Binding reconstruction and the types of traces1
Kenyon Branan & Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, National University of Singapore{kgbranan,mitcho}@nus.edu.sg
LSA January 2021
Handout: http://tinyurl.com/traces-lsa

1Introduction and motivation

Much work since Chomsky 1993 has developed the idea that movement produces copies:(1)[Which cake] did Amy say [which cake] that Bob baked [which cake]Resulting copy-chains however must be modified to be interpretable at both PF (seee.g. Nunes, 2004) and LF (e.g. via Trace Conversion; Fox, 2002):(2)

a. PF: [which cake] did Amy say [which cake] that Bob baked [which cake]b. LF: [which cake] 𝜆𝑥 did Amy say [the cake 𝑥] 𝜆𝑦 that Bob baked [the cake 𝑦]

Q: Are different traces in a copy-chain structurally equivalent?
Trace Conversion as in (2b) (modulo late merger) predicts them to be the equivalent.
A: But evidence from reconstruction suggests that they can be distinct:• Barss (1986: 25) observes that anaphors can be bound as if their Ā-moved containers
are interpreted in their base or intermediate positions — i.e. binding reconstruction:
(3)

(4)

a.

[Which picture of himself B ] does Amy think 𝑡 Bob likes 𝑡?

b.

[Which picture of herself A ] does Amy think 𝑡 Bob likes 𝑡?

Baseline: Amy thinks [(that) Bob likes [some picture of *herself A /Xhimself B ]].

The facts in (3a,b) suggest that the anaphor is evaluated for Condition A in just one
trace position (t) at a time.
1 We thank Hadas Kotek, Stefan Keine, and members of the NUS syntax/semantics lab for discussion that
has informed this work.

1• Bhatt (2002) independently motivates the idea that one trace position is privilegedfor interpretation, from the interpretation of adjectival modifiers in relative clauses:(5)

the only book that John said t that Tolstoy wrote t(Bhatt, 2002: 58)

a. ≈ the book 𝑥 s.t. John said that Tolstoy only wrote 𝑥(low)b. ≈ the book 𝑥 s.t. John only said that Tolstoy wrote 𝑥(high)

Here too, reflexives can be used to privilege one position over another:(6)a. the only picture of himself B that Amy said 𝑡 that Bob liked 𝑡

Xhigh, Xlow

b. the only picture of herself A that Amy said 𝑡 that Bob liked 𝑡

Xhigh, *low

(The high reading in (6a) is due to a different parse; see Bhatt 2002.)
 One copy of a DP copy-chain is privileged for the interpretation of the NP at LF.
This necessitates different types of Ā-traces at LF.
– Today we present a concrete implementation of this idea.
– Our theory for Ā-movement above and below the interpreted NP position
makes correct predictions for new data on interactions between reflexive binding,parasitic gaps, and weak crossover, as well as previously observed differences
between two subclasses of Ā-movement (Cinque, 1990; Postal, 1994).

Much of the earlier motivation for Ā-movement involving copying comes from Condi-©
ª­ tion C reconstruction (see e.g. Lebeaux, 1991; Romero, 1998; Fox, 1999), in some cases ®
­®
­ explicitly setting aside Condition A data (see discussion in Heycock 1995). But recent ®
­®
­®
­ work (e.g. Adger et al. 2017; Bruening and Al Khalaf 2019 on English) has questioned ®
­®
­ the Condition C evidence (but see also Wierzba et al. to appear on German and Stock- ®
­®
­ well et al. to appear on English). We do not discuss Condition C reconstruction facts ®
­
®
today
and
insteadendeavor
to
take
the
Condition
A
facts
as
primary.
«¬

Roadmap§2 Proposal§3 Above vs below the NP2§4 Types of Ā-movement

2

ProposalSuppose we copy a quantificational DP and wish to interpret the higher quantifier at LF:(7)[h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP] ... [h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP]

By LF, the lower copy must (a) replace its determiner and (b) be bound by the higher copy.
(8)

Two existing proposals for interpreting lower copies of DP movement:
a. Binding over individual (type 𝑒) variables: (Trace Conversion; Fox, 2002 a.o.)Lower D is replaced by the definite determiner the; the higher DP binds anindividual variable in the restrictor via Predicate Abstraction:[h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP] ... [h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP][h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP] 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 ... [e the [NP 𝑥 ]]→b. Binding over choice functions: (Sauerland, 1998: ch. 5, 2004; Ruys, 2000)
Lower D is replaced by a choice function; higher quantifier D is converted into aquantifier over choice functions, 𝒟 2; higher NP is deleted (see also Heim, 2012):[h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP] ... [h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡i D NP]
𝒟 NP] 𝜆 𝑓 cf ... [e 𝑓 cf NP][𝒟→

Now consider a DP movement chain with multiple copies.
A proposal for copy conversion:• The NP restrictor is interpreted in only one copy at LF; delete all other NPs.
• Below the NP, use binding over individual variables (8a).
• Above the NP, use binding over choice functions (8b).
(See Sauerland 1998: ch. 5 for a similar intuition.)
Concretely, we predict chains of the following types:(9)

One chain, three copies, two “links”:[ 1 D NP ] ... [ 2 D NP ] ... [ 3 D NP ] →a. [ 1 D NP ] 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 ... [ 2 the 𝑥 ] 𝜆𝑦 𝑒 ... [ 3 the 𝑦 ](all below the NP)

𝜆 𝑓cf ... [ 2 𝑓 NP ] 𝜆𝑦 𝑒 ... [ 3 the 𝑦 ](some above, some below)b. [ 1 𝒟 ]
c.

[1 𝒟]

𝜆 𝑓cf ... [ 2 𝑓 ]𝜆𝑔cf ... [ 3 𝑔 NP ](all above the NP)

 Because we propose that the chain above vs below the NP are interpreted using
different mechanisms, we predict different behavior above vs below the NP.
2 Sauerland 1998: ch. 5 discusses a general approach to rewriting quantificational determiner meanings oftype h𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii(D) as functions of predicates of choice functions (𝒟); see also Sauerland 2000 and Abels
and Martí 2010. In Appendix A, we present a more general approach that allows the (re)use of quantifiers’
h𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii denotations with predicates of choice functions.

33 Ā-movement above and below the NP
 If we force a particular copy to be privileged for NP interpretation at LF (via Condition A reconstruction), we can force different behaviors above and below the NP.

3.1

Parasitic gaps

Ā-movement licenses parasitic gaps (pg) (Engdahl, 1983; Nissenbaum, 2000a,b):(10)[Which articles] did John file

without reading pg ?

(Engdahl, 1983: 5)

Nissenbaum (2000a,b) argues that pg-containing adjuncts must adjoin to a derived predicate of type h𝑒, 𝑡i, formed via intermediate movement:(11)[Which articles] 𝜆𝑥 did [vP 𝑥 [h𝑒 , 𝑡i 𝜆𝑦 John file 𝑦] [h𝑒 , 𝑡i 𝜆𝑧 without pro reading 𝑧]]?3≈ Which articles 𝑥 are such that John filed 𝑥 without pro reading 𝑥?

This assumes that movement abstracts over individual (type 𝑒) variables.
 Adopting Nissenbaum’s theory for parasitic gaps, pg-containing adjuncts must adjoin to a position that abstracts over an individual (type 𝑒), rather than over a choicefunction. We predict parasitic gaps to be licensed below the NP but not above it.

(12)

(13)

Low pg-containing adjunct (modifying treasure):a.

[Which picture of herself A ] did Amy say [that Bob will treasure

after receiving pg ].

b.

[Which picture of himself B ] did Amy say [that Bob will treasure

after receiving pg ].

