1
Danny Fox,
Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement
(Paper published in Linguistic Inquiry)
1. The Problem
1.1.
ACD appears to conflict with the copy theory
Parallelism: An elided VP must be identical to an antecedent VP at LF.
This condition can be used to investigate the nature of LF structures. In particular,
Antecedent Contained Deletion suggests that LF structures cannot be identical to surface
structures:
Elided VP
(1)
John [VP likes every boy Mary does <likes t>].
Antecedent VP
However, the structures that are derived by QR (with simple traces) can be the LF
structures:
(1')
[every boy λx Mary does < likes x>]
λy John
likes y
The Problem: Under the copy theory of movement it is not obvious that this account of
ACD can be maintained.
(1'')
[every boy λx Mary does < likes x/ boy >]
λy John
likes [every boy λx Mary does < likes x/ boy >]
1.2.
Parallelism vs. Condition C
A-bar movement doesn't affect Condition C of the Binding Theory (BT(C)):
Wh-movement:
(2)
a. *Hei visited a friend of John'si.
b. A friend of John'si visited himi.
c. ??/*Guess [which friend of John'si] hei visited t.
QR:
(3)
A boy talked to every girl.  [every girl] A boy talked to t.
2
(4)
??/*Someone introduced himi to every friend of John'si. 
[every friend of John'si] Someone introduced him to t.
(Cf. Someone introduced Johni to every friend of hisi.)
(2')c
[which friend of John'si] hei visited [which friend of John'si].
(4')
[every friend of John'si] Someone introduced himi to [every friend of John'si].
The Problem: Why can A-bar movement (and in particular QR) have an effect on
Parallelism but not on Condition C?
1.3.
The Interpretation of A-bar Chains
(5)
Which boy Mary visited which boy?
 which boy λx [Mary visited the boy x]?
(See Rullmann and Beck (1997))
(6)
every boy A girl talked to every boy.
 every boy λx [a girl talked to the boy x]?
(4')
[every friend of John'si] Someone introduced himi to [every friend of John'si].
 [every friend of John'si] λx Someone introduced himi to
the friend of John'si (identical to) x.
Claim: Traces (perhaps like pronouns) are interpreted as definite descriptions.
(7)
Trace Conversion
a. Variable Insertion (Det) Pred  (Det) [Pred λy (y=x)]
b. Determiner Replacement (Det) Pred  the [Pred λy (y=x)]
Conservativity
This might account for the conservativity of quantifiers in Natural Language.
Non-conservative quantifiers (if they existed) would yield systematic presupposition
failure (given the way the presuppositions of B project in Q(A,B); Heim 1983, Beaver
1992, von Fintel 1994).
If Q(A,B) were non-conservative, its truth value would depend on properties of objects
that are not in A. However for such objects B is undefined (since B is really λx.B(theAx))
3
2. Extraposition and QR (Fox and Nissenbaum 1999)
(8)
We saw a painting yesterday by John.
a.
b. QR (‘covert’)
Wei
Wei
VP
ti
saw a painting yesterday
c. adjunct merger (‘overt’)
Wei
VP
a painting
ti
saw a painting yesterday
VP
a painting by John
ti
saw a painting yesterday
[A painting by John] λx we saw [the painting x]
A derivation along these lines was proposed for overt wh-movement by Lebeaux (1988).
The extension to QR is straightforward under the copy theory of movement and the
phonological theory of QR. (For related but different proposals see Guéron and May
1984 and Reinhart 1991.)
(9)
Williams' generalization: When an adjunct β is extraposed from a “source NP”
α, the scope of α is at least as high as the attachment site of β (the extraposition
site).1
Scope diagnosed by variable binding in ellipsis:
(10)
a. I read a/every book before you did.
b. I read a/every book that John had recommended before you did.
c. I read a/every book before you did that John had recommended.
(10a,b) show an ambiguity that is explained in terms of the relative scope of the object
quantifier and the before-clause (see Sag 1976 and Williams 1977). (10c) has only the
interpretation in which the object quantifier has wide scope.
