouldlike to focuson isdifferent. It has to do with the content of theelided VP when thepronounced adverb modifies the antecedent VP (a parsethat, again, is necessary for (73)but

56 JonNissenbaum (personal communication) suggests that the contrast between (73a)and (74a) can bemade clearer whenwe lookat thefollowing sentences inan appropriate context. In particular, he suggests that we considera context inwhich the speaker is adiverin the Olympics who was toldby her coach todo certain fancydives in orderto prove tothe judges that she coulddo them (see alsofootnote 58). (i)I didnone of thedives in order to prove that I couldthat my coach toldme to k doin order to provethat I could l . (ii)I didnone of the dives that my coach toldme to k *doin order to prove that I could l inorder to prove that I could. 57 Anotherdifference (whichis alsoirrelevant in this context) has todowith the scope of thereason adverb in the (a) sentences. In(73a) the adverb must be interpretedwithin the scope of the negative quantifier. In (74a) the relative scopeof thetwo elements is free. Thiscontrast is aninstance of Williams’ s generalizationdiscussed in section 3.1. 92 D A N N Y F O X optionalfor (74)).Under such a parsethe elided VP cancontain a copyof theadverb in (73) but not in (74). Tosee this, let us focus on the (a) sentences.(73a), when uttered by a speaker s to an addressee a, canassert the proposition that there is nothingthat a studiedin order to please the teachersuch that s studiedit in order to please the teacher; call this proposition P. (74a)cannot express P; whenthe pronounced adverb modifies the antecedent VP, theelided VP cannotcontain acopyof the adverb (or avariablebound by that adverb). Thisseems fairly clear to the speakers I consulted. 58 Verifyingthis based on judgments of assentrequires us toconsider a situationin which P istruewhile the propositions expressible by (74a)are all false. 59 Assume that s and a havestudied the same four topics X, Y,Z,andW, but for differentreasons; a studiedX andY inorderto please the teacher, and s studiedthese topics outof genuineinterest; conversely, s studiedW andZ inorderto please the teacher, and a studied thesetopics for otherreasons.

(75) Studiedin order to please the teacher Studied for otherreasons Studied by a X, Y W, Z Studied by s W, Z X, Y

Inthis situation there is no topicstudied by a inorderto pleasethe teacher such that it has been studied by s inorderto please the teacher. In other words, P istrue.However, it isafairlyclear judgmentthat (74a), in contrastto (73a),cannot be truein thesituation. We concludethat (73a) and(74a) differ in that only the former canexpress P. Thedifference between (73) and (74) follows from myproposal if thereis aconstraintthat disallowsrightward movement of the adverbs in these sentences. The interpretation of (74) in whichthe adverbmodifies both the antecedent and the elided VP couldbe derived only if rightward movementof the adverb (the PRCE) were possible(64). The putative constraint blocks rightward movementand explains the unavailability of theinterpretation. Thismeans that if the constraint existed, the unavailability of the relevant interpretation wouldbe a verifyinginstance of the prediction in (64).However, we wouldlike to have indepen- dentevidence for theconstraint. I willnot attempt to provide this evidence. Instead, I wouldlike toargue that the unavailability of therelevant interpretation can serve to verify(64) even if the evidenceis unavailable. The argument is based on Stroik’ s (1992)observation that (leftward) movementof therelevant adverbs blocks the intended interpretation.

58 Thecontrast can besharpened if aboundpronoun is embeddedwithin the adverb. The fact thatsloppy identity is possiblewhen the adverb has acopyin the elided VP distinguishesthe relevant readings in a fairlyclear way.

(i) a. Johni discussednothing in orderto please his i teachers thatBill j did k discussedin order to please his j teachersl . b. Johni discussednothing that Bill j did k *discussedin order to please his j teachersl inorder to please his i teachers. 59 (74a)has (potentially)four interpretations: the pronounced adverb can beparsedin the matrix or withinthe RCE, andthe relative scopeof the negative quantifier and the adverb is notfixed (footnote 57). All of these interpretations mustbe false inthe situation that serves as atest case. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 93

