Untangling Tanglewood using covert focus movement

Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE
Hadas KOTEKNational University of Singapore McGill University

Tanglewood (Kratzer 1991)

Proposal

TW readings with overt bound variables(1) Context: You accuse me of being a copy cat. “You went toBlock Island because I did. You went to Elk Lake Lodge
because I did. And you went to Tanglewood because I did.”✓TW I only went to [Tanglewood] because you did △.
FParaphrase: Tanglewood is the only place x such that I went
to x because you went to x.

Only triggers covert movement of its focus. In Tanglewood
readings, the focus then binds a bound variable in the ellipsis site.

(9)(2) LF: only([TW]F)(λx . I went to x because you did [go therex])

This covert focus movement can pied-pipe material(Drubig , 1994; Krifka, 2006; Wagner, 2006; Erlewine & Kotek, 2014).

Context: We’re interviewing witnesses in our murder
investigation. You’re concerned that the interviews you’regetting have been affected by the witnesses talking to me first.
My interviews:
BillJohn SteveSamYour interviews:
Steve SamJohnDave✓ TW I only talked to [John]F before you talked to him. (true)✓TW = intended reading available, where computed alternatives

covary in the position of pronounced focus and in the ellipsis site.

This is unpredicted by the standard Roothian theory:⟦ I went to [TW]F because you did [go to [TW]F] ⟧f=I went to BI b/c you went to BI, I went to ELL b/c you went to BI,
I went to TW b/c you went to BI, I went to BI b/c you went to ELL,
I went to ELL b/c you went to ELL, I went to TW b/c you went to ELL,
I went to BI b/c you went to TW, I went to ELL b/c you went to TW,
I went to TW b/c you went to TW

Kratzer’s solution: focus indices
Focused constituents bear focus indices, not simple F-marks.
Focused positions are interpreted as distinguished variables.
Alternatives then covary in positions with the same indices.
Ellipsis ensures equivalence of focus indices.
⟦ I went to [TW]F2 because you did [go to [TW]F2] ⟧f=I went to Block Island because you went to Block Island,
I went to Elk Lake Lodge because you went to Elk Lake Lodge,
I went to Tanglewood because you went to Tanglewood

Focus indices have also been adopted for overlapping focus
dependencies (Wold, 1996) and for the movement (copying) offocused material (Erlewine, 2014).

References Drubig 1994. “Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus
and association with focus” • Erlewine 2014. Movement out of focus. MITdissertation • Erlewine & Kotek 2014. “Intervention in focus pied-piping.”
NELS 43 • Kratzer 1991. “The representation of focus.” In Semantik • Krifka
2006. “Association with focus phrases.” In The architecture of focus • Wagner
2006. “Association by movement: evidence from NPI-licensing.” NLS 14 • Wold
1996. “Long-distance selective binding: the case of focus.” SALT 6.

New evidence from island sensitivity✓TW with balanced islands* TW with antecedent focus in an island

Kratzer briefly considers an analysis as in (2), but dismisses it as
focus association for TW readings is not island-sensitive:(5) Context: Our son speaks Spanish, French, and Mandarin. We
once hired a nanny that happened to speak French, but thatwasn’t why we hired her. Then we hired a nanny that spoke
Mandarin, but that too was a coincidence...
*TW We only hired [island a nanny that speaks [Spanish]F]
because our son does △. (Intended △ = “speak it(language)”)(3) Context: You always contact every responsible person before me.
✓TW I only contacted [island the person who chairs[the Zoning Board]F] before you did △.
(Kratzer 1991)
But here the island is balanced in the antecedent and intended
ellipsis site, allowing for appropriate pied-piping and binding:(4) LF: only([island the person who chairs [the Zoning Board]F])(λx . I contacted x before you did [contact themx (person)])The unavailability of the Tanglewood reading is explained by ouraccount. Covert focus movement can move the island but not
Spanish alone. But the bound variable in the ellipsis site must bebound by different languages, not different nannies.

If Kratzer’s focus index derivation as in (3) is available, we cannot explain theungrammaticality of (5). Therefore focus indices cannot be available in the grammar.
✓TW with elided focus in an island* TW with the antecedent and ellipsis in conjunctions(6) Context: I speak Spanish, French, and Mandarin. I also have
many friends that speak these languages, but for the mostpart that’s not why I studied these languages...
✓TW I only speak [Spanish] because I haveF[island a friend who does △]. (Intended △ = “speak it(language)”)

It is not accidental that the famous Tanglewood example (1) uses
adjunction. Conjunction blocks the Tanglewood interpretation:

Because variable binding is not island-sensitive, embedding theellipsis site into an island does not block the TW reading.
(7) LF: only([Spanish]F]) (λx . I speak x
because I have [island a friend that does [speak itx (language)]])(8) Context: I am under investigation by the Real Estate Board.
John and Mary claim that I advised them both to bid on
many of the same houses, to raise their prices. I reply:*TW I only advised John to bid on [the Elm St. house]F and(told) Mary to △ as well.
(Intended △ = “bid on it(house)”)Covert movement of the pronounced focus in (8) to only would
violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint.