A Movement Theory of Anaphora 9781614516996, 9781614517795

Citation preview

Jun Abe A Movement Theory of Anaphora

Studies in Generative Grammar

Editors Nobert Corver Harry van der Hulst Roumyana Pancheva Founding editors Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

Volume 120

Jun Abe

A Movement Theory of Anaphora

ISBN 978-1-61451-779-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-699-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0024-4 ISSN 0167-4331 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2014 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: PTP-Berlin Protago-TEX-Production GmbH, Berlin Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface In the so-called Government-Binding (GB) era, binding theory played a central role in elucidating the ingredients and architecture of Universal Grammar, but with the advent of the Minimalist Program (MP), it became unclear how this theory should be incorporated into this new framework, mainly because the MP shifted the view on the architecture of the faculty of language in its narrower sense (i.e., the core computational component of human language) from representational to derivational. Accordingly, the focus of attention was shifted to investigating the operations of building up structures (Merge and Move) and derivational constraints on them such as ones in terms of cyclicity and minimality, etc. What used to be posited as representational constraints such as those of binding theory were given a new place as interface conditions, but no substantial progress seemed to be made since the GB era. From my personal point of view, a breakthrough work had begun to take shape since Hornstein (1999) in shedding new light on approaching anaphoric relations, a typical case dealt with by representational theories. That may be called deductive approach, according to which such anaphoric relations are in fact captured by derivational terms. This approach was first applied to control theory (cf. Hornstein (1999, 2001), Boeckx et al. (2007)) and revived movement theories of reflexives that were alive in 1980’s, especially promoted attempts to derive the effects of Binding Condition A from movement properties (cf. Hornstein (2001), among others). That left us with those anaphoric relations involving ordinary pronouns. These relations exhibit not only bound variable anaphora but also non-c-commanding coreferential anaphora, and are constrained by Binding Conditions B and C. The work reported here is an attempt to construct a movement theory of those anaphora that mainly involve ordinary pronouns. There are at least three properties in this theory that are inherited from previous works: 1. Last resort nature of insertion of pronouns, proposed by Hornstein (2001): pronouns are inserted only when a given instance of movement induces a locality violation. This captures the fact that those anaphoric relations involving pronouns appear to be free from locality violations. Further, given that reflexivization is a result of successful A-movement of a DP through θ-position, Condition B effects are captured on the assumption that pronominalization (i.e., insertion of a pronoun) does not take place whenever reflexivization is possible. 2. Condition C effects are derived from the ban on downward movement of a DP that enters into an anaphoric relation with a pronoun, as proposed by Kayne (2002).

vi   

3.

   Preface

Linking theory, invented by Higginbotham (1983), and its application to strong crossover (SCO) effects, attempted by Higginbotham (1983), Barss (1986) and Abe (1993): only a small stretch of imagination is enough to realize that representing anaphoric relations through links can be reformulated by derivational terms with no significant changes. Accordingly, the conditions on chains proposed by Higginbotham, Barss and Abe under linking theory to capture SCO effects, which have the flavor of minimality, are adapted into the current theory of anaphora without losing their essence.

I am indebted to a lot of people for accomplishing this work. I am especially thankful to Norbert Hornstein for initiating me into working on this project while I was visiting University of Maryland in my sabbatical in 2008 to 2009. I was very lucky in spending a year there to discuss my work with him, obtaining stimulating feedback from him. Part of the material reported in this book was presented at HiTT Linguistics Seminar in the University of the Basque Country in 2011 (Chapters 2 and 3), at the Workshop on “Chains in Minimalism” in Yokohama National University in 2011 (Chapter 8), at Kwansei Gakuin University in 2012 and 2014 (Chapter 2 through 4), at Sophia University in 2012 (Chapters 2 and 3), at Hokkaido University in 2013 (Chapter 5 through 7) and at Keio University in 2013 (Chapter 2 through 8). I will not give a full list of the people I should thank for their helpful comments and encouragement but to name a few: Tomohiro Fujii, Naoki Fukui, Aritz Irurtzun, Hisatugu Kitahara, Kazuya Kudo, Kiyomi Kusumoto, Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, Chizuru Nakao, Hiroki Narita, Satoshi Oku, Javier Ormazabal, Daiko Takahashi, Christopher Tancredi, Kotomi Tsuda, Asako Uchibori, Hiroyuki Ura, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, Vidal Valmala, and Mihoko Zushi. I am also indebted to a reviewer for his/her helpful comments on an earlier version, which have led to substantial improvement in the final version. Finally, I would like to dedicate this book to the memory of James Higginbotham, who influenced me in many ways, especially when I was working on my thesis at University of Connecticut, consulting with him about my research relating to linking theory.

Contents Preface | v 1

Introduction | 1

2 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5

Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move | 8 Pro-Movement | 8 Restrictions on Dependency | 14 Upward Movement: Deriving Condition C Effects | 14 Sideward Movement: Deriving Non-C-Commanding Anaphora | 15 Across-the-Board Movement: Deriving Weakest Crossover | 21 Standard Weak Crossover Revisited | 30 Minimality: Deriving Strong Crossover | 33

3 3.1 3.2

Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition | 39 Advantages of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition | 39 Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory | 42

4 4.1 4.2

Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct? | 57 An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction | 57 Reconstruction regarding Negative Conditions | 70

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese | 76 Locality of Empty Pronouns | 76 A-Pro as a Bound Variable | 86 Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement | 97 Implications for the Pro-Drop Parameter | 110

6 6.1 6.2

Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro | 116 Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro | 117 A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement | 126 Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent | 135

6.3

viii   

   Contents

7 7.1 7.2 7.3

An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO | 145 Lebeaux’s (1984) Theory of PRO | 146 Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory | 149 An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO | 162

8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

A Movement Theory of Reflexives | 171 Lexical Ambiguity of Zibun: Pure Anaphor or Logophor | 171 A Movement Theory of Zibun | 177 Multiple Occurrences of Zibun | 186 Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun | 195

9

Conclusions | 206

References | 208 Index | 213

1 Introduction It has been standardly assumed in generative grammar that rules of construal should be kept separate from rules of movement. The strongest reason for this is that the former type of rules is free from bounding conditions, sensitivity to which is taken as a hallmark of the latter type of rules. Recently, however, there have been serious attempts to unify these two types of rules under the minimalist conception that seeks for a parsimonious system of language based upon evolutionary considerations as well as a normal scientific methodology in terms of simplicity. Among them are the works by Hornstein (2001, 2009) and Kayne (2002), who take the position that rules of construal need to be recaptured by the operation Move on the assumption that the latter operation is part of the core operation Merge. Under this general setting, this book aims to construct a movement theory of anaphora according to which those anaphoric relations that are captured traditionally by rules of construal in the grammar are established by the operation Move and only by this means. The main proposal about the mechanisms of such a movement theory is summarized as follows: (i) movement of an unpronounced pronoun, namely pro, mediates in establishing an anaphoric relation; (ii) when such a movement induces a violation of locality conditions, then the produced chain must be repaired by way of pronouncing the tail of the chain. It will be claimed that this repair strategy is exactly what makes it look like “rules of construal” are free from the bounding conditions on Move. Such an attempt at constructing a movement theory of anaphora will be given an initial motivation if we remind the issue, hotly debated in 1980’s, about how anaphoric relations are represented, indices or links. Arguing that indices are an insufficient device for expressing anaphoric relations, Higginbotham (1983) invents the linking theory according to which links are exploited to represent such relations. Linking is a more powerful device for expressing anaphoric relations than indexing in that it can specify (i) the particular choice of antecedents and (ii) the direction in which the antecedent-dependent relation is expressed. Neither (i) nor (ii) is expressible with indexing. Let us compare the two devices with an example like John thinks Mary likes his mother, where his is coreferential to John. This example is represented as in (1a) under indexing and as in (1b) under linking. (1)

a.

John1 thinks Mary likes his1 mother

b.

John thinks Mary likes his mother  

2   

   Introduction

In (1b), the linking between his and John expresses the fact that these two elements are in an anaphoric relation, and the arrow expresses the fact that John is the antecedent of his. The expressive power of linking is more clearly seen when more than two elements are involved in an anaphoric relation. Thus, suppose that Mary in (1) is replaced by he and the latter also refers to John. Then, there is only one way of representing the resulting sentence under indexing as in (2), whereas there are at least two ways of representing it under linking, as shown in (3). (2)

John1 thinks he1 likes his1 mother

(3)

a.

John thinks he likes his mother    

b.

John thinks he likes his mother  

Here his can be linked either to he as in (3a) or to John as in (3b) and accordingly it has a choice as to which element it takes as its antecedent, he or John. To give another example, let us consider a sentence like John thinks his father likes his mother, where both occurrences of his are taken to refer to John. Again, there is only one way of representing such an anaphoric relation under indexing as in (4), whereas there are at least two ways of representing it under linking, as shown in (5). (4)

John1 thinks his1 father likes his1 mother

(5)

a.

John thinks his father likes his mother    

b.

John thinks his father likes his mother  

Here the first occurrence of his can be the antecedent of the second one, as represented in (5a), or conversely as in (5b). Let us now imagine that we try to construct a movement theory of anaphoric relations where such relations are captured by the operation Move. Then, we could regard the links represented above as showing the traverse of movement. We immediately see that such a movement theory has no less expressive power than linking theory in capturing anaphoric relations. It will not be so difficult, then, to consider that the linking theory, which is representational, can be refor-

Introduction   

   3

mulated in terms of a movement theory without losing its insights, since one can plausibly take it that linking and movement constitute two sides of the same coin, the only difference lying in whether the association is produced representationally or derivationally. This book aims to construct a movement theory of anaphora, exploiting the insights gained from the linking theory. Higginbotham (1983) argues that one of the motivations for the linking theory is that those obviation effects that arise from configurations of strong crossover and the like are best captured by a condition formulated in terms of linking. This position is further supported by Barss (1986) and Abe (1993), among others. Thus, as a tactics of constructing a movement theory of anaphora, I try to exploit the insights gained from those works, focusing especially on obviation effects such as those induced by Conditions B and C and strong and weak crossover. At the same time, I try to deduce such obviation effects from derivational constraints on Move rather than representational constrains on anaphoric chains, as proposed by Higginbotham (1983), Barss (1986) and Abe (1993). It is shown that such a derivational approach is the right way to capture the obviation effects to be considered. One promising consequence of such a movement approach to anaphora will come from addressing the issue of reconstruction regarding binding conditions and scope interactions. One of the significant issues involving reconstruction is whether A-chains allow reconstruction. Chomsky (1995) takes the position that they do not. He provides the following examples as supporting evidence for this position: (6) (7)

*John1 expected him1 to seem to me to be intelligent. a.

(It seems that) everyone isn’t there yet.

b.

Everyone seems not to be there yet.

The ungrammaticality of (6) will immediately follow as a Condition B violation if we assume that the pronoun him is not reconstructed to any other position to obviate the violation. (7) demonstrates whether a quantifier like everyone can be lowered into the embedded clause, and Chomsky observes that “negation can have wide scope over the quantifier in [7a], … but not in [7b].” (p. 327) The fact that everyone cannot take scope under negation in (7b) then indicates that no reconstruction takes place in A-chains. However, there is an apparent counterexample to Chomsky’s position, which is concerned with Condition A licensing, as illustrated below:

4   

   Introduction

(8)

Replicants of themselves seemed to the boys to be ugly. (Belletti and Rizzi 1988, p. 316)

Under the traditional binding theory, it would be necessary for the whole subject to be reconstructed into the embedded clause, so that themselves could be bound by its antecedent the boys. Given a movement theory of anaphora, however, such an apparent counterexample to the no reconstruction approach will go away, which thus defends Chomsky’s (1995) position. Another important issue regarding reconstruction is raised by Lebeaux (2009) with respect to the way binding conditions apply. He proposes what he calls homogeneity conjecture, given below, in contrast to Chomsky’s (1993) interface conjecture, according to which “[a]ll conditions apply at the interfaces, in particular LF” (p. xi): (9)

All negative conditions, in particular Condition C, apply continuously throughout the derivation.

This conjecture is empirically motivated by reconstruction effects of Condition C in A’-chains, as illustrated below: (10)

a. ?*Which picture of John1 did he1 like t? b. ?*Whose destruction of John1 did he1 fear t? c. ?*Which claim that John1 liked Mary did he1 deny t? (Lebeaux 2009, p. 30)

Under the assumption that a phrase may reconstruct into any member of the chain that it heads, such reconstruction effects of Condition C as shown in (10) cannot be accounted for, since no such violation would be induced if the whphrases did not reconstruct and stayed at their surface positions. On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (10) will follow immediately under the homogeneity conjecture given in (9), since in each underlying structure, he c-commands John. Given a movement theory of anaphora, however, it will open a new way of approaching such reconstruction effects of Condition C in terms of derivational constraints that make it impossible to apply Move from the position occupied by a pronoun to that of its antecedent. This will lead to the possibility of defending the interface conjecture in the face of such apparent counterexamples as given in (10). It will be demonstrated that such an approach is in fact tenable. As noted above, the movement theory of anaphora that will be proposed in this book relies crucially on pro-movement for establishing an anaphoric rela-

Introduction   

   5

tion. This way of implementing a movement theory of anaphora will be expected to have direct relevance to the so-called pro-drop phenomena. In such a non-pro drop language as English, it will be shown that the pro-movement in question is always followed up by the repair strategy of pronouncing the tail of the produced chain. It is then expected that the pro-drop phenomena should have something to do with repair strategies. If no repair strategy is required for some reason, then the tail of the pro-movement will remain unpronounced, which thus manifests a “pro-drop” phenomenon. Or if some repair strategy other than pronouncing the tail of the produced chain is available, then this may give rise to another type of a “pro-drop” phenomenon. In this book, I discuss mainly Japanese, a radical pro-drop language, to see how pro-movement interacts with repair strategies to produce the radical pro-drop phenomena observed in this language. It will be demonstrated that the whole distribution of pro-drop in this language is divided into two cases, exactly like what Hornstein (1999, 2001) takes as obligatory control (OC) and non-obligatory control (NOC) cases regarding the distribution of PRO. The OC cases are illustrated in (11) and the NOC cases in (12): (11)

(12)

a.

John1 hopes/expects/wants [PRO1 to win].

b.

Bill persuaded John1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 saw Mary without [PRO1 leaving the room].

a.

It was believed that [PROarb shaving] was important.

b.

John1 thinks that it is believed that [PRO1 shaving himself] is important.

For such OC cases as given in (11), Hornstein (1999, 2001) proposes the A-movement analysis according to which a copy of John is base-generated in the position occupied by PRO and then undergoes A-movement to the matrix subject or object position.¹ On the other hand, the NOC cases are treated as the elsewhere case where A-movement cannot take place due to the fact that there is no antecedent/ dependent relation, as in (12a), which involves a so-called arbitrary reading of PRO, or due to the fact that the relation between PRO and its antecedent is too far way to be connected via A-movement, as in (12b). In those cases, Hornstein posits 1 In such an adjunct control case as given in (11c), Hornstein (1999, 2001) proposes that sideward movement is involved in the step of derivation where a copy of John moves out of the adjunct clause. It will be argued in Section 5.3 that sideward movement is in fact unnecessary for the derivations involved in adjunct control cases. See also Section 2.2.2 for how sideward movement is exploited under the proposed movement theory of anaphora.

6   

   Introduction

pro, instead of PRO, and makes it function like a definite pronoun in such a case of (12b) and like an indefinite one in such a case of (12a). Based upon this movement approach to control, it is argued that the two cases of pro-drop identified in Japanese are properly characterized as the following: one involves A-movement of pro, just like Horntein’s (1999, 2001) treatment of OC, and the other is treated as the elsewhere case in a sense, but unlike Hornstein’s treatment of the NOC cases, it also involves movement of pro, in this case operator movement, following Lebeaux’s (1984) treatment of the NOC cases of PRO. It is further argued that these two cases are closely related to the repair strategies mentioned above: the A-movement case instantiates a pro-drop in the way in which the produced A-chain demands no repair strategy while the operator movement case instantiates a pro-drop in the way in which that movement itself serves as a repair strategy alternative to the one of pronouncing the tail of the produced A-chain. The operator movement of pro is independently motivated by the availability of the generic or arbitrary reading of this pronoun in Japanese, based upon Lebeaux’s (1984) argument for the operator-bound analysis of arbitrary PRO. The argument specifically builds upon the observation that when more than one occurrence of arbitrary pro appears in a certain configuration, they must covary, just as Lebeaux observes with arbitrary PRO. This leads us to an attempt to provide a unified analysis of the distribution of Japanese pro-drop and that of PRO. It is thus argued that the OC cases of PRO involve A-movement of PRO, as Hornstein (1999, 2001) claims, whereas the NOC cases of PRO involve operator movement of PRO, in accordance with Lebeaux’s (1984) treatment of these cases of PRO. This book will not deal with the issue of how reflexives are syntactically treated in any general terms. However, we touch upon the case of the Japanese reflexive zibun to demonstrate that the main syntactic properties of this reflexive can be captured under a movement approach like the one proposed in this book. In particular, it will be argued that zibun can be classified into two subspecies, according to Abe’s (1997) lexical ambiguity hypothesis of this reflexive and that this classification shows essentially the same syntactic property as Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) OC vs. NOC classification or the modified version of this in that one type involves A-movement whereas the other involves operator movement. The book is organized as follows: Chapter 2 shows the basic architecture of the mechanisms that derive anaphoric relations via Move. It is shown how movement properties such as upward movement, sideward movement and across-theboard (ATB) movement are involved in deriving Condition C effects, non-c-commanding anaphora, and what Lasnik and Stowell (1991) call weakest crossover cases. Further, it is claimed that strong crossover effects are derived from a minimality condition on Move. Chapter 3 demonstrates first that Barss’s (1986) Chain

Introduction   

   7

Obviation Condition, which is formulated under linking theory, is superior to the Condition C approach that is formulated under indexing theory, in accounting for a variety of strong crossover cases. It then shows that the effects of Barss’s condition can be recaptured in quite a natural fashion by our movement theory of anaphora; that is, they are derived from a minimality condition on Move. Chapter 4 deals with the issues of reconstruction with respect to binding conditions and scope interactions, noted above, arguing that no reconstruction is necessary for A-chains, and probably for any kind of chains, under the interface conjecture, given the present movement theory of anaphora. Chapter 5 turns to discussing pro-drop phenomena, picking up Japanese, a radical pro-drop language, to see how the movement theory of anaphora proposed in Chapter 2 can capture the distribution of the “pro-drop” observed in this language. Chapter 6 lends further support to our analysis of the pro-drop phenomena of Japanese by examining the generic or arbitrary use of this unpronounced pronoun. It is demonstrated that Lebeaux’s (1984) operator-bound analysis of arbitrary PRO can be naturally extended to Japanese arbitrary pro, which thus gives independent support to the availability of operator movement of pro to this language. Chapter 7 provides a unified analysis of Japanese pro and PRO, lending support to the kind of analysis taken by Hornstein (1999, 2001) according to which the distribution of such pronominal elements is divided into two subcases; under our movement theory, one is a case involving A-movement whereas the other is a last resort case involving operator movement. Chapter 8 shows that such a dichotomy also holds for the case of the Japanese reflexive zibun, lending further support to the movement approach of the kind proposed in this book. Chapter 9 provides concluding remarks.

2 Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move 2.1 Pro-Movement In order to construct a movement theory of anaphora, let us first adopt the idea, expressed by Chomsky (1982), that “a pronoun is simply the ‘spelling out’ of a pronominal with Case, i.e., pro,” and that in the course of a derivation, “we insert the appropriate phonological matrix for a pure pronominal EC with Case.” (p. 86) Under this conception, I first propose the following: (1)

Pro undergoes Move to establish an anaphoric relation.

Let us further assume that movement of referential expressions can be mediated by pro-movement with late insertion of these expressions, as adopted by Lebeaux (2009). Thus, let us take a subject raising case such as John seems to be honest for illustration. Under this conception, this sentence can be derived as in (3) besides its normal derivation given in (2) (Throughout the book, I will put angled brackets to the unpronounced copy.). (2)

(3)

a.

__ seems [John to be honest]

b.

John seems [ to be honest]  

a.

__ seems [pro to be honest]

b.

pro seems [pro to be honest]  

c.

John seems [pro to be honest]

In (3a), pro is originally merged in the embedded subject position, then undergoes A-movement to the matrix subject position, leaving its own copy behind, as in (3b), and is finally replaced by John in the head position of the resulting A-chain, as in (3c). I assume that both options given in (2) and (3) are equally possible in principle. Though one might take this redundancy as undesirable, I take it that this situation simply arises from possible combinations of independently motivated entities and operations; that is, besides the operation Move, I assume

Pro-Movement   

   9

(i) that pro is universally available in principle and (ii) that it can be overlaid by a referential expression in the course of a derivation.¹ Let us then assume (4) below, following Hornstein’s (2001) idea of pronoun insertion: (4)

If pro-movement violates any locality condition on Move, then the tail must be pronounced.

This may be called “repair strategy by overt pronoun.” The idea behind this mechanism is that locality condition effects arise only with what Ross (1967) calls chopping rules, but not with copying rules. Thus, pronunciation of pro in the tail of a chain makes that chain immune from locality conditions. From this perspective, the fact that construal rules are in general immune to such conditions is attributed not to their non-movement property but rather to the fact that they involve the “repair strategy by overt pronoun” for movement. Given (4), those anaphoric relations that involve overt pronouns as their dependents must all be established via pro-movement, as stated in (1), since under the present mechanism, overt pronouns are characterized as pronounced forms of pro.² In order to see how the present mechanism works, let us consider a sentence like John thinks Mary likes him, where him refers to John. This sentence is derived in the following way: (5)

a.

_ thinks Mary likes pro

b.

pro thinks Mary likes pro  

1 The reviewer raises the question whether the options given in (2) and (3) do not complete with each other. I assume that the grammar does not have the capacity of comparing derivations probably due to the limitation of computational load. Hence, starting a derivation with either a full-fledged DP or pro that is overlaid by lexical items in the course of the derivation is simply a matter of choice. 2 In this respect, I follow Hornstein (2001) in his assumption that overt pronouns are simply grammatical formatives rather than lexical items listed in the lexicon. We should note one caveat here, though: those overt pronouns that are deictic or involved in inter-sentential anaphoric relations, as illustrated below, are independent lexical items. (i)

a. He left. b. This is John. He is a professor.

In this book, we are concerned only with those overt pronouns manifested as a result of the repair strategy for movement.

10   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

c.

pro thinks Mary likes him

d.