High pg-containing adjunct (modifying say):[Which picture of herself A ] did Amy say [that Bob would love] before buying pg .

b. *[Which picture of himself B ] did Amy say [that Bob would love] before buying pg .

a.

(14)

High pg-containing adjunct (modifying say) in parenthetical position:a.

[Which picture of herself A ] did Amy say, before buying pg , that Bob would love.

b. *[Which picture of himself B ] did Amy say, before buying pg , that Bob would love.

3 illustrated with agent reconstructed into base position; see related discussion in Nissenbaum 2000b4

 In the grammatical cases, the pg-containing adjunct adjoins below the NP — i.e. to achain interpreted via abstraction of individual (type 𝑒) variables.

Himself in (13b, 14b) requires the NP to be interpreted within the lower clause (love)
to be bound by Bob, with higher links interpreted via choice function abstraction.
But choice function abstraction doesn’t license parasitic gaps.
(15)

3.2

Parasitic gaps are licensed below the NP:a.

𝒟 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [vP [ 𝑓 NP ] 𝜆𝑦 𝑒 ... [CP ... [vP [ the 𝑦 ] [𝜆𝑧 𝑒 ... 𝑧] [...pg...]]]]

(12a)

b.

𝒟 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [vP [ 𝑓 NP ] [𝜆𝑦 𝑒 ... [CP ... [vP [ the 𝑦 ] 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 ... 𝑧]]] [...pg...]](13a, 14a)c.

𝒟 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [vP 𝑓 𝜆𝑔cf ... [CP ... [vP [ 𝑔 NP ] [𝜆𝑧 𝑒 ... 𝑧] [...pg...]]]](12b)

d. * 𝒟 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [vP 𝑓 [𝜆𝑔cf ... [CP ... [vP [ 𝑔 NP ] 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 ... 𝑧]]] [...pg...]](13b, 14b)

Weak crossover

Weak crossover refers to the inability of a pronoun to be bound by a phrase Ā-moved acrossit, where the pronoun does not bind the Ā-gap (Postal, 1971; Wasow, 1972; see Safir, 2017):(16) ?? Whoi does [hisi mother] likei?

(Ruys, 2000: 513)

WCO effects are notoriously “weaker” (Wasow, 1972) and variable, depending on the typeof movement (see e.g. Lasnik and Saito, 1991; also below) and pronoun’s position:(17) WCO even weaker with lower pronouns in long-distance movement:(based on Mahajan 1991: 92 reproduced in Ishii 2006: 158)
? [Which man] do they believe [that [his mother] hates
i
i

i ]?

b. ??? [Which man]i does [hisi mother] believe [that they hate

i ]?

a.

Theoretically, Sauerland (1998) and Ruys (2000) propose that WCO is a property of movement that abstracts over choice functions (18a), but that movement that abstracts overindividuals instead allows variable binding (18b).

5

(18)

a. 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [ ... proi ... ] ... 𝑓 (...) ...
⇒ variable binding impossible
b. 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 ... [ ... proi ... ] ... 𝑥 ...
⇒ variable binding possible if JproK = 𝑥 (coindexed with trace) We predict that Ā-movement exhibits WCO effects above the NP but successfullybinds pronouns below the NP.

This prediction is borne out:
(19)a. X [Which painting of himself j ]i did Georgej say [that [itsi owner] hates]?

b. ?? [Which painting of herself k ]i did George say [that [itsi owner]k hates]?4• The reflexive forces the NP to be interpreted in a medial position in (19a), to bebound by George. Individual (type 𝑒) abstraction there can bind the pronoun its.
• In contrast, the reflexive forces the NP to be in the embedded clause, below thesubject, in (19b). Choice function abstraction above the NP cannot bind the pronoun.
3.3

