Association with traces &the copy theory of movement1
mitcho (Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE), MIT, NJUDIP!NJUFEV
Sinn und Bedeutung 18, 13 September 2013

1

3

DataTancredi (1990): PLA in overt movement(3)

Introduction

a. John only/even introduced [Mary]F to Sue.
b. John only/even introduced Mary to [Sue]F .

(4).

Principle of Lexical Association (PLA; Tancredi 1990):
An operator like only must be associated with a lexical constituent in its ccommand domain.

(5)

where lexical constituent contrasts with traces: focus ops. cannot associate with traces.

Today

I will show that the true picture is more complicated. Many PLA-violating conﬁgurations are indeed ungrammatical, but some are not.

(6)of DPs. I follow the Alternative Semantics framework of Rooth (1985, 1992).
1

I thank Danny Fox, Martin Hackl, Irene Heim, Chris Kennedy, Hadas Kotek, David Pesetsky, Chris Tancredi, Maziar
Toosarvandani, and audiences at the GLOW 35 workshop on Association with Focus, MIT Ling 50, and MIT LF ReadingGroup for helpful discussion and criticism. Errors are mine.

1every boy > someone:[every boy in. the room] [ someone wants to [ PRO meet t. ] ].
Someone wants to only meet [every [boy]F in the room].
a. ! someone > every boy:someone wants to only [ [every [boy]F. in the room] [ PRO meet t. ] ]b. * every boy > someone:[every [boy]F. in the room] [ someone wants to only [ PRO meet t. ] ]×.

Baseline: John wants to read [every book that Mary did ].
a. ! “read”:
John wants to [[every book that. Mary did ] [antecedent read t.] ]b.

• propose a solution using the copy theory of movement and associated workon the interpretation of movement chains;

NB: Here I limit discussion to English VP-only and VP-even, and to the movement!

The PLA effect on QR can also be seen in Antecedent-Contained Deletion (ACD).
Following Sag (1976); May (1985, a.o.), ACD resolution requires QR in order to createan antecedent which does not contain the gap.

• I will present new data to show that what matters is (a) the material that isF-marked and (b) the semantics of the focus operator involved;• present supporting evidence from well-known and novel contrasts between
only and even.

Baseline: Someone wants to meet [every boy in the room].
a. ! someone > every boy:someone wants to [ [every boy in. the room] [ PRO meet t. ] ]b.

Q: What if the associate moves out of the scope of the associating operator?

2b.

Intended: ‘I only saw [John]F .’* [Who]F do you only like ?

Aoun and Li (1993): PLA affects covert movement (quantiﬁer scope)

Focus operators require an associate (F-marked constituent) in their scope.

(2)* [John]F , I only saw

Intended: ‘You only like [who]F ?’Today I will discuss Association with Focus:
(1)

a.

(7)

!

“want to read”:
John [ [every book that. Mary did] [antecedent wants to read t.] ].
John wants to only read [every [book]F that Mary did ].
a. ! “read”:
John wants to only [[every [book]F that
. Mary did ] [ant read t.] ]b. * “want to read”:
John [ [every [book]F that
. Mary did ] [ant wants to only read t.] ]×.
2

The PLA’s effect on covert movement can also be observed in readings of multiple
wh-questions. Pair-list readings of multiple wh-questions require covert movementof the in-situ wh-word to C (Dayal, 1996, 2002, a.o.).
(8)

Baseline: I can tell you [which student read which book].
!
single pair, ! pair list

(9)

I can tell you [which student only read [which book]F ].2!
single pair, *pair list

[John]F , they even consider(11)

Someone wants to even meet [every [boy]F in the room].

(12)(Kayne, 1998, fn. 75)

someone > every boy, ! every boy > someone

John wants to even read [every [dissertation]F that Mary did!
“want to read,” ! “read”].

What exactly is even contributing in such cases?
(13)

Which président did you even meet ?
a. ! Which [president]F did you even meet ?
! it is unlikely for you to meet presidents.
b. * [Which president]F did you even meet ?
! it is unlikely for you to meet the person that you met.

In fact, simplex wh-words do not allow this PLA-violating association:(14)* [Who]F did you even meet?