John thinks Mary likes him

In (5a), pro is merged in the complement position of likes, and then undergoes A-movement to the matrix subject position, leaving its own copy behind, as in (5b). Note that this pro-movement violates whatever locality condition prohibits A-movement from taking place across a tensed clause or a specified subject in the sense of Chomsky (1973). Concretely, let us assume that the relevant condition is Minimize Chain Links (MCL), proposed by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), which dictates that a moved phrase cannot cross a possible landing site. Note that the pro that undergoes A-movement to establish an anaphoric relation typically has two Cases that need to be checked. In the case illustrated in (5), the pro has one accusative Case checked with the embedded object likes and one nominative Case checked with the matrix T.³ Then, the pro-movement to the matrix Spec-TP at step (5b) will, strictly, involve the following steps of movement: (6)

[TP pro [vP pro v+think [VP tV [CP [TP Mary Pres [vP v+like [VP pro tV pro]]]]]]]   

The first step involves accusative Case-checking (cf. Chomsky 2008) and the second step involves a movement into θ-position, so that pro bears another θ-role besides the one that it has obtained in the complement position of like. Finally, pro moves up to the matrix Spec-TP to check its nominative Case. Suppose that Case is the trigger of a DP to be moved in the sense that unless a DP checks its Case(s), the derivation will not converge. Then, the derivation given in (6) will violate the MCL, since in the second step of movement pro has skipped the embedded Spec-TP where it could have its Case checked. Hence, the pro in the tail position of the A-chain must be pronounced in accordance with (4); according to Chomsky (2008), the one in the embedded Spec-VP in (6) is the target of pronunciation.⁴ Since pro is finally replaced by John in the matrix subject position, as in

3 Here I assume that the number of Cases carried by a DP correlates with that of θ-roles it bears, which thus prevents a DP from carrying an arbitrary number of Cases. Under this assumption, such a sentence as the following, provided by the reviewer, will not be generated: (i)

John1 seems that it is likely that he1 will win.

This sentence would be derived if John carried more than one Case, but this is impossible since John bears only one θ-role assigned by win. 4 Alternatively, we could formulate the relevant minimality condition in terms of the operation Agree, but I follow Hornstein (2009) in his claim that Agree is spurious once Move is character-

Pro-Movement   

   11

(5d), it must have its ϕ-features specified as third person, male, singular, which is realized overtly as him at the stage of (5c). In this derivation, John and him are connected via Move, hence forming a chain C = (John, him). I assume that the semantic information that John and him corefer is obtained through this chain. The present approach yields an interesting consequence for cases of Condition B violation, such as the following: (7)

a. *John1 killed him1. b. *John1 believes him1 to be honest.

Notice that there is no way to produce these sentences under the present mechanism, since in these cases, the pro-movement involved will not violate any locality condition on A-movement, as witnessed by the grammaticality of the following A-movement cases, hence pro never realized overtly as him. (8)

a.

John1 is killed t1.

b.

John1 is believed t1 to be honest.

To take (7a) for illustration, this sentence will have the following derivation: (9)

a.

__ killed pro

b.

pro killed pro  

c.

John killed pro

ized as a species of Merge. There remains a problem with the present way of deriving the relevant locality effects from the MCL: the latter condition says nothing about why the repair strategy by overt pronoun is used in the following case: (i)

John thinks that he is smart.

In order to establish an anaphoric relation between he and John, we need to claim that the promovement from the embedded to the matrix subject position violates a locality condition on A-movement so that the tail position is overtly pronounced, but the MCL could not serve to this end, since no possible landing site intervenes in the pro-movement involved. We thus need to invoke something like Nominative Island Condition (NIC) to account for the locality effect induced by the movement in question. I am indebted to Mihoko Zushi for pointing out the importance of clarifying what a trigger of pro-movement is and how this movement is constrained to induce the repair strategy by overt pronoun.

12   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

This explains the ungrammaticality of (7a, b) since these sentences are not derivable. We are then left with the question of what is wrong with the output (9c), i.e., John killed pro. We could claim that this sentence violates a licensing condition on pro: in such a non-pro-drop language as English, pro is not allowed to appear.⁵ However, Condition B effects occur even in those languages that allow null objects. Consider the following Japanese example: (10)

John-wa e kiratteiru. -Top hate ‘John hates e.’

This sentence can be uttered in a discourse in which some salient person is talked about, with the null object referring to that person. Crucially, though, this null object cannot refer to John. So far nothing seems to prevent this anaphoric relation, since (10) is derivable in the same way as in (9). I suggest that (9c) and (10) are ruled out by a chain condition on A-movement a la Chomsky (1981) to the effect that an A-chain has at most one Case unless the resumptive pronoun strategy is exploited. This condition can be characterized as follows: (11)

When an A-chain C = (a1, …, an) carries more than one Case, extra Cases must be phonetically realized, where an extra Case is one that is assigned/ checked in a position other than a1.

The idea behind this characterization is that one Case is mandatory for a chain irrespective of whether it is phonetically realized or not,⁶ but that if a chain carries extra Cases, it needs to signal them by way of overt manifestation. (11) in effect takes care of the effects of Condition B under the present movement theory of anaphora. Thus, this condition excludes the chains produced by pro-movement in (9c) and (10), since they carry an extra Case that is not phonetically realized, i.e., accusative Case checked with v.⁷ I should add, though, that Condition B itself is not derived from a derivational constraint, since (11) functions as an output

5 Since we have adopted the option of pro-movement even in English, as illustrated in (3), we cannot claim that pro never appears in this language. Rather, pro is licensed in those positions in which a trace could appear under the trace theory of movement. 6 This may be most plausibly understood as coming from a visibility condition on θ-role assignment, as advocated by Chomsky (1981). 7 (11) is ineffective to an A-chain that is produced in the way that involves operator movement of pro as an intermediate step; see Section 5.3 for relevant discussion.

Pro-Movement   

   13

condition. A condition like (11) will be independently necessary for a theory that admits movement to a θ-position to exclude a derivation such as the following: (12)

*John hit .

Here John is merged into the complement position of hit and then moves to Spec-TP through another θ-position, i.e., Spec-vP. The resulting chain violates (11) since the accusative Case borne by John, which is necessary for this DP to enter into a checking relation with v, is not phonetically realized. Note that the output of the derivation given in (5) does not violate (11), since the chain created by pro-movement involves the repair strategy by overt pronoun, hence its extra Case being properly manifested by him in its original position. We can go further to claim that (9c) and (10) can be “repaired” by inserting reflexives in the course of the derivations involved, which leads to the grammatical sentences: (13)

(14)

a.

John1 killed himself1.

b.

John1 believes himself1 to be honest.

John-wa zibun-o kiratteiru. -Top self-Acc hate ‘John hates himself.’

Under this conception, reflexivization can be regarded as another repair strategy by pronoun: a reflexive is inserted when the pro-movement involved is too local to rely on the repair strategy by pronouncing the tail of the resulting chain so as to satisfy condition (11). A nice consequence of this way of characterizing reflexivization is that it automatically captures the complementary distribution exhibited by reflexives and pronouns for the core cases.⁸ Further, this conception accords quite well with that of Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx et al. (2007), according to which “[i]t is not reflexives and pronouns that are of interest, but the process of reflexivization and pronominalization.” (Boeckx et al. 2007, p. 43) Thus, such lexical items as a reflexive and a pronoun are not among those that are 8 This way of capturing the complementarity between reflexives and pronouns is in a sense opposite to that proposed by Hornstein (2001), in which pronominalization is a last resort operation that comes into play whenever reflexivization fails. As far as I can see, no significant empirical difference would follow from these two theories, apart from the internal architectures of their mechanisms. Of course, both sides need to assume that there are exempt anaphors in the sense of Pollard and Sag (1992) and Reuland (2011).

14   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

assembled to create a structure (the numeration in the sense of Chomsky (1995)), but rather such forms are simply manifestations of grammatical processes, repair strategies by pronoun under the present movement theory of anaphora.⁹

2.2 Restrictions on Dependency In this section, I will demonstrate how anaphoric dependencies are naturally restricted by movement properties.

2.2.1 Upward Movement: Deriving Condition C Effects Kayne (2002) claims that Condition C effects are derivable from the prohibition against downward movement. Thus, on the assumption that a pronoun and its antecedent make a constituent in the base and the antecedent undergoes movement, Kayne claims that in a sentence like the following, (15) *He1 thinks Mary likes John1. John cannot move from the matrix subject to the embedded object position since such a downward movement is prohibited by UG. We can incorporate Kayne’s (2002) way of deriving Condition C effects into the present mechanism without any significant change. For the sake of concreteness, let us assume that Move obeys the Extension Condition (henceforth, EC), proposed by Chomsky (1993), which requires that structure be extended.¹⁰ With this assumption, (15) is not derivable under the present mechanism. For comparison, let us consider again the derivation of the sentence John thinks Mary likes him, given in (5), repeated below:

9 One will be naturally led to the expectation that (12) becomes grammatical if both occurrences of John are pronounced. This expectation is not fulfilled in English, but according to Boeckx et al. (2007), such a form is manifested in what they call copy reflexivization observed in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec and Hmong. See also Abe (2012a) for the claim that copy reflexivization is also found in Japanese. 10 Or the No Tampering Condition, proposed by Chomsky (2008), which also has the effect of Merge taking place at the root.

Restrictions on Dependency   

(16)

a.

_ thinks Mary likes pro

b.

pro thinks Mary likes pro  

c.

pro thinks Mary likes him

d.

John thinks Mary likes him

   15

Note that since the repair strategy by overt pronoun applies to the tail of the chain produced at the stage of (16b), the upper pro cannot be pronounced. Nor can pro be merged in the subject position of thinks and then move down to the object position of likes, since it would violate the EC. Hence, there is no way to derive (15) under the present system, which means that he cannot refer to John.¹¹

2.2.2 Sideward Movement: Deriving Non-C-Commanding Anaphora Let us now consider a sentence like the following: (17)

His1 mother likes John1.

It appears that the present mechanism of anaphora incorrectly rules out the possibility of coreference between John and his, since the derivation would involve downward pro-movement, a violation of the EC. I propose that such a case involves sideward movement, a special case of movement in which “a given

11 There are other cases that have been taken to fall under Condition C, namely those involving coreference between R-expressions and between an R-expression and a so-called epithet, as illustrated below: (i)

a. Smith1’s wife thinks that Smith1 should drop out of school. b. Smith1 thinks that Smith1 should drop out of school.

(Kayne 2002, p. 140)

(ii) a. Smith1’s wife thinks that the poor guy1 should drop out of school. b. Smith1 thinks that the poor guy1 should drop out of school.

(ibid., p. 139)

Kayne (2002) observes that the intended reading is “natural in [iia], but not possible in [iib],” (p.  139) and that with the intended reading, (ia), “although not perfect, is appreciably better than [ib].” (p. 140) However, Kayne notes that these cases of Condition C violation are not as bad as the corresponding pronoun-antecedent pairs, thus reaching the conclusion that they should be kept separate from those that are subject to a movement-based account of Condition C effects. I follow Kayne in this respect, thereby putting aside the cases of R-expression pairs and R-expression-epithet pairs.

16   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

constituent ‘moves’ from a syntactic object K to an independent syntactic object L.” (Nunes 2001, p. 303) Hornstein (2009) argues convincingly that once Move is regarded as a special case of Merge, as Chomsky (2004) names it internal Merge, in which Merge of α and β takes place from a configuration in which one is part of the other, sideward movement should be an option as freely available as external and internal Merge since it is simply a mixture of these latter operations: take α from within a syntactic object K, just like internal Merge and then, instead of merging α with K, merge α with a separate object β, just like external Merge. Thus, I follow Hornstein (2009) and Nunes (2001) in assuming that sideward movement is freely available in the grammar in principle. On the other hand, I propose that this operation is severely constrained due to the fact that it involves movement of α out of an independent syntactic object. Suppose that independent syntactic objects constitute islands for each other. Then the following holds true: (18)

Sideward movement always violates an island condition.

Under the present mechanism, this means that sideward movement must always be followed up by the repair strategy by overt pronoun.¹² With this assumption, (17) will have the following derivation: (19)

a.

[DP pro mother], [likes __]

b.

[DP pro mother], [likes pro]    

c.

[DP his mother], [likes pro]

d.

[DP his mother], [likes John]

e.

[TP [DP his mother] [likes John]]

12 Thus, it follows from (18) that sideward movement never leaves a “trace” behind. This opposes the main strand of the proponents for sideward movement such as Nunes (2012), who explicitly argues that sideward movement is constrained exactly in the way upward movement is. It is beyond the scope of this book, however, to examine further consequences of (18) and compare our version of exploiting sideward movement with the standard one, leaving this task for future research. There is one case, though, which is of particular relevance here; that is, the movement analysis of adjunct control by Hornstein (1999, 2001) according to which such a control case involves sideward movement, so that it can evade an adjunct island effect. See Section 5.3 for the claim that the present theory of anaphora can incorporate Hornstein’s movement theory of adjunct control quite straightforwardly without invoking sideward movement.

Restrictions on Dependency   

   17

In (19b), pro undergoes sideward movement from the Spec of DP to the complement of likes. According to (18), pro is spelled out as his for remedy of an island violation, as in (19c). After replacing pro by John, as in (19d), we can combine the DP his mother and the VP likes John in the usual way, producing the final output given in (19e). Notice that if sideward movement takes place in the opposite direction, namely, from the complement of likes to the Spec of DP at the stage of (19b), then we will obtain the sentence John1’s mother likes him1. Notice further that this sideward movement strategy is not applicable in such a case of Condition C violation as given in (15), reproduced below: (20) *He1 thinks Mary likes John1. In this case, there is no way to apply sideward movement to establish an anaphoric relation between he and John without violating the EC. We could have two independent structures to apply sideward movement to, say, the TP [pro thinks __] and the CP [Mary likes __]. With these structures, pro can undergo sideward movement from the subject position of thinks to the object position of likes, but merging the CP into the object position of thinks violates the EC. We see from this that when a pronoun c-commands its antecedent on the surface, the anaphoric relation cannot be derived via sideward movement and hence that this latter strategy is available only to establish non-c-commanding anaphora. There is one significant consequence of this sideward movement approach to non-c-commanding anaphora, which is concerned with the complement-adjunct asymmetry with respect to the reconstruction effects of Condition C, as observed by Freidin (1986) and Lebeaux (1988) with such an example as the following: (21)

a. *Which claim that John1 was asleep was he1 willing to discuss? b.

Which claim that John1 made was he1 willing to discuss?

What is called Freidin-Lebeaux generalization is the following: when the antecedent of a pronoun is included in the complement clause of a head, as in (21a), the reconstruction effect of Condition C obtains, so that he cannot refer to John in this sentence. On the other hand, when the antecedent of a pronoun is included in an adjunct clause, as in (21b), such a reconstruction effect does not obtain, so that he can refer to John in this sentence. The present movement theory of anaphora can capture this generalization neatly on the assumption made by Lebeaux (1988) that an adjunct clause can be merged late in a derivation, unlike

18   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

a complement clause.¹³ Thus, the adjunct clause that John made in (21b) can be merged with which claim after the latter undergoes wh-movement. Notice that under this approach, sideward movement can take place from the position of he to that of John, so that (21b) will be derived in the following way: (22)

a.

[pro was willing to discuss which claim], [__ made]

b.

[pro was willing to discuss which claim], [pro made]   

c.

[he was willing to discuss which claim], [pro made]

d.

[CP which claim was [TP he willing to discuss ]], [that John made]

e.

[CP which claim that John made was [TP he willing to discuss ]]

In (22b), pro undergoes sideward movement from the subject position of was willing to that of made, and is replaced by he in its original position, as in (22c). Then, which claim undergoes wh-movement while in the other structure, the pro in the subject position of made is replaced by John and the whole TP is built up with the complementizer that, as shown in (22d). Finally, the adjunct clause is adjoined to which claim, as in (22e). We thus successfully derive sentence (21b) with he connected to John via sideward movement. Note that we are assuming that adjuncts can be introduced into a structure countercyclically, hence violating the EC, but this violability of the EC cannot be unconstrained; if so, we would incorrectly produce a sentence such as the following with he connected to John via sideward movement: (23) *He1 was willing to discuss the claim that John1 made. This sentence would be derived if the adjunct clause that John made could be adjoined to the claim after pro underwent sideward movement from the position 13 See Nunes (2001) for an attempt to account for such a paradigm as in (21) without recourse to late merge of adjuncts and instead exploiting sideward movement of wh-phrases to adjoin to adjuncts. Conceptually, Nunes’s approach is better than Lebeaux’s in the respect in which the former does not assume any countercyclic operation, but it is not compatible with the present movement theory of anaphora in the way sideward movement is exploited. Further, Nunes’s account for the contrast between (21a) and (21b) does not extend in any obvious way to accommodate the fact that no Condition C reconstruction obtains in the case of A-movement, as illustrated in (26).

Restrictions on Dependency   

   19

occupied by he to that occupied by John. To avoid such an overgeneration, we need to constrain countercyclic adjunction in such a way that it only takes place near the top of the structure to which it applies. For concreteness, let us tentatively assume that countercyclic adjunction can be applied only to the daughter nodes of the structure so far produced. As for (21a), it cannot have the same derivation as given in (22), since the complement clause that John was asleep must be introduced into the complement position of claim before which claim undergoes wh-movement. Thus, in order to connect he to John through movement, we need to move pro from the former position to the latter either before or after we apply wh-movement to the whole whphrase which claim that John was asleep. In either case, the movement involved will violate the EC, hence no way of linking he to John under the present movement theory. In the above account, I have tacitly assumed, following Lebeaux (2009), that unlike A-movement, A’-movement cannot rely on pro-movement. Otherwise, (21a) could have the following derivation: (24)

a.

[pro was willing to discuss pro], [__ was asleep]

b.

[pro was willing to discuss pro], [pro was asleep]   

c.

[he was willing to discuss pro], [pro was asleep]

d.

[CP pro was [TP he willing to discuss pro]], [which claim that John was     asleep]

e.

[CP which claim that John was asleep was [TP he willing to discuss pro]]

In (24b), pro undergoes sideward movement from the subject position of was willing to that of was asleep, and is replaced by he in its original position, as in (24c). Then, the other pro undergoes A’-movement to the matrix Spec-CP, as in (24d); in the other structure, the pro in the subject position of was asleep is replaced by John and after the whole TP is merged with the complementizer that, the resulting structure is further built up with which claim. Finally, the upper pro of the A’-chain is replaced by the whole wh-phrase which claim that John was asleep, as in (24e). We would thus incorrectly derive sentence (21a) with he connected to John via sideward movement. In order to prevent such a derivation, Lebeaux (2009) assumes that “lexical overlay may occur anywhere in the movement of an A-chain, while lexical overlay must occur prior to A’-movement.” (p. xvi) Lebeaux further addresses the question why this must be the case. One account he provides is based upon his idea about “how the theories of Case and

20   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

theta are integrated.” (p. 51) He proposes, roughly, that a thematic structure that contains lexical elements that are involved in thematic relations must be fused with a Case frame that contains functional categories as well as function words inserted into them, upon the stage of a derivation where Case assignment/checking takes place. It follows, then, that lexical insertion must be completed by the time when the derivation has reached that stage. This is how Lebeaux derives the fact that “lexical overlay must occur prior to A’-movement.” Without committing myself to the validity of this general approach, I simply assume (25) below in what follows: (25)

Lexical insertion must occur by the time when the derivation has reached the stage where Case assignment/checking takes place.

With this assumption, the derivation given in (24) is correctly ruled out, since at the stage (24d), pro undergoes A’-movement from Case position and lexical insertion into pro takes place afterwards, as shown in (24e).¹⁴ It is predicted that such a derivation as in (24) should be possible when A-movement is involved and hence the relevant coreference should be possible. This is in fact borne out, as shown below: (26)

The claim that John1 was asleep seems to him1 to be correct. (Chomsky 1993, p. 37)

Under the present assumptions, this sentence can have the following derivation: (27)

a.

[__ seems to pro pro to be correct], [__ was asleep]

b.

[__ seems to pro pro to be correct], [pro was asleep]         

c.

[__ seems to him pro to be correct], [pro was asleep]

14 Given (25), it might be expected that the repair strategy by overt pronoun is impossible with A’-movement since under the present assumption, this strategy is available for pro-movement. This is obviously too strong a conclusion, as resumptive pronouns are usually exploited for A’movement on the condition, stated by Safir (1984) for instance, that they “appear only in positions from which wh-extraction is difficult or impossible.” (p. 607), as shown below: (i)

Do you know that kid who1 his1 mother is always complaining to the principal?

Thus we need to assume that the resumptive pronoun strategy can also be used to replace the copy left behind by A’-movement.

Restrictions on Dependency   

   21

d.

[TP pro seems to him pro to be correct], [the claim that John was asleep]   

e.

[TP the claim that John was asleep seems to him pro to be correct]

In (27b), pro undergoes sideward movement from the complement position of to to the subject position of was asleep, and is replaced by him in its original position, as in (27c). Then, the other pro undergoes A-movement to the matrix SpecTP, as in (27d), which does not violate the condition stated in (25). In the other structure, the pro in the subject position of was asleep is replaced by John and after the whole TP is merged with the complementizer that, the resulting structure is further built up with the claim. Finally, the upper pro of the A-chain is replaced by the whole DP the claim that John was asleep, as in (27e). We thus successfully derive sentence (26) with him connected to John via sideward movement, which establishes an anaphoric relation between the two.

2.2.3 Across-the-Board Movement: Deriving Weakest Crossover Let us now consider a sentence like the following: (28) *His1 mother likes every boy1. The ungrammaticality of this sentence has been taken to indicate that the c-command relation is necessary to establish an operator-variable reading. Note first that under the present mechanism, (28) is derivable in exactly the same way as in (19). Then, how can we explain the c-command requirement on operator-variable readings? We could stipulate such a requirement, but notice that what we are aiming at in the present project is to try to deduce binding effects from movement properties. Thus, it is surely desirable to derive the c-command requirement in question from some movement properties. I suggest that the following holds true: (29)

The link produced by sideward movement cannot constitute part of an operator-variable chain.

The intuition behind this restriction is that the chain link produced by sideward movement is unique in being unable to be combined with other chain links, so that it must constitute an independent chain. Thus, (29) might be derived from the following condition:

22   

(30)

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

The link produced by sideward movement must constitute an independent chain.

Now suppose that a quantifier phrase (QP) undergoes covert movement to take scope, namely, Quantifier Raising (QR). Then, (28) will be derived in the following way: (31)

a.

[DP pro mother], [likes __]

b.

[DP pro mother], [likes pro]    

c.

[DP his mother], [likes pro]

d.

[DP his mother], [likes every boy]

e.

[TP [DP his mother] [likes every boy]]

f.

[TP [TP [DP his mother] [likes every boy]]]

Since pro undergoes sideward movement from the Spec of the DP [DP pro mother] to the complement of likes, as shown in (31b), the produced chain link, i.e., (every boy, his) must constitute an independent chain. Further, every boy undergoes QR, as shown in (31f), so as to produce an operator-variable chain; in this case, the bottom copy of every boy must function as a variable. As a result, we end up having two independent chains, namely (every boy, his) and (every boy, x). It is then reasonable to claim that these two chains are contradictory in that the object of likes is interpreted differently in them: one as the quantifier every boy and the other as its variable. Hence these two chains are uninterpretable. Notice that this problem does not arise when coreference is at stake, as in (17). It follows from (30), then, that an operator-variable chain is produced only by upward movement due to the EC. This in effect amounts to imposing the c-command requirement on an operator-variable chain.¹⁵ There is a piece of supporting evidence for this way of deriving the c-command requirement in question, which is concerned with an additional pronoun

15 I have nothing interesting to say about a notorious exception, such as the following, to the c-command requirement on operator-variable chains: (i)

Every girl1’s father admires her1.