Summary

From data on reconstruction for reflexive binding (building on Barss 1986), we claimed
that the NP restrictor is interpreted once in an Ā-chain, with different modes of interpretation
above and below the NP (also cf Sauerland, 1998), with different behaviors:(20) Two sets of behaviors in an Ā-chain, above and below the NP at LF:[DP 𝒟] 𝜆 𝑓cf ... [DP 𝑓 ] 𝜆𝑔cf ... [DP 𝑔 NP] 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 ... [DP the 𝑥] 𝜆𝑦 𝑒 ... [DP the 𝑦] ...

|

{z

}

|

{z

}

Above the NP:

Below the NP:

Choice function abstraction

Individual (type 𝑒) abstraction

WCO (Sauerland, 1998; Ruys, 2000)

Variable binding; no WCO

No parasitic gaps

Parasitic gaps (Nissenbaum, 2000a,b)

4 Similarly, without the reflexive bound by the pronoun-container itself:(i)a. X [Which painting of himself j ]i did Georgej say [that [itsi current owner] told Laura to buy]?

b. ?? [Which painting of herself k ]i did George say [that [itsi current owner] told Laurak to buy

]?

6

4

Types of Ā-movement

So far we’ve primarily discussed (English) wh-movement, claiming that the NP position
may split a single Ā-chain into two parts, with distinct WCO and parasitic gap behavior.
 Postal (1994, 1998) observed that different types of Ā-movement can be classified
into those which are susceptible to WCO and those which license parasitic gaps.
(21) Postal’s (1994) two types of Ā-movement:a. Susceptible to WCO (“A-extraction”):
wh, restrictive relatives, neg-inversion, free relatives, comparative extraction...
b. Licenses parasitic gaps (“B-extraction”):
wh, restrictive relatives, topicalization, non-restrictive relatives, clefting...
This classification also tracks a number of other contrasting behaviors:(22) Behaviors of Postal’s A- vs B-extractions:
Diagnostic“A-extraction”
Licenses parasitic gaps
×
Shifts nuclear stress×
Susceptible to WCO
Ok from anti-pronominal position
Weak island sensitive
Allows extraposition“B-extraction”(23) Antipronominal position: change of color contexts(Richards, 2018)
××
×
limited(Postal, 1994: 169, 163–164)

a. * They painted their porch greeni but I refused to paint mine iti .
b.

No such color would I ever paint my carc. * That color, he never painted the car.

.

(neg-inversion = A)
(topicalization = B)English wh-movement is ambiguous, and thus may have both A- and B-properties. But it
can only have one set at a time: (see also Postal 1994: 180)(24) From antipronominal position ⇒ A, parasitic gap ⇒ B:
Which color did you paint your house(*[ despite not really liking pg ])?

7

(25) From antipronominal position ⇒ A, extraction from weak island ⇒ B:]?
*Which color did you wonder [whether John painted his house(26) Postal’s intuition:“B-extractions obligatorily involve (invisible) resumptive pronouns in their extraction sites, whereas A-extractions do not.” — Postal 1994: 162
See similar intuitions in Cinque 1990 (discussed by Postal) and Lasnik and Stowell 1991.

Postal’s A- and B-extractions track where the chain’s NP is interpreted at LF:• “A-extractions” interpret the NP in the base/gap position.
• “B-extractions” do not interpret the NP in the base/gap position.
• A/B-ambiguous extractions (like English wh-movement and restrictive relatives)allow for the NP to be interpreted in different positions.
(27)

A (convenient!) mnemonic for Postal’s extraction types:“A” = Above the NP = interpreted via choice function abstraction“B” = Below the NP = interpreted via individual abstraction• We already discussed how above the NP (A) is sensitive to WCO (Sauerland, 1998;
Ruys, 2000) and below the NP (B) licenses parasitic gaps (Nissenbaum, 2000a,b).
• Below the NP (B), we create minimal definite descriptions (e.g. [ the 𝑥 ]). We therefore
derive Postal’s intuition that “traces” of B-extraction are (null) pronouns, and that
B-extraction is therefore disallowed from antipronominal positions.5
See Appendix B for the stress shift interaction and its explanation.
• It remains to understand why...
– A-extraction is sensitive to weak islands, but B-extraction isn’t;– A-extraction allows certain forms of extraposition, but B-extraction doesn’t;– multiple B-extractions can’t overlap (Appendix C).

5 For two recent approaches to antipronominal positions, see Stanton 2016 or Poole 2017. Note that, as weinterpret above the NP using choice functions which do not force quantificational reconstruction (see Appendix A), in the account here, we do not derive Poole’s generalization that movement from antipronominal
positions obligatorily quantificationally reconstruct.

8

5

Conclusion

Today we pursued a new conception of Ā-chain interpretation at LF, motivated by Barss’s
observations on Condition A reconstruction.
 The NP restrictor of an Ā-chain is interpreted in one copy at LF. Ā-links above andbelow this position behave differently, corresponding to Postal’s independently
observed classification of Ā-chain types:– Above the NP = Postal’s “A” extractions– Below the NP = Postal’s “B” extractions• We propose that these behaviors are explained by two different modes of chain
conversion above and below the NP, yielding different kinds of traces:– Above the NP = interpreted via choice function abstraction– Below the NP = interpreted via individual abstraction• Directions for future work:– consider the effects of Condition A reconstruction in other Ā-movement types;– pursue explanations for other properties of above-the-NP (A) vs below-the-NP(B) behavior;– reconcile with existing work on Condition C reconstruction (e.g. Lebeaux, 1991;
Heycock, 1995; Romero, 1998; Fox, 1999) and related work on A-movement (e.g.
Takahashi and Hulsey, 2009).

References
Abels, Klaus, and Luisa Martí. 2010. A unified approach to split scope. Natural Language
Semantics 18:435–470.
Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Is there condition
C reconstruction? In Proceedings of NELS 47.
Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language.
Linguistics and Philosophy 4:159–219.
9

Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival
modification. Natural Language Semantics 10:43–90.
Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47:257–281.
Bruening, Benjamin, and Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. No argument-adjunct asymmetry inreconstruction for Binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55:247–276.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from
Building 20, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. MIT Press.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:5–34.
Fox, Danny. 1998. Economy and semantic interpretation - a study of scope and variablebinding. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30:157–196.
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 33:63–96.
Heim, Irene. 2012. Functional readings without type-shifted noun phrases.
http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TUwYzUwZ/, manuscript, MIT.

URL

Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26:547–570.
Ishii, Toru. 2006. A nonuniform analysis of overt wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 37:155–
167.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In The Proceedingsof CLS 27, volume 1, 324–343.
Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22:687–720.
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In
Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. Susan D. Rothstein, 175–194.
Academic Press.
Legate, Julie Anne. 1998. Verb phrase types and the notion of a phase. Manuscript,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1991. Operator movement, agreement, and referentiality. In More papers
on wh-movement, 77–96. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000a. Covert movement and parasitic gaps. In Proceedings of NELS 30,
ed. M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J.-Y. Kim, volume 2, 541–555.
Nissenbaum, Jonathan W. 2000b. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. MIT Press.
10Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.
Poole, Ethan. 2017. Movement and the semantic type of traces. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Postal, Paul M. 1994. Contrasting extraction types. Journal of Linguistics 30:159–186.
Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Dependency formation and directionality of tree formation. In
Papers on syntax and morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Richards, Norvin. 2018. Nuclear stress and the life cycle of operators. In Order and structure
in syntax: Word order and syntactic structure, ed. Laura R. Bailey and Michelle Sheehan,
217–240. Language Science Press.
Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Ruys, Eddy G. 2000. Weak crossover as a scope phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 31:513–539.
Safir, Ken. 2017. Weak crossover. In Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. Martin Everaertand Henk van Riemsdĳk. Wiley-Blackwell, second edition.
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sauerland, Uli. 2000. No ‘no’: on the crosslinguistic absence of a determiner ‘no’. In
Proceedings of the Tsukuba workshop on determiners and quantification, 415–444.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12:63–127.
Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Wholesale Late Merger in Ā-movement: Evidence from preposition
stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 47:89–126.
Stockwell, Richard, Aya Meltzer-Asscher, and Dominique Sportiche. to appear. There isreconstruction for Condition C in English questions. In Proceedings of NELS 51.
Takahashi, Shoichi, and Sarah Hulsey. 2009. Wholesale Late Merger: Beyond the A/Ā
distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40:387–426.
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A Dinka Bor case study.
Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wierzba, Marta, Martin Salzmann, and Doreen Georgi. to appear. An experimental investigation of reconstruction for Condition C in German A’-movement. In The Proceedingsof CLS 56. Chicago Linguistic Society.
11Appendix A: Composing quantifiers with predicates of choice functions
We claim (with Sauerland 1998, Ruys 2000, van Urk 2015) that one way to interpret a
copy-chain is via choice function abstraction:
(28)