Considerthe sentences in (76). These sentences are similar to the sentences in (74), and differentfrom thesentences in (73),in that the adverb cannot modify the elided VP (whenit also modifiesthe antecedent VP). 60 (76)a. In order to please the teacher, I discussednothing that you did. i. k discussed tl ii. k *discussedt for thatreason/ inorder to please the teacher l b.With great care, Bill read every book that I did. i. k read tl ii. k *readt inthat way l Theaccount of Stroik’ s observationis not very important in this context. (See Bissell1999 for aproposal.)What is important for ourpurposes is thatthe unavailability of theintendedinterpreta- tionof (74)follows under the proposal made here whether or notreason and manner adverbs can shiftto the right. If thereis aconstraintthat bans the adverbs from shiftingto theright, the facts followgiven the constraint; and if there is nosuch constraint, they follow as aninstance of Stroik’s generalization.In any event, the prediction in (64)is verified.

9Conclusions Baltin(1987) proposed that ACD isresolved by extraposition. At thetime there were serious problemswith the proposal. The conflict between ACD constructionsand the theory of ellipsis was notresolved by extraposition and there was thereforeno reason to assume that extraposition was involved.Furthermore, Sag’ s correlation(between ACD andscope) was notaccounted for. Thisarticle can be read as a revivalof Baltin’ s proposal.With certain assumptions about thestructure and interpretation of chains,extraposition, viewed as late merger, resolves a conflict betweenthe copy theory of movementand Parallelism. This is the theoretical reason to assume extraposition(or HNPS whenQR isovert).The correlation with scope is, of course,no surprise. Theresulting analysis has some nontrivial advantages. It accounts for Kennedy’s (1994) puzzleand Sauerland’ s (1998)extension to this puzzle, for thecorrelation between ACD and ConditionC, andfor thefact that constituents from theantecedent VP thatfollow the elided VP behavelike (rightward) shifted constituents. Theseadvantages, in turn, provide evidence for theassumptions that underlie the analysis. We thushave new evidence for thecopy theory of movement(Chomsky 1993), for countercyclic mergerof adjuncts(Lebeaux 1988), for theextension of Lebeaux’s ideato covert movement (Fox andNissenbaum 1999, in preparation), and for theidea that the copies at the tail of the chain shouldbe interpretedas definite descriptions that contain variables (Fox 1999b).

60 Again,there are irrelevantproperties that distinguish among the sentences andcould bring about confusion. (76) issimilar to(73) and different from (74) in that(for obvious reasons) itdoesnot have the irrelevant parse inwhichthe adverbmodifies only the elided VP. Also,(76) is differentfrom both (74) and (73) in that the adverb must take scope outsidethe negative quantifier (probably because thenegative quantifier is aweak island;see Frampton1991, Cresti 1995). 94 D A N N Y F O X

References Abe,Jun, and Hiroto Hoshi. 1999. A generalizedrightward movement analysis of antecedent contained deletion. Journalof Linguistics 35:451–487. Baltin,Mark. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? LinguisticInquiry 18:579–595. Beaver,David. 1995. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University ofEdinburgh. Bissell,Teal. 1999. Further evidence for null pronominal variables. Master’ s thesis,University of California, SantaCruz. http:/ /www.mit.edu/ , bissell/NullPro.pdf Bobaljik,Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbalinflection. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cam- bridge,Mass. Bobaljik,Jonathan. 1999. A-chains at theinterface: Copies, agreement and ‘ ‘covertmovement.’ ’ Ms.,McGill University,Montreal, Que. Brody,Michael. 1995. Lexico-LogicalForm. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Brody,Michael. 1997. Perfect chains. In Elementsof grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. by LilianeHaegeman, 134 –167.Dordrecht: Kluwer. Chierchia,Gennaro. 1995. Talk given at Utrecht University. Chomsky,Noam. 1993. A minimalistprogram for linguistic theory. In Theview from Building 20: Essays inlinguisticsin honorof SylvainBromberger, ed.by KennethHale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1 –52. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky,Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In TheMinimalist Program, 219–394.Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press. Cinque,Guglielmo. 1981 –82.On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. TheLinguistic Review 1:247–294. Cresti,Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. NaturalLanguage Semantics 3:79–122. Cresti,Diana. 2000. Ellipsis and reconstruction in relative clauses. In NELS 30, ed.by Masako Hirotani, AndriesCoetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-Yung Kim, 153 –163.Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA. Dowty,David. 2000. The dual analysis of adjuncts/ complementsin Categorial Grammar. In Approaching thegrammar of adjuncts, ed.byEwaldLang, David Holsinger, Kerstin Schwabe, and Oliver Teuber, 53–78.ZAS Papersin Linguistics 17. Berlin: Zentrum fu ¨rAllgemeineSprachwissenschaft. Fiengo,Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indicesand identity. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Fox,Danny. 1993. Chain and binding: A modificationof Reinhart and Reuland’ s ‘‘Reflexivity.’’ Ms.,MIT, Cambridge,Mass. Fox,Danny. 1995. Condition C effectsin ACD. In Paperson minimalistsyntax, ed.by RobPensalfini and HiroyukiUra, 105– 119. MIT WorkingPapers in Linguistics27. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT, Department ofLinguisticsand Philosophy, MITWPL. Fox,Danny. 1999a. Focus, parallelism and accommodation. In Proceedingsof SALT 9, ed.by TanyaMat- thewsand Devon Strolovitch, 70 –90.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Fox,Danny. 1999b. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. LinguisticInquiry 30: 157–196. Fox,Danny. 2000. Economyand semantic interpretation. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Fox,Danny. In preparation. Extraposition and intensional adjectives. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Fox,Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A casefor overt QR. In WCCFL 18, ed. bySonyaBird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen,and Peter Norquest, 132 –144.Somerville, Mass.: CascadillaPress. Fox,Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. In preparation. Extraposition and the nature of covert movement. Ms., HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Mass. ACDANDTHECOPYTHEORYOFMOVEMENT 95