It will be of no help to claim that in such a case, every girl undergoes covert movement to a position from which it is able to c-command her, since even with this possibility, we could not explain how her is inserted in a locality-free environment.

Restrictions on Dependency   

   23

effect on this requirement, noted by Hornstein (1995) with such examples as the following:¹⁶ (32)

a. *His1 mother gave his1 picture to every student1. b. His1 mother gave every student1 his1 picture. (Hornstein 1995, p. 103)

Hornstein (1995) accounts for the contrast between these two sentences regarding an additional pronoun effect on an operator-variable chain in terms of linking theory. The acceptability of (32b) is attributed to the fact that the first occurrence of his, which apparently violates the c-command requirement on an operatorvariable chain, is successfully incorporated into the chain by being linked to the second occurrence of his, a full-fledged member of the chain in question. Adapting this account in terms of linking to the present movement theory of anaphora, we can derive (32b) in the following way: (33)

a.

[DP pro mother], [DP __ picture]

b.

[DP pro mother], [DP pro picture]    

c.

[DP his mother], [DP pro picture]

d.

[DP his mother], [gave pro [DP pro picture]]             

e.

[DP his mother], [gave pro [DP his picture]]

f.

[TP [DP his mother] [gave every boy [DP his picture]]]

g.

[TP [TP [DP his mother] [gave every boy [DP his picture]]]

In (33b), sideward movement of pro takes place from the Spec of the DP [DP pro mother] to that of the DP [DP __ picture] and the tail position of the resulting chain is pronounced due to an island violation induced by the sideward movement, as in (33c). Further, the pro occupying the Spec of the DP [DP pro picture] undergoes Move to the object position of gave, as in (33d). This movement will not violate the EC on the assumption made by Chomsky (1995) that a verbal projection involves v-V compound structure a la Larson’s (1988) VP-shell structure, so that indirect object occupies the Spec of VP, as shown below:

16 I am indebted to the reviewer for pointing out the relevance of these data to the present discussion on the c-command requirement on an operator-variable chain.

24   

(34)

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

[v+gave [VP pro [V’ tV [DP pro picture]]]]

This pro-movement, however, violates what Ross (1967) calls Left Branch Condition (LBC) or whatever principle derives this condition, hence requiring the repair strategy by overt pronoun, as in (33e). (33f) represents the stage of derivation where the top member of the chain produced by the pro-movement is overlaid by every boy and the DP [DP his mother] is incorporated into the other structure, which is then built up to TP. Finally, every boy undergoes QR, which thus makes the derivation reach the final output given in (33g). Here, the whole derivation produces two independent chains: one is (his, his), which is produced by sideward movement, and the other is (every boy, x, his). Unlike in the case of (28), these two independent chains are not incompatible with each other, given that the two occurrences of his in the first chain can count as free variables that are going to be bound by every boy when these independent chains are interpreted as constituting one operator-variable chain. (32a), by contrast, is just like (28) in the respect in which at least one of the two pronouns must be directly linked to the QP every boy via sideward movement, which thus gives rise to two incompatible chains, as discussed above. With (29) (which will ultimately be derived from something like (30)), we can also account for weak crossover effects; an example is given below: (35) ?*Who1 does his1 mother think Mary likes? In order to produce the anaphoric relation between his and who, we need to undergo sideward movement from the subject position of mother to the object position of likes, just as in (31), but this does not lead to establishing an operatorvariable chain, hence his unable to function as a variable of who. There is another possibility, however, to capture the anaphoric dependency between his and who in (35), which will be represented as follows under linking theory: (36)

who does his mother think Mary like who  

Now a question arises as to whether we should allow such a derivation as given in (36), namely one involving something like across-the-board (ATB) movement in which a phrase starts out in two different positions and then undergoes move-

Restrictions on Dependency   

   25

ment into the same position.¹⁷ There is evidence that such an ATB-movement is necessary, which comes from cases of what Lasnik and Stowell (1991) call weakest crossover, such as the following: (37)

a.

Who1 will be easy for us to get his1 mother to talk to?

b.

Who1 did you stay with before his1 wife had spoken to?

Under the assumption that the tough- and parasitic gap (PG) constructions involve null operator movement, the sentences in (37) are represented as follows: (38)

a.

who1 t1 will be easy for us [OP1 [PRO to get his1 mother to talk to e1]]

b.

who1 did you stay with t1 [OP1 before his1 wife had spoken to pg1]

Note that (38a, b) have the same structural configuration as (35), namely that in which the trace of the (null) operator and the bound pronoun do not c-command each other. Note further that his in (38a, b) functions as a variable bound by the wh-operator who, which thus indicates that this bound pronoun must be incorporated into the structure via normal movement rather than sideward movement, according to (29). ATB-movement will do for this purpose. Thus, with this device, (37a) will be derived in the following way: (39)

a.

__ will be easy for us to get pro mother to talk to pro

b.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro to get pro mother to talk to pro]               

c.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]

17 A typical instance of ATB-movement is illustrated below: (i)

I wonder who1 John saw t1 and Bill hit t1.

Here wh-movement takes place from the complement position of each conjunct across the board. See Williams (1978) for detailed discussion on ATB-movement. This movement usually takes place in coordination, as in (i), but in the case of anaphoric relations, it is much less restricted. I speculate that the normal case of ATB-movement that leaves a “trace” in each conjunct in a uniform way is constrained by some sort of parallelism, so that it comports well with coordination. In the case of ATB-movement that is involved in establishing an anaphoric relation, on the other hand, one of the gaps may be repaired by an overt pronoun, so that the produced chains are not uniform. We might then claim that the repair strategy by overt pronoun not only repairs an offending “trace,” but also renders the parallelism constraint on ATB-movement ineffective.

26   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

d.

pro will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]  

e.

who will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]

In (39a), pro is merged in two positions, one in the specifier position of mother and the other in the complement position of talk to, and then these two occurrences of pro undergo ATB-movement to the embedded Spec-CP, just like null operator movement, as shown in (39b). Since the movement from the specifier position of mother violates the LBC, the pro in that position is spelled out as his as a repair strategy, as in (39c). Let us assume, following Hicks (2009), that the pro that has undergone a null operator-like movement in the embedded CP can further undergo A-movement to the matrix subject in the tough-construction, as shown in (39d). We can then get the final output by replacing the pro that has reached the matrix subject position by who, as shown in (39e). Likewise, (37b) will be derived in the following way: (40)

a.

you Past stay with who before pro wife had spoken to pro

b.

you Past stay with who before [CP pro pro wife had spoken to pro]                    

c.

you Past stay with who before [CP pro his wife had spoken to pro]

d.

you Past stay with who before [CP who his wife had spoken to pro]

e.

who Past you stay with who before [CP who his wife had spoken to pro]  

f.

who Past you stay with before [CP his wife had spoken to pro]

In (40a), pro is merged in two positions, one in the specifier position of wife and the other in the complement position of spoken to, and then these two occurrences of pro undergo ATB-movement to the embedded Spec-CP, as shown in (40b). Since the movement from the specifier position of wife violates the LBC, the pro in that position is spelled out as his as a repair strategy, as in (40c). Suppose that the pro that has undergone a null operator-like movement in the embedded CP further undergoes operator movement to the matrix Spec-CP in the PG construction, so that we can apply ATB-movement to the pro in the embedded Spec-CP and who, which is in the complement position of stay with. But there will arise a problem in applying ATB-movement in this way: the two lexical items

Restrictions on Dependency   

   27

that will undergo ATB-movement are not exactly the same. To get around this problem, we can overlay who onto pro at the stage of (40c), so that we obtain (40d). Then, we can apply ATB-movement to the two occurrences of who, as in (40e). Given that in a wh-movement language like English, the upper member of a wh-phrase is pronounced, we will obtain the right output, as given in (40f).¹⁸ A couple of words are in order in the derivation given in (40). First, at the stage of (40d), overlay of who onto pro appears to violate condition (25), reproduced below: (41)

Lexical insertion must occur by the time when the derivation has reached the stage where Case assignment/checking takes place.

Suppose that this condition is interpreted as a licensing condition on A’-chains that demands that the lexical items of the head of an A’-chain be overlaid before A’-movement takes place. This is probably because those lexical items themselves need to be involved in Case assignment/checking. Interpreted in this way, (41) will not prohibit overlay of who onto pro at the stage of (40d) under the assumption made by Chomsky (1986b) that the resulting chain is composed with the who-chain in the matrix clause, so that only the topmost occurrence of who is subject to condition (41). Further, at the stage of (40e), the movement of who out of the embedded adjunct clause apparently violates the adjunct condition, and hence should probably be repaired by an overt pronoun. Notice, however, that this particular instance of who occupies an A’-position that is Caseless, unlike the other cases that instantiate the repair strategy by overt pronoun. We are implicitly assuming that the pro that has started out from the complement position of spoken to has produced two separate chains on the way to the matrix Spec-CP, one produced by its null operator-like movement and the other produced by applying ATBmovement to the two occurrences who after the pro that occupies the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause is overlaid by who. To capture this formally, let us adopt the notion of Form-Chain originally proposed by Chomsky (1993) and reformulate it in current terms according to Abe’s (2002) two-step operations of move18 I am indebted to Hisatugu Kitahara (personal communication) for pointing out the identity problem in applying ATB-movement, claiming that if we follow this identity restriction strictly, we can understand the operation of ATB-movement as X targeting the two occurrences of the same item Y that it contains and then merging them with X, simply yielding the new structure {Y, X}. Here we are assuming that lexical overlay of pro by way of movement is somehow prohibited. Thus, we do not allow the derivation given in (40) to proceed in the following way: at the stage of (40c), pro moves up to the matrix Spec-CP and then who, which is in the complement position of with, moves to the same position, overlaying pro. This assumption becomes crucial later on.

28   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

ment: Probe (or Select in his original terminology) and Move. A crucial feature of this system that does not seem to be shared by the current probe-goal system (cf. Chomsky 2000) is that when a probe finds its goal, the latter can undergo Move in a successive-cyclic fashion, though the whole movement is taken to produce only one chain. To take John seems to be honest for illustration, it has the following derivation: (42)

a.

__ T seem [TP __ to be [John honest]]     

(Probe)

b.

John T seem [TP John to be [John honest]]    

(Move)

The matrix T probes for interpretable ϕ-features and finds John as its goal, as in (42a). Then the latter undergoes successive-cyclic movement, as in (42b), to observe a minimality condition like Chomsky and Lasnik’s (1993) Minimize Chain Links (MCL), which requires that a phrase to move cannot skip its possible landing site. Though John has undergone more than one step of Move, it creates only one A-chain. With this assumption in mind, let us go back to the derivation given in (40). In this case, Probe takes place twice, one by the C of the adjunct clause for an operator-feature (which amounts to a feature triggering null operator movement) and the other by the matrix C for a wh-feature, so that the pro that starts out from the complement position of spoken to produces two separate A’-chains. I then propose the following:¹⁹

19 I deliberately formulate (43) in such a way that only island conditions can be exempted. This is because if this exemption also applies to cases of minimality violation, we may not be able to account for the unacceptability of such super-raising cases as given below, as pointed out by the reviewer. (i)

*John seems that it was told t that …

(Chomsky 1995, p. 295)

Suppose that pro was merged in the complement position of told, that it underwent Move to the matrix Spec-TP to check nominative Case, and finally that it was replaced by John. If the exemption stated in (43) were to apply to (i), this sentence would be ruled grammatical, since the pro occupying the complement position of told is Caseless, hence no need to repair the violation of the MCL. Strictly, though, the A-chain (John, pro) produced in (i) has a Case-position in it, namely the one occupied by John, but the resumptive pronoun strategy cannot apply to this position. We might then be able to reformulate (43) in a more desirable way, i.e., in such a way that the exemption applies to all locality violations of Move, and interpret this revised version striclty as an exemption to a chain that lacks Case in any member of the chain. In the case of an A-chain in which the head occupies a Case position, we can say that this chain, if it violates such a locality

Restrictions on Dependency   

(43)

   29

An island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case position where pro could be pronounced.

Let us now consider the stage of (40e), where the matrix C probes for a wh-feature. It finds two goals in this case, namely one occurrence of who, which is in the complement position of stay with and the other in the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause, and then applies Move to them. The application of Move to the second occurrence of who violates the adjunct condition, but since this particular instance of Move involves no Case position, it is exempt from the repair strategy. Let us compare this case with a typical case of adjunct condition violation: (44)

?*Who did you stay with Mary before your wife had spoken to?

Under the present assumptions, (44) will be derived in the following way: (45)

a.

__ C you T stay with Mary before [CP __ [your wife had spoken to who]]    

b.

who C you T stay with Mary before [CP who [your wife had spoken to who]]    

Here the matrix C probes for a wh-feature and finds who as its goal. The latter phrase then undergoes Move successive-cyclically to observe the MCL, creating one A’-chain, but it violates the adjunct condition on the way to the matrix SpecCP. Since this chain carries its Case in its tail position, it needs to be repaired by the overt pronoun strategy. The output of (44) does not undergo this repair strategy, hence exhibiting a violation of the adjunct condition. It follows from the above discussion that the pro that has undergone a null operator-like movement is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun even if it undergoes further movement out of an island, since this movement ends up lacking a Case position where pro could be pronounced.²⁰

condition as the MCL, will be required to be repaired by an overt pronoun, but there is simply no way to apply such a repair strategy. I am indebted to Tomohiro Fujii for clarifying the issue involved in (43). 20 The present system of pro-movement can be compatible with the movement theory of control proposed by Hornstein (1999, 2001) regarding adjunct control cases. Hornstein claims that in order to establish a control relation in such cases, a phrase is merged in what PRO was basegenerated in a more traditional control theory and then moves out of an adjunct clause, violating

30   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

2.2.4 Standard Weak Crossover Revisited We have shown in the preceding subsection that ATB-movement of pro is necessary to capture cases of weakest crossover, exemplified in (37). This leads us back to considering a typical case of weak crossover, shown in (35), reproduced below: (46) ?*Who1 does his1 mother think Mary likes? The remaining question is how to prevent such a weak crossover case from being derived by way of ATB-movement of pro. Actually, this is immediately solved on the assumption made above that the lexical items that are to undergo ATB-movement must be exactly the same.²¹ The possible derivation of (46) that would rely on ATB-movement will be something like the following: (47)

a.

[pro mother] thinks Mary likes who

b.

who [pro mother] thinks Mary likes who  

c.

who his mother thinks Mary likes

If who and pro could undergo ATB-movement, as in (47b), then the movement from the subject position of mother would violate the LBC, hence this position being spelled out as his, as shown in (47c). This derivation is not allowed, however, since who and pro are not exactly the same, hence unable to undergo ATB-movement. Notice that who needs to be inserted into the derivation before it undergoes operator movement due to condition (41), reproduced below: (48)

Lexical insertion must occur by the time when the derivation has reached the stage where Case assignment/checking takes place.

The relevant situation differs with a case of weak crossover configuration that involves A-movement, as illustrated below: (49)

Who1 t1 seems to his1 mother [t’1 to be intelligent]?

the adjunct island condition. This violation, however, does not have to be repaired, according to (43), since the moved phrase lacks any Case position. See Section 5.3 for relevant discussion. 21 I am indebted to Kiyomi Kusumoto (personal communication) for calling my attention to this possibility.

Restrictions on Dependency   

   31

This sentence will be derived in the following way: (50)

a.

__ seems to [pro mother] [pro to be intelligent]

b.

pro seems to [pro mother] [pro to be intelligent]  

c.

pro seems to [his mother] [pro to be intelligent]

d.

who seems to [his mother] [pro to be intelligent]

At the stage of (50b), the pro in the Spec-DP of [pro mother] and that in the subject position of the embedded infinitival clause undergo ATB-movement to the matrix Spec-TP. Since the former application of movement violates the LBC, the tail of the resulting chain is spelled out as his, as in (50c). Finally, the topmost pro is overlaid by who, thereby producing correctly the final output who seems to his mother to be intelligent. Recall the above argument that ATB-movement is necessary to derive weakest crossover cases. One of the cases is instantiated in the tough-construction, as in (39), reproduced below: (51)

a.

__ will be easy for us to get pro mother to talk to pro

b.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro to get pro mother to talk to pro]               

c.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]

d.

pro will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]  

e.

who will be easy for us [CP pro to get his mother to talk to pro]

In this derivation, ATB-movement is successfully applied to the two occurrences of pro at the stage of (51b). Although this instance of movement is traditionally taken as A’-movement, it is more like the A-movement taking place at the stage of (50b) from the present point of view in that lexical overlay of who can take place afterward. The other case of weakest crossover is instantiated in the PG construction; consider again the derivation given in (40), repeated below: (52)

a.

you Past stay with who before pro wife had spoken to pro

32   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

b.

you Past stay with who before [CP pro pro wife had spoken to pro]                    

c.

you Past stay with who before [CP pro his wife had spoken to pro]

d.

you Past stay with who before [CP who his wife had spoken to pro]

e.

who Past you stay with who before [CP who his wife had spoken to pro]  

f.

who Past you stay with before [CP his wife had spoken to pro]

This derivation involves two instances of ATB-movement, and both instances obey the identity requirement on the target phrases. The first instance is more like A-movement in that lexical overlay of who can take place afterward, and the second instance takes place right after the pro in the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause is overlaid by who. One might raise the question what will be wrong if who is inserted in the Spec-DP of the matrix subject instead of pro at the stage of (47a) and then undergoes ATB-movement together with the other occurrence of who, satisfying the identity requirement on the target phrases, as shown below: (53)

a.

[who mother] thinks Mary likes who

b.

who [who mother] thinks Mary likes who  

As noted in fn. 14, we need to assume that the resumptive pronoun strategy can be used to replace the copy left behind by an instance of A’-movement that induces an island violation, as shown below: (54)

Do you know that kid who1 his1 mother is always complaining to the principal?

We might then claim that at the stage of (53b), the Spec-DP of [who mother] could be replaced by his as a repair strategy of a LBC violation, thereby incorrectly producing the ungrammatical output who does his mother think Mary likes?. There is a crucial difference, however, between such a weak crossover case and (54) with respect to the way the resumptive pronoun strategy applies: the former case involves ATB-movement, in which only one instance of movement is remedied by

Restrictions on Dependency   

   33

this strategy. It will not be unnatural to claim that this is the cause of the ungrammaticality of such a derivation as given in (53). Let us then assume that when the resumptive pronoun strategy applies to an instance of A’-movement, it must respect a parallelism constraint to the effect that when such an instance of A’movement is applied in an ATB fashion, the resulting chains must be uniform with respect to whether they have been remedied by the strategy in question. There is in fact supporting evidence for this assumption. Abe (1993) provides the following data, which he attributes to Daiko Takahashi, who observes that “the use of a resumptive pronoun increases acceptability in a WCO [= weak crossover] configuration for some speakers who tolerate resumptive pronouns in questions” (p. 262): (55)

a. ?*Who1 did his1 mother believe the rumor that Mary loved t1? b. (?)Who1 did his1 mother believe the rumor that Mary loved him1?

This contrast is exactly what the parallelism constraint in question predicts: (55b) will be derived by applying ATB-movement to the two occurrences of who, whose original positions are later overlaid with his and him as a result of applying the resumptive pronoun strategy. Notice that insertion of him is possible in (55b) because the operator movement of who violates a pure complex NP constraint. Thus, the improvement in acceptability of (55b), as compared with (55a), is attributed to the fact that in the former case, the resumptive pronoun strategy is applied in a uniform way.

2.2.5 Minimality: Deriving Strong Crossover Let us now consider cases of strong crossover such as the following: (56) *Who1 does he1 think Mary likes? Under the present mechanism, there are two possible ways to establish an anaphoric relation between he and who, as represented below with the notation of links: (57)

a.

who does he think Mary likes who  

b.

who does he think Mary likes who  

34   

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

In order to produce a link between he and the tail position of who, as in (57a), pro needs to be merged in the subject position of think and then to be lowered to the complement position of likes, but it would violate the EC, just like cases of Condition C violation. On the other hand, the derivation where the pronoun is directly linked to the wh-operator who, like (57b), is ruled out by the identity requirement imposed upon the target phrases of ATB-movement. Hence, under the present theory, (56) can be ruled ungrammatical in exactly the same way as a weak crossover case such as (46), reproduced below: (58)

?*Who1 does his1 mother think Mary likes?

This cannot be the end of the story with strong crossover, however. For one thing, the grammatical status of (56) is appreciably different from that of (58); that is, it is much worse than the latter. Hence something more is involved in explaining the strong crossover case. Furthermore, strong crossover effects persist in both the tough- and PG constructions, unlike weak crossover cases; compare the sentences in (37) with the following: (59)

a. *Who1 will be easy for us to get him1 to talk to? b. *Who1 did you stay with before he1 had spoken to?

Under the theory assumed so far, it is expected that these sentences will be derived in the same way as the corresponding weakest crossover cases; cf. the derivations given in (51) and (52).²² Given this state of affairs, the most natural and probably obvious way to exclude strong crossover cases is to rely on a condition on Move in terms of minimality: the link of the head and tail positions of who in (57b) is disallowed since there is another link closer to who, namely the link between he and who, as originally claimed by Abe (1993) under linking theory. It has been usually assumed that closeness of links is defined in terms of c-command, but since our main purpose is to derive binding properties from independently motivated movement properties, as has been noted above, it would be better to formulate the relevant minimality condition with no mention of such a binding notion as c-command.

22 Strictly, him and he in (59) will not be manifested on the surface because the relevant movement of pro will induce no locality condition violation. This might be considered as the cause of the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (59), but I will not pursue this possibility here since this account is not general enough in its applicability; see the next chapter.

Restrictions on Dependency   

   35

Aiming at the same purpose, Hornstein (2009) proposes such a minimality condition in terms of the notion of path, which is defined as follows: (60)

Path: a path is the set of maximal projections (XPs) that dominate the target or the launch site.

With this notion, we can formulate the minimality condition in question as something like the following: (61)

a.

α cannot be moved to β if there is another movement to β whose path is shorter than the path of the movement of α to β.

b.

Path α is shorter than path β iff the set of path α is a proper subset of that of path β.

Let us now consider the relevant derivation of (56), which is given below: (62)

a.

[CP [TP pro Pres think Mary likes who]]

b.

[CP who [TP pro Pres think Mary likes who]]    

At the stage of (62b), ATB movement cannot be applied for two reasons: one is that it would violate the identity requirement on the target phrases. The other is that it would violate the minimality condition given in (61): who cannot be moved from the complement position of likes to the matrix Spec-CP, according to (61a), since there is another movement, i.e., the movement of pro from the matrix subject position, whose path is shorter than that of the other movement: the set of the nodes of the former is {CP, TP} while that of the latter contains nodes other than {CP, TP}. Hence there is no way to derive (56); in fact, the derivation is doubly blocked, hence giving rise to more degraded acceptability than that of the weak crossover case. Sentence (59a) will involve either the derivation given in (63) or the one given in (64): (63)

a.

__ will be easy for us PRO to get pro to talk to pro

b.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro [TP PRO to get pro to talk to pro]]               

36   

(64)

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

a.

__ will be easy for us PRO to get pro to talk to pro

b.

__ will be easy for us [CP pro [TP PRO to get pro to talk to pro]]               

c.

pro will be easy for us [CP pro [TP PRO to get pro to talk to pro]]  

In (63b), the pro that is merged in the complement position of talk to tries to move to the embedded Spec-CP, but in this case, the other pro-movement from the complement position of get to the same position induces a violation of the minimality condition given in (61), since the path from the complement position of talk to is longer than that of the pro-movement from the complement position of get. (64) demonstrates another possible derivation for (59a). In (64c), the pro in the complement position of get undergoes Move to the matrix Spec-TP, but it violates the minimality condition in question due to the fact that there is another movement which is shorter in its path, namely the one from the embedded SpecCP. Hence there is no way to connect the pro in the complement position of get to any phrase that is going to be a variable of who via Move. This means under the present theory of anaphora that him in (59a) cannot serve as a variable of who. Likewise, there is no way to derive the PG construction given in (59b) with the intended reading. First, he cannot be connected to the pro that occupies the Spec-CP of the before-clause, as shown below: (65)

a.

you did stay with who before pro had spoken to pro

b.

you did stay with who [before [CP pro [TP pro had spoken to pro]]]                   

In this case, the pro that occupies the complement position of spoken to cannot be moved to the Spec-CP of the before-clause due to a violation of (61a). Nor can he be directly connected to the occurrence of who in the matrix Spec-CP, as shown below: (66)

a.

you did stay with who before pro had spoken to pro

b.

you did stay with who [before [CP pro [TP pro had spoken to pro]]]                   

c.

you did stay with who [before [CP who [TP pro had spoken to pro]]]

Restrictions on Dependency   

d.

   37

[CP who did [TP you stay with who [before [CP who [TP pro had spoken    

to pro]]]]]

In this case, apart from a violation of the identity requirement on the target phrases in ATB-movement, the movement of pro from the subject position of had spoken to to the matrix Spec-CP is blocked by (61a), since it is longer in its path than the movement of the occurrence of who in the Spec-CP of the before-clause. Topicalization also manifests strong crossover effects, while it instantiates cases of weakest crossover; compare the following sentences: (67) *John1, he1 thinks Mary likes. (68)

a.

John1, his1 mother thinks Mary likes.

b. ?*Who1 does his1 mother think Mary likes? (=(58)) (67) is excluded in exactly the same way as (56). How about (68a, b)? The possible derivation of (68b) is repeated below: (69)

a.

[DP pro mother] thinks Mary likes who

b.

who [DP pro mother] thinks Mary likes who  

c.

who [DP his mother] thinks Mary likes

Note that at the stage of (69b), who can move from the complement position of likes to the matrix Spec-CP without violating the minimality condition given in (61), since the path of the pro-movement includes the matrix subject DP, which is not included in the other path, hence no way to compare the path length of the two movements. However, the derivation fails since ATB-movement cannot be applied at the stage of (69b) without violating the identity requirement on the target phrases. (68a) would also be excluded if it had the same derivation as given in (69), but there is another way to derive this sentence, namely one that involves sideward movement. Note that the anaphoric relation between John and his is coreferential, so that it can be established via sideward movement, unlike that between who and his in (68b). Thus, this sentence can be derived in the following way:

38   

(70)

   Basic Architecture of Deriving Anaphoric Relations via Move

a.

[DP pro mother], [likes __]

b.

[DP pro mother], [likes pro]    

c.

[DP his mother], [likes pro]

d.

[TP [DP his mother] thinks Mary [likes John]]

e.

[CP John [TP [DP his mother] thinks Mary [likes John]]    

f.

[CP John [TP [DP his mother] thinks Mary [likes ]]

In (70b), pro undergoes sideward movement from the Spec of DP to the complement of likes. Since sideward movement gives rise to an island violation according to (18), pro is spelled out as his for remedy of this violation, as in (70c). After the pro that occupies the complement position of likes is replaced by John, the structure is built in a bottom-up fashion, so that the DP his mother and the VP likes John are incorporated into one structure, as in (70d). Then, John undergoes Move from the complement position of likes to the matrix Spec-CP, as in (70e), and the pronunciation of the upper member of the A’-chain of John correctly yields the final output given in (70f). Note that in (67), there is no way to connect he with its antecedent John by way of sideward movement without inducing a violation of other constraints like the EC. This explains why topicalization suppresses weak crossover effects, but not strong crossover effects.

3 Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition In this chapter, I first demonstrate that Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition (COC), which is formulated under linking theory, is superior to the Condition C approach, proposed by Chomsky (1981), in accounting for a variety of strong crossover cases. I then show that the effects of the COC can be recaptured in quite a natural fashion by our movement theory of anaphora; that is, they are basically derived from a minimality condition on Move.

3.1 Advantages of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition Building on the observation made by Wasow (1972) that A’-traces, i.e., those left behind by A’-movement, behave like referential non-pronominal NPs with respect to anaphoric possibilities with pronouns, Chomsky (1981) proposes the following condition: (1)

A’-traces are subject to Condition C.

This condition accounts for typical cases of strong crossover, such as illustrated in (2.56), repeated below: (2)

*Who1 does he1 think Mary likes t1?

In this sentence, the trace of who is A-bound by he, hence violating Condition C. Chomsky (1981), however, notes a problem of this approach with certain cases of strong crossover that involve null operator constructions. A relevant example is given below: (3)

*John1 is too stubborn [CP OP1 [TP PRO1 to talk to t1]]

In this sentence, PRO cannot refer to John, but rather must be interpreted as arbitrary. This fact appears to be properly captured with the assumption given in (1), since the trace of the null operator is A-bound by PRO, hence giving rise to a Condition C violation. However, note that even if PRO is taken to have arbitrary interpretation, (3) is incorrectly ruled out by Condition C, since the A’-trace t1 is A-bound by John. Noticing this problem, Chomsky (1981) modified Condition C so as to prohibit A-binding only within an operator domain:

40   

(4)

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

An A’-trace must be A-free in the domain of the operator that A’-binds it.

With this modification, (3) is correctly ruled in with PRO arbitrarily interpreted, since in that case, t1 is A-free in the domain of its operator. Lasnik (1994) points out, however, that the PG construction may induce a potential problem for (4) under the null operator approach to this construction. This is concerned with the so-called anti-c-command requirement on PGs, as shown in the following contrast (the examples are taken from Chomsky (1986b, p. 54)): (5)

a.

What1 did you file t1 [before you read pg1]?

b. *Who1 t1 met you [before you recognized pg1]? Under the null operator analysis, (5b) will have the following structure: (6)

*who1 [t1 met you [before [OP1 you recognized pg1]]]

It is natural to reason that the ungrammaticality of this representation has to do with the fact that the real gap t1 c-commands pg1. Notice that this is not captured by (4), since the PG is A-free in the domain of its own operator in (6). To the extent that a Condition C type of explanation is relevant for accounting for the anti-ccommand requirement on PGs, this can be taken as a challenge to (4). Lasnik (1994) notes another problem with (4). This is concerned with the following construction, which was originally pointed out by James Higginbotham and discussed further by Barss (1986): (7)

a.

Fred has himself to blame.

b.

Fred1 has himself1 [OP1 [PRO1 to blame t1]]

(7b) is the representation of (7a) in which a null operator is involved in the infinitival clause and takes the object of has as its antecedent, in much the same way as in (3). However, unlike (3), (7a) is grammatical despite the fact that the trace of the null operator is A-bound by PRO in the domain of that operator. Hence, (4) is unable to explain why the missing reading of (3), i.e., the controlled reading of PRO, is available to (7a). Barss (1986) proposes an alternative to (4) to account for these problematic cases as well as those of standard strong crossover. He derives such Condition C

Advantages of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition   

   41

type effects as shown above from a condition on chains under linking theory. This condition is roughly formulated as follows:¹ (8)

The Chain Obviation Condition (COC) For a chain C = (a1, …, an), and for an expression Z where Z is not a member of C, if Z is dependent upon ai, then Z does not c-command any member aj of C.

(9)

X is dependent upon Y if: (i) X is linked to Y, or (ii) for some Z, X is dependent on Z, and Z is dependent on Y.

Now let us see how the various strong crossover cases mentioned above are accounted for by the COC. Let us first consdier such a typical case of strong crossover as given in (2), which is represented as follows under linking theory: (10)

a.

who does he think Mary likes t  

b.

who does he think Mary likes t  

In either representation, he is not a member of the A’-chain (who, t), is dependent upon who (in (10a), he is dependent upon who since it is linked to the trace of who and the latter is in turn linked to who), and c-commands its trace. Hence, it violates the COC. Further, this condition correctly excludes the impossible interpretation of (3). This interpretation is represented below: (11)

*John is too stubborn [OP [PRO to talk to t]]  

Barss stipulates that a null operator chain creates a “composed chain” with a phrase that it is linked to, and that the COC is applied in terms of composed chains. Under this assumption, the relevant composed chain in (11) is (John, OP, t). In this representation, PRO is not a member of the composed chain, is depen-

1 I simplified the original COC as well as the definition of dependent upon to highlight the relevance of this condition for our movement theory of strong crossover.

42   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

dent upon John, the head of the chain, and c-commands the trace of the null operator, hence violating the COC. Let us next consider the cases which are problematic for (4). First, let us consider the case of the anti-c-command requirement on PGs. Under the present assumptions, (5b) will have the following representation: (12) *who [t met you [before [OP [you recognized pg]]]]    In (12), the real gap t is not a member of the composed chain (who, OP, pg), is dependent upon who, and c-commands the null operator and the PG. Hence, it is correctly ruled out by the COC. Let us finally consider Higginbotham’s case (7a). This is represented as follows:² (13)

Fred has himself [OP [PRO to blame t]]  

In this representation, (himself, OP, t) constitutes a composed chain. Since PRO is not dependent upon any member of this chain (it is dependent upon only Fred), it does not violate the COC; hence the grammaticality of (7a). Note that the key difference between (13) and (11) resides in which element PRO is linked to rather than which element it refers to; in either case, PRO refers to the same element as OP does, but only in (11) is it linked to a member of the composed chain in question. This clearly shows that linking theory is superior to indexing theory in that linking can specify a particular choice of antecedent.

3.2 Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory Now I demonstrate how the present movement theory of anaphora explains the cases dealt with by the COC. I argue that the effects of the COC are more naturally captured under the present theory by the minimality condition given in (2.61). I have already shown how a typical case of strong crossover such as (2) is excluded as a violation of the minimality condition (2.61a). Let us now consider the impos-

2 The following example makes it clear that the antecedent of the null operator is himself and PRO is controlled by Fred in (7a): (i)

Fred has a person to blame.

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

   43

sible interpretation of (3). For this interpretation, this sentence will involve the following derivation: (14)

a.

__ is too stubborn PRO to talk to pro

b.

__ is too stubborn [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]             

c.

pro is too stubborn [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]  

In (14b), the pro that is merged in the complement position of talk to undergoes null operator-like movement to the embedded Spec-CP. Given that PRO takes the matrix subject as its antecedent in the construction under consideration, it is natural to assume the movement theory of control (see Hornstein 1999, 2001, among others), so that PRO is moved to the matrix subject in this case. Suppose further that PRO and pro are different occurrences of the same entity, differing only in that PRO lacks Case in its original position (see Chapter 7 for detailed discussion). Then to apply ATB-movement to these entities will not violate the identity condition imposed upon the target phrases, but the movement of PRO is blocked by the minimality condition given in (2.61), as shown in (14c), since there is another movement, i.e., that of the pro in the embedded Spec-CP, whose path is shorter than that of the PRO-movement. Hence there is no way to derive the reading where PRO refers to John in (3). Now let us move on to the case of a violation of the anti-c-command requirement on PG given in (5b). This sentence will involve the following derivation: (15)

a.

who met you before you recognized pro

b.

who met you before [CP pro [TP you recognized pro]]              

c.

who met you before [CP who [TP you recognized pro]]

d.

who who met you before [CP who [TP you recognized pro]]  

In (15b), the pro that is merged in the complement position of recognized undergoes operator movement to the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause. It then needs to be overlaid by who so as to undergo ATB-movement to the matrix Spec-CP with

44   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

the matrix subject who, as shown in (15c), but it fails to do so due to a violation of the minimality condition (2.61a), since the movement of who from the matrix subject position is shorter, as shown in (15d). In this way, when a PG construction involves a configuration where the real gap c-commands the PG, the movement from the real gap position blocks that from the PG position due to the minimality condition in question.³ As for (7a), repeated below, we need to have an extra device to rule it in, since under the present movement theory, the relevant derivation would cause a violation of the minimality condition (2.61a), as shown in (17). (16)

Fred has himself to blame.

(17)

a.

__ has __ [CP PRO to blame pro]

b.

__ has __ [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]         

c.

__ has pro [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]      

d.

pro has pro [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]  

The pro that is merged in the complement position of blame undergoes operator movement to the Spec-CP of the infinitival clause, as in (17b). In the next step, as shown in (17c), this pro undergoes further movement to the object position of has (Notice that the antecedent of this pro must be himself, as shown in (13).). This movement appears to violate the EC, but on the assumption made by Chomsky (1995) that a verbal projection involves v-V compound structure, (17c) can have the following structure:

3 The reviewer raises the question what will go wrong if at the stage of (15b), pro undergoes movement to the matrix Spec-TP and then after it is overlaid by who, the latter moves to the matrix Spec-CP. Here I am following Barss (1986) in assuming that the operator-variable chain of the PG produced at the stage of (15b) must be connected to the wh-phase in the Spec-CP position for producing a composed chain that is properly interpreted at the C-I interface. Something like this is independently necessary for guaranteeing that PGs are licensed by A’-movement, but not by A-movement, as illustrated below: (i)

*John was killed t by a tree falling on pg.

See Section 7.3 for relevant discussion.

(Chomsky 1982, p. 42)

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

(18)

   45

[vP __ [v’ v+has [VP pro [V’ tV [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]]]]]

In this structure, pro can undergo movement to the Spec-VP without violating the EC. Further, the V has undergoes obligatory head movement to v, so that we can obtain the right word order. At the stage of (17d), however, we cannot apply ATB-movement to the pro that has reached the matrix Spec-VP and PRO without inducing a violation of the minimality condition (2.61a), the wrong result. Recall that under the COC-based account of (16), the link of PRO to the matrix subject does not interfere with the composed chain (himself, OP, t), since PRO is not dependent upon any member of this chain. Notice that this account relies crucially on the stipulation that the composed chain consists of the null operator chain (OP, t) and the phrase this null operator is directly linked to, namely himself, despite the fact that himself itself is dependent upon Fred. If the composed chain were extended so as to include the antecedent of himself, then the COC could not account for the acceptability of (16), since now PRO would be dependent upon the antecedent of himself and c-command the trace of the null operator. We can exploit this stipulative property of defining a composed chain in a more natural way under the present movement theory; that is, in (17d), the position to which PRO moves is different from the position to which the pro in the matrix Spec-VP moves. This is naturally implemented under the VP-internal subject hypothesis now standardly assumed in the literature. It has often been claimed since Williams (1980) that thematic roles play a crucial role in determining control relations: according to Williams (1980), the NP bearing the theme role functions as a controller. Given this, it is not unreasonable to make the following assumption: (19)

Control relations are established among θ-positions.

Then, at the stage of (17d), PRO must be moved to the matrix Spec-vP. On the other hand, the pro in the matrix Spec-VP does not enter into a control relation and hence nothing prevents it from moving to the matrix TP. In this way, we have an alternative derivation that does not violate the minimality condition (2.61a), as shown below: (20)

a.

[TP __ [vP PRO has pro [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]]]       

b.

[TP pro [vP PRO has pro [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]]]      

46   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

c.

[TP pro [vP pro has himself [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]]]

d.

[TP John [vP pro has himself [CP pro [TP PRO to blame pro]]]]

At the stage of (20a), PRO moves to the matrix Spec-vP in accordance with the condition given in (19). Here one may raise the question whether this movement does not violate the MCL since it crosses the object position occupied by pro, probably a possible landing site for this movement into θ-position. One suggestion is to rely on the notion of equi-distance, devised by Chomsky (1993). Given that V-to-v-movement makes VP and vP constitute the same domain for calculating a distance of movement relevant for the MCL, we may claim that movement of PRO to the matrix Spec-vP at the stage of (20a) does not violate the MCL, since this position and the matrix Spec-VP occupied by pro belong to the same domain in the relevant sense, hence equi-distanct from the embedded subject position from which PRO moves.⁴ Next, the matrix T probes for ϕ-features. Since PRO is defective in that it lacks Case, so that it cannot enter into ϕ-feature valuation (cf. Chomsky’s (2000) Activity Condition), T finds the pro in the matrix Spec-VP as its goal, and the latter undergoes successive-cyclic movement to the matrix Spec-TP, passing through the Spec-vP, as shown in (20b). Since this movement does not violate any locality condition, the tail position of the produced chain does not demand the repair strategy by overt pronoun. Instead, a reflexive is inserted into that position as another repair strategy that avoids a violation of (2.11) (cf. the discussion around (2.13)), as shown in (20c). Finally, the top copy of the produced chain is overlaid by John, which thus yields the right output.⁵ Note that this derivation yields two chains, i.e., (John, pro, himself, pro, pro) and (PRO, PRO). These chains are finally composed into one due to the fact that both share the external θ-role of the matrix v, hence entering into an anaphoric relation.⁶

4 See Section 5.3 for relevant discussion on how the notion of equi-distance may play a role in dealing with an apparent violatin of the MCL. 5 A word is in order regarding the derivation of (3), which is given in (14). At the stage of (14c), pro and PRO must move to the same position, namely, the matrix Spec-vP, since they are both involved in control relations, hence inducing a minimality violation. 6 The reviewer suggests an ingenious alternative derivation for sentence (16) without making any extra assumption such as (19), as shown below: (i)

a. [ __ blame pro] b. [pro blame pro] c. [pro blame himself] d. [CP himself [pro to blame ]] e. [VP himself has [CP [pro to blame ]]]

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

   47

There are further cases of strong crossover that are properly dealt with by the COC. Abe (1993) provides the following contrast with respect to the PG construction ((21a) is taken from Barss (1986, p. 478) and (21b) from Abe (1993, p. 154) with a slight change): (21)

a.

It was himself that John nominated before voting for.

b. *It was himself that John expected to nominate Mary before voting for. These sentences are represented as follows, under indexing theory: (22)

a.

It was himself1 [OP1 that [John1 nominated t1 before [OP1 [PRO1 voting for pg1]]]]

b. *It was himself1 [OP1 that [John1 expected t1 to nominate Mary before [OP1 [PRO1 voting for pg1]]]] f. [vP pro [v+has [VP himself tV [CP [pro to blame ]]]]] g. [TP John [vP pro [v+has [himself tV [CP [pro to blame ]]]]]] The crucial step here is (ib), where pro undergoes Move from the object position of blame to its subject position. Since this movement violates no locality condition, the tail of the resulting chain is overlaid by himself, as in (ic). Then, himself undergoes a null operator-like movement, as in (id), and further moves to the Spec-VP, as in (ie). Next, pro moves to Spec-vP, as in (if), and further moves up to Spec-TP, where it is overlaid by John, as in (ig). This derivation yields two chains, i.e., (John, pro, pro, himself) and (himself, , ), which will be composed into one due to the fact that they share the occurrence of himself in the object position of blame as their member. Though this looks like a better alternative, it makes an incorrect prediction: if the object-to-subject movement of pro within the infinitival clause (cf. (ib)) is long enough to induce the repair strategy by overt pronoun, then an ordinary pronoun rather than a reflexive should appear in the matrix clause, according to the derivation given in (i). This is clearly false, as illustrated by the following example: (ii) Fred has himself to get people not to blame. If we tried to derive this sentence in exactly the way given in (i), we would derive (iii) rather than (ii): (iii) *Fred1 has him1 to get people not to blame. This is because at the stage comparable to (ib), the pro in the object position of blame must be manifested as him due to the fact that the pro-movement involved crosses the subject position occupied by people, hence inducing a violation of the MCL. Hence, under the present movement theory of anaphora, the derivation given in (i) needs to be excluded. I speculate that (ib) involves an illegitimate step of movement, namely a movement from Case position to Caseless position. This will follow from the present assumption that pro-movement is triggered by Case-checking (cf. the discussion around (2.6)).

48   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

The contrast in acceptability in (21) clearly indicates that it is the real gap that is not allowed to c-command the PG, and that it does not matter whether any other element, like John1 or PRO1 in (22), which happens to have the same index as the PG, c-commands this gap. It is doubtful, then, that any indexing theory can capture the contrast in (21) properly, since, in the representations given in (22), both PGs are A-bound (by PRO1, John1 in (22a) and by PRO1, t1, John1 in (22b)). Under linking theory, on the other hand, the sentences in (21) will have the following representations: (23)

a.

It was himself [OP that [John nominated t before [OP’ [PRO voting for           pg]]]]

b. *It was himself [OP that [John expected t to nominate Mary before           [OP’ [PRO voting for pg]]]]   In (23a), the composed chain relevant for the COC is (OP, OP’, pg), and the possible interveners are John and PRO, since they are not members of this composed chain and c-command a member of it. However, they are not dependent upon any member of that chain; John is dependent upon no element, since it is an R-expression, and PRO is dependent upon only John. Hence, (23a) does not violate the COC. In (23b), in contrast, the real gap t, which is not a member of the composed chain (OP, OP’, pg), is dependent upon OP and c-commands OP’ and pg, violating the COC. Hence, this condition correctly picks out those cases where the PG is c-commanded by the real gap from the other cases where some elements that are not dependent upon but c-command a member of the chain containing the PG happen to have the same index as the PG. The present movement theory captures the contrast in question properly in terms of the minimality condition (2.61a). Let us first consider sentence (21a), which will involve the following derivation:⁷

7 For the sake of simplicity, I ignore the structure of the focused position of a cleft construction and treat the focused phrase as if it had just undergone topicalization in the derivation given in (24). The same simplification is made in the derivation given in (25). Further, I leave unspecified the exact position that PRO moves to in the derivations given in (24) and (25) since such

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

(24)

a.

__ nominated pro before PRO voting for pro

b.

__ nominated pro before [CP pro [TP PRO voting for pro]]                 

c.

__ nominated pro before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting for pro]]

d.

pro nominated pro before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting for pro]]

   49

  e.

John nominated himself before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting for pro]]

f.

himself John nominated himself before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting    for pro]]

g.

himself John nominated before [CP [TP PRO voting for pro]]

As shown in (24b), the pro that is merged in the complement position of voting for undergoes operator movement to the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause. Suppose that at this stage, the reflexive himself is overlaid onto pro, as in (24c). Recall that we have so far assumed that overlay of a reflexive is solely allowed as a repair strategy of otherwise illegitimate appearance of pro on the surface. Thus we do not want to overlay a reflexive in an arbitrary way. Let us then assume that a reflexive that is introduced into a structure in a rather arbitrary way is illegitimate unless it is subsumed under a chain as its member; that is why himself is put with * in (24c) as if it has a promissory note. Next, the pro that is merged in the complement position of nominated and PRO undergo ATB-movement to the matrix subject position, as shown in (24d). Here, this movement does not violate the minimality condition (2.61a) on the assumption that the before-clause is adjoined to a position higher than that occupied by the pro in the complement position of nominated, say vP. Since the pro-movement from the complement position of nominated to the matrix subject position does not violate any locality condition, the repair strategy by overt pronoun does not apply here but rather a reflexive insertion salvages the unlicensed pro in the complement position. After the replacement of the pro in the matrix subject position by John, we obtain (24e).⁸ Finally, himself and himself*, which is in the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause, undergo ATB-

information is unnecessary to determine whether or not the movement in question violates the minimality condition (2.61a). 8 Recall that we have assumed above (cf. (2.43)) that an island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case

50   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

movement to the matrix Spec-CP. This movement does not violate the minimality condition in question, exactly for the same reason as the ATB-movement that has been applied at the stage of (24d) does not. Himself* is now properly licensed since it is subsumed under the A’-chain headed by himself as a result of composing the two relevant chains. The output is successfully derived by pronouncing only the head of this composed chain, as given in (24g). Let us compare this derivation with that of (21b), given below: (25)

a.

__ expected [TP __ to nominate Mary before [PRO voting for pro]]

b.

__ expected [TP __ to nominate Mary before [CP pro [TP PRO voting for                           pro]]]

c.

__ expected [TP __ to nominate Mary before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting for pro]]]

d.

__ expected [TP pro to nominate Mary before [CP himself* [TP PRO            voting for pro]]]

e.

pro expected [TP pro to nominate Mary before [CP himself* [TP PRO   voting for…

f.

John expected [TP himself to nominate Mary before [CP himself* [TP PRO voting for pro]]]

g.

himself John expected [TP himself to nominate Mary before [CP himself*    [TP PRO voting for pro]]]

As shown in (25b), pro undergoes operator movement from the complement position of voting for to the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause, and then it is overlaid by himself*, as in (25c). Next, PRO undergoes movement to the subject position of nominate, as shown in (25d),⁹ and then undergoes further movement to the position where pro could be pronounced. Thus, PRO-movement is exempt from this repair strategy, because it takes place from a Caseless position. 9 At the stage of (25d), the PRO-movement is represented as if it changed PRO into pro, but nothing crucial is at stake here, as far as I can see, since these null elements are finally replaced by John and himself. Recall that we are assuming that PRO is a defective null pronoun in that it lacks Case. Hence, in the case of (25d), it simply represents a null pronoun that occupies a Caseless

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

   51

subject position of expect, as in (25e). Since no locality violation is induced by the last step of movement, the tail position is replaced by himself. After John replaces the pro in the subject position of expect, we reach the stage of (25f). Next himself and himself* need to undergo ATB movement, but the movement of himself* violates the minimality condition (2.61a), since the path of the movement of himself is shorter than that of the movement of himself*. Hence this derivation is correctly ruled out. Let us consider one more case that supports the COC, provided by Lasnik (1994): (26)

a.

Mary believes John to be too boring [PRO to talk to].

(John≠PRO)

b.

John believes himself to be too boring [PRO to talk to]. (John = PRO)

(26a) has a configuration in which such a null operator construction as given in (3) is embedded in an ECM construction. This does not have the reading where PRO refers to John, just like (3), as expected. Interestingly, (26b) does have this reading.¹⁰ This will again be surprising under any conceivable account in terms of indexing, since the only difference between (26a) and (26b) that is plausibly relevant for determining the antecedent of PRO is whether John is in the embedded subject or in the matrix subject, but this type of information is not available to any indexing account because of its transitivity; when PRO is coindexed with himself, it is automatically coindexed with John. Lasnik (1994) demonstrates that the contrast shown in (26) is nicely captured by the COC. He first shows that in such ECM constructions as in (26), PRO can be controlled by the matrix subject, as is clear from the acceptability of the following sentence: (27)

John believes Mary to be too boring [PRO to tell himself about].

In (27), himself forces PRO to be controlled by the matrix subject John. Given this, (26b) can have the following representation:

position. That is why I have used pro in representing the null pronoun occupying the subject position of nominate, since this is a Case-marked position. 10 As Lasnik notes, the following grammatical sentence makes the intended reading clearer: (i)

John believes himself to be too boring [PRO to tell himself about].

In this sentence, the second himself forces PRO to take John as its antecedent.

52   

(28)

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

John believes himself to be too boring [OP [PRO to tell himself about t]]  

In (28), PRO can be linked to John, since it can be involved in long distance control, as shown in (27). Here, PRO is not a member of the composed chain (himself, OP, t) and is not dependent upon any member of this chain. Thus, the dependencies represented in (28) are correctly allowed by the COC. Again, the present movement theory of anaphora captures the contrast given in (26) properly in terms of the minimality condition (2.61a). (26a) involves the same derivation as (3) does, so it is excluded in the same way as the latter by (2.61a). (26b) will involve the following derivation: (29)

a.

__ believes __ to be too boring [PRO to talk to pro]

b.

__ believes __ to be too boring [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]                    

c.

__ believes pro to be too boring [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]        

d.

[TP __ [vP PRO believes pro to be too boring [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]]]      

e.

[TP pro [vP PRO believes pro to be too boring [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]]]     

f.

John believes himself to be too boring [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]

Pro undergoes operator movement to the Spec-CP of the infinitival clause, as in (29b), and further undergoes movement to the subject position of to be too boring, as shown in (29c). Next, PRO moves to the matrix Spec-vP in accordance with the condition of control (19), as shown in (29d). Then, the matrix T probes for ϕ-features. Since PRO is defective in that it lacks Case, T finds the pro in the subject position of be too boring as its goal, and the latter undergoes successivecyclic movement to the matrix Spec-TP, passing through the Spec-vP, as shown in (29e). Since this movement does not violate any locality condition, the tail position of the produced chain does not demand the repair strategy by overt pronoun. Instead, a reflexive is inserted into that position as another repair strategy that avoids a violation of (2.11). Finally, after the top copy of the produced chain is replaced by John, we obtain the right output, as shown in (29f). We have seen that the COC is superior to any account in terms of indexing theory in explaining a variety of strong crossover cases and that our movement

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

   53

theory of anaphora recaptures the effects of the COC quite naturally. However, Lasnik (1994) points out a problematic case for the COC: (30)

John is easy for himself to talk to.

This sentence will have the following representation under linking theory: (31)

John is easy for himself [OP [PRO to talk to t]]  

The COC incorrectly rules out (31), since PRO, which is not a member of the composed chain (John, OP, t), is dependent upon John (it is dependent upon himself and the latter is dependent upon John, and as a result of transitivity PRO is dependent upon John; cf. (9)) and c-commands t, a member of the chain in question. Lasnik (1994) suggests that the COC be weakened in such a way that Z must be directly linked to a member of the chain for obviation to obtain, in the formulation of the COC, reproduced below: (32)

The Chain Obviation Condition (COC) For a chain C = (a1, …, an), and for an expression Z where Z is not a member of C, if Z is dependent upon ai, then Z does not c-command any member aj of C.

This correctly captures the acceptability of (30), since PRO is not directly linked to any member of the composed chain (John, OP, t) in (31). The modification of the COC in this way does not affect the accounts for the (un)acceptability of the cases that have been dealt with above by this condition. However, Lasnik (1994) claims that the following sentence, a violation of strong crossover in the PG construction, constitutes a counterexample to this modified COC: (33) *the man who1 I hired t1 because he1 said pg1 would work hard (Lasnik and Uriagereka 1988, p. 76) There are a couple of ways to represent this sentence under linking theory, depending on which phrase he is linked to. Suppose that he is linked to the null operator, as shown below: (34) *the man who I hired t [because [OP [he said pg would work hard]]]       

54   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

In this case, he is directly linked to a member of the composed chain (who, OP, pg) and c-commands pg, hence violating the modified COC. Lasnik, however, considers the possibility of he being linked to the real gap t, as shown below: (35) *the man who I hired t [because [OP [he said pg would work hard]]]        In (35), he is not directly linked to any member of the composed chain (who, OP, pg). Hence, the modified COC incorrectly rules in (33) with the anaphoric dependency indicated in (35). However, notice that in (35), he will not be c-commanded by the real gap of who due to the anti-c-command requirement on the PG. Thus given that a pronoun interpreted as a variable of an operator must be c-commanded by the latter, (35) will not be a legitimate representation. This will then indicate that Lasnik’s (1994) suggestion that Z in (32) must be directly linked to a member of the chain for obviation to obtain is after all tenable. But even if so, a question still remains as to why direct linking rather than linking by transitivity works better in the formulation of the COC. Under the present movement theory of anaphora, on the other hand, the COC effects are simply captured by the minimality condition (2.61a). For (33), there are two relevant derivations to be considered: (36)

a.

I hired who because pro said pro would work hard

b.

I hired who because [CP pro [TP pro said pro would work]]              

(37)

a.

I hired who because pro said pro would work hard

b.

I hired who because [CP pro [TP pro said pro would work]]              

c.

[CP who [TP I hired who because [CP pro [TP pro said pro would work]]]]    

In (36), the pro merged in the subject position of said undergoes ATB-movement with the pro merged in the subject position of would work, and the former movement blocks the latter since its path is shorter. In (37), it undergoes ATB-movement with the pro that has undergone operator movement to the Spec-CP of the

Deriving the Cases of the COC by the Movement Theory   

   55

because-clause, and this time the former is blocked by the latter since its path is longer.¹¹ Note that it cannot move to the complement position of hire due to a violation of the EC, given the standard assumption that the because-clause is attached to a position higher than the complement position of hire. Note further that even if the adjunct clause is allowed to be attached to a position low enough for the movement in question to observe the EC, this will cause a violation of (2.61a): in that case, the pro in the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause cannot be moved to the matrix Spec-CP since the movement of who from the complement position of hire is shorter in its path than this movement. The grammaticality of (30) is explained under the present theory in a rather straightforward way. It will involve the following derivation:¹² (38)

a.

__ is easy for __ [PRO to talk to pro]

b.

__ is easy for __ [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]            

c.

__ is easy for pro [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]         

d.

pro is easy for pro [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]  

e.

John is easy for himself [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]

In (38b), pro undergoes Move from the complement position of talk to to the Spec-CP of the infinitival clause. In (38c), PRO undergoes Move to the complement position of the for-phrase, in accordance with the movement theory of control.¹³ It then undergoes ATB-movement with the pro occupying the Spec-CP of the infinitival clause. This movement does not violate the minimality condition

11 Here the ATB-movement also involves the movement of who in the matrix clause, hence inducing a violation of the identity requirement on the target phrases as well. 12 See fn. 9 for why the PRO-movement at the stage of (38c) gives rise to pro in the complement position of for. 13 Obviously, this movement violates the EC. One suggestion will be that for is inserted just like the of-insertion rule to meet the Case requirement of a DP. Thus, under the assumption that the Larsonian-shell structure also obtains with AP (cf. (18)), we can claim that PRO moves to the Spec-AP of the easy-phrase, as shown below, and then for is adjoined to pro: (i)

[aP __ [a’ a+easy [AP pro [A’ tA [CP pro [TP PRO to talk to pro]]]]]]

On the assumption that easy is moved up to the a position, we obtain the right word order.

56   

   Deriving Cases of Barss’s (1986) Chain Obviation Condition

(2.61a), since the pro in the complement position of for is immediately dominated by the PP (or DP if for is adjoined to pro; cf. fn. 13) that is not a member of the path of the other pro, which thus gives rise to no proper subset relation between the paths. After John replaces the pro in the matrix subject position and himself is inserted into the complement position of for as a repair strategy for the unlicensed pro, as in (38e), we correctly obtain the final output. To sum up, I have demonstrated that Barss’s (1986) COC, which explains the (un)acceptability of a variety of strong crossover configurations better than any conceivable condition in terms of indexing, is naturally recaptured by the present movement theory of anaphora in terms of a minimality condition.

4 Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct? In this chapter, we consider the phenomenon of reconstruction that shows different patterns with respect to what is licensed through reconstruction and what chain is involved in such a licensing. We aim to give explanations to these patterns of reconstruction under the movement theory of anaphora developed above, which provides a new perspective to approaching the present task. In so doing, we argue against the recent approach to the reconstruction phenomenon taken by Lebeaux (2009). In particular, we make the following two points: (i) to argue for a no reconstruction approach according to which the pronounced member of a chain participates in LF interpretation in the position it occupies, thereby supporting Chomsky’s (1995) claim that A-movement does not reconstruct; (ii) there is no such thing as a negative condition like Condition C that applies continuously throughout the derivation, as advocated by Lebeaux (2009).

4.1 An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction Let us start our discussion by examining Chomsky’s (1995) argument that A-movement does not reconstruct. He claims that “the phenomenon [= reconstruction] is a consequence of the formation of operator-variable constructions driven by FI, a process that may (or sometimes must) leave part of the trace – a copy of the moved element – intact at LF, deleting only its operator part.” (p. 326) A significant consequence of this claim is that no reconstruction should take place in A-chains, since A-chains have no direct relevance for the formation of operator-variable constructions. Chomsky then provides the following examples as empirical support for this claim: (1) (2)

*John1 expected him1 to seem to me to be intelligent. a.

(It seems that) everyone isn’t there yet.

b.

I expected everyone not to be there yet.

c.

Everyone seems not to be there yet.

The ungrammaticality of (1) immediately follows as a Condition B violation on the assumption that the pronoun him is not reconstructed to any other position to obviate the violation. (2) demonstrates the presence/absence of “lowering effects” of a quantifier like everyone, and Chomsky observes that “negation can

58   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

have wide scope over the quantifier in [2a], and it seems in [2b] but not in [2c].” (p. 327) The fact that everyone cannot take scope under negation in (2c) clearly indicates that no reconstruction takes place in A-chains. Lasnik (1999) provides further data that support Chomsky’s (1995) claim: (3)

a.

No large Mersenne number was proven to be prime.

b.

No one is certain to solve the problem.

c.

Every coin is 3% likely to land heads.

These sentences do not have the readings that can be paraphrased as the following: (4)

a.

It was proven that no large Mersenne number is prime.

b.

It is certain that no one will solve the problem.

c.

It is 3% likely that every coin will land heads.

This indicates that the head member of an A-chain does not reconstruct. The only exception to this pattern of facts, noted by Lasnik (1999), comes from those data that involve A-movement of indefinites, such as the following: (5)

Some politician is likely to address John’s constituency.

It has been well known since May (1977) that this sentence is two-ways ambiguous and the ambiguity should arise from whether some politician is reconstructed into its original position, taking scope under likely. But the following example, taken from Jackendoff (1972), casts doubt on such an analysis: (6)

A catastrophe is quite likely in California.

(Jackendoff 1972, p. 297)

This is because (6) is two-ways ambiguous in the same way as (5) but it is a simplex sentence so that there is no place for a catastrophe to reconstruct under likely. On the other hand, there are cases that appear to show that reconstruction does take place in A-chains, which is concerned with Condition A licensing, as illustrated below: (7)

Replicants of themselves seemed to the boys to be ugly. (Belletti and Rizzi 1988, p. 316)

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

   59

Here it would be necessary, under the traditional binding theory, for the whole subject to be reconstructed into the embedded clause, so that themselves could be bound by its antecedent the boys. For such a fact, Lasnik (1999) makes the following suggestion: “A-movement Condition A reconstruction … might be treated in a similar on-line fashion, as proposed by Belletti and Rizzi. This makes sense if satisfaction of Condition A involves a formal feature…” (p. 211) On the other hand, “determination of scope is not satisfaction of a formal feature, but a matter of interpretation at the interface.” (p. 156)

I basically follow this suggestion, claiming that cases of A-movement Condition A reconstruction are accommodated by the movement theory of anaphora developed in the preceding chapters. Under this theory, (7) will be derived in the following way: (8)

a.

__ seemed to __ to [replicants of pro be ugly]

b.

__ seemed to pro to [replicants of pro be ugly]          

c.

__ seemed to the boys to [replicants of themselves be ugly]

d.

replicants of themselves seemed to the boys [TP to [ be ugly]]

As shown in (8a), pro is merged into the complement position of replicants of. Then pro undergoes movement to the complement position of to, as in (8b).¹ Since this does not violate any locality condition on A-movement, the repair strategy by overt pronoun does not operate here but instead another repair strategy by reflexive comes into play, replacing the bottom copy of pro by themselves.² After the top copy of pro is replaced by the boys, we obtain (8c). Finally, the embedded subject replicants of themselves undergoes successive-cyclic A-movement to the 1 Literally taken, this movement will violate the EC. Thus, we need to assume that to is inserted after pro moves to the matrix Spec-VP, as shown below, following the suggestion made in fn. 13 of Chapter 3: (i)

[vP __ [v’ v+seem [VP pro [V’ tV [TP __ to [replicants of pro be ugly]]]]]]

On the assumption that seem is raised into v, we will obtain the right word order. 2 Alternatively, what is inserted into the bottom copy of pro is not a pure reflexive but rather an instance of exempt anaphor in the sense given in fn. 8 of Chapter 2.

60   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

matrix Spec-TP, as shown in (8d). In this way, we can account for an apparent reconstruction effect of Condition A by way of the “on-line” licensing that is made possible under the movement approach to anaphora.³ Lebeaux (2009) provides further apparent evidence for reconstruction in A-chains, which has to do with so-called quantifier lowering discussed around (5). He provides the following pair: (9)

a.

Two women seem t to be expected t to dance with every senator.

b.

Two women seem to each other t to be expected t to dance with every senator. (Lebeaux 2009, p. xiii)

(9a) is two ways ambiguous with respect to the scope relation between the expressions two and every . According to Lebeaux’s (2009) theory of reconstruction, this fact is captured if the lowest copy of the A-moved phrase is retained, as shown below: (10)

[TP seem [TP to be expected [TP to [vP dance with every senator]]]]

Given this representation, the scope ambiguity observed in (9a) is captured in the same way as that observed in the following simple sentence: (11)

Two women danced with every senator.

Interestingly, (9a) contrasts sharply with (9b), in which to each other is added as the experiencer phrase of seem, in that the latter has only the reading in which two women scopes over every senator. In this case, two women serves as the antecedent of each other in the matrix subject position. Hence it looks as if this quantifier were “trapped” in that position and prevented from being lowered to the most embedded clause. This would result in producing only the reading in which this quantifier takes scope over every senator. Lebeaux thus names this effect “trap-

3 Such a reconstruction effect of Condition A licensing occurs with a reciprocal, as shown below: (i)

Each other’s supporters seem to the candidates to be unscrupulous.

In this case, we want to claim that each other is connected to its antecedent via Move during the derivation of this sentence. The most natural way to implement this is probably to allow insertion of a reciprocal into pro as an alternative whenever a reflexive can be inserted. I put a detailed discussion of this matter to the side, however.

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

   61

ping effect.” In order to capture this effect, Lebeaux (2009) proposes what he calls the Single Tree Condition, which is given below: (12)

Rule for a candidate set at LF (A-chains) Erase all members of a candidate set, except one.

(Lebeaux 2009, p. 13)

In the case of (9b), we need to retain the highest copy of the A-moved phrase to license each other, as shown below: (13)

[TP seem to each other [TP to be expected [TP to [vP dance with every senator]]]]

According to the Single Tree Condition, all the other members of two women must be erased, as indicated in (13). Since the retained copy belongs to a clause higher than the one to which every senator belongs, the former must take scope over the latter. Note that if more than one copy of a chain were available for interpretation at LF, then such a trapping effect would not be captured. Under the present approach, according to which no reconstruction process is admitted, we would not expect any contrast for such a pair as given in (9). We might claim that the scope ambiguity observed in (9a) should be captured as a result of the scope interaction between the pronounced copies of the involved quantifiers; thus, the pronounced copy of two women in the matrix Spec-TP should be able to take scope under every senator. We would then need to claim that such a scope interaction is somehow prohibited when the pronounced copy of two women serves as the antecedent of an anaphor. All of these claims seem to defy any reasonable explanation. Lebeaux (2009) provides more evidence for the reconstruction approach according to which such a scope interaction as found in (9) is due to the fact that the quantifier phrase that has undergone A-movement retains its copy in the original position, as shown in (10), the position in which it becomes a clause-mate with the other quantifier phrase. This has to do with such an example as the following: (14)

Mary seems to two women t to be expected t to dance with every senator. (Lebeaux 2009, p. 7)

Lebeaux observes that in (14), only one scope ordering is possible, namely, the one according to which two women takes scope over every senator. Crucially, this sentence does no have the reading that arises from the opposite scope ordering. This will receive an immediate explanation if we assume that scoping out of a lower quantifier over a higher one takes place only if both quantifiers are clause-

62   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

mates at some stage of the derivation involved, since there is no stage of the derivation for (14) at which two women and every senator become clause-mates. This in turn argues strongly against the no reconstruction approach to such a scope interaction as observed in (9a). First of all, it is not clear whether the trapping effect, as observed in (9), actually has to do with the possibility of reconstruction under the Single Tree Condition. In fact, Tanaka et al. (2011) provide data that seem to run counter to this claim: (15)

a.

Some girl kissed every boy.

b.

Some girl1 kissed every boy on her1 birthday.

(∀>∀,*∀>∃)

They observe that even though scoping out of every boy over some girl is possible in (15a), it becomes impossible when the higher quantifier some girl binds a pronoun, as shown in (15b). This looks like showing that the trapping effect occurs even with a simplex sentence. Whatever the reason is, it strongly suggests that such a trapping effect as observed in (9b) has no direct relevance for the possibility of reconstruction.⁴ Further, there is evidence that the Single Tree Condition is too strong in that anaphors show no trapping effect, as Lebeaux himself notes: (16)

John seemed to himself t to like himself.

(Lebeaux 2009, p. 87)

In order to license the first occurrence of himself, we would have to retain the upper copy of the chain (John, t), but the Single Tree Condition would then require that only this copy should be retained, which would thus leave the second occurrence

4 The reviewer suggests a possibility of capturing such a trapping effect as observed in (15b) in terms of reconstruction under Hornstein’s (1995) analysis of quantifier scope interaction, according to which the wide scope of every boy in (15a) is derived from the LF representation in which some girl retains its copy in VP-internal position and every boy retains its copy in Spec-AgrO, to which it has moved across the VP-internal subject position. Under this analysis, as the reviewer suggests, we could claim that the unavailability of the wide scope of every boy in (15b) is attributed to the fact that in the LF representation in question, some girl is not located high enough to bind into the adjunct phrase on her birthday. At least two problems come to mind with this analysis: First, it is not at all obvious that some girl cannot bind into the adjunct phrase if it stays in VP-internal position. Second and more importantly, this analysis is incompatible with the recent theory of object raising (cf. Koizumi 1995, Lasnik 1995, and Chomsky 2008, among others), according to which object is raised into a position lower than that in which subject is base-generated. For these reasons, I will not pursue this possibility in the text. See the discussion around (23) for how the wide scope of object QP is derived.

