Agreeing to remain silent The syntactic licensing of ellipsis

NELS 40 The 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society November 13-15, 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis  Two possible analyses for ellipsis:  The ellipsis site is a null proform (e.g Lobeck 1995, Depiante 2000)  Deletion of a fully specified syntactic structure (Merchant 2001, Johnson 1996, 2001) Lobke Aelbrecht GIST / Ghent Universiteit lobke.aelbrecht@ugent.be http://www.gist.ugent.be/members/lobkeaelbrecht  Test for deciding between these analyses = (im)possibility of extraction: Extraction out of the ellipsis site is allowed  deletion of syntactic structure  Extraction out of the ellipsis site is illicit  proform, no structure to host a trace OUTLINE OF THE TALK BACKGROUND: PROFORM VERSUS DELETION BACKGROUND: PROFORM VS DELETION THE BASIC DATA: AN EXTRACTION PUZZLE LICENSING ELLIPSIS VIA AGREE BACK TO THE EXTRACTION PUZZLE CONCLUSION APPENDIX: OTHER ELLIPTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS  English VP ellipsis (VPE) allows extraction: (1) I know which puppy YOU should take home, but I don’t know which one SHE should [take home twhich one]  VPE is analyzed as deletion of a fully-fledged verb phrase (cf Johnson 2001; Merchant 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008a, 2008b) Main claims:  Ellipsis is licensed via an Agree relation between an [E]-feature and the ellipsis licensing head  Ellipsis occurs in the course of the derivation, as soon as the licensor is merged At this point the ellipsis site becomes inaccessible for any further syntactic operations, and vocabulary insertion at PF is blocked  The licensing head and the ellipsis site not have to be in a head-complement relation The projections between the elided constituent and the licensing head play a crucial role in determining the extraction possibilities out of the ellipsis site 1/13  Null complement anaphora (NCA) not allow extraction: (2) a I asked Dany to make me a mojito, but he refused b.* I know Dany made a mojito, but I don’t remember which cocktail he refused [to make twhich cocktail]  NCA is analyzed as a null proform (Depiante 2000) (3) I asked Dany to make me a mojito, but he refused [e] Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis (7) A: Komt comes THE BASIC DATA: AN EXTRACTION PUZZLE (8) A: Is Thomas ook naar je is Thomas also to your Overview 2.1 Dutch modal complement ellipsis (MCE) 2.2 British English (BE do) 2.1 Thomas ook naar je lezing? – B: *Hij zal niet Thomas also to your talk he will not (9) A: Heeft Katrien gisteren has Katrien yesterday Dutch modal complement ellipsis (MCE) lezing gekomen? – B: * Hij is niet talk come.PART he is not gebeld? – B: * Ze heeft niet called she has not  Extraction test: puzzle  Dutch allows the infinitival complement of a modal to be missing (similar to VP ellipsis in English):  Objects cannot be extracted out of the ellipsis site: (10)a * (4) Ik wil je wel helpen, maar ik kan niet I want you PRT help but I can not ‘I want to help you, but I can’t.’ = modal complement ellipsis (MCE; Aelbrecht 2009, to appear)  MCE is only allowed with root modals: willen ‘want to’, mogen ‘be allowed to’, kunnen ‘can’, hoeven ‘need’, moeten ‘have to’ b (5) A: Komt Thomas ook naar je lezing? – B: Hij moet comes Thomas also to your talk he has.to ‘Is Thomas coming to your talk too?’ – ‘He has to.’ = root Ik weet I know wie ze who she niet wie Sarah moet uitnodigen, maar ik weet wel not who Sarah must invite but I know AFF niet mag [ uitnodigen twie] not is.allowed invite INTENDED: ‘I don’t know who Sarah has to invite, but I know who she isn’t allowed to.’ Ik weet niet wie Sarah moet uitnodigen, maar ik weet wel I know not who Sarah must invite but I know AFF wie ze niet mag uitnodigen who she not is.allowed invite INTENDED: ‘I don’t know who Sarah has to invite, but I know who she isn’t allowed to.’  PROFORM ANALYSIS? (6) A: Zou Klaas nu op zijn bureau zijn? would Klaas now on his office be B:*Hij moet wel Hij werkt altijd op zaterdag = epistemic he must PRT he works always on Saturday INTENDED READING: ‘It must be the case that he is in his office.’  Subjects can be extracted out of the ellipsis site: Prerequisite: modals are raising verbs (Barbiers 1995; Wurmbrand 2003) Evidence: modals can take weather expletive subjects  no temporal auxiliaries: zullen ‘shall/will’, zijn ‘be’, hebben ‘have’ (11)Het 2/13 moet regenen Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis it has.to rain ‘It has to rain.’  