Frampton,John. 1991. RelativizedMinimality: A review. TheLinguistic Review 8:1–46. Freidin,Robert. 1986. Fundamental issues in the theory of binding.In Studiesin theacquisition of anaphora, ed.by Barbara Lust, 151 –188.Dordrecht: Reidel. Groat,Erich, and John O’ Neil.1996. Spellout at the LF interface.In Minimalideas: Syntactic studies in theminimalist framework, ed.by Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Ho ¨skuldurThra ´insson, andC. Jan-WouterZwart, 113– 139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gue´ron,Jacqueline, and Robert May. 1984. Extraposition and Logical Form. LinguisticInquiry 15:1–32. Heycock,Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. LinguisticInquiry 26:547–570. Heim,Irene. 1997. Predicates or formulas?Evidence from ellipsis. In Proceedingsof SALT 7, ed. by Aaron Lawsonand Eund Cho, 197– 221. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, CLC Publications. Heim,Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semanticsin generativegrammar. Oxford:Blackwell. Jacobson,Pauline. 1992. Comment flexible categorial grammar: Questions and prospects. In Formalgram- mar:Theory and implementation, ed.by RobertLevine, 129 –167.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobson,Pauline. 1998. Antecedent contained deletion and pied-piping: Evidence for a variablefree seman- tics. In Proceedingsof SALT 8, ed.by Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson, 74 –91.Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity, CLC Publications. Kayne,Richard S. 1976.French relative que. In Currentstudies in Romance linguistics, ed.byMartaLuja ´n andFritz Hensey, 255– 299. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Kayne,Richard S. 1981.Two noteson the NIC. In Theoryof markednessin generativegrammar: Proceedings ofthe1979 GLOW Conference, ed.by AdrianaBelletti, Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 317 –346. Pisa:Scuola Normale Superiore. Kayne,Richard S. 1994. Theantisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne,Richard S. 1998.Overt vs. covert movements. Syntax 1:128–191. Kennedy,Christopher. 1994. Argument contained ellipsis. Linguistics Research Center report LKC-94-03, Universityof California, Santa Cruz. Kennedy,Christopher. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantifiers. LinguisticInquiry 28:662–688. Kennedy,Christopher. 2000. Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Ms., Northwestern University, Evanston,Ill. Kratzer,Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Eventsin grammar, ed.by Susan Rothstein, 163– 196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kuno,Susumu. 1997. Binding theory and the Minimalist Program. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Larson,Richard, and Robert May. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. LinguisticInquiry 21:103–122. Lasnik,Howard. 1995. A noteon pseudogapping. In Paperson minimalist syntax, ed.by Rob Pensalfini andHiroyuki Ura, 143 –164.MIT WorkingPapers in Linguistics 27. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT, Depart- mentof Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL. Lasnik,Howard. 1998. Some reconstruction riddles. In Proceedingsof the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed.by AlexisDimitriadis, Hikyoung Lee, Christine Moisset, and Alexander Williams, 83–98. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 5.1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,Penn Linguistics Club. Lebeaux,David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of thegrammar. Doctoral dissertation, University ofMassachusetts,Amherst. May,Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification. LinguisticInquiry 19:118–135. Merchant,Jason. 2000. Economy, the copy theory, and antecedent-containe ddeletion. LinguisticInquiry 31:566–575. Nissenbaum,Jon. 2000. Investigations of covertphrasal movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. 96 D A N N Y F O X