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

   63

of himself unlicensed. The grammaticality of (16) then indicates that the Single Tree Condition is too strong. Lebeaux (2009) stipulates that “[i]f it [= A-reconstruction] does not occur, what is in the trace sites are the bound ϕ-features,” (p. 13) which serve to license anaphors, but this stipulation simply undermines the effects of the Single Tree Condition. Under the present movement theory of anaphora, there is no problem in deriving such a sentence as (16) that involves more than one occurrence of an anaphor being licensed by a single antecedent. This sentence is derived in the following way: (17)

a.

__ seemed to pro to [__ like pro]

b.

__ seemed to pro to [pro like himself]             

c.

pro seemed to pro [TP pro to pro like himself]  

d.

John seemed to himself [TP pro to pro like himself]

In (17b), the pro that is merged into the complement position of like undergoes Move to the subject position of this predicate, and since this application of Move violates no locality condition, pro is replaced by himself rather than pronouncing itself. Then, it undergoes successive-cyclic A-movement to the matrix Spec-TP and at the same time, it undergoes ATB-movement with the pro that is merged into the complement position of to in the final step of the successive-cyclic movement, as shown in (17c).⁵ Since the pro-movement from the complement position

5 Here I am assuming that the pro-movement from the embedded Spec-TP to the matrix one does not violate the minimality condition given in (2.61), since the other movement from the complement position of to gives rise to the path that is not a proper subset of the path created by the seemingly-longer movement; the former includes the PP that immediately dominates its original position as a member of its path. As the reviewer points out, however, subject raising across an experiencer is claimed to induce a minimality violation due to the fact that a preposition does not block an experiencer phrase from binding into the embedded infinitival clause, as witnessed by the unacceptability of such an example: (i)

*Mary seems to him1 to like John1.

(i) is traditionally ruled out as a violation of Condition C on the assumption that him c-commands out of the PP that immediately dominates it. Under the present movement theory of anaphora, on the other hand, (i) is ruled out by the following two premises: (i) him cannot be moved downward to the position occupied by John due to the EC; (ii) to is attached to him for a Case reason,

64   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

of to violates no locality condition, himself is overlaid onto the lower copy of the resulting chain. Finally, after John is overlaid onto the top copy of pro, we correctly obtain the final out put given in (17d). Thus, the present movement theory of anaphora properly captures the fact that more than one anaphoric relation can be established with a single antecedent, unlike what would be expected by the Single Tree Condition. As for the contrast between (9a) and (14), I agree with Lebeaux (2009) on his claim that clause-mate is a key condition on scoping out of a lower quantifier over a higher one. I then suggest that scope interaction among QPs is also licensed derivationally, just like anaphoric relations. Following the idea of Chierchia (1993) about the scope interaction between a universal quantifier and a wh-phrase, let us assume the following: (18)

A QP1 under the scope of another QP2 is analyzed as a function that takes the value of QP2 and returns a value from the set whose domain is determined by QP1.

Under this hypothesis, the wide scope reading of every boy in such a sentence as (19a) is represented as in (19b): (19)

a.

Every boy likes a girl.

b.

∀x, x a boy, x likes F(x)

This characterization of scope interaction implies that a QP1 under the scope of another QP2 is dependent upon the latter in the sense that it contains a variable bound by QP2. I then propose the following: (20)

The scope relation between QP1 and QP2 is established via Move.

It may probably be most natural to assume that this scope relation is also mediated by pro-movement, but it should not be the case that the pro involved in establishing a scope relation is regarded as identical to that involved in establishing an anaphoric relation. Consider a possible derivation for the wide scope reading of every boy in (19a) under this assumption: (21)

a.

__ likes [DP pro a girl]

just like the of-insertion rule (cf. fn. 13 of Chapter 3), so that there is no way to apply sideward movement to him.

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

b.

pro likes [DP pro a girl]  

c.

every boy likes [DP pro a girl]

   65

Here pro is inserted into the DP a girl to function as a variable bound by another QP, as in (21a), and then is moved to the subject position, as in (21b). The output of (21c) is then derived after pro is replaced by every boy. This occurrence of pro, however, should be kept separate from that of pro involved in deriving a sentence such as every boy1 likes his1 girl. It is more like an adjunct pro, so to speak, in that it does not occupy any argument position but syntactically modifies a girl to serve as a variable to which the function denoted by it applies. According to this characterization, I assume that the adjunct pro is adjoined to its antecedent rather than moving to an argument position. Thus, the derivation given in (21) is modified as follows: (22)

a.

every boy likes [DP pro a girl]

b.

[[every boy] pro] likes [DP pro a girl]        

Here I assume that the pro-movement establishes an antecedent-dependent relation between every boy and a girl in such a way that the variable to which a girl’s function applies is bound by every boy. Let us now consider a case where a lower QP takes scope over a higher one, as in (11), reproduced below: (23)

Two women danced with every senator.

One apparent difficulty in applying the above analysis to such a case comes from the fact that the pro-movement involved in such a case seems downward, so that it will violate the EC. Here I assume that every senator undergoes QR, so that the adjunct pro merged with two women can be adjoined to the head of the resulting chain. Thus, the wide scope reading of every senator in (23) will be obtained from the following derivation: (24)

a.

[TP [DP pro two women] danced with every senator]

b.

[TP [TP [DP pro two women] danced with every senator]]      

c.

[TP [[] pro] [TP [DP pro two women] danced with every               senator]]

66   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

At the stage of (24b), every senator undergoes QR to adjoin to TP, and then the pro that is inserted in the DP two women is adjoined to the head of the every senator’s chain, as in (24c). This latter movement of the adjunct pro establishes the scope relation between every senator and two women. This analysis carries over to such a raising case as (9a), in which the relevant scope relation between every senator and two women is established in exactly the same way as given in (24) before two women undergoes successive-cyclic A-movement to the matrix Spec-TP. Further, the fact that the wide scope reading of every senator is unavailable in (14) falls into place under the present analysis, since there is no stage of the derivation of this sentence at which the pro inserted into the DP two women could possibly move to any position occupied by every senator. Lebeaux (2009) provides further evidence to support the Single Tree Condition. Let us consider the following examples: (25)

a.

[His1 mother]2’s bread seems to every man1 t’ to be known by her2 t to be the best there is.

b. ?*[His1 mother]2’s bread seems to her2 t’ to be known by every man1 t to be the best there is. (Lebeaux 2009, p. 47) Given that pronouns functioning as bound variables must be c-commanded by their antecedents, his mother’s bread in (25a) needs to retain its copy in either the position marked as t’ or that marked as t. If the one in t is retained according to the Single Tree Condition, then it will induce a Condition C violation, since in that position, his mother will be c-commanded by her (on the assumption that by does not interfere in such a relation). Thus, in order to satisfy both the bound variable condition and Condition C, (25a) will have the following LF representation, in which the copy in the intermediate Spec-TP is retained: (26)

[TP seems to every man1 [TP to be known by her2 [TP to be the best there is]]]

The ungrammaticality of (25b) immediately follows from the Single Tree Condition, since there is no copy of his mother’s bread that can satisfy the two conditions in question simultaneously; in order to satisfy the bound variable condition, we need to retain the copy in the position marked as t, but this automatically induces a Condition C violation. The present movement theory of anaphora can also provide a neat explanation to the contrast given in (25), thus nullifying the motivation for the Single Tree Condition. Under this theory, (25a) will be derived in the following way:

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

(27)

   67

a.

[to be known by pro to pro be the best there is], [ __ bread]

b.

[to be known by pro to pro be the best there is], [ __ bread]            [to be known by her to pro be the best there is], [pro’s mother’s bread]

c. d.

[pro to be known by her pro to pro be the best there is], [pro’s mother’s     bread]

e.

[pro’s mother’s bread to be known by her pro to pro be the best there is]

f.

[ __ seems to pro [pro’s mother’s bread to be known by her pro to pro          be the best there is]]

g.

[ __ seems to every man [his mother’s bread to be known by her pro to pro be the best there is]]

h.

[his mother’s bread seems to every man [ to be      known byher pro to pro be the best there is]]

At the stage of (27b), the pro merged in the complement position of by undergoes sideward movement to the Spec position of bread, thereby pronouncing its original position according to the repair strategy by overt pronoun, as shown in (27c), and further the top copy of this pro is overlaid by pro’s mother’s. Next, the pro in the subject position of be the best there is undergoes successive-cyclic A-movement to the Spec of the higher to, as shown in (27d), and then the top copy of this pro is overlaid by pro’s mother’s bread, as shown in (27e). From this stage, the pro in the Spec position of mother moves to the complement position of to, as shown in (27f). Since this movement violates the LBC, the tail position is pronounced as his, as shown in (27g), and the top position is overlaid by every man. Finally, his mother’s bread undergoes A-movement to the matrix Spec-TP, giving rise to the final output correctly. On the other hand, (25b) cannot be derived in the same way. Recall that we need to apply sideward movement to an anaphoric relation that bears no c-commanding relationship, such as in (27b). Further, we stipulated that the link produced by sideward movement cannot constitute part of an operator-variable chain (see (2.29)). Now in order to establish the operator-variable relation between every man and his, we need to merge pro’s mother’s bread in the subject position of be the best there is, as shown in (28a) below: (28)

a.

[to be known by __ to pro’s mother’s bread be the best there is]

68   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

b.

[to be known by pro to pro’s mother’s bread be the best there is]           

c.

[to be known by every man to his mother’s bread be the best there is]

Then, pro undergoes movement to the complement position of by, as shown in (28b), and due to the violation of the LBC, the tail position is pronounced as his, as shown in (28c), and the top position is overlaid by every man. Once we build this much structure, there is no way for her to be connected to his mother via Move without inducing an EC violation. This explains the ungrammaticality of (25b) with the intended reading. Lebeaux (2009) also demonstrates that the Single Tree Condition is also motivated with the A’-chain counterparts of those given in (25): (29)

a.

Which paper that he1 gave to Bresnan2 did every student1 think t’ that she2 would like t?

b. *Which paper that he1 gave to Bresnan2 did she2 think t’ that every student1 would like t? (Lebeaux 1990, p. 328) For Lebeaux’s (2009) approach, (29a) can have the following LF representation:⁶ (30)

[CP [which paper that he1 gave to Bresnan2] did every student1 think [CP [which paper that he1 gave to Bresnan2] that she2 would like [which paper that he1 gave to Bresnan2]]]

In this representation, he is properly c-commanded by every student and Bresnan is free from Condition C violation. On the other hand, there is no such legitimate LF representation for (29b); in order to satisfy the bound variable condition, we need to retain the lowest copy of the wh-phrase, but this induces a Condition C violation. Again, the present movement theory of anaphora can account for the contrast given in (29) essentially in the same way as it does for that given in (25). Under this theory, (29a) will be derived in the following way: (31)

a.

[that pro would like which paper], [that pro gave to __ ]

6 Strictly, at least part of the top copy of the wh-phrase-chain must be retained to express its scope properly. According to Chomsky (1993), which will be retained after it undergoes a QR-like operation.

An Apparent Paradox Regarding A-Movement Reconstruction   

   69

b.

[that pro would like which paper], [that pro gave to __ ]     

c.

[that she would like which paper], [that pro gave to Bresnan]

d.

[which paper that she would like ], [that pro gave to      Bresnan]

e.

[which paper that pro gave to Bresnan that she would like ]

f.

[ __ did think [which paper that pro gave to Bresnan that she would   like ]]

g.

[every student did think [which paper that he gave to Bresnan that she would like ]]

h.

[which paper that he gave to Bresnan did every student think [ that she would like ]]

At the stage of (31b), the pro merged in the subject position of the most embedded clause undergoes sideward movement to the complement position of to, thereby pronouncing its original position according to the repair strategy by overt pronoun, as shown in (31c), and further the top copy of this pro is overlaid by Bresnan. Next, which paper undergoes A’-movement to the intermediate Spec-CP, as shown in (31d), and then the other structure, which will serve as the relative clause modifying which paper, is adjoined to this wh-phrase, as shown in (31e). From this stage, the pro in the subject position of gave moves to the higher subject position of think, as shown in (31f). Since this movement violates the relative clause island condition, the tail position is pronounced as he, as shown in (31g), and the top position is overlaid by every student. Finally, the whole wh-phrase undergoes A’-movement to the matrix Spec-CP, giving rise to the final output correctly. On the other hand, (29b) cannot be derived in the same way. In order to establish the operator-variable relation between every student and he, we need to adjoin the relative clause that pro gave to Bresnan to the wh-phrase which paper before the latter undergoes A’-movement, as shown in (32a) below: (32)

a.

[ __ would like which paper that pro gave to Bresnan]

b.

[pro would like which paper that pro gave to Bresnan]  

c.

[every student would like which paper that he gave to Bresnan]

70   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

Then, pro undergoes movement to the subject position of the higher clause, as shown in (32b), and due to the violation of the relative clause island, the tail position is pronounced as he, as shown in (32c), and the top position is overlaid by every student. Once we build this much structure, there is no way for she to be connected to Bresnan via Move without inducing an EC violation. This explains the unavailability of the intended reading to (29b). To recapitulate, given the present movement theory of anaphora, we can maintain the no reconstruction approach to A-chains, advocated by Chomsky (1995). Under this approach, there is no need for any reconstruction process or any equivalent operation in terms of Copy and Delete with the further assumption that only one copy survives deletion in accordance with the Single Tree Condition, advocated by Lebeaux (2009). This approach thus assumes that the pronounced copy of an A-chain is active for LF interpretation, a condition that Abe (2012b) calls P-L Match Condition (see Bobaljik 2002 for a similar claim.). This condition properly accounts for the scope facts given in (2) and (3).⁷

4.2 Reconstruction regarding Negative Conditions In this section, we examine closely the phenomena of reconstruction regarding what Lebeaux (2009) calls negative conditions like Condition C. It is well known that Condition C effects reconstruct with respect to A’-chains unless the R-expression anaphoric to a pronoun is included in an adjunct (cf. (2.21)), as shown below: (33)

a. ?*Which picture of John1 did he1 like t? b. ?*Whose destruction of John1 did he1 fear t? c. ?*Which claim that John1 liked Mary did he1 deny t? (Lebeaux 2009, p. 30)

Under the assumption that a phrase may reconstruct into any member of the chain that it heads, such reconstruction effects of Condition C as given in (33) cannot be accounted for, since no such violation would ensue if the wh-phrases did not reconstruct and stayed at their surface positions. In order to deal with the 7 Given Chomsky’s (1995) approach to reconstruction in terms of operator-variable formation, we would predict that unlike in A-chains, A’-chains could feed scope reconstruction by way of the relevant operations for producing operator-variable chains. I will not go into details to examine the validity of this prediction, leaving this task for future research. See Fox (1999) for relevant discussion.

Reconstruction regarding Negative Conditions   

   71

apparent obligatoriness of reconstruction regarding Condition C, Lebeaux (2009) hypothesizes what he calls homogeneity conjecture, given below, in contrast to Chomsky’s (1993) interface conjecture, according to which “[a]ll conditions apply at the interfaces, in particular LF” (p. xi): (34)

All negative conditions, in particular Condition C, apply continuously throughout the derivation.

The idea behind this homogeneity conjecture seems appealing in that it highlights a crucial difference between positive and negative conditions. Lebeaux claims that “positive conditions must lead to an interpretation, and hence must lead to a single, coherent tree,” whereas “[n]egative conditions do not lead to an interpretation – they just throw out certain trees.” (p. vii) Though the claim has some appeal to intuition, it seems conceptually at odds with the derivational model of narrow syntax according to which a derivation proceeds basically by applying Merge iteratively and unwanted steps of derivation are excluded by imposing conditions on Merge itself. Under such a model, it would be inefficient to check at every step of a derivation whether a negative condition like Condition C is satisfied. Empirically, such data as given in (33) do not actually motivate the homogeneity conjecture, since the present movement theory of anaphora can give a natural explanation to their ungrammaticality under the derivational model of narrow syntax: In none of the cases can pro-movement take place successfully from the position occupied by the pronoun to its antecedent, no matter whether it applies before wh-movement or after, since it would violate the EC. Notice that in these cases, sideward movement is not an option for establishing the anaphoric relations between the pronouns and their antecedents, since in none of these cases is there any stage of derivation at which two disconnected structures are built and only one of them includes the pronoun, so that the latter could undergo sideward movement into the other structure. The homogeneity conjecture is also motivated by such data as the following: (35) *He1 seems to John1’s mother t to be expected t to win. (36)

(Condition C)

a. *John1 believed him1 to be expected t to win. b. *Himself seems to him [t to be clever].

(Condition B)

If A-reconstruction applies freely, these sentences will be ruled in if Conditions B and C apply at LF. Thus, if he were reconstructed into either position indicated with t in (35), then it would not induce a Condition C violation. Similarly, if him in

72   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

(36a) and himself in (36b) were reconstructed into the positions indicated with t, then they would not induce Condition B violations. That is why these sentences motivate Lebeaux’s (2009) claim that negative conditions like Conditions B and C apply at each step of a derivation. Again, the present movement theory of anaphora can provide plausible accounts for the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (35) and (36), thereby mitigating the empirical motivation for the homogeneity conjecture. First, (36a) would involve the following derivation: (37)

a.

__ believed pro to be expected to pro win         

b.

pro believed pro to be expected pro to win  

c. *John believed pro to be expected pro to win At the stage of (37a), the pro merged in the subject position of win undergoes A-movement (through the Spec’s of the infinitival to’s) to the matrix VP to check its accusative Case feature. Then, pro undergoes further movement to the matrix subject, as shown in (37b), and with the overlay of John in that subject position, as shown in (37c), this pro-movement establishes the anaphoric relation between pro and John. Notice, however, that in this case, pro will not be pronounced via the repair strategy, since no locality condition is violated in the pro-movement in question, hence inducing a violation of the condition given in (2.11), reproduced below: (38)

When an A-chain C = (a1, …, an) carries more than one Case, extra Cases must be phonetically realized, where an extra Case is one that is assigned/ checked in a position other than a1.

The only way to lead the derivation given in (37) to a grammatical output is to exploit another repair strategy, namely, the one via insertion of reflexives, which in fact gives rise to the following grammatical sentence: (39)

John1 believed himsefl1 to be expected t to win.

As for the case given in (35), notice first that pro-movement cannot take place from the matrix subject position to the Spec position of mother, since it would induce a violation of the EC. Thus, in order to avoid such a violation, we need to apply pro-movement before pro moves across the PP to __’s mother and at the

Reconstruction regarding Negative Conditions   

   73

same time we need to do so by way of sideward movement. Thus, one possible way of applying pro-movement is illustrated below: (40)

[pro to be expected pro to pro win], [ __ mother]  

This illustrates an application of sideward movement of pro from the Spec of the higher to, which it has reached via successive-cyclic A-movement from the subject position of win. Recall that sideward movement always induces an island violation, and hence needs to be followed up by pronouncing its original position as a repair strategy. Notice, however, that in the case given in (40), pro does not obtain a Case yet or in more current terms, its Case is not checked/valued with its appropriate licenser. Given that spelling-out of a pronoun depends upon what Case it obtains or is valued by, it is natural to make the following assumption: (41)

Spelling-out of pro is possible only if its Case is obtained or valued.

From this, it follows that in (40), pro cannot be spelled-out to repair the island violation induced by sideward movement. We could claim that this terminates the derivation given in (40), on the assumption that an island violation induced by sideward movement must be repaired. However, this solution is not general enough to take care of such a case as given in (36b), reproduced below: (42) *Himself seems to him [t to be clever]. Here, him must be an independent lexical item referring to a person identifiable in a given discourse. Then, in order to connect himself to him via Move under the present movement theory of anaphora, we need to apply pro-movement from the position indicated by t to the position occupied by him before pro undergoes A-movement to the matrix Spec-TP, as shown below: (43)

[ __ seems to pro [pro to pro be clever]]            

Here no violation is induced by the pro-movement in question, hence no need for a repair strategy. It might then be that a reflexive is allowed to replace the tail position of the pro-movement in this configuration, but notice that pro has not yet had its Case valued, which makes it impossible to spell out pro by way of reflexivization, according to (41). After pro undergoes A-movement to the matrix

74   

   Do A- and A’-Movement Reconstruct?

Spec-TP and the pro occupying the complement position of to is overlaid by him, we obtain the following output: (44) *pro seems to him to be clever. As for the derivation given in (40), recall that we have made the following assumption (cf. (2.43)): (45)

An island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case position where pro could be pronounced.

Suppose that this exemption holds for the case of (40), so that the derivation can be continued, leading to the following final output: (46) *pro seems to John’s mother to be expected to win. First of all, the above discussion clearly shows why the sentences in (35) and (42) with the intended readings are ungrammatical: they are simply underivable. Now the question comes down to why the outputs given in (44) and (46) are ungrammatical. We could claim that this is because pro shows up in the matrix Spec-TP in these sentences, but given that the Japanese counterpart of sentence (44) is also ungrammatical, as shown below, we will need a more general explanation:⁸ (47) *pro1

Kare1-ni-totte [kasikoi] he-to clever ‘pro1 seems to him1 to be clever.’

yoo-ni omowareru. Comp is-considered

There is a natural account for why (44) and (46) are ungrammatical. Both outputs involve a stage of derivation, illustrated in (40) and (43), that is likely to be the cause of illegitimacy: movement of pro to a θ-position without its Case feature checked or valued. Note that the kind of pro-movement that is involved in estab-

8 The Japanese counterpart of (46) is not unacceptable, as shown below: (i)

kitaisareteiru] John-1no hahaoya-ni-wa [pro1 katu-koto-ga -Gen mother-to-Top winning-Nom is-expected ‘It seems to John1’s mother that pro1 is expected to win.’

yoo-ni omowareru. Comp is-considered

This is because this sentence is susceptible of a different analysis according to which the pro anaphoric to John occupies the embedded subject position rather than the matrix one.

Reconstruction regarding Negative Conditions   

   75

lishing an anaphoric relation is a movement into a θ-position or into a position occupied by a member of a chain that carries an independent θ-role. Accordingly, the pro involved in this kind of movement carries two Cases as if the latter validate each θ-role, as was the case under the visibility hypothesis on θ-role assignment, advocated by Chomsky (1981). If we follow this line of the visibility idea about the relationship between Case and θ-role, we naturally expect that when pro moves from a θ-position to another, it must have already been visible in the relevant sense, that is, it must have had one of its Cases checked or valued.⁹ There will be a couple of ways to guarantee the ordering of θ-role assignment and Case checking/valuation in this fashion, but here I simply assume that the following condition must be respected: (48)

α cannot be moved to a θ-position unless it has become visible.