LF

[D NP] ... [D NP] −−→

D [𝑃 𝜆 𝑓cf ... 𝑓 (NP) ]Suppose 𝐷 = JDK is a quantificational determiner of type h𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii.
 How does the quantifier compose with its scope, a predicate of choice functions?
Here we sketch one approach. (See also Sauerland 1998, 2000 and Abels and Martí2010 for discussion of related proposals.)
For concreteness, suppose 𝑃 = 𝜆𝑔 cf . Sarah read 𝑔(book) .
• First, for any individual 𝑧, let 𝑓𝑧 be the constant choice function, defined as follows:(29)

𝑓𝑧 (𝑋) = 𝑧 if 𝑧 ∈ 𝑋; otherwise, 𝑓𝑧 (𝑋) is undefined

Notice: 𝑃( 𝑓𝑥 ) is defined iff 𝑥 is a book; 𝑃( 𝑓𝑥 ) = 1 iff 𝑥 is a book and Sarah read 𝑥• Second, define two utility functions, 𝐴 and 𝐵:(30)

a. 𝐴 = 𝜆𝑆 hcf,𝑡i . 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 . 𝑃( 𝑓𝑧 ) definedb. 𝐵 = 𝜆𝑆 hcf,𝑡i . 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 . 𝑃( 𝑓𝑧 ) defined and true(31)

For example:
a. 𝐴(𝜆𝑔 cf . Sara read 𝑔(book)) = 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 . 𝑧 is a bookb. 𝐵(𝜆𝑔 cf . Sara read 𝑔(book)) = 𝜆𝑧 𝑒 . 𝑧 is a book and Sarah read 𝑧• Now we can introduce the requisite type shifter:(32)

𝐷 h𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii ↦→ 𝒟 = 𝜆𝑆 hcf,𝑡i . 𝐷(𝐴(𝑆))(𝐵(𝑆))Claim: For any quantificational determiner 𝐷, “[D NP] ... [D NP]” interpreted via Trace
Conversion and individual-type Predicate Abstraction (“[D NP] 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 ... [the NP 𝑥] ...”) is
truth-conditionally equivalent to the same interpreted via choice function abstraction asin (28) using (32), as long as the DP does not bind any other variable besides its “trace.”

