contrastivity in island repair: an argument for parallelism james griffiths (university of...

Contrastivity in island repair: an argument for parallelism

James Griffiths (University of Groningen)

Anikó Lipták (Leiden University)

1

Synopsis

2

In this talk, we are going to show that:

(i) Sluicing and fragments show identical behaviour with respect to island obviation (contra Merchant 2004).

(ii) Whether any instance of clausal ellipsis shows island obviation depends on its relation with its correlate:

● contrastive remnants in clausal ellipsis cannot repair islands

● non-contrastive remnants in clausal ellipsis can repair islands

(iii) Behaviour in island repair in both cases is due to obligatory parallelism between remnant and correlate (Fox and Lasnik 2003).

Types of clausal ellipsis

Interrogative fragment (usually referred to as sluicing)

(1) A: Someone hit John last night.B: Who?B’: Who <hit John last night>?

3

Declarative fragment (usually referred to as fragments)

(2) A: MARY hit John last night.B: No, BILL.B’: No, BILL <hit John last night>.

Fragments & island obviation

Interrogative fragments obviate strong islands (Merchant 2001)

(3) A: They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language.

B: Which Balkan language?

B': * Which Balkan language do they want to hire someone who speaks?

4

Declarative fragments obey strong islands (Merchant 2004)

(4) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that BEN speaks? B: * No, CHARLIE. B’: No, Abby speaks the same Balkan language that CHARLIE speaks.

PF-deletion approach to fragments

Both interrogative and declarative fragments are derived by movement of the remnant and PF-deletion (Merchant 2001, 2004)

5

(5) A: Someone hit John last night.

B: Really? Who1 t1 hit John last night? Step 1: movement of who

B: Really? Who1 t1 hit John last night? Step 2: PF-deletion of TP

(6) A: MARY hit John last night.B: No, BILL t1 hit John last night.B: No, BILL t1 hit John last night.

5

PF-deletion theory of islands (1)

Merchant (2004), building on Lasnik (2001):

i. All copies of island-violating wh-movement are *-marked, except the topmost copy

ii. *-marked copies are uninterpretable to the PF component = they prevent convergence

iii. However, if all *-marked copies are contained within an ellipsis site (which is deleted at PF), convergence can still occur

Required assumption: the remnant moves successive-cyclically by adjunction to every functional projection

6


(7) A: They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language.

B': * Which Balkan language do t1* they t1* want to t1* hire t1* someone t1* who t1*

speaks t1*?

B': Which Balkan language do t1* they t1* want to t1* hire t1* someone t1* who t1* speaks t1*?

7

Declarative fragment

A: They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language.B: Which Balkan language do they t1*

want to hire someone t1* who t1*

speaks t1*?

A: Abby speaks the same Balkan language that BEN speaks.

B': * (No,) CHARLIE t1* Abby t1*

speaks t1* the same Balkan language t1* that t1*

speaks.

someone t1* who speaks t1*

8

language t1* that t1* speaks.

Interrogative fragment


Problems with the PF-deletion theory of islands (1)

Empirical problem I

9

Not all interrogative fragments are island-insensitive

Sprouting (Chung, Ladusaw & McCloskey 1995)

(8) A: Sandy is trying to work out which student would speak. B: * To whom1 is Sandy trying to work out which student would speak t1?

‘Contrast’ sluicing (Merchant 2008)

(9) A: Abby wants to hire someone who speaks Greek. B: * What OTHER languages does Abby want to hire someone who speaks t1?

Empirical problem II

Not all declarative fragments are island sensitive (cf. also Valmala 2007)

(10) A: Does Abby speak the same Balkan language that someone in your syntax class speaks?

B: Yeah, Charlie1 Abby speaks the same Balkan language that t1 speaks.

(11) A: I imagine John wants a detailed list.

B: I’m afraid he does. Very detailed1 John wants a t1 list.

10


11

Empirical problem IIILanguages where interrogative and declarative fragments are structurally identical (e.g. Hungarian) show the same pattern of island obviation as English.