This condition correctly marks the derivations given in (40) and (43) illegitimate, since they both involve pro moving to a θ-position even though it is invisible, that is, its Case has not been checked/valued yet. More generally, it follows from (48) that pro cannot be used to establish an anaphoric relation if pro is on the way to check or value its Case, the right generalization as far as I can see. To recapitulate, I have demonstrated how the effects of negative conditions like Conditions B and C are derived under the present movement theory of anaphora, thus undermining the force of Lebeaux’s (2009) homogeneity conjecture. This in turn defends Chomsky’s (1993) interface conjecture, according to which all conditions apply at the interfaces. Furthermore, as is clear from the above discussions, the present movement theory of anaphora enables us to extend Chomsky’s (1995) position that no reconstruction takes place in A-chains to the more general and hence desirable position, namely, that no reconstruction is necessary for any kind of chains under the interface conjecture, at least as far as anaphoric relations are concerned.

9 PRO is an exception in this regard, as in the visibility hypothesis on θ-role assignment. Since it is inherently Caseless, we need to assume that it is exempt from the visibility requirement on moving into a θ-position.

5 Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese In this chapter, we shift gears slightly and turn to a pro-drop phenomenon manifested in such a language as Japanese, examining how the pro-drop in this language is best characterized syntactically. A particular question I want to raise here is how empty pronouns are connected to their antecedents, particularly whether the movement theory of anaphora presented in the previous chapters can be extended so as to accommodate these anaphoric relations. To pursue this possibility, I first investigate whether Japanese empty pronouns show any locality effect and if they do, how such an effect should be captured. It is standardly believed that overt pronouns do not show any such effect in the sense that they can take their antecedents at any distance in principle, contrary to, say, English reflexives, which require their antecedents basically in the same clause. Even for empty pronouns, those found in standard pro-drop languages such as Italian and Spanish do not show any such locality effect, as far as I know. However, those empty pronouns found in such languages as Finnish and Hebrew do obey a locality condition in that they must find their antecedents in the next clauses up. Given this situation, it will be interesting to raise the question which type Japanese empty pronouns are classified into in terms of the locality condition in question, and why this is so. In this chapter, I demonstrate that despite their appearance of not showing any locality effect, the distribution of Japanese empty pronouns overlaps to a significant extent with that of those empty pronouns in Finnish and Hebrew, if we restrict the former distribution to that in which the bound variable readings of those empty pronouns are forced. Based upon this observation, I argue that such a locality effect is best captured under the present movement theory of anaphora as involving A-movement, just like Hornstein’s (1999) proposal for obligatory control (OC) cases. Further, I argue, basically following Hasegawa’s (1984/5) idea, that the reason why Japanese empty pronouns appear to be free from any locality effect in their full distribution is that this language has access to the option of exploiting empty pronouns as null operators that undergo A’-movement, which can act as mediating in the anaphoric relations between empty pronouns and their remote antecedents.

5.1 Locality of Empty Pronouns The empty pronouns observed in Finnish and Hebrew show an interesting pattern of distribution. First, while 1st and 2nd person pronouns can basically be null in any environment, 3rd person pronouns cannot appear without linguistic antecedents, as illustrated below:

Locality of Empty Pronouns   

(1)

(2)

Finnish a. *(Hän) he/she

puhuu speak-3sg

englantia. English

b. *(He) they

puhuvat speak-3pl

englantia. English

Hebrew a. *ʔaxal ate-3sg

banana banana

b. *yoxal will-eat-3sg

banana banana

   77

(Holmberg 2005, p. 539)

(Borer 1989, p. 94)

Second, there is a locality condition operative in the anaphoric relations between 3rd person empty pronouns and their antecedents in these languages: when these pronouns appear in embedded clauses, they must take their antecedents in the next higher clauses, as illustrated below: (3)

Finnish a. Pekka1 väittää claims

[että that

hän1,2/pro1,*2 puhuu he speaks

englantia hyvin]. English well

b. Anu1

sanoi Jarille2 [että hän1,2/pro1,2,*3 otta kitaran mukaan]. said that he takes guitar along ‘Anu told Jari to bring along his guitar.’ (Holmberg 2005, p. 539)

(4)

Hebrew a. Talila1 ʔamra le-Itamar2 [she pro2 said tothat ‘Talila told Itamar to come.’ b. Talila1 ʔamra le-Itamar2 [she pro1 said tothat ‘Talila told Itamar that she will come.’

yavo]. will-come-m.sg

tavo]. will-come-f.sg

c. Talila1 ʔamra le-Itamar2 [she hem3/*pro3 yavoʔu]. said tothat they will-come-m.pl ‘Talila told Itamar that they will come.’ (Borer 1989, p. 93) For ease of exposition, let us first distinguish pro in Finnish and Hebrew from the standard pro which behaves much like overt pronouns, as observed in Italian

78   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

and Spanish, by calling the former type anaphoric pro abbreviated as A-pro. Based upon the Hebrew data shown above, Borer (1989) proposes that the Agr that enters into the Spec/head relation with A-pro is an anaphor in this language. Here, I will not dwell on the issue of whether it is A-pro or Agr that is an anaphor, but will simply follow the standard assumption that A-pro is in a direct anaphoric relation with its antecedent. According to Holmberg (2005), A-pro is characterized as lacking “the substructure required for a definite, referential category,” (p. 552) hence behaving as anaphors that need to be bound to obtain their semantic values, though he does not articulate exactly what kind of locality condition is operative to A-pro. Here, let us assume the following condition for a first approximation: (5)

A-pro obeys the Specified Subject Condition (SSC).

This condition correctly captures not only the fact that A-pro needs a linguistic antecedent but also the fact that when it appears in an embedded clause, it must take its antecedent in the next higher clause, as illustrated above. With this much in background, let us consider Japanese data that involve pro taking its antecedent intra-sententially.¹ At first blush, there does not appear to be any locality condition of the sort observed in Finnish and Hebrew operative in the anaphoric relation between A-pro and its antecedent; consider the following Japanese examples: (6)

a. John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’ itteiru to] b. John1 -wa [Mary-ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] -Top -Nom head-Nom bad Comp say Comp omotteiru. think ‘John1 thinks that Mary says that pro1 is stupid.’

It appears that the acceptability of (6b) with pro referring to John indicates that pro in Japanese does not obey the SSC. However, if we examine the relevant data

1 In this book, I will be dealing mainly with those cases of pro in Japanese where it is bound by its antecedent. See Abe (2009) for the claim that those cases of Japanese null arguments where no binding relation holds between these null arguments and their antecedents involve the NPEllipsis strategy, advocated by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999).

Locality of Empty Pronouns   

   79

more closely, it turns out that there is a significant difference in the availability of interpretation between those cases such as (6a) which observe the SSC and those cases such as (6b) which do not. The relevant data involve cases where pro takes quantificational antecedents. Let us first consider the following: (7)

a.

Daremo1-ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. everyone-Nom head -Nom bad Comp think say ‘Everyone1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

b.

warui to] itta. John -ga daremo1-ni [pro1 atama-ga -Nom everyone-Dat head -Nom bad Comp said ‘John told everyone1 that pro1 was stupid.’

In these cases, where pro takes its antecedent daremo ‘everyone’ in the next clause up, pro is forced to be interpreted as a variable bound by a universal quantifier; hence (7a), for instance, means that everyone thinks/says of himself that he is stupid. Hence, given that Japanese overt pronouns cannot function as bound variables, (7a, b) cannot have the same interpretations as the following sentences, in which pro is replaced by an overt pronoun: (8)

a.

Daremo1-ga [karera1-ga atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ everyone-Nom they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp think itteiru. say ‘Everyone1 thinks/says that they1 are stupid.’

b.

itta. John-ga daremo1-ni [karera1-ga atama-ga warui to] -Nom everyone-Dat they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp said ‘John told everyone1 that they1 were stupid.’

In these sentences, karera ‘they’ refers to the set denoted by daremo ‘everyone’; hence (8a), for instance, is interpreted as such that each person thinks/says that everyone is stupid. Interestingly enough, when the anaphoric relation between pro and its quantificational antecedent does not satisfy the SSC, it seems that the bound variable reading is not forced upon pro; consider the following example:

80   

(9)

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

Daremo1-ga [Mary -ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] itteiru to] everyone-Nom -Nom head-Nom bad Comp say Comp omotteiru. think ‘Everyone1 thinks that Mary says that pro1 is stupid.’

This sentence has not only the bound variable reading of pro but also what may be called the referential reading of pro, where it refers to the set denoted by daremo ‘everyone’, and hence can be interpreted in the same way as the corresponding sentence with pro replaced by the overt pronoun karera: (10)

Daremo1-ga [Mary -ga [karera1-ga atama-ga warui to] itteiru everyone-Nom -Nom they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp say to] omotteiru. Comp think ‘Everyone1 thinks that Mary says that they1 are stupid.’

To confirm the above observation, let us consider further examples. First compare the sentences given in (11) with those given in (12): (11)

(12)

a.

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta to] itta. everyone-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up Comp said ‘Everyone1 said that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

b.

gokai-made John-ga daremo1-ni [pro1 sono piano-o -Nom everyone-Dat that piano-Acc 5th floor-to motiageru yooni] itta. bring up Comp said ‘John told everyone1 pro1 to bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’

a.

[karera1-ga sono piano-o gokai-made Daremo1-ga everyone-Nom they-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to motiageta to] itta. brought up Comp said ‘Everyone1 said that they1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

Locality of Empty Pronouns   

b.

   81

[karera1 -ga sono piano-o John-ga daremo1-ni -Nom everyone-Dat they -Nom that piano-Acc gokai-made motiageru yooni] itta. 5th floor-to bring up Comp said ‘John told everyone1 that they1 should bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’

(11a, b) are forced to have the bound variable reading of pro, so that each person brought up or was told to bring up that piano to the fifth floor, and do not have the referential reading of pro, in which the people denoted by daremo ‘everyone’ brought up or were told to bring up that piano to the fifth floor together, which is available to (12a, b). On the other hand, the sentence given in (13) below can have the referential reading of pro, so that it may be interpreted in the same way as (14): (13)

Daremo1-ga [Mary -ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiagete-kureta everyone-Nom -Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up to] itteiru to] omotteiru. Comp say Comp think ‘Everyone1 thinks that Mary says that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

(14)

Daremo1-ga [Mary -ga [karera1-ga sono piano-o gokai-made everyone-Nom -Nom they-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to motiagete-kureta to] itteiru to] omotteiru. brought up Comp say Comp think ‘Everyone1 thinks that Mary says that they1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

Here again, in the configuration in which pro does not satisfy the SSC, it is not forced to have the bound variable reading. So far we have observed the cases where pro appears in an embedded subject position, but, as is well-known, pro can also appear in object position as well as other argument positions. And we can confirm the above observation even with object pro; consider the following examples:

82   

(15)

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

a.

Dono kodomo1 -mo [sono rikisi-ga pro1 karugaruto every child -also that sumo wrestler-Nom easily motiagete-kureta to] itta. held up Comp said ‘Every child1 said that that sumo wrestler held pro1 up easily.’

b.

ookina kuruma -ni Dono kodomo1 -mo [sono ozisan-ga pro1 every child -also that gentleman-Nom big car -to nosete-kureta to] itta. put Comp said ‘Every child1 said that that gentleman let pro1 get on a big car.’

These sentences demonstrate cases where the anaphoric relation between object pro and its antecedent violates the SSC, and here again they have not only the bound variable reading of pro, but also its referential reading, so that they can have the same interpretations as (16a) and (16b), respectively: (16)

a.

Dono kodomo1 -mo [sono rikisi-ga karera1-o every child -also that sumo wrestler-Nom they-Acc karugaruto motiagete-kureta to] itta. easily held up Comp said ‘Every child1 said that that sumo wrestler held them1 up easily.’

b.

karera1-o ookina Dono kodomo1 -mo [sono ozisan-ga every child -also that gentleman-Nom they-Acc big kuruma -ni nosete-kureta to] itta. car -to put Comp said ‘Every child1 said that that gentleman let them1 get on a big car.’

Let us summarize what we have found out so far: (17)

Pro is forced to have the bound variable reading only when it satisfies the SSC.

In order to capture this generalization, let us first hypothesize that the condition stated in (5) also applies to Japanese pro, which is derived from the following characterization: (18)

Pro in Japanese is an A-pro.

Locality of Empty Pronouns   

   83

Let us further hypothesize that A-pro functions as a variable bound by its antecedent.² Thus, when the antecedent is a quantifier, the semantic value of A-pro covaries with that of its quantificational antecedent. This accounts for the fact that in such cases as in (7) and (11), where A-pro obeys the SSC, it is forced to have the bound variable reading. Given this, the next question to address is why A-pro in Japanese can violate the SSC in some cases and at the same time can have the referential reading as well as the bound variable reading. I propose that this is in effect attributed to the availability of null topics to Japanese. As is well-known, the Japanese counterparts of those sentences given in (1) and (2), which are unacceptable in Finnish and Hebrew, are acceptable when supplied with appropriate contexts, as illustrated below: (19)

a.

(Pointing to a person or persons talking to a native speaker of English) [e] Eigo-o hanasiteiru yo. English-Acc is-speaking ‘[e] is/are speaking English.”

b.

(talking about a particular person or particular persons with the hearer) [e] banana-o katteita yo. banana-Acc was-buying ‘[e] was/were buying bananas.’

Huang (1982, 1984) proposes that these sentences involve null topics that are located at the top of the sentences, binding null arguments. Thus, (19a), for instance, has the following representation: (20)

[CP [Top e1] [TP t1 eigo-o hanasiteiru yo]]

Extending this proposal, Hasegawa (1984/5) claims that null topics are nothing but a special case of null operators that are located at the top of the sentences. Hasegawa further claims that null operators are simply empty pronouns (PRO under her analysis) moved in operator position. I follow this claim and identify a null operator as A-pro in operator position. Thus, I hypothesize the following: (21)

A-pro may undergo operator movement to Spec-CP.

2 See Section 5.2 for the elaboration of what it means to be a “variable.”

(parameterized)

84   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

Given this conception, a null topic is identified as an occurrence of A-pro that is moved to the matrix Spec-CP. Thus, (19a), for instance, has the following representation:³ (22)

[CP pro1 [TP t1 eigo-o hanasiteiru yo]]

Furthermore, (22) anticipates the existence of cases where A-pro undergoes operator movement to intermediate Spec-CPs. I propose that these cases correspond exactly to those where pro appears to violate the SSC, as illustrated in the sentences given in (9), (13) and (15). Thus, these sentences have the following schematic representations: (23)

a.

NP1 [CP pro1 [TP NP [CP t’1 [TP t1 …]] …]] …

b.

NP1 [CP pro1 [TP NP t1 …]] …

Here A-pro moves up to the Spec-CP (successive-cyclically in (23a)) in which it can satisfy the SSC. Regarding the interpretation of A-pro in operator position, let us hypothesize the following: (24)

A-pro takes a semantic value in exactly the same way as normal pronouns do when it becomes an operator.

Given that normal pronouns can function as either referring expressions or variables bound by their antecedents, (24) amounts to saying that null operators can also function in either way in principle.⁴ Thus, as observed by Montalbetti (1984), when a normal pronoun can take a quantifier as its antecedent, it induces ambiguity, depending upon which way it is interpreted, as illustrated below: (25)

Many students believe that they are intelligent.

When they functions as a variable bound by many students, (25) is interpreted as such that there is a set of students which is large in number, such that for each x, x a student, x thinks that x is smart. On the other hand, when they functions 3 I am assuming here that a null topic involves movement, as Huang (1982, 1984) and Hasegawa (1984/5) do. See Section 6.3 for relevant discussion. 4 See Section 5.3 for a discussion on why (24) holds. When A-pro undergoes operator movement to the matrix Spec-CP, so that it acts as a null topic, it only functions as a referring expression, since no antecedent is available for it to act as a variable. See Abe (1993) for supporting evidence for the claim that null operators can also act as variables when they are bound.

Locality of Empty Pronouns   

   85

as a referring expression, (25) can be interpreted as such that there is a set of students which is large in number, such that for each x, x a student, x thinks that the members of the set are smart. Given this and the hypothesis given in (24), it follows that A-pro appearing in the schematic configurations given in (23) can function either as a variable bound by its antecedent or as referring to the set denoted by its antecedent. This derives the fact that the sentences given in (9), (13) and (15), which have the schematic configurations given in (23), have not only the bound variable reading but also the referential reading of A-pro. We are left with one thing to be addressed in order to derive the generalization given in (17): how to prevent A-pro from undergoing operator movement when it can satisfy the SSC in its original position. Notice that if A-pro could undergo operator movement in such a configuration, it would give rise to a referential reading, contrary to fact. Thus, in such a configuration as the following: (26) *[TP NP1 [CP pro1 [TP t1 …]] …] A-pro must be prevented from undergoing operator movement. I will postpone a detailed discussion of this problem until Section 5.3, where it will be argued that the SSC effect of A-pro is attributed to a locality condition on A-movement, and hence the problem at issue will be rephrased as that of how A- and A’- (operator) movements of A-pro interact. Finally, let us turn back to the hypothesis given in (21), reproduced below: (27)

A-pro may undergo operator movement to Spec-CP.

(parameterized)

It should be obvious by now that the availability of operator movement to A-pro needs to be parametrized, as indicated in (27), if we take into consideration the distribution of A-pro in Finnish and Hebrew. Recall that A-pro in these languages strictly obeys the SSC, as illustrated in (1)/(2) and (3)/(4). This fact follows directly if we assume that operator movement of A-pro is unavailable for these languages.⁵ There is good reason to believe that this parametrization has something to do with the properties of subject- vs. topic-prominent languages in the sense of Li and Thompson (1976). As mentioned above, Huang (1982, 1984) proposes that null topics are involved in such sentences as given in (19), where null arguments find their referents from the discourse. He claims that the availability of null

5 It is also predicted under the present analysis that A-pro in Finnish and Hebrew behaves as a variable bound by its antecedent, so that if the antecedent is a quantifier, only the bound variable reading should be possible, just like Japanese A-pro in comparable configurations. I have not examined yet whether this prediction is borne out.

86   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

topics is one of the properties of topic-prominent languages. Given the fact that in the present system of A-pro, a null topic is nothing but a special case of those occurrences of A-pro moved in operator position, namely, the one located in the matrix Spec-CP, it is natural to reason that the availability of operator movement to A-pro may be attributed to whatever parameter is involved in characterizing the differences between subject- and topic-prominent languages.⁶ To the extent that Finnish and Hebrew are naturally classified as subject-prominent languages, the parametrization given in (27) fits quite well with this reasoning.

5.2 A-Pro as a Bound Variable So far I have hypothesized that A-pro behaves as a bound variable when it stays in its original position. This has been clearly demonstrated by such data as (7) and (11), in which the antecedent of A-pro is a quantifier such as daremo ‘everyone’. But it is not immediately clear whether A-pro actually functions as a bound variable when it takes as its antecedent a proper name such as John, as illustrated in (6a), reproduced below: (28)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

Here I argue that A-pro functions as a bound variable in the same sense in which English reflexives are characterized as such by Abe (1992, 1993). Assuming that anaphoric relations are mainly classified into coreferential and bound variable anaphora, Abe (1992) demonstrates that English reflexives are not involved in coreferential anaphora. He compares the following two sentences: (29)

a.

They believe they are intelligent.

b.

They believe themselves to be intelligent.

Abe observes that (29a) is at least three-ways ambiguous, depending upon the way the pronoun they in the embedded clause is anaphorically related to that in the main clause, as indicated below:

6 Probably, the parameter in question is directly related to the property of “verb-agreement” that is listed by Li and Thompson (1976) as one of the distinctive features between subject- vs. topicprominent languages. See Section 5.3 and Chapter 7 for relevant discussions.

A-Pro as a Bound Variable   

(30)

   87

a.

They is regarded as one entity with a belief about itself.

b.

Each of the individuals designated by they has a belief about him/ herself.

c.

Each of the individuals designated by they has a belief about the whole group.

According to Abe (1992), (29b) is only two-ways ambiguous, lacking the third reading (30c). To capture these facts, Abe proposes that reflexives function as bound variables and that when they take as their antecedents apparently non-quantifiers such as proper names and pronouns, the latter have a covert D(istributor), devised by Heim, Lasnik and May (1991) (henceforth, HLM), attached to them and then act as “quasi-quantifiers” binding reflexives. Thus, (29b) has the following LF representation: (31)

[[they]1 D]2 believe themselves2 to be intelligent

Abe then gives the following semantic interpretation to the covert D: (32)

[NP1D2] φ → ∃P(artition) of NP1 [(∀x2∈P) φ’]

where partition is defined by Higginbotham (1981) as follows: (33)

A sub-plurality Q of a plurality P is a plurality each member of which is a member of P. A covering of a plurality P is a family C of subpluralities of P such that every element of P belongs to some member of C. A covering C of P is a partition of P if the members of C are pairwise disjoint.

Then, the LF representation (31) is interpreted as such that there is a partition P of the set denoted by they such that for all x, x∈P, x believes x to be intelligent. If the set denoted by they is partitioned into atomic members, then the second reading (30b) is obtained. On the other hand, if the set is partitioned vacuously so that only one set is a member of P, then the first reading (30a) is obtained.⁷ Notice that

7 According to the semantic interpretation of the covert D given in (32), there are in fact inbetween cases that are derived when the partitioning induces neither atomic members nor one member vacuously. Thus, if the set denoted by they consists of three members, say, {John, Mary, Susan}, then the set can be partitioned into {John}{Mary, Susan}, {Mary}{John, Susan}, or {Susan}{John, Mary}. Accordingly, (29b) can be interpreted in such a way that in each partitioning into two members, each member has a belief about itself; for instance, John believes himself

88   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

under the present assumptions, there is no way to derive the third reading (30c) from the LF representation (31) by the semantic interpretation given in (32); hence this accounts for the lack of this reading for sentence (29b). The availability of this reading for sentence (29a), on the other hand, can be derived from the following LF representation: (34)

[[they]1 D]2 believe they1 are intelligent

Here, the embedded subject they is in a coreferential relation to the matrix subject they, hence just referring to the set denoted by the latter. Thus, if the covert D partitions the set of they into atomic members, then (34) gives rise to the reading (30c). The above observation regarding English reflexives carries over to Japanese A-pro; consider the following examples: (35)

a.

Karera1-wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. they-Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘They1 think/say that pro1 is stupid.’

b.

itta. John-ga karera1-ni [pro1 atama-ga warui to] -Nom they-Dat head-Nom bad Comp said ‘John told them1 that pro1 was stupid.’

(35a) has two readings, i.e., (30a) and (30b), but lacks the third reading (30c), exactly like (29b). Likewise, (35b) is only two-ways ambiguous. Compare these sentences with those counterparts in which pro is replaced by the overt pronoun karera: (36)

a.