12Sketch of proof:• Let 𝐷 = J𝐷K (type h𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii), 𝑅 = JNPK (type h𝑒, 𝑡i), and 𝑆 be the nuclear scope of
the DP, following individual-type Predicate Abstraction (also type h𝑒, 𝑡i).
• Assume for demonstration that (a) 𝐷 is conservative (Barwise and Cooper, 1981),(b) 𝑆 is a total function and does not contain a presupposition trigger.
• The former interpretation is J[D NP] 𝜆𝑥 𝑒 . 𝑆(𝑥)K = 𝐷(𝑅)(𝑆).
• We now want to show that the choice function abstraction variant, using the interpretational mechanisms above, yield this same interpretation:
J𝒟[𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅))]K = 𝐷(𝐴(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅))))(𝐵(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅))))– By definition, 𝐴(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅)))(𝑧) iff 𝑆( 𝑓𝑧 (𝑅)) is defined. By assumption (b), theonly way 𝑆( 𝑓𝑧 (𝑅)) might be undefined would be if ¬𝑅(𝑧). So 𝐴(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅)))(𝑧)iff 𝑅(𝑧).
– By definition, 𝐵(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅)))(𝑧) iff 𝑆( 𝑓𝑧 (𝑅)) is defined and true. Again, byassumption (b), the only way 𝑆( 𝑓𝑧 (𝑅)) might be undefined would be if ¬𝑅(𝑧),and when defined, 𝑆( 𝑓𝑧 (𝑅)) = 𝑆(𝑧). So 𝐵(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅)))(𝑧) = 𝑅(𝑧) ∧ 𝑆(𝑧).
– Therefore 𝐷(𝐴(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅))))(𝐵(𝜆 𝑓cf . 𝑆( 𝑓 (𝑅)))) = 𝐷(𝑅)(𝑅 ∩ 𝑆). By conservativity (assumption (a)), 𝐷(𝑅)(𝑅 ∩ 𝑆) = 𝐷(𝑅)(𝑆) .
Notes:• This demonstration assumes that 𝑆 does not contain any other presupposition triggers. If the presupposition doesn’t depend on the value of 𝑓 , we’re fine; either thewhole structure is defined or not. If the presupposition depends on the value of 𝑓 :This immediately gives us domain restriction by presupposition (e.g. No student did
her own homework), which isn’t an obviously bad result.
• A variant of this type shifter preserves the first, type h𝑒, 𝑡i restrictor argument of D
in 𝒟, but intersects it with the set 𝐴(𝑆):(33)

Dh𝑒𝑡, h𝑒𝑡, 𝑡ii ↦→ 𝜆𝑆 hcf,𝑡i . 𝜆𝑋h𝑒 ,𝑡i . 𝒟(𝐴(𝑆) ∩ 𝑋
𝑋)(𝐵(𝑆))In most cases where no NP is interpreted with D/𝒟, the first argument of 𝒟 would
then simply be the trivial restrictor (𝜆𝑥 . 1) in place of the deleted NP. But this formulation allows for the late adjunction of restrictive modifiers to copies in a chain thatare higher than the interpreted NP restrictor, and therefore retain the Lebeaux/Fox
approach to argument/adjunct differences in Condition C reconstruction (Lebeaux,
1991; Fox, 1998; see also Takahashi and Hulsey 2009). We thank Stefan Keine forasking us about this possibility.
13Appendix B: PF effects of trace conversion
As noted in Richards 2018, B-extraction bleeds nuclear stress assignment while A-extraction
does not (see also Bresnan 1971 for other relevant examples and discussion):(34) Optional stress shift in A/B-ambiguous context:a.

Which books has Helen written?

b.

Which books has Helen written?

(35) Stress shift obligatory in B-extraction (pg-licensing):
a. *Which books has Helen written[ without publishing pg ]?

b.

[ without publishing pg ]?

Which books has Helen written

Note that weak pronouns in English generally resist being assigned nuclear stress evenwhen they appear in a position in which stress could be assigned.
(36) Weak pronouns resist stress:a.

(Bresnan, 1971)

Helen teaches it.

b. *Helen teaches it.
 Stress shift (35) is explained as the traces of B-extraction are akin to null pronouns.

• But for this to work, copy conversion will need to be quite early, since it feeds stressassignment. Conclusion: Copy conversion isn’t part of the LF branch.
• We might wonder if there is a structural correlate for whether or not an element may
be assigned nuclear stress, which would interact with our theory of copy conversion.
• Note that it is not just pronouns which resist being assigned nuclear stress. Certain“light” nominals also resist being assigned nuclear stress.
(37)

a.

