Search

A bound pronoun in the subject position of a finite embedded clause renders the clause boundary relatively transparent to relations ordinarily confined to monoclausal, control, and raising configurations. For example, too/ enough-movement structures involving a finite clause boundary are degraded in sentences like * This book is too long [for John to claim [that Bill read ___ in a day]] but improved when the finite clause has a bound pronominal subject as in ? This book is too long [for John1 to claim [that he1 read ___ in a day]]. This bound pronoun effect holds across a wide range of phenomena including too/ enough-movement, tough-movement, gapping, comparative deletion, antecedent-contained deletion, quantifier scope interaction, multiple questions, pseudogapping, reciprocal binding, and multiple sluicing; we confirm the effect via a sentence acceptability experiment targeting some of these phenomena. Our account has two crucial ingredients: (a) bound pronouns optionally enter the derivation with unvalued ϕ-features and (b) phases are defined in part by convergence, so that under certain conditions, unvalued features void the phasal status of CP and extend the locality domain for syntactic operations.

In this paper, we propose an analysis of pseudogapping in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (Hybrid TLCG; Kubota 2010,Kubota and Levine 2012). Pseudogapping poses a particularly challenging problem for previous analyses in both the transformational and nontransformational literature. The flexible notion of constituency countenanced in categorial grammar in general (including Hybrid TLCG) enables a simple analysis of pseudogapping that overcomes the problems for previous approaches. In addition, we show that Hybrid TLCG offers a useful platform for comparing different types of CG (and analytic ideas embodied in them) within a single framework with a linguist-friendly notation. In the context of an analysis of pseudogapping, this enables us to compare the adequacies of two types of treatments of discontinuous pseudogapping. We believe that this type of cross-framework comparison of different analytic ideas is useful for the purpose of testing the predictions of different types of analyses that can respectively be formulated in only one or the other of the more conservative types of CG.

This squib argues against Merchant’s (2008) analysis of voice mismatches in VP-deletion and pseudogapping by pointing out that it makes a false prediction when extended to sentences in which more than one VP-deletion operation applies.

Elided VPs and their antecedent VPs can mismatch in voice, with passive VPs being elided under apparent identity with active antecedent VPs, and vice versa. Such voice mismatches are not allowed in any other kind of ellipsis, such as sluicing and other clausal ellipses. These latter facts appear to indicate that the identity relation in ellipsis is sensitive to syntactic form, not merely to semantic form. The VPellipsis facts fall into place if the head that determines voice is external to the phrase being elided, here argued to be vP; such an account can only be framed in approaches that allow syntactic features to be separated from the heads on which they are morphologically realized. Alternatives to this syntactic, articulated view of ellipsis and voice either undergenerate or overgenerate.

On the basis of an asymmetry between VP-deletion and pseudogapping, Merchant (2008a) concludes that ellipsis is conditioned by syntax. This article demonstrates that both pseudogapping and VP-deletion potentially allow voice mismatch. The unacceptable cases of voice mismatch in these constructions are attributed to a discourse factor (Kehler 2000, 2002). Nevertheless, since sluicing does not allow voice mismatch (Merchant 2001, 2007) even in the same context that allows voice mismatch in VP-ellipsis, Merchant's (2007, 2008a) conclusion is still valid. A syntactic condition on ellipsis is proposed, based on a semantic condition from Takahashi and Fox 2005. Kehler's discourse explanation is phrased in a revised format.

Pseudogapping is no misnomer. Despite their many tempting similarities, gapping and pseudogapping are distinct constructions. Pseudogapping is a special instance of VP-ellipsis, while gapping, I argue, is a special instance of across-the-board movement. Squeezing gapping into across-the-board movement has its own discomforts, however, which I suggest can be remedied by retailoring our syntax to include string-based output constraints. I sketch one such alteration that involves apparent Left Branch Condition violations.

L’A. propose une analyse des pseudogapping comme une sorte d'ellipse. Cette analyse tient compte d'une nouvelle observation concernant la distribution des quatificateurs dans ces constructions.

Boeckx and Stjepanovic (2001) claim to have evidence from the analysis of pseudogapping that head movement is best viewed as occurring, not in the overt syntax, but in the PF component. In this squib I will show that all the movements that are needed in the analysis of pseudogapping are phrasal, hence that the analysis of pseudogapping says nothing about the place of head movement in the grammar

Procrastinate (Chomsky 1993) favors covert movement; therefore, when movement is overt, it must have been forced to operate “early” by some special requirement, one that Chomsky codes into “strong features.” I compare Chomsky's three successive theories of strong features and argue that two ellipsis phenomena, pseudogapping and sluicing, provide evidence bearing on the nature of strong features. I argue that movement or ellipsis can rescue a derivation with a strong feature, and I conclude that PF crash is relevant either directly, as in Chomsky 1993, or indirectly, as in the theory presented in Chomsky 1995a augmented by the multiple-chain theory of pied-piping (especially as interpreted by Ochi (1998)).