Focus association into copies and the scope of even

SALT 26
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE, National University of Singapore, mitcho@mitcho.com
Explaining backwards association with even: Jackendoff (1972) famously observed that evencan associate “backwards” with a subject as in (1). I argue instead that even is generally able toassociate with material which has moved out of its scope, cf (2). (1) is therefore subsumed under
this more general description, given the vP-internal subject hypothesis.
(1)

A [professor]F will even come to the party.

(2)[John]F , they even consider

intelligent.

(based on Jackendoff, 1972)(Kayne, 1998, fn. 75)

When even associates with a constituent outside of its surface scope, it is actually associatingwith a lower copy of the focused constituent, within the scope of even.
The contrast in (3) provides support for this view that even requires its associate to originate within
its surface scope. The subject originates lower in raising (seem) but not in control (want):(3) A [professor] {Xseems / *wants} to even be at the party.
FSee Erlewine (2014, ch. 4) for additional arguments that backwards association requires a lower
copy in the scope of even, as well as arguments against a forced reconstruction approach.
Proposal: I adopt the Copy Theory of movement (Chomsky, 1993, a.o.), with F-marking subject
to copying. At LF (4b), the lower copy will be interpreted as a definite description bound variable
following Trace Conversion (Rullmann and Beck, 1998; Fox, 2002).
(4)

A [professor]F will even come to the party. (=1)
a. Narrow syntax: [A [professor]F ] FUTURE EVEN [ [a [professor]F ] come to the party ]b. LF: [A [professor]F ] λx FUTURE EVEN [ [THE [professor]F x] come to the party ]c. EVEN
GENERIC (x)((the professor x comes...) <likely (the student x comes...))
d.
⇒LAfor generic x, (x professor and comes) <likely (x student and comes)

Notice that the scope of even at LF contains a variable. The scalar presupposition of even projects
generically over individuals in the domain (4c)—see Erlewine (2014, ch. 3) for independent motivation with rich contexts. Local Accommodation (LA) is applied to the lower copy definite
descriptions to yield the desired inference (4d). This derives the correct inference of even in casesof backwards association, and correctly predicts a dependence on a lower copy of movement.
Background: even in DE contexts: The scalar inference of even is reversed in downwardentailing (DE) contexts. Broadly two approaches to this problem have been developed:(5)a. The Scope Theory: Even takes scope outside of the DE operator at LF (Karttunen andPeters, 1979; Wilkinson, 1996; Nakanishi, 2012, a.o.)b. Lexical ambiguity theory: There are PPI and NPI evens which introduce reverse scalarinferences (Rooth, 1985), and are different words in some languages.

Backwards association is not a result of the Scope Theory: The Scope Theory potentially offers
an explanation for backwards association, but it overgenerates. Under the Scope Theory, to produce
the correct scalar inference in (6), even must scope over no one, out of the control embedding.
Given this analysis of (6), the Scope Theory fails to explain the contrast in (7), based on (3)—theF-marked student should be able to be interpreted within the scope of even at LF in both cases.

(6)No one {seems / wants} to even read [Aspects]F .
Aspects is most likely to be read
Predicted Scope Theory LF: EVEN [no student {seems / wants} to read [Aspects]F ](7)

No [student]F {ok seems / *wants} to even be at the party.
(cf 3)
Predicted Scope Theory LF: EVEN [no [student]F {seems / wants} to be at the party]

Revisiting Nakanishi’s (2012) ACD data: Nakanishi (2012) presents an argument for the Scope
Theory from Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD). The ACD in baseline (8) has two possible
resolutions, each requiring QR of the box DP to different heights (Sag, 1976). Specifically, Fox(2002) argues that the relative clause must be late-merged high to derive the correct antecedent.
(8)

Bill [VP1 failed to [VP2 lift [DP the box that Mary did 4]]].
Bill failed to [[antecedent lift ] [the box [late that Mary did 4]] ]a. 4 = “lift”:
b. 4 = “fail to lift”: Bill PAST [[antecedent fail to lift

] [the box [late that Mary did 4]] ]One of Nakanishi’s crucial examples is (9); the supporting context is on the poster.
(9)

okBill has failed to even lift [the [box]F that Mary has 4].
the box is the most likely to be lifted (vs piano, desk)

4 = “failed to (even) lift”

Nakanishi claims that such examples necessitate the Scope Theory: the perfect auxiliary has enforces a corresponding antecedent (4 = “fail to lift”), necessitating movement of the DP (containing F-marking) above the higher VP fail to, as in (8b), but this leaves the F-marked box outside thescope of even. Under the Scope Theory, even takes wider scope to derive the correct inference andthis problem does not arise. However, my proposal allows for even to associate with a lower copyof box while simultaneously allowing the DP to QR out of the scope of even for ACD resolution.
Moreover, a simple modification to Nakanishi’s example shows that her Scope Theory approachovergenerates. Consider (11) and (12) in context (10):(10) Context: At the box-lifting competition, Sue first lifted the 25kg box and then failed to lift
the 30kg box. John lifted the 20kg box but failed to lift the 25kg box. Mary was disqualifiedimmediately, failing to lift the 15kg box. And now it’s Bill’s turn. He normally does quite
well, but somehow he did terribly. Today...
(11)* He has failed to even lift [the box that [Mary]F has 4]. Int.: 4 = “failed to (even) lift”

(12)

ok

He has even failed to lift [the box that [Mary]F has 4].
4 = “(even) failed to lift”
the box that Mary failed to lift (15kg) is the {most likely to be lifted, least likely forsomeone to fail to lift}, as compared to the boxes that others failed to lift (30kg + 25kg).

The Scope Theory predicts even in (11) to be interpreted above the DE fail to at LF, just as in (9)and (12). The contrast in (11–12) is then unexplained by Nakanishi’s Scope Theory approach.
This contrast is explained by my account. The intended ellipsis resolution in (11–12) requires thebox DP to move above fail to, with the relative clause “that Mary has 4” then late-merged high.
Therefore, in (11), but not in (12), there is never an instance of Mary inside even’s surface scope.
In contrast, in example (9) above, ACD was possible while maintaining focus association with box
because a copy of the focused box exists in the surface scope of even.
Selected references: Erlewine 2014. Movement out of focus. MIT dissertation • Fox 2002. “Antecedentcontained deletion and the copy theory of movement.” LI 33 • Jackendoff 1972. Semantic interpretation in
generative grammar • Nakanishi 2012. “The scope of even and quantifier raising.” NLS 20