The subject of a modal is base-generated in the infinitival clause  MCE: The subject is extracted out of the ellipsis site: (12)a b c  Subjects can be extracted out of the ellipsis site: Ik wil je wel helpen, maar ik kan niet [tik helpen] (trans) I want you PRT help but I can not help ‘I want to help you, but I can’t.’ Mina kan komen, maar Tom kan niet [komen tTom] (unacc) Mina can come but Tom can not come ‘Mina can come, but Tom can’t.’ Die broek moet niet gewassen worden, maar hij mag that pants must not washed become but he is.allowed wel [gewassen worden thij] (pass) PRT washed become ‘Those pants don’t need to be washed, but they can be.’  DELETION ANALYSIS? Main claim: Both MCE and BE involve deletion of a fully-fledged syntactic structure The ban on object extraction is due to the fact that ellipsis happens during the derivation  DELETION ANALYSIS? 2.2 (15) a ? The river will freeze solid and the lake will [freeze solid tthe lake], too b ? George might seem to enjoy that, and James might [seem to tJames enjoy that], too LICENSING ELLIPSIS VIA AGREE  Core ingredients of the analysis: British English (BE do)  Baltin (2004, 2005, 2007): British English displays an elliptical phenomenon looking like regular VPE plus an extra (13)Mina will run the race and Bettina will do, too  Extraction test: puzzle  Objects cannot be extracted out of the ellipsis site: (14) * Although I don’t know who Ed will visit, I know who Tim will [visit twho]  PROFORM ANALYSIS? 3/13 (16) a b Ellipsis is licensed via an Agree relation between an [E]-feature and the ellipsis licensing head Ellipsis occurs in the course of the derivation, as soon as the licensing head is merged At this point the ellipsis site becomes inaccessible for any further syntactic operations, and vocabulary insertion at PF is blocked Overview 3.1 Licensing via Agree 3.1.1 Merchant (2001) 3.1.2 Material between the licensor and the ellipsis site 3.1.3 An Agree relation in ellipsis 3.2 Derivational ellipsis Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis 3.1 Licensing via Agree 3.1.1 Merchant (2001) b * Kim having shown up at the game and Alice not having was a surprise to everyone  The finite auxiliary and the VP ellipsis site are not always adjacent:  Sluicing = licensed by an ellipsis-feature [E] that occurs on the licensing head and triggers deletion at PF of its complement (21)I hadn’t been thinking about it, but I should have been [thinking about it]  Ellipsis cannot be licensed via a head-complement relation (17)a b c The syntax of ES: ES [uwh*, uQ*] The phonology of ES: φTP → Ø/ES_ The semantics of ES: [[ ES]] = λp : e-GIVEN (p) [p] Main claim: ellipsis is licensed via Agree  Example: 3.1.3 (18)a b Addie was reading something, but I don’t know what CP (Merchant 2004:670) what[wh] C[E [uwh,uQ]] [wh, Q]  Merchant’s [E]-feature: Both ellipsis site and licensor are identified at once because they are adjacent C’  Because this is impossible if they are not adjacent, I propose a more complex [E]-feature  I propose heads are feature bundles with the following feature structure: Addie was reading t (22)  licensor and ellipsis site in head-complement relation 3.1.2 An Agree relation in ellipsis CAT INFL SEL Material between the licensor and the ellipsis site  VP ellipsis: licensed by finite T (Sag 1976; Williams 1977; Zagona 1982, 1988a, 1988b; Martin 1992, 1996; Lobeck 1995), not by nonfinite auxiliaries (19)a b He said he wouldn’t buy me a coffee, but he did I’m going to take Italian classes and she should, too (20)a * I hadn’t been thinking about it, but I recall Diana having been […] (23)a b […] […]  specifies the category of the head  uninterpretable INFL-features have to be checked  specifies the selectional criteria of the head Ryan is smart TP DP Ryan CAT [N [Φ: 3sg]] INFL […] SEL [] 4/13 T’ T is vP smart Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis Two options:  [E] on a head X is checked, but its effect, i.e ellipsis of X’s complement, only takes place when the derivation is finished  Ellipsis occurs immediately, as soon as the licensor is merged and [E] is checked Main claim: Ellipsis takes effect as soon as the licensor enters the derivation  At that point the ellipsis site is frozen for further syntactic operations and lexical insertion at PF is blocked CAT [T [pres]] INFL [uΦ:_] SEL […]  The syntax of [E] (in general): (24) CAT [E/X] E INFL SEL (25) [uF] [X]  [uF]-feature, to be checked against the licensor  specifies the head on which [E] can occur  How it works: LP Step 1: Take a head X that bears an ellipsis feature [E] [E] has to be checked against a head L of category F L’ L [CAT [F]] (26) … XP X’ XP X … E [INFL[uF]] X’ X [E [INFL [uF]]] ellipsis site Step 2: When L is merged, it establishes an Agree relation with [E] …  The ellipsis site is frozen for any syntactic operations  L = licensor of category F [E] has an uninterpretable [F]-feature that has to be checked against L via Agree (27) LP L [CAT[F]]  ellipsis: licensed via Agree … XP 3.2 Derivational ellipsis X’  Checking theory (Chomsky 1999): features should be checked as soon as possible  [E] is checked as soon as the licensing head is introduced in the structure X E [INFL[uF]] 5/13  ellipsis ellipsis site Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis BACK TO THE EXTRACTION PUZZLE Step 3: The rest of the derivation (28) … Overview 4.1 Dutch modal complement ellipsis 4.1.1 The licensor and the ellipsis site 4.1.2 Explaining the extraction data 4.2 British English 4.2.1 The licensor and the ellipsis site 4.2.2 Explaining the extraction data LP L [CAT[F]] … XP X’ X E [INFL[uF]] ellipsis site  Prediction: Only what moves out of the ellipsis site prior to the merger of the licensor can escape ellipsis Consequence: The projections between the elided constituent and the licensing head play a crucial role in determining the extraction possibilities out of the ellipsis site (29) … LP 4.1.1 The licensor and the ellipsis site  Dutch modals and their infinitival complement (without ellipsis): (30)a b Lara moet werken Lara has.to work ‘Lara has to work.’ TP T’ T moet … YP Dutch modal complement ellipsis DP Lara escape hatches L [CAT[F]] 4.1 ModP Mod tmoet XP TP tLara X’ X E [INFL[uF]] vP tLara werken ellipsis site …ZP…YP… 6/13 T’ T Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis (33)A: B:  Licensor = root modal (Mod, see Aelbrecht 2009, to appear)  Ellipsis site: MCE elides the infinitive, the objects, aspectuals & passive auxiliaries (31)a A: Fien heeft haar kamer nog altijd niet opgeruimd! Fien has her room still always not cleaned ‘Fien still hasn’t cleaned up her room!’ B: Tegen vanavond moet ze wel [haar kamer opgeruimd hebben] by tonight must she PRT her room cleaned have ‘By tonight she’ll have to have cleaned it.’ b Die rok moet nog niet gewassen worden, maar hij mag that skirt must still not washed become but he is.allowed wel al [ gewassen worden] PRT already washed become ‘That skirt doesn’t have to be washed yet, but it can be.’  The associate cannot be in its vP-internal base-position  Claim: it sits in the embedded [Spec, TP]  MCE elides the complement of the embedded T head  An [E]-feature for Dutch MCE: (34) [E]MCE (35) ! Not the entire infinitival clause is elided! Wie gaat er naar het feestje morgen? who goes there to the party tomorrow ‘Who is going to the party tomorrow?’ Goh, er moet toch IEMAND [ naar het feestje gaan morgen] well there must PRT someone to the party go tomorrow ‘Well, SOMEONE has to at least.’ CAT INFL SEL ModP root modal [CAT[Mod[root]] Evidence:  A time adjunct modifying the infinitival clause is not deleted: [E/T] [uMod[root]] [T] TP T’ (32)Gisteren moest ik vandaag langskomen, en vandaag moet ik yesterday must.PAST I today pass.by and today must I morgen pas [langskomen tik] tomorrow only pass.by ‘Yesterday I had to drop by today, and today I only have to tomorrow.’  adverbial attached to TP (or to another projection lower than the modal) ellipsis site 4.1.2 T [E[INFL[uMod[root]]]] Explaining the extraction data  Recall:  Derivational ellipsis: Only what moves to a position between the ellipsis site and the licensor can escape ellipsis  MCE: Objects cannot be extracted out of the ellipsis site; subjects can  The associate of a there-expletive is not deleted: 7/13 Lobke Aelbrecht (36)a * b Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis Ik weet I know wie ze who she niet wie Sarah moet uitnodigen, maar ik weet wel not who Sarah must invite but I know AFF niet mag [ uitnodigen twie] not is.allowed invite INTENDED: ‘I don’t know who Sarah has to invite, but I know who she isn’t allowed to.’  [E] is checked against the modal  The complement of T is blocked for any further syntactic operations It is sent to PF, marked for ellipsis (i.e lexical insertion is prevented) Die broek moet niet gewassen worden, maar hij mag that pants must not washed become but he is.allowed wel [gewassen worden thij] PRT washed become ‘Those pants don’t need to be washed, but they can be.’ (38) ModP modal [CAT[Mod[root]] TP T’ SUBJ  Step 1: Take the TP complement of a modal with an [E]-feature on T (AspP)  The subject moves to [Spec, TP] (also derived subjects)  [E] needs to be checked against a root modal VoiceP  ellipsis TP (37) vP T’ SUBJ T [E[INFL[uMod[root]]]] tSUBJ (AspP) T [E[INFL[uMod[root]]]] VoiceP VP …OBJ…V…  Objects don’t have an escape hatch out of the ellipsis site; subjects vP tSUBJ VP …OBJ…V… 4.2 British English 4.2.1 The licensor and the ellipsis site  Baltin (2007), Haddican (2006): is the little v head  Step 2: Merger of the root modal (39)a 8/13 Kay has run the race and Ezra has done, too  not dummy Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis b Kay will feel better and Ezra will do, too c * Kay will feel better and Ezra will it, too  not main verb  An [E]-feature for BE do: (42) CAT INFL SEL EBE (40) [E/v[do]] [uv[do]]] [v[do]] TP (43) TP T’ SUBJ T’ SUBJ T VoiceP T Voice [act] AspP vP VoiceP tsubj v’ vP v VP tsubj v’  ellipsis v VP [CAT[v[do]]] V object(s) [E[INFL[uv[do]]]  Licensor = itself (see Aelbrecht 2009, to appear)  BE is allowed in the absense of T, as long as there is a v[do] (41) ? Kim having shown up at the game and Alice not having done was a surprise to everyone  Ellipsis site = VP  The fact that [E] occurs on the licensor correctly predicts that ellipsis is obligatory when little v occurs: (44)* Luis will run the race and Nana will run the race too  [E] sits on little v itself 4.2.2 9/13 Explaining the extraction data Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis  Baltin (2007): The clause-internal Phase Head (PH) is Voice, not little v  Objects cannot be extracted out of the ellipsis site; (derived) subjects can: (45) a * Although I don’t know who Ed will visit, I know who Tim will [visit twho] b ? The river will freeze solid and the lake will [freeze solid tthe lake], too  Object extraction: (46)* VoiceP Voice’ Voice PH vP Tim v’  ellipsis v VP [CAT[v[do]]] visit who [E[INFL[uv[do]]]] … andis base-generated TP , too  The subject outside the ellipsis site  The object does not have an escape hatch and is deleted the lake T’  (Derived) subject extraction: The derived subject moves to [Spec, vP] (see Baltin T VoiceP 2007; Aelbrecht 2009, to appear) will Voice’ (47) Voice vP tthe lake v’  ellipsis v VP [E] freeze tthe lake solid 10/13 Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis CONCLUSION Main claims:  Ellipsis is licensed via an Agree relation between an [E]-feature and the ellipsis licensing head  Ellipsis occurs in the course of the derivation, as soon as the licensor is merged At this point the ellipsis site becomes inaccessible for any further syntactic operations, and vocabulary insertion at PF is blocked  The projections between the elided constituent and the licensing head play a crucial role in determining the extraction possibilities out of the ellipsis site  These claims account for the extraction contrast between objects and subjects in MCE and BE do: objects not have an escape hatch; subjects  The extraction test for syntactic structure can only be applied unidirectionally: If extraction is possible, the ellipsis site contains deleted structure If extraction is impossible, this could be due to a lack of escape hatches REFERENCES AELBRECHT, L (2009) You have the right to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of Brussels AELBRECHT, L (to appear) The syntactic licensing of ellipsis John Benjamins: Amsterdam BALTIN, M (2004) The position of adverbials Ms New York University BALTIN, M (2005) The non-unity of VP-Preposing Ms New York University To appear in Language 83(4) BALTIN, M (2007) Deletion versus Pro-forms: a false dichotomy? MS New York University BARBIERS, S (1995) The syntax of interpretation PhD Dissertation, Leiden University CHOMSKY, N (1999) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15 Cambridge, Massachusetts van CRAENENBROECK, J (2004) Ellipsis in Dutch Dialects LOT Dissertation Series van CRAENENBROECK, J (2009) The syntax of ellipsis: evidence from Dutch dialects New York: Oxford University Press DEPIANTE, M (2000) The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: a study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis PhD dissertation, University of 11/13 Connecticut, Storrs HADDICAN, B (2006) The Structural Deficiency of Verbal Pro-forms