Summary☞ Some PLA-violating associations are grammatical. What matters is (a) the material that is F-marked and (b) the focus operator involved:(15)

There are various syntactic reasons why we believe movement to leave copies instead of traces. The Binding Condition facts below can be adequately explained if
lower copies are left instead of simple traces.

(17)

(10)

!

Background: the copy theory of movement(16)☞ However, the facts are different with even.
intelligent.

4

Condition A:!
[Which picture of herselfi ] does Suei like

Condition C: (ex Fox 2002)?? Guess [which friend of John’si ] hei visited t.

The lower copy must be tweaked in order to interpret the movement chain.

☞ The lower copy is converted into a deﬁnite description, with the restriction thatit be equal to the variable in question, through a process of Trace Conversion(TC) (Rullmann and Beck, 1998; Fox, 2002):(18)

Trace Conversion of the lower copy:“John read every book.”
QR: [every book] λxi John read [every book]i
TC: [every book] λx John read [the book x]

Formally, Trace Conversion can be decomposed into two distinct operations:(19)

Decomposing Trace Conversion:a. Input:→b. Variable Insertion:
DPDPDNPDeverybook

every

→

λy.y = x∧y bookc. Determiner Replacement:DPD

λy.y = x∧y booktheNP

λy.y = x

NPbookbook

Acceptability of PLA-violating associations:
What is F-marked:
only even!
Names (John)*!
Inside a DP (president, boy)*
A whole DP (which president, who)**2
Note that this is a superiority-obeying multiple wh-question, so it is not an intervention effect of the sort in Pesetsky(2000); Beck (2006).

3?

4

λy.y = x

5Proposal: F-marking within a copy theory of movementc. Computing !vP"f :⎧⎪PREJACENT:⎪⎪⎪⎪⎨ ∀x.x boy → y meet the boy xF-marking itself is simply a syntactic feature on constituents (Jackendoff, 1972),
and thus when a constituent containing F-marking moves, the F-marking is retained on both copies. The generation of focus alternatives occurs in both positions, but focus operators simply consider the alternatives in their scope.

5.1∀x.x girl → y meet the boy x⎪⎪⎪∀x.x boy → y meet the girl x⎪⎪⎩∀x.x girl → y meet the girl x

F-marking in the restriction{λPet .∀z.z boy → P (z),λPet .∀z.z girl → P (z)} λx

Consider the two (potential) readings for (5):
(5)

{∀}

Someone wants to only meet [every [boy]F in the room].

boyF{boy, girl}Case I (DP containing associate moves within the operator’s scope:
(20)

⎪⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭

{y meet the boy x,y meet the girl x}
PROya. Quantiﬁer Raising:

⎫⎪⎪⎪⎪
⎪
⎬

meet{the boy x,the girl x}{the}someonei
wants
onlyvP{λz.z = x}boyF{boy, girl}

DPj
DNPFeveryboy

The alternatives “∀x.x girl → y meet the boy x” and “∀x.x boy → y meet the girlx” always involve a contradictory presupposition.

λxj
PROimeetDPj
DNPF

everyboyb. Trace Conversion:∃y☞ Alternatives which trigger presupposition failure are not considered.
((21)
(22)
(23)

wants
onlyvP∀ NPF λxboy{λz.z boy and z = x,λz.z girl and z = x}!vP"f =PREJACENT:∀x.x boy → y meet the boy x, ∀x.x girl → y meet the girl x!only vP" = ¬∀x.x girl → y meet the girl x!(20)" = ∃y.y wants (¬∀x.x girl → y meet the girl x)

Support for eliminating alternatives with unsatisﬁed presuppositions

Dthe5

NPF λz.z = xboy

"

(24)

Context: we are going to sell red, green, and blue shirts, so we are doing aphoto shoot. The red shirt is modeled by a boy, the green shirt is modeled byanother boy, and the blue shirt is modeled by a girl.

(25)

!

ymeet)

I only saw the boy with the [red]F shirt.