Hungarian wh- and focus-fronting both target the same structural position, FocP (Horváth 1986, É. Kiss 1987, Brody 1995)

(12) a. Tegnap [FocP kit [TP hívott megMari ]]?

yesterday who.A invited PVMari

‘Who did Mari invite yesterday?’

b. Tegnap [FocP PÉTERT [TP hívta meg Mari ]].yesterday Péter.A invited PV

Mari‘Mari invited PÉTER yesterday.’


The same position, FocP, is targeted by the remnants in clausal ellipsis:

(13) A: Mari meghívott valakit.Mari PV.invited someone.A‘Mary invited somebody.’

B: [FocP Kit [TP hívott meg Mari ]]?interrogative fragment

who.A invited PV Mari‘Who?’

(14) A: Kit hívott meg Mari?who.A invited PV Mari

B: [FocP PÉTERT [TP hívta meg Mari]].declarative fragment

Péter.A invited PVMari

‘Mari invited PÉTER yesterday.’


12

13

FocP is one functional projection higher than TP. Consequently, no *-marked traces should escape PF-deletion, either in the case of interrogative fragments or declarative ones.


Thus, the PF-island approach predicts that all Hungarian fragments shouldobviate islands.

14

However, just like in English, island-obviation is permitted in interrogative fragments and prohibited in declarative fragments.

(15) Keresnek valakit aki beszél egy bizonyos szláv nyelvet, search.PL somebody.A REL speaks a certain Slavic language.A

de nem tudom, melyiket.but not know which.A‘They are looking for someone who speaks a certain Slavic language

but I don't know which one.’

(16) A: OLYAN KUTATÓT keresnek, aki az OROSZT beszéli? such researcher.A search.PL REL the Russian.Aspeaks

‘Are they looking for a researcher who speaks RUSSIAN?’B: *Nem, a KÍNAIT.

no the Chinese.A‘No, Chinese.’


15

Types of fragments (1)

Contrastive vs. non-contrastive remnants:

contrast = relation with respect to the correlate in the antecedent

● Contrastive fragments(17) A: Did John eat A PIZZA for dinner?

B: No, a SALAD.(salad ↔ pizza)

(18) A: John ate A PIZZA for dinner.

B: No, a SALAD. (salad ↔ pizza)

● Non-contrastive fragments

(19) A: What did John eat for dinner?

B: A salad. (salad what)

(20) A: John ate something for dinner.

B: Indeed, a salad.(salad something)

Important notes:

● contrastivity of a remnant ≠ contrastive focus on the remnant

(21) A: What did John eat for dinner? (non-contrastive fragment) B: A SALAD, and not a steak.

● contrastive remnants always have the information structural role of contrastive focus

(22) A: John eat a PIZZA for dinner. (contrastive fragment)B: No, A SALAD.


16

Fragment contrastive non-contrastive

IS role of fragment

contrastive focus information focus or contrastive focus

some illustrativeexamples

● corrections A: The PIZZA was cold.

B: No, the STEAK.● answers to yes/no questionsA: Was the PIZZA cold?

B: No, the STEAK.● contrast sluicesI know how many PIZZAS John ate, but I don’t know how many SALADS.

● elaborative fragmentsA: You have eaten something.B: Yeah, a pizza.

● answers to wh-questionsA: What did you eat?B: A pizza.

● tag-questionsWhat did you eat, a pizza?


17

English non-contrastive remnants show island obviation

(23) A: I heard that a biography of one of the Marx brothers is going to be published this year.

B: Yeah, of Groucho. / B': Excellent. Of which / whom?

(24) A: I imagine John wants a detailed list.

B: I'm afraid he does. Very detailed. / B': How detailed?

(25) A: I heard that Irv and a certain someone from your syntax class were dancing together last night.

B: Yeah, Bill. / B': Really? Who?

(26) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks a Balkan language fluently.

B: Yeah, Serbo-Croatian. / B': Really? Which?

(27) A: I hear that Abby is likely to get mad if Ben speaks to one of the guys from your syntax class.

B: Yeah, John. / B': Really? Who?

The correct generalization on island obviation (1)

18

English contrastive remnants show no island obviation (Merchant 2004)

(28) A: I heard that a biography of the youngest Marx brothers is going to be published this year.

B: * No, of the OLDEST.

(29) A: I imagine John wants a short list.

B: * No, LONG.

(30) A: I heard that Irv and John were dancing together last night.

B: * No, BILL.

(31) A: I heard they hired someone who speaks Bulgarian fluently.

B: * No, SERBO-CROATIAN.

(32) A: I hear that Abby is likely to get mad if Ben speaks to Mary.

B: * No, BILL.

(33) A: Abby wants to hire someone who speaks Greek. B: * What OTHER languages?


19

Chinese

(34) A: ni renshi [yi-ge jiang shenme wen de ren]?

you know one-cl speak what language de person

lit. ‘You know someone who speaks what language?’

B: E-wen.

Russian

‘Russian’

(35) A: ta renshi [yi-ge jiang e-wen de ren]

he know one-cl speak Russian de person

‘He knows someone who speaks Russian.’

B: * bushi, ri-wen

not.be Japanese

‘No, Japanese.’


20

Turkish

(36) A: Hasan [kim-i göreceğiz diye ] bir ekmek daha almış?Hasan who-A will.see for one bread more boughtlit. ‘Hasan bought another loaf of bread because he will see

who?’

B: Mehmed-i.

Mehmed-A

‘Mehmed.’

(37) A: Hasan [Mehmed-i göreceğiz diye ] mi bir ekmek daha almış?Hasan Mehmed-A will.see for Q one bread

more bought lit. ‘Hasan bought another loaf of bread because he’ll see Mehmed?’

B: ?* Hayır, Ali-yi.

no Ali-A

‘No, Ali.’


21

→ empirically correct generalization on island obviation:

(38) Contrastive fragments cannot obviate islands.

Non-contrastive fragments can.


22

Hint: behaviour of non-contrastive remnants in wh-in-situ languages (Chinese, Turkish)

(39) A: ni renshi [yi-ge jiang shenme wen de ren]? you know one-cl speak what language de person

lit. ‘You know someone who speaks what language?’ B: E-wen.

Russian ‘Russian’

(40) A: [CP whi … [island node … ti … ]]?LF of question B: [CP fragmenti … [island node … ti … ]]LF/PF of answer

→ Scopal parallelism (Fox 2000, Fox and Lasnik 2003)Variable in the antecedent and the elided clause are bound from

parallel position.

Parallelism in fragments

23

Scopal parallelism at work in English

interrogative fragments (see also Merchant 2001)(40) A: Mary kissed someone last night.

B: Who1 <Mary kissed t1 last night>?

LF: A: [someone1 λx ([TP Mary kissed x1 last night])

B: [who1 λx ([TP Mary kissed x1 last night])

declarative fragments(41) A: Mary kissed someone last night.

B: Yeah, Bill1 <Mary kissed t1 last night>.

LF: A: [someone1 λx ([TP Mary kissed x1 last night])B: [Bill1 λx ([TP Mary kissed x1 last night])

Parallelism in non-contrastive fragments

24

Observation 1: A well-formedness condition on contrastive fragments

(42) A: John was tired and hungry. He had a pizza in his favourite restaurant on his way home.

B: * No, a SALAD.

(43) A: Of all the people who were hungry, JOHN had a pizza in his favourite restaurant on his way home.

B: *No, a SALAD.

(44) A: Of all the things he likes, John had a PIZZA in his favourite restaurant on his way home.

B: No, a SALAD.

→ Felicity condition on contrastive fragmentsContrastive fragments are only felicitous if their correlate is contrastively focused.