Scope diagnosed by NPI licensing:
Adjunct-extraposition bleeds Condition C:
(11) a.
I gave himj a book yesterday that Johnj liked
b. ?? I gave himj a book that Johnj liked yesterday
1
See Williams 1974, chapter 4. Williams focused on
comperative- and resultextraposition, and did not make the complement/adjunct distinction that Fox and
Nissenbaum make.
4
Some speakers don't find (11b) that bad. This is somewhat expected given the availability
of string-vacuous extraposition. The fact that (11b) is unacceptable to many speakers
probably reflects a processing preference for low attachment. (See Phillips 1996.)
Conflicting requirements on scope of the source DP — Condition C vs. NPI
(12) a.
b.
c.
I wanted himj not to talk to a (certain) girl yesterday that Johnj has known for
years
*I wanted himj not to talk to any girl yesterday that Johnj has known for years.
I wanted Johnj not to talk to any girl yesterday that hej has known for years.
3. Antecedent Contained Deletion and extraposition
(1)
John [VP likes every boy Mary does
<likes t>].
Antecedent VP
Simple QR doesn't work
(1'')
[every boy λx Mary does < likes x/ boy >]
λy John
likes [every boy λx Mary does < likes x/ boy >]
But QR with late insertion would work:
Assumption (following Sauerland 1998): Relative clauses are both head internal and head
external:
(13)
Every boy Mary likes boy.
 Every boy λx. Mary likes the boy x
The derivation for ACD:
(14)
[VP John likes every boy]. -QR--->
[[VP John likes every boy] every boy]. –adjunct insertion-->
[[VP John likes every boy] every boy that Mary does <likes boy>].
[every boy λx Mary does < likes the boy x>]
λy John
likes the boy y]
Extraposition/late-insertion is necessary for ACD because without it, the VP and its
antecedent don't satisfy Parallelism.
5
4. Preliminary Evidence
When certain constituents that belong to the antecedent VP can't be shifted to the right,
the Ellipsis Containing Relative Clause (ECR)will have to follow these constituents (cf.
Wilder 1995).
(15)
a. *John believed that everyone you did was a genius.
b. John believed that everyone was a genius that you did.
(Tiedeman 1995, Wilder 1995)
5. The Kennedy/Sauerland Puzzle
5.1.Kennedy's puzzle
(16)
a. I saw a book about a personj you did <*saw tj >
b. I like the car that belongs to the manj you do <*like tj >
Sauerland's explanation: The sentences do not obey Parallelism because the trace in the
relative clause and the trace of QR are semantically distinct (given the copy theory of
movement).
(16)
a. *[a book about a personj you <saw personj>]i
I saw bookj.
b. [the car that belongs to the manj you <*like manj>]i
I like cari
5.2.Sauerland's extension
(17)
a. *I visited a city near the lakej John did <visited tj>.
b. I visited a city near the city j John did <visited tj>.
(17)
a. [a city near the lakej John
b. [a city near the cityj John
I
I
<visited lakej>]i
visited cityj.
<visited cityj>]i
visited cityj.
5.3.The Problem
Sauerland provided very important evidence for the copy theory of movement. The
problem, however, is to understand how ACD is possible in the first place. Why is it the
case that the relative clause containing ellipsis can be ignored for Parallelism while the
head noun can't? (Unfortunately, I have no time to discuss Sauerland's answer to this
question)
6
5.4.Extraposition provides the answer:
Simple ACD:
(18)
[VP John likes every boy]. -QR--->
[[VP John likes every boy] every boy]. –adjunct insertion-->
[[VP John likes every boy] every boy that Mary does <likes boy>].
[every boy λx Mary does < likes the boy x>]
λy John
likes the boy y]
Sauerland ACD:
(19)
[VP I visited a city]. -QR--->
[[VP I visited a city] a city]. –adjunct insertion-->
[[VP I visited a city] a city near the city that John did <visited city>].