Partee,Barbara, and VladimirBorchev. 2000. Genitive, relational nouns, and the argument-modifier distinc- tion. In Approachingthe grammar of adjuncts, ed.by EwaldLang, David Holsinger, Kerstin Schwabe, andOliver Teuber, 177 –201.ZAS Papersin Linguistics17. Berlin:Zentrum fu ¨rAllgemeineSprach- wissenschaft. Pesetsky,David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Isthe best good enough? Optimalityand competition in syntax, ed.by Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis,and David Pesetsky, 337 –383.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pressand MITWPL. Pesetsky,David. 2000. Phrasalmovement and its kin. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press. Phillips,Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Reinhart,Tanya. 1991. Non-quantificational LF. In TheChomskyan turn, ed.by Asa Kasher, 360 –384. Cambridge,Mass.: Blackwell. Riemsdijk,Henk van, and Edwin Williams. 1981. NP-Structure. TheLinguistic Review 1:171–217. Rooth,Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedingsof the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, ed.by Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsberei chs 340,Bericht Nr. 29. Heidelberg: IBM Germany. Rullmann,Hotze, and Sigrid Beck. 1998. Reconstruction and the interpretation of which-phrases.In Recon- struction:Proceedings of the1997 Tu ¨bingenWorkshop, ed.by GrahamKatz, Shin-Sook Kim, and HeikeWinhart, 223 –256.Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsberei chs340, Bericht Nr. 127. Uni- versita¨tStuttgartand Universita ¨tTu¨bingen. Safir,Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction of A ¯ -chains. LinguisticInquiry 30:587–620. Sag,Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Sauerland,Uli. 1998. The making and meaning of chains.Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Sauerland,Uli. In preparation. A contrastto atrace.Ms., University of Tu ¨bingen. Schu¨tze,Carson T. 1995.PP attachmentand agreement. In Paperson language processing and acquisition, ed.by Carson T. Schu¨tze,Jennifer B. Ganger,and Kevin Broihier, 95 –152.MIT WorkingPapers inLinguistics26. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguisticsand Philosophy, MITWPL. Stroik,Thomas. 1992. Adverbs and antecedent contained deletions. Linguistics 30:375–380. Taraldsen,Tarald. 1981. The theoretical interpretation of a classof marked extractions. In Theory of markednessin generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed.by Adriana Belletti,Luciana Brandi, and Luigi Rizzi, 475– 516. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Tiedeman,Robyne. 1995. Some remarks on antecedent contained deletion. In Minimalismand linguistic theory, ed.by ShosukeHaraguchi and Michio Funaki, 67 –103.Hituzi Linguistics Workshop Series 4.Japan:Hituzi Syobo. VandenWyngaerd, Guido, and C. Jan-WouterZwart. 1991. Reconstruction and vehiclechange. In Linguistics intheNetherlands 1991, ed.by Frank Drijkoningen and Ans van Kemenade, 151 –160.Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Vergnaud,Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Wilder,Chris. 1995. Antecedent containment and ellipsis. FAS Papersin Linguistics 4:132–165. Wilder,Chris. 1997. Phrasal movement in LF: Dere readings,VP ellipsisand binding. In NELS 27, ed. by KiyomiKusumoto, 425 –440.Amherst: University of Massachusetts,GLSA. Williams,Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Williams,Edwin. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. LinguisticInquiry 8:101–139. Williams,Edwin. 1995. Ellipsis. Ms., Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

E39-245 MIT Cambridge,Massachusetts 02139 [email protected]