Parallelism in contrastive fragments (1)

25

Observation 2:

Contrastive focus is island-sensitive (Drübig 1994, Rooth 1997, Krifka 2006)

(45) John was only happy [when JILL arrived].‘there is a set of times when someone arrived (when α arrived,

when β arrived, etc.), and John was happy when one of these arrived'.

LF: John (only) [[Jill arrived]1 λx ([vP was happy at (time point) x1])]. * John (only) [Jill1 λx ([vP was happy at (time point) x1

arrived])].


26

The island sensitivity of contrastive focus can be evidenced in Hungarian: when an island contains contrastive focus, the entire island must be pied-pipedto the preverbal FocP:

(46) János was (only) happy when JULI arrived.

overt focus movement of JULI: bad result* JULI1 örült János [isl amikor t1 megjött].

Juli was.happy János when arrived

island in-situ (the English pattern): bad result* Örült János [isl amikor JULI jött meg].

was.happy János when Juli arrived PV

island pied-piped to focus position: fine result


27

örült János

was.happy János

[isl amikor JULI jött meg ]when Juli arrived PV

Taking stock so far: we have established two things

(1) Felicity condition on contrastive fragmentsContrastive fragments are only felicitous if their correlate is contrastively focused.

(2) Contrastive focus is island sensitive.When contrastive focus finds itself in an island, the entire island is interpreted contrastively.

→ If a contrastive fragment has a correlate inside an island, the whole island is interpreted contrastively.


28

(47) A: [isl Amikor JULI jött meg]1 örült János t1 ?

when Juli arrived PVwas.happy János‘Was János happy when JULI arrived?’

Long answerB: Nem, [isl amikor BEA jött meg]1 [TP örült

János t1 ].no when Bea arrived PV

was.happy János‘No, when BEA arrived.’

Short answerB’: * Nem, BEA. no Bea

‘No, Bea.’


29

Long answer

(47) A: [isl Amikor JULI jött meg]1 örült János t1? when Juli arrived PV happy.was János

‘Was János happy when JULI arrived?’

B: Nem, [isl amikor BEA jött meg]1 [TP örült János t1 ].no when Bea arrived PV

was.happy János‘No, when BEA arrived.’

→ Overt movement of the island in A’s question is parallel to the overt movement of the island in B’s answer.


30

Short answer

(47) A: [isl Amikor JULI jött meg] örült János t1 ? when Juli arrived PV happy.was János

‘Was János happy when JULI arrived?’

B’: * Nem, BEA1 [isl örült János amikor t1 megjött ]

no Bea was.happy János when arrived

‘No, BEA.’

→ Overt movement of the island in A’s question is not parallel to the island obviating short answer in B’s answer.

These data show that obligatory parallelism with the correlate requires overt movement of the island in the answer.


31

→ Contrastive remnants also observe scopal parallelism.The variable in the antecedent and the elided clause are bound from parallel position.

(i) Overt focus-movement languages (Hungarian): parallelism holds at PF/LF.(ii) Covert focus-movement languages (English): parallelism holds at LF.

English: Long answer pattern(48) A: Was John happy when JILL arrived?

B: No, when BEATA arrived.

A: [[when JILL arrived]1 λx ([vP John was happy at (time point) x1])]? B: [[when BEATA arrived]1 λx ([vP John was happy at (time point) x1])]?

→ in this scenario, LF parallelism is satisfied


32

Short answer pattern(49) A: Was John happy when JILL arrived?

B: * No, BEATA.

A: [[when JILL arrived]1λx ([vP John was happy at (time point) x1])]? B: [[BEATA]1 λx ([vP John was happy at (time point) x1 arrived ])].

→ in this scenario, LF parallelism not satisfied


33

ConclusionIsland sensitivity in contrastive fragments is solely determined by scopal parallelism.

Short answers: Parallelism violated → island repair does not obtain(50) A: [[island node … correlate]1 [ …t1 … ]] (LF)

B: * [ fragment1 … [island node …t1…]]

Long answers: Parallelism satisfied(51) A: [[island node … correlate]1 [… t1 …]] (LF)

B: [[island node … fragment]1 [ … t1 …]]


34

35

Consequences for the PF-theory of islands

The concept of PF-interpretable traces is no longer required to explain strong island-sensitivity in fragments

A simpler description of strong islands:

Chomsky (1973): Subjacency

(53) * [ XP1 [BN … YP … [BN … t1 …]].