York Papers in Linguistics [Revised version to appear in Linguistic Inquiry] JOHNSON, K (1996) “When verb phrases go missing” In: Glot International 2:5, pp 3-9 JOHNSON, K (2001) “What VP-ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why” In: M Baltin & C Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory Blackwell, pp 439-479 LOBECK, A (1995) Ellipsis Functional heads, licensing and identification OUP MARTIN, R (1992) On the distribution and case features of PRO Ms, University of Connecticut MARTIN, R (1996) A minimalist theory of PRO and control PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut MERCHANT, J (2001) The syntax of silence Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis OUP MERCHANT, J (2004) “Fragments and Ellipsis” In: Linguistics and Philosophy 27, pp 661738 MERCHANT, J (2007) Voice and ellipsis Ms University of Chicago MERCHANT, J (2008a) “An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping” In: Linguistic Inquiry 39:1, pp 169-179 MERCHANT, J (2008b) “Variable Island Repair under Ellipsis” In: K Johnson (ed.), Topics in Ellipsis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 132-153 SAG, I (1976) Deletion and Logical Form PhD dissertation, MIT WILLIAMS, E (1977) On “Deep and surface anaphora” In Linguistic Inquiry 8: 692-696 WURMBRAND, S (2003) Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin/New York ZAGONA, K (1982) Government and proper government of verbal projections PhD Dissertation, University of Washington ZAGONA, K (1988a) “Proper government of antecedentless VPs in English and Spanish” In: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, pp 95-128 ZAGONA, K (1988b) Verb Phrase Syntax: A Parametric Study of English and Spanish Dordrecht: Kluwer Lobke Aelbrecht (GIST / Ghent University) Muinkkaai 42, 9000 Ghent (Belgium) lobke.aelbrecht@ugent.be http://www.gist.ugent.be/members/lobkeaelbrecht Research funded by FWO Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis APPENDIX: OTHER ELLIPTICAL PHENOMENA Overview 6.1 Interaction with Phase Heads 6.2 Applying the proposal to other ellipses 6.2.1 Sluicing 6.2.2 VP ellipsis Applying the proposal to other ellipses 6.2.1 Sluicing  Split CP-hypothesis and sluicing: The highest C head licenses sluicing (see also van Craenenbroeck 2004, 2009)  Analysis: Licensor = C1 [wh, Q] (see Merchant 2001) Ellipsis site = TP (see Merchant 2001) C2 = Phase Head (See also Aelbrecht 2009, to appear) 6.1 6.2 Interaction with Phase Heads (49)a An [E]-feature for sluicing  If there is a phase edge between the licensor and the ellipsis site, all movement operations that can occur in non-ellipsis will be possible in ellipsis ES Note: Concretely this means either the licensor or the head bearing [E] is a Phase Head; otherwise the Agree relation has to cross a Phase boundary (see Aelbrecht 2009, to appear) (48) b L’ … CP1 C1 CP2 [CAT [C [wh,Q]]] Phase edge C2’ LP L [E/C2] [uC1 [wh,Q]] [C2] CAT INFL SEL C2 [E [INFL [uC [wh, Q]]]] phase edge  escape hatch TP … XP  Prediction: no limited extraction  borne out X’ X PH [E] (50)a b ellipsis site … 6.2.2 12/13 I saw something, but I don’t know what [TP I saw twhat ] Someone stole my bike, but I don’t know who [TP twho stole my bike] VP ellipsis (VPE) Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis  Baltin (2007): Voice is the clause-internal Phase Head, not little v  Analysis: Licensor = T (see Zagona 1988a, 1988b; Lobeck 1995 a.o.) Ellipsis site = vP (see Johnson 2001; Merchant 2007, 2008b) (51)a An [E]-feature for VPE CAT [E/Voice] EVPE INFL [uT]] SEL [Voice] TP b SUBJ T’ T AspP [CAT [C [wh,Q]]] Asp VoiceP Phase edge Voice’ Voice [E [INFL [uC [wh, Q]]]] vP …  Prediction: no limited extraction  borne out (52) I know which puppy YOU should take home, but I don’t know which one SHE should [take home twhich one]  The analysis can be extended to other ellipses with or without limited extraction 13/13 ... soon as the licensing head is introduced in the structure X E [INFL[uF]] 5/13  ellipsis ellipsis site Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis BACK TO THE EXTRACTION... between the licensor and the ellipsis site 3.1.3 An Agree relation in ellipsis 3.2 Derivational ellipsis Lobke Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis 3.1 Licensing. .. Aelbrecht Agreeing to remain silent: The syntactic licensing of ellipsis it has .to rain ‘It has to rain.’  The subject of a modal is base-generated in the infinitival clause  MCE: The subject