Helen taught something.

b. *Helen taught something.

14• Part of the theory of copy conversion here developed involves the NP restrictor ofa B-extraction trace being replaced with a bindable identity function (following Fox
2002 and subsequent work).
• If this predicate is part of the class of “light” nominals, and thus may not be assigned
stress, then we have an explanation for this property of B-extraction: lower copy
conversion alters the trace so that it is an element which cannot be stressed, evenwhen the trace is in a position to receive nuclear stress and is linked to an element
which might bear nuclear stress.

Appendix C: Restrictions on B-extraction
 There is evidence which suggests that overlapping Ā-dependencies must be ofdifferent extraction types. In particular, two B-extractions cannot overlap.6• Two relevant diagnostics for Postal extraction type: parasitic gap licensing (Bextraction behavior) and weak island sensitivity (A-extraction behavior).
• As noted in Pesetsky 1982, “inner” dependencies in nested Ā-configurations are
restricted in ways that they normally are not. For example, the inner dependency insuch a construction fails to license a parasitic gap, i.e. behaves unlike B-extraction:(38) *This Volvo is the kind of car [ OP𝑖 that I know who 𝑗 to persuade [owners of
pg 𝑗 ] to talk to𝑗 about 𝑖 ]• Further evidence comes from weak island configurations. As noted in Marantz 1994
(as reported in Richards 1999), the inner dependency in a nested Ā-configuration islocked into such an island.
(39)

a. *[ Which congressman ]𝑖 did you wonder [ which lobbyist ] 𝑗 to inquire
whether to send
𝑗 to
𝑖.
b.

[ Which congressman ]𝑖 did you wonder whether to inquire [ whichlobbyist ] 𝑗 to send𝑗 to𝑖.

Weak island sensitivity is a signature of A-extraction, again suggesting that the innerdependency in these configurations cannot be B-extraction.
6 The question of overlapping A-extractions is somewhat difficult to test, as the easiest way to set up suchoverlapping dependencies — embedded questions — are (perhaps independently) ruled out by the weakisland sensitivity of A-extraction.

15

• None of this follows from the theory we’ve described here (unfortunately).
• One possibility for explaining the lack of overlapping B-extractions:– Different sorts of Ā-movement are triggered by different sorts of features, including an A-extraction feature and a B-extraction feature.
– Nested B-extraction is out for relativized minimality/shortest/. . . reasons, since
they’re triggered by the same sort of feature.
– Nesting A-extraction within B-extraction is allowed because movement is triggered by different features.
– Nesting B-extraction within A-extraction is (potentially) out once a theory of
the island sensitivity of A-extraction is developed.
• Perhaps more mysteriously, there are interactions between regular A-movement —of the type that an internal argument undergoes in the passive — and B-extraction.
• Legate (1998) notes that A-movement and B-extraction out of a ditransitive verb
phrase aren’t possible at the same time (B-extraction being forced by making theextracted element the licensor of a parasitic gap). As shown below, WCO in theameliorative context seems to behave the same way: WCO emerges in just these
configurations, WCO being a hallmark of A-extraction.
(40)

a. Which painting𝑖 did John say that its𝑖 new owner bought on Tuesday?
b. *Which painting𝑖 did John say that its𝑖 new owner was sold on Tuesday?

• This seems less amenable to a featural analysis as suggested above.
– Possibility: What fails is the moved elements correctly associating with/binding
their own traces.
– Takahashi and Hulsey (2009) develop a theory of A-movement for which Atraces look a lot like the traces of B-extraction as described here.
– Idea: Either A-movement or B-extraction “tries” to bind both traces unselectively, as they are representationally equivalent up to indexing, leading to an
uninterpretable structure.

16