NB:• (53) is a PF constraint: it can be obviated if the BNs are rendered

unpronounced.• LF constraints (such as parallelism) must also be obeyed to obviate strong

islands.

36

Summary of findings

Clausal ellipsis (TP-deletion) can leave behind two types of remnants: contrastive and non-contrastive ones.

Both types obey the parallelism requirement on ellipsis.

Contrastive remnants can never give rise to island obviation because: - their correlate is contrastively focused

- when the correlate finds itself in an island, the island is contrastively focused as well

- parallelism with the correlate forces that the entire island is spelled out in the remnant, obligatorily giving rise to long answers/remnants

37

Results

(i) Due to parallelism, contrastive remnants do not obviate islands.

→ We do not need a syntactic theory to account for lack of island obviation with contrastive remnants. The syntactic theory of island obviation can be hugely simplified.

(ii) Sluicing and fragment (answers) are the same phenomena: TP ellipsis.

→ We move away from a construction-specific study of ellipsis.

(iii) Contrastivity plays a role in determining properties of ellipsis. (see also results of Winkler 2005)

38

Bródy, M. 1995. Focus and Checking Theory. In I. Kenesei (ed), Approaches to Hungarian 5, Szeged: JATE Press, 29-44.

Chung. S, W. A. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239-282.

Drübig, H.B. 1994. Islands Constraints and the Nature of Focus and Association with Focus, Technical Report, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschunsbereichs, 340, IMS Stuttgart.

É. Kiss, K. 1987. Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Fox, D. and H. Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing

and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143-154Horvath, J. 1986. Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Structure of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Krifka, M. 1996. Frameworks for the representation of focus. In G.-Jan M. Kruijff, R. T. Oehrle, and G. Morrill (eds), ESSLLI 96: Formal grammar. Universitat des Saarlandes, Department of Computational

Linguistics and Phonetics.Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Kim, M. and Strauss, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 301-320. Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 1. Oxford: OUP. Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. Merchant, J. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In K. Johnson (ed.), Topics in ellipsis. Cambridge:

CUP.Rooth, M. 1997. Focus. In S. Lappin (ed) Handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford, Blackwell 271– 297. Ross, J.R. 1969. Guess who? Chicago Linguistics Society 5. Chicago, Illinois. 252-286.Valmala, V. 2007. The syntax of little things. Paper presented at the 17th Colloquium on Generative Grammar.

Girona, June 2007.Winkler, S. 2005. Ellipsis and focus. Mouton de Gruyter.

References

39

Appendix: fronting in clefts and copula clauses (1)

A problem: the reparative effect of ellipsis on LF violations?

(54) A: Who does every syntactician admire? B: Nobody. B’: * Nobody1 does every syntactician admires t1. (Valmala 2007)

(55) * Every syntactician admires nobody. (Valmala 2007)

Solution: (54B) derived from a copula clause.

(56) Nobody1 there is t1 that every syntactician admires.

(57) There is nobody that every syntactician admires. (i.e. there is not anybody that every syntactician admires)

40

Appendix: fronting in clefts and copula clauses (2)

(56) A: Which lawyeri did even hisi clients hate? B: Bob Andersoni. B’: * Bob Andersoni even hisi clients hated t1. (WCO) B’’: # Even hisi clients hated Bob Andersoni. (Valmala 2007:11)

Solution: (56B) is derived from a copula clause.

(57)Bob Anderson1 it’s t1 that even hisi clients hate.

(58) It’s Bob Andersoni that even hisi clients hate.

contrastivity in island repair: an argument for parallelism james griffiths (university of...

Documents

hire t

balkan language t

abby t

bill t

charlie t

pfdeletion merchant

hit john

declarative fragments