We expect (25) to mean “I did not see [the boy with the green shirt] and I did not see[the boy with the blue shirt],” but there is no “the boy with the blue shirt.” I claimthat the alternative proposition “I saw [the boy with the blue shirt]” is removed.
6

Case II (DP containing associate moves out of the scope of only):
(26)

(30)

a. Quantiﬁer Raising:Interpreting the rest of the assertion:∀y.y boy → (∃x.x wants (¬x meet the girl y))

DPj∀ NPFNPF λy j

Deveryboysomeoneiboy∃x.x wants¬x meet the girl y∃xwants
onlyλyvPwants ¬x meet the girl yonly vPPROi
meetb. Trace Conversion:∀ NPFboyλy∃xDPjDNPF

everyboywants
only

DisjointnessvP

An important assumption above is that the alternatives (boy and girl above) are disjoint. There is evidence that the alternatives used by only are always restricted to be
disjoint.

xmeetDtheNPF λz.z = yboy

There are now two F-marked boys in the structure, but only one is in the scope of only.
Compute !vP"f :(27)
(28)
(29)

f!boy" =f!vP" =((PREJACENT:

λx.x boy, λx.x girl

PREJACENT:x meet the boy y), x meet the girl y

For every choice of y ∈ !boy" , the computation of “the girl y ” projects the presupposition that y ∈ !girl" . Assuming !boy" and !girl" are disjoint, this leads to presupposition failure regardless of the particular choice of y , making the “every boy >someone” reading of (5) unavailable.

)

(31)

A strange conversation
A:
John is so dreamy. I wonder what kind of people he dates. Does hedate men? Women? Syntacticians? Semanticists?
B:He only dates syntacticiansF .
C: # No, you’re wrong! He also dates men!

(31B) must only assert that “John does not date semanticistsF ,” since “semanticists”
is the only category disjoint from the prejacent’s “syntactician.” It does not further
assert that “John does not date men and John does not date women.”!only vP" = ¬x meets the girl y78Case III: (DP containing associate moves out of the scope of even):

5.2

The explanation for PLA effects proposed here depends on the semantics of only. In
particular, even does not affect the truth-conditions of its assertion at all and instead
introduces the following non-assertive inference (Horn, 1969):

Recall that moving an entire associate DP out of the scope of a focus operator isalways ungrammatical, for both only and even.

(32)

(37)

Scalar inference of [even α]:∀ϕ ∈ !α"f [ϕ ̸= !α" → ϕ >likely !α"]☞ Under a copy theory of movement, even can associate with the F-marked predicate of the lower copy in its scope.
(13a)
(33)

(34)

(35)

* [Which president]F did you even/only meet

(38)

Determiner Replacement destroys F-marking on the entire DP:
a. Input:→b. Variable Insertion: →c. Determiner Replacement:
DPF
DPF
.
DP.

[Which [president]
F ] [you even met [which [president]F] ].
.
TC: [which [president]F ] λx even [α you met [the [president]F x] ] .
()!president"f =PREJACENT:

λx.x president, λx.x senator, λx.x governor⎧⎫⎪⎪
PREJACENT:⎪⎪⎪⎨ you met the president x , ⎪⎬f!α" =⎪ you met the senator x,
⎪⎪⎪⎪
⎪⎩
⎭
you met the governor x

Scalar inference of (33):∃x . you met the senator x >likely ∃x . you met the president x ∧∃x . you met the governor x >likely ∃x . you met the president x(36) is satisﬁed in a context where it is relatively unlikely to meet a president. The
actual question posed by (33) is not affected by the addition of even.

☞ In this way, I predict no PLA effect for VP-even as long as the scalar inference
can be satisﬁed by associating with a lower copy.

?

☞ In the process of Determiner Replacement, the DP must get relabeled to matchthe new determiner. In this process, the F-marking is lost.

Which [president]F did you even meet ?
! it is unlikely for you to meet a president.