[a city near the city
(20)
λx John did <visited the city x>]
λy I
visited the city y]
[VP I visited a city]. -QR--->
[[VP I visited a city] a city]. –adjunct insertion-->
[[VP I visited a city] a city near the lake that John did <visited lake>].
[a city near the lake
λx John did <visited the lake x>]
λy I
visited the city y]
5.5.Further evidence
5.5.1. Complements can't be added after QR
(21)
a. I visited a city near the city John did <visited>.
b. I made an argument that was very similar to the one/argument you did.
<made>.
c. I saw a picture that depicts the picture you did <saw>.
(22)
a. *I made an argument that we should adopt the argument you did <made>.
b. ??I saw a picture of the picture you did <saw>.
5.5.2. When extraposition is visible
In Sauerland's cases the account predicts that a PP containing the ECR must be
extraposed:
7
(23)
a. I visited a city near the city that John did.
b. I visited a city yesterday near the city that John did.
c. ??/* I visited a city near the city yesterday that John did.
(24)
a.
b.
c.
d.
I visited a town near the city that John did.
I visited a town yesterday near the city that John did.
??/* I visited a town near the city yesterday that John did.
? I visited a town near the city yesterday that was described in the newspaper.
6. Antecedent Contained Deletion and condition C
6.1.QR and Condition C
QR normally doesn't bleed Condition C. This is explained by the copy theory of
movement.
(4)
??/*Someone introduced himi to every friend of John'si. 
[every friend of John'si] Someone introduced him to t.
(Cf. Someone introduced Johni to every friend of hisi.)
(4')
[every friend of John'si] Someone introduced himi to [every friend of John'si].
6.2.Extraposition and Condition C
6.2.1. Adjunct extraposition bleeds Condition C
This follows from the claim that adjunct extraposition involves late insertion of an
adjunct.
(25)
a. I gave himi a picture yesterday from John'si collection.
b. ? I gave himi a picture from John'si collection.
(26)
a. I gave himi an argument yesterday that supports John'si theory.
b. ? I gave himi an argument that supports John'si theory.
Recall: some speakers seem to allow for string vacuous extraposition (11).
Further evidence in favor of the explanation:
(27)
a.
b.
c.
d.
I told you about John'si new argument that supports his i theory.
*I told you about hisi new argument that supports John'si theory.
I told Johni about your new argument that supports hisi theory.
??I t told himi about your new argument that supports John'si theory.
(28)
a. ?? I told you about John'si new argument the other day that supports his i
theory.
8
b. * I told you about hisi new argument the other day that supports John'si
theory.
c. ?? I told himi about your new argument the other day that supports John'si
theory.
6.2.2. Complement extraposition doesn't bleed Condition C
Complements can't be added after QR given the theta criterion:
(29)
a. ??/*I gave himi a picture yesterday of John'si mother.
b. ??/*I gave himi a picture of John'si mother.
(30)
a. ??/*I gave himi an argument yesterday that this sentence supports
John'sitheory.
b. ??/*I gave himi an argument that this sentence supports John'sitheory.
6.3. Antecedent Contained Deletion and Condition C
Given that adjunct extraposition is needed for ACD resolution we predict that ACD will
obviate Condition C (see Fiengo and May 1994, Fox 1995, 2000):
(31)
a. ?? You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would write.
b. ?? You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to meet.
c. ?? I reported himi to every cop Johni was afraid of.
(32)
a. You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would.
b. You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to.
c. I reported himi to every cop Johni was afraid I would.
(33)
a. I expected himi to buy everything that Johni thought I did.
b. In the end, I demanded that hei read exactly those books that Johni suspected I
would
Furthermore, we predict the following cases pointed out by Sauerland (1998) and
Merchant (in press):
(34)
7.
a. In the end, I did ask himi to teach the book of Irene's that Davidi wanted me to
<ask himi to teach>.
b. *In the end, I did ask himi to teach the book of David'si that Irene wanted me
to <ask himi to teach>.
Larson and May's counter arguments
Baltin (1988) has suggested that extraposition is required for ACD. However, as pointed
out by Larson and May (1990), there was nothing in the theoretical assumptions of the
time that required extraposition. This has changed. Nevertheless, they also presented
empirical arguments against an extraposition analysis, and these should be revisited.
9
1. Extraposition does not solve the ACD problem. Does not apply to the analysis
of extraposition as involving late insertion of adjuncts.
2. Extraposition does not explain the correlation between ACD and scope (e.g., I
wanted a car you did.). Does not apply to the analysis of extraposition as
involving late insertion of adjuncts.
3. Extraposition does not allow complementizer omission. ACD does.
4. Extraposition predicts that the ellipsis containing relative clause (ECR) will be
outside the antecedent VP. However ECR can be followed by material that
belongs to the antecedent VP. E.g., I gave a book that you did to Mary.).
Possible boring answers to 3 and 4.
a. *NP A that RC (when A is phonologically non-empty) (or alternatively HNPS).
b. Contrary to appearance, material to the right of ECR can't be dominated by the
antecedent VP. Material that is base generated in the antecedent VP can follow the
ECR because it can shift to the right.
8.
Further Evidence
When material from the antecedent VP cannot shit to the right, it cannot follow the ECR
(section 5)
(35)
a. *John believed that everyone you did was a genius.
b. John believed that everyone was a genius that you did.
(Tiedeman 1995, Wilder 1995)
(36)
a. *John wants for everyone you do to have fun.
b. John wants for everyone to have fun that you do.
(Baltin, pc)
(37)
a. *I know how much every item that you do costs.
b. ??I know how much every item costs that you do.
(compare Moltmmann and Szabolcsi 1994 with Fox 2000)
(38)
a. I will read every book you will <> and talk about it.
1. <read t>
2. *<read t and talk about t>
b. (*)I will read every book and talk about it that you (also) will.
1. <read t>
2. <read t and talk about t>
When material from the antecedent VP follows the ECR, it should behave like extracted
material:
10
Condition C:
(39)
a. I asked him1 to give the book t2 that you did <ask him1 to give t2> [to someone
in John's1 building] 2.
b. ?? I asked him1 to give the book t2 that you did <give t2> [to someone in
John's1 building] 2.
Stroik (1992): Shifted reason and manner adverbs cannot be interpreted as belonging both
to the antecedent and the elided VP:
(40)
a. In order to upset my teachers, I discussed nothing that you did.
b. With great care, Bill read every book that I did.
Material that follows the ECR obeys Stroik's restriction:
(41)
a. I discussed nothing that you did <*dicussed in order to upset your teacher> in
order to upset my teachers.
b. I did none of the dives that my coach told me to <*do in order to prove that I
could> in order to prove that I could.
b. Bill read every book that I did <*read with great care> with great care.
When the extraposition site is to the right of the adverb, the adverb need not be shifted:
(42)
.
(43)
a. I discussed nothing in order to upset my teachers that you did <discussed in
order to upset your teacher>
b. I did none of the dives in order to prove that I could that my coach told me to
<do in order to prove that I could>.
b. Bill read every book with great care that I did. <read with great care>
a. I want to read the book after you would <read it> (after modifies read)
b. *I want to read the book Bill does <want to read t after you would read it>
after you would<read it>
c. I want to read the book after you would<read it> that Bill does <want to read t
after you would read it>
11
Conclusions:
-Baltin (1998) suggested that ACD is resolved by extraposition. At the time, this didn't
make much sense. (A. Extraposition did not resolve the ACD problem. B. It did not
account for the correlation with scope.)
-The copy theory of movement together with the analysis of extraposition proposed in
Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) makes extraposition necessary from a theoretical point of
view and accounts for the correlation with scope.
-The resulting analysis accounts for:
-The Kennedy/Sauerland Puzzle
-The interaction between ACD and Condition C
-The fact that constituents from the antecedent VP that follow the ECR have
properties of shifted constituents.