Even computes its scalar inference on the basis of these alternatives and the scalarinference will not compose with material above even. The free variables in the alternatives are existentially closed.
(36)

F-marking on the whole DPDNP

which

president

DwhichNP

λy.y = xpresident

D. theNP

λy.y = xpresident

Even for even, then, there is no F-marking retained in the lower copy and therefore
even does not have an associate in its scope.
Relating to an alternative approach
A previous attempt at providing a deeper explanation for PLA effects was to say
that, in general, traces cannot have any F-marking. Beaver and Clark (2008) provide
a PF motivation for this:“By deﬁnition, extraction gaps cannot be prosodically prominent.”.
—Beaver and Clark (2008, p. 172)
Under simple Heim and Kratzer (1998) assumptions, traces and bound pronouns
have the same semantics of a variable. Bound pronouns, however, can phoneticallyrealize F-marking. The contrast between (37,39) thus seems to support this view:(39)!

Which president is such thati you only met [himi ]F ? (cf 37)

My proposal can explain this contrast without resorting to the phonological realization of F-marking. In (37), the lower copy of movement will get its F-marking
destroyed in the process of Determiner Replacement. In (39), the bound variable is
not a lower copy of movement and hence retains its F-marking.

☞ The view that gap positions cannot be even contain F-marking, because gaps
are not realized phonologically, would not allow for the grammatical, PLAviolating examples with even presented here.
910

5.3

7F-marking on a nameRecall that the movement of associate names patterns with associates in the restriction of DPs—not with whole DPs which are F-marked—in allowing for PLA-violating
associations with even:(10)[John]F , they even consider

intelligent.

(Kayne, 1998, fn. 75)

This is resolved by adopting the view that proper names as a deﬁnite description
with silent (in English) deﬁnite determiners (Geurts, 1997; Elbourne, 2002; Matushansky, 2006, a.o.). What is F-marked in (10), then, is the restrictor “John,” not the entire
DP “[∅the John]F .”6

One well-known difference between only and even is that VP-even can associate witha pre-verbal subject, but not VP-only (Jackendoff, 1972, p. 250; a.o.).
VP-even can associate with subject, but not VP-only
a. ! A [professor]F is even at the party.
b. * A [professor]F is only at the party.

☞ Assuming the subject was base-generated vP-internally, the explanation of thePLA here can explain this contrast.3(41)

Today I discussed the empirical landscape of Tancredi’s (1990) Principle of Lexical
Association and proposed a principled explanation for this pattern based on theindependently-motivated copy theory of movement. Speciﬁcally:• F is a syntactic feature which gets copied under movement.
• For F-marking in the restriction:– movement within the scope of the focus operator is possible, due to theelimination of alternatives with unsatisﬁable presuppositions;– movement across only becomes uninterpretable, because of conﬂicting
requirements introduced on variables being quantiﬁed over;

Subject focus with VP-even(40)

Conclusion

Support from raising vs control contrast:a. ! A [professor]F seems to even be at the party.
b. * A [professor]F wants to even be at the party.

– movement across even is interpretable, by associating with F-marking in
the lower copy and projecting its non-assertive inference.
• F-marking on entire DPs is eliminated in the process of Trace Conversion.
• F-marking on names patterns with F-marking on restrictions, explained bymodeling names as deﬁnite descriptions.
Neither Tancredi’s (1990) original formulation, nor the proposal that unpronounced
material cannot be F-marked (Beaver and Clark, 2008), predict the pattern observed.
This also offers a new explanation for the availability of subject focus with VP-even
but not VP-only.

Note, however, Irene Heim (p.c.) has pointed out a problem with this approach for
downward entailing quantiﬁers:(42)

Context: we held a party with free food, but not that many people came.

(43)

!

Few [graduate students]F even came to the party.

The felicitous use of even in (43) is licensed because it is surprising that few graduate
students would show up at a party with free food. If the scalar inference were insteadthat it is unlikely that graduate students would come to the party, the sentence would
be infelicitous, at least based on this author’s world knowledge.
I will leave this puzzle open.
3Kayne (1998, fn. 75) alludes to this approach: “...given a VP-internal trace of the subject, [an example of VP-even associating with a subject] might be an instance of VP-focus under reconstruction.” He does not, however, provide much support
for this approach nor an explanation for the contrast between only and even in this regard.

11

Handout with references: IUUQNJUDIPDPNBDBEFNJDIBOEPVUTVCQEG
12