Karera1-wa [kareka1-ga atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. they-Top they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘They1 think/say that they1 are stupid.’

b.

itta. John-ga karera1-ni [karera1-ga atama-ga warui to] -Nom they-Dat they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp said ‘John told them1 that they1 were stupid.’

to be intelligent and the set of Mary and Susan believes itself to be intelligent. I will abstract away from these in-between cases in the discussions in the text. See Abe (1992) for further discussion.

A-Pro as a Bound Variable   

   89

Unlike those in (35), these sentences clearly have the third reading.⁸ These facts indicate that A-pro in Japanese functions as a bound variable in the same sense in which English reflexives do. With this much established, we are in a position to discuss such a case as (28), in which A-pro takes a singular NP as its antecedent. Under the present assumptions, such a sentence is treated exactly like a case in which a reflexive takes a singular antecedent, as shown below: (37)

John believes himself to be stupid.

In both (28) and (37), A-pro and himself are bound by the quasi-quantifier [[John] D] and here the covert D partitions the singleton set vacuously. It is predicted under the present assumptions that when A-pro is not locally bound by its antecedent, it should have all the three readings corresponding to those given in (30), since it can act as a null operator and hence be involved in both coreferential and bound variable anaphora, as assumed in (24). This is in fact borne out: compare the sentences in (35) with the following sentence, which is in fact three-ways ambiguous: (38)

Karera1-wa [Mary -ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] itteiru to] they-Top -Nom head-Nom bad Comp say Comp omotteiru. think ‘They1 think that Mary says that pro1 is stupid.’

The same pattern of facts can be replicated on the model of the examples given in (11) and (13): (39)

a.

Karera1-wa [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta to] they-Top that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up Comp omotteiru. think ‘They1 think that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

8 These sentences lack the second reading corresponding to (30b). This is naturally attributed to the fact that karera cannot function as a bound variable.

90   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

b.

(40)

John-wa karera1-ni [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made -Top they-Dat that piano-Acc 5th floor-to motiageru yooni] itta. bring up Comp said ‘John told them1 that pro1 should bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’

Karera1-wa [Mary -ga [pro1 sono they-Top -Nom that motiagete-kureta to] itteiru brought up Comp say ‘They1 think that Mary says that floor.’

piano-o gokai-made piano-Acc 5th floor-to to] omotteiru. Comp think pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth

Here again, the sentences in (39) are only two-ways ambiguous, lacking the third reading, i.e., the reading in which they each think that they brought up that piano to the fifth floor together for (39a) and that in which John told each of them that they should bring up that piano to the fifth floor together for (39b). (40), by contrast, has the third reading as well as the other two readings. Furthermore, when A-pro appears in object position, taking an NP in the higher clause as its antecedent, it is three-ways ambiguous, as predicted; consider the following examples: (41)

a.

Karera1-wa [sono rikisi-ga pro1 karugaruto motiagete-kureta they-Top that sumo wrestler-Nom easily held up to] omotteiru. Comp think ‘They1 think that that sumo wrestler held pro1 up easily.’

b.

ookina kuruma -ni Karera1-wa [sono ozisan-ga pro1 they-Top that gentleman-Nom big car -to nosete-kureta to] omotteiru. put Comp think ‘They1 think that that gentleman let pro1 get on a big car.’

Crucially, these sentences have the third reading, i.e., the one in which they each think that the actions of holding them up and letting them get on a big car take place at once. We can give further confirmation to the present claim that A-pro is a bound variable in the sense in which reflexives are. Abe (1992) observes that reflexives cannot be distributed by such a distributor as each, as illustrated below:

A-Pro as a Bound Variable   

(42)

a.

   91

John and Mary proved that each of them had paid $100.

b. * John and Mary proved each of themselves to have paid $100. (43)

a.

John and Mary proved that they had each filed the required papers.

b. ?*John and Mary proved themselves to have each filed the required papers. Abe further observes that the same restriction holds true with the covert D, thus excluding the readings that would obtain from LF representations in which the covert D is adjoined to reflexives. To show this, let me first introduce HLM’s demonstration of how the covert D functions in representing a variety of anaphoric relations. There are, in principle, five ways in which a pronoun may be anaphorically related to a plural antecedent, as shown below: (44) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Antecedent NP1 NP1 NP1D2 NP1D2 NP1D2

– – – – –

Anaphoric pronoun NP1 NP1D2 NP1 NP2 (singular bound variable) NP1D3

(HLM, p. 76))

Then, the following sentence is in fact five-ways ambiguous, as represented in (46): (45)

John and Mary proved that they had already paid $100.

(46)

a.

[John and Mary]1 proved that they1 had already paid $100

b.

[John and Mary]1 proved that [they1D2] had already paid $100

c.

[[John and Mary]1D2] proved that they1 had already paid $100

d.

[[John and Mary]1D2] proved that they2 had already paid $100

e.

[[John and Mary]1D2] proved that [they1D3] had already paid $100

(46a) means that John and Mary together proved that together they had already paid $100; (46b) that together they proved that each of them had already paid $100 (for a total of $200); (46c) that they each proved that together they had already paid $100; (46d) that John proved that John had already paid $100 and Mary proved that Mary had already paid $100; and (46e) that John proved that

92   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

each of them had already paid $100 and Mary proved the same thing. Interestingly, if (45) is changed into the one that involves a reflexive rather than a pronoun, then not all the readings indicated in (44) are available; that is, it does not have the second, third and fifth readings, as indicated in (48): (47)

John and Mary proved themselves to have already paid $100.

(48)

a.

[John and Mary]1 proved themselves1 to have already paid $100

b. *[John and Mary]1 proved [themselves1D2] to have already paid $100 c. *[[John and Mary]1D2] proved themselves1 to have already paid $100 d.

[[John and Mary]1D2] proved themselves2 to have already paid $100

e. *[[John and Mary]1D2] proved [themselves1D3] to have already paid $100 The unavailability of the reading corresponding to (48c) is already discussed; this is because the reflexive themselves is not bound by the quasi-quantifier created by a covert D attaching to the plural NP John and Mary. The unavailability of the readings corresponding to (48b) and (48e) is now attributed to a constraint to the effect that reflexives cannot be distributed. Let us now consider a Japanese counterpart that involves A-pro: (49)

[Masao to Yoichi]1-wa [pro1 100 doru sudeni siharatta to] and -Top dollar already paid Comp syutyoo-sita. claimed ‘Masao and Yoichi1 claimed that pro1 had already paid $100.’

This sentence clearly lacks the readings corresponding to (48b) and (48e), though it is not crystal-clear whether the reading corresponding to (48c) is available or not.⁹ This indicates that A-pro cannot be distributed, exactly like reflexives, and this is naturally attributed to the fact that both A-pro and reflexives act as bound

9 See Abe (1992) for the observation that some native speakers of English find that the reading corresponding to (48c) is in fact available to (47). I speculate that the availability of this reading has something to do with activity vs. stativity of the matrix verb. Thus, I find that when (49) is compared with (35a) and (39a), the relevant reading is more easily available to the former than to the latter.

A-Pro as a Bound Variable   

   93

variables.¹⁰ Compare (49) with the following sentence, in which A-pro is replaced by the overt pronoun karera ‘they’: (50)

[Masao to Yoichi]1 -wa [karera1-ga 100 doru sudeni siharatta to] and -Top they-Nom dollar already paid Comp syutyoo-sita. claimed ‘Masao and Yoichi1 claimed that they1 had already paid $100.’

Crucially, this sentence has the readings corresponding to (48b) and (48e), as predicted.¹¹ Here again, it is predicted that when A-pro is not locally bound by its antecedent, it should have all the five readings indicated in (44), since it can act as a null operator and hence be involved in both coreferential and bound variable anaphora, as assumed in (24). This is in fact borne out: compare (49) with the following sentence, which is in fact five-ways ambiguous: (51)

[Masao to Yoichi]1-wa [Miyuki-ga [pro1 100 doru sudeni siharatta and -Top -Nom dollar already paid to] omotteiruto] syutyoo-sita. Comp think Comp claimed ‘Masao and Yoichi1 claimed that Miyuki thought that pro1 had already paid $100.’

Let us now consider apparent counterexamples to the present analysis. When such an adverb as issyoni ‘together’ is added to the embedded clauses of such sentences as (11a) and (39a), it appears that the third reading, i.e., that in which each said/thinks that all of the members involved brought up that piano to the fifth floor together, becomes available; consider the following examples: (52)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 issyoni sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta everyone-Nom together that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up to] itta. Comp said ‘Everyone1 said that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor together.’

10 See Abe (1992) for a fuller discussion of why English reflexives cannot be distributed. 11 This sentence lacks the reading corresponding to (48d). Again, this is naturally attributed to the fact that karera cannot function as a bound variable; see fn. 8.

94   

(53)

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

Karera1-wa [pro1 issyoni sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta they-Top together that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up to] itta. Comp said ‘They1 said that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor together.’

There is good reason, however, to believe that the availability of the third reading for these sentences can be traced to an inherent lexical property of issyoni ‘together’, and hence that they do not constitute real counterexamples to the present analysis. Let us first note that (52) and (53) can have the reading in which the partner(s) with which each person brought up that piano to the fifth floor are picked out from the discourse. Thus, suppose that several couples were told to bring up that piano to the fifth floor and also that they were told that it would not matter whether only the husbands would be involved in that activity or they would do that activity together with their wives. Then, the statement of (52) can be interpreted as such that each husband said that he brought up that piano to the fifth floor together with his wife. The same sort of interpretation also holds true for (53). Given this possibility of interpretation, it is natural to assume that issyoni ‘together’ bears an implicit argument denoting a person or people with which the activity it modifies proceeds. Then, in the above scenario, the implicit argument of issyoni picks out its value from salient person(s) in the discourse; that is, the set of wives which covaries with that of husbands. Given this, nothing will prevent the implicit argument of issyoni from picking out its value from a linguistic antecedent. Suppose that the implicit argument of issyoni picks out its value from the sets denoted by the matrix subjects daremo ‘everyone’ in (52) and karera ‘they’ in (53), respectively. Then, these sentences can be interpreted as such that each person said that he/she brought up that piano to the fifth floor with the other people. Notice that this amounts to the third reading we are concerned with. Thus, given the assumption that issyoni bears an implicit argument denoting a person or people with which the activity it modifies proceeds, we can derive the third reading from the LF representation in which A-pro functions as a variable bound by daremo or the quasi-quantifier [karera]D] with the value of the implicit argument of issyoni supplied by the set denoted by these quantifiers. Hence, the availability of the third reading for sentences (52) and (53) does not constitute real counterexamples to the claim that A-pro is a bound variable.¹²

12 For a similar analysis, see Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes’s (2010) approach to so-called partial control, as illustrated below: (i)

The chair preferred [PRO to meet at 6].

A-Pro as a Bound Variable   

   95

Further support for this claim comes from the availability of split antecedent. It has been observed that 3rd person null pronouns in Finnish and Hebrew do not allow split antecedents, as illustrated below:¹³ (54)

(55)

Finnish *?Pekka1 kysyi vaimoltaan2, pro1+2 voivatko mennä Espanjaan lomalle. asked his-wife can-3pl go Spain vacation ‘Pekka1 asked his wife2 if they1+2 can go to Spain for a vacation.’ (Vainikka and Levy 1999, p. 651) Hebrew a. *Rina1 amra le-Ran2 she-pro1+2 hiclixu ba-bxina. said tothat succeeded in-the-test ‘Rina1 said to Ran2 that they1+2 succeeded in the test.’ le-Ran2 she-pro1+2 yuzmenu le-bikur. b. *Rina1 todiʔa will-announce tothat will-be-invited to-a-visit ‘Rina1 will announce to Ran2 that they1+2 will be invited to a visit.’ (Borer 1989, p. 96)

Here PRO is interpreted as referring to people that include the chair, which thus appears to constitute a counterexample to the claim that PRO functions as a bound variable. Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) propose that such a case involves a null commitative argument appearing as the object of meet, as represented below, so that the anaphoric relation of PRO to its antecedent the chair simply instantiates a normal case of OC. (ii) the chair1 preferred [PRO1 to meet pro2 at 6] 13 Gutman (2004) claims that not all cases of 3rd person null subjects exclude taking split antecedents in Hebrew, providing the following examples: (i)

bikra et Shimon2 al ma’amaro ha-shovinisti kshe pro1+2 nas’u criticized Acc on his-article the-chauvinist when went li-yrushalayim. to-Jerusalem ‘Noga criticized Shimon on his chauvinistic article when they drove to Jerusalem.’

Noga1

kava im Dafna2 zman she-bo pro1+2 yuxlu lehipagesh. set with time that-in-it be-able to-meet ‘Dani set with Dafna a time in which they would be able to meet.’

(ii) ? Dani1

Given that in both examples, pro is the subject of an adjunct clause, it might be the case that a third person null subject in Hebrew can rely on the null operator strategy in such a limited configuration. See the next section for relevant discussion. At this point, I am unable to go further into relevant facts of Hebrew and hence must leave further examination for future research.

96   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

The ungrammaticality of these sentences can naturally be attributed to the inherent property of these null pronouns as bound variables. This is confirmed by the fact that the same restriction with respect to split antecedent holds true for Japanese A-pro; consider the following examples: (56)

a. ?*John1 -wa Bill2 -ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita to] itta. -Top -Dat that test -Dat passed Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that they1+2 passed the test.’ gookaku-sita ka] b. ?*John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto -ni -Top -Dat that test -Dat passed Q tazuneta. asked ‘John1 asked Bill2 if they1+2 passed the test.’

These sentences are unacceptable with the intended readings; the permissible interpretations are the ones in which pro takes as its antecedent either John or Bill, but not both. They sharply contrast with those sentences in which pro is replaced by the overt pronoun karara-ga ‘they’, in which case this overt pronoun can take a split antecedent. Given that the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (56) is attributed to the property of Japanese A-pro as a bound variable, it is predicted in the present assumptions that A-pro can take a split antecedent when the latter is far enough for A-pro to rely on the null operator strategy. This is in fact borne out; consider the following examples: (57)

a.

John1 -wa Bill2-ni [Mary-ga [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita -Top -Dat -Nom that test-Dat passed to] omotteiru to] itta. Comp think Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that Mary thought that they1+2 passed the test.’

b.

John1 -wa Bill2-ni [Mary-ga [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita -Top -Dat -Nom that test-Dat passed to] omotteiru ka] tazuneta. Comp think Q asked ‘John1 asked Bill2 if Mary thought that they1+2 passed the test.’

It is fairly clear that in these sentences, pro can take as its antecedent both John and Bill. Thus, this lends further support to the claim that when A-pro takes a long distant antecedent, it can undergo operator movement to act as a null operator, referring to its antecedent(s).

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   97

5.3 Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement I have argued so far that A-pro in Japanese functions as a bound variable when it takes an antecedent without violating the SSC, whereas it undergoes operator movement to take a more remote antecedent. This characterization of the distribution of A-pro, which I believe is empirically well-motivated, is crucially based upon the assumption that A-pro is subject to the SSC. In this section, I argue that this property of A-pro is best derived by the movement theory postulated in the previous chapters, along the lines of Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) movement theory of control, according to which the OC cases of PRO in English involve A-movement. I thus propose that a sentence such as (28), repeated below, will have roughly the derivation given in (59). (58)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

(59)

a.

[TP pro [CP [TP pro … ]] …]    

b.

[TP John-wa [CP [TP pro … ]] …]

At the stage of (59a), the pro that is merged in the embedded subject position undergoes Move to the matrix Spec-TP, and then it is overlaid by John-wa, as shown in (59b), which thus establishes the anaphoric relation between the embedded null subject and its antecedent John-wa. A question that immediately arises with this proposal under the present movement theory of anaphora is whether the pro-movement involved violates any locality condition, or to put it in other terms, whether it requires the repair strategy by overt pronoun. A couple of ways to answer this question come to mind, but the most interesting and plausible one is to claim that the pro-movement in question does not violate any locality condition in Japanese, unlike, say, in English, which obeys the NIC (cf. fn. 4 of Chapter 2), hence not requiring the repair strategy. There are in fact some constructions in Japanese that demonstrate that A-movement can take place from the embedded subject position to a position in the next higher clause, as listed below: (60)

Nominative-genitive conversion: a. [John-ga sukina] hon -Nom like book ‘a book John likes.’

98   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

b.

(61)

(62)

[John-no -Gen

sukina] hon like book

Subject-to-subject raising: John-ga1 saikin [t1 motto benkyoo-suru -Nom recently more study ‘Recently, John has come to study harder.’

yoo-ni] natta. Comp became

Subject-to-object raising: a. John-ga [Bill-ga baka da to] omotteiru. -Nom -Nom stupid be Comp think ‘John thinks that Bill is stupid.’ b.

John-ga [Bill-o -Nom -Acc

baka da to] omotteiru. stupid be Comp think

(60) illustrates the phenomenon of so-called nominative-genitive conversion in which the subject of the relative clause, which is normally marked with nominative Case, can be marked with genitive Case, as shown in (60b). Given the standard assumption that genitive Case is licensed in Spec-DP, it is natural to hold that a genitive subject such as John-no in (60b) undergoes movement to Spec-DP, as shown below: (63)

[DP John-no [TP John-no sukina] hon]    

Note that this movement takes place from the subject position of a finite clause, hence an apparent violation of the NIC. Uchibori (2000, 2001) regards (61) as a case of subject-to-subject raising in which movement takes place from the subject position of a finite clause. Hence if Uchibori’s claim is right, this construction also instantiates a violation of the NIC. Finally, (62b) illustrates a case of subject-toobject raising, according to Kuno (1976), in which the embedded subject Bill-o is marked with accusative Case. Given that accusative Case is assigned by the higher verb, it is natural to assume that (62b) involves such movement as shown below: (64)

John-ga [VP Bill-o [CP [TP Bill-o baka da] to] omotteiru        

Note that in this case as well, the movement takes place from the subject position of a finite clause, hence apparently violating the NIC. Given these facts, it is rea-

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   99

sonable to assume that Japanese is free from the NIC, so that no locality violation is induced in the pro-movement involved in the derivation given in (59). We can now derive the SSC effect of A-pro from a locality condition on Move such as Minimize Chain Links (MCL), proposed by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), which dictates that an element cannot move across its possible landing sites. Thus, in such sentences as the following: (65)

John1 -ga [Mary -ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] itteiru to] omotteiru. -Nom -Nom head-Nom bad Comp say Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Mary says that pro1 is stupid.’

(66)

[sono rikisi-ga pro1 karugaruto motiagete-kureta John1 -ga -Nom that sumo wrestler-Nom easily held up to] itta. Comp said ‘John1 said that that sumo wrestler held pro1 up easily.’

pro cannot undergo A-movement crossing the embedded subjects Mary-ga and sono rikisi-ga ‘that wrester-Nom’ without violating the MCL, since it could have been moved to the positions occupied by these local subjects for the same purpose as it is moved to the matrix subject positions, namely, to have its Case features checked (cf. the discussion around (2.6)). Thus, in such cases, pro needs to undergo operator movement to Spec-CP, as claimed in the previous section. This is the story I want to pursue, but before we get into it, we need to say something about the repair strategy by overt pronoun, especially whether this strategy is available in Japanese. A cursory look at the pronominal system of this language seems to indicate that there is no genuine pronounced pronoun, at least no pronoun equivalent to English pronouns, for instance. Kare ‘he’ and kanozyo ‘she’ are sometimes taken as overt forms of pronouns, but they are more like demonstratives or epithets in the sense that they never function as bound variables. I assume then without going into details that the repair strategy by overt pronoun is not available in Japanese, leaving open the question whether there is any principled reason for this. That said, it is reasonable to claim that the repair strategy for pro-movement in this language is not spelling out of pro but rather making it undergo operator movement. Let us now consider those cases like (65) and (66) in which pro cannot undergo A-movement due to the MCL and hence need to undergo operator movement to Spec-CP. I claimed in Section 5.1 that (65) and (66) have the schematic structures given in (23), repeated below, after pro has undergone operator movement:

100   

(67)

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

a. NP1 [CP pro1 [TP NP [CP t’1 [TP t1 …]] …]] … b. NP1 [CP pro1 [TP NP t1 …]] …

Notice that in these configurations, pro functions like a null operator picking out its referential value from the closest NP. Given the movement theory of anaphora assumed in Chapter 2, then, pro should undergo further movement to the position occupied by its antecedent NP. Thus, (67a, b) should be modified into the following regarding how they are derived: (68)

(69)

a.

pro [CP pro [TP NP [CP pro [TP pro …]] …]] …      

b.

NP [CP pro [TP NP [CP pro [TP pro …]] …]] …

a.

pro [CP pro [TP NP pro …]] …    

b.

NP [CP pro [TP NP pro …]] …

(NP overlaid)

(NP overlaid)

A question arises with respect to how the MCL works for operator movement of pro. It is natural to reason that a possible landing site for operator movement of pro is an operator position, namely Spec-CP. Thus, in the above derivations, pro can cross the subject NP to undergo operator movement to Spec-CP without violating the MCL, since the position occupied by the NP is not a possible landing site for this particular movement of pro. On the other hand, when pro undergoes A-movement from Spec-CP to the position that will be overlaid by its antecedent, it cannot cross a subject NP without violating the MCL, since the position occupied by the NP counts as a possible landing site for this particular movement of pro. It follows from these assumptions that when pro undergoes operator movement, it must be moved as far as the Spec-CP that is closest to the position that will be overlaid by its antecedent, as is the case with the derivations given in (68) and (69). We are now in a position to address the question raised toward the end of Section 5.1: how to prevent pro from undergoing operator movement in such a configuration as (26), repeated below: (70) *[TP NP1 [CP pro1 [TP t1 …]] …] Recall that if pro could undergo operator movement in (70), it would not capture the fact that pro is forced to be interpreted as a bound variable in such a configu-

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   101

ration. Notice that in this configuration, pro must instead undergo A-movement directly to the position occupied by NP1. Under the present assumptions, the pro occupying the embedded Spec-CP in (70) must undergo further movement to the position that will be overlaid by NP1. Hence, it is obvious that the whole derivation involves a superfluous step of movement, namely the one that reaches the embedded Spec-CP, and that this is the cause of illegitimacy of such a derivation as given in (70). Thus, under this conception, operator movement of pro is treated as a last resort operation that can occur only when its A-movement option is excluded by such an economy condition as the MCL. It is in this sense that operator movement of pro is characterized as a “repair strategy” for its A-movement counterpart in the following discussions. Given this mechanism of movement of pro, the fact noted in Section 5.1 and 5.2 that A-pro is forced to function as a bound variable only when it takes an antecedent without violating the SSC is attributed to the property of the A-chain created by pro moving directly to the position occupied by its antecedent. On the other hand, when operator movement of pro mediates in establishing an anaphoric relation, it gives rise to its referential reading as well as its bound variable reading. One may raise the question why this must be the case. I do not have any principled answer to this question other than to suggest an obvious generalization that comes to mind: (71)

A chain forces the bound variable reading iff it is not “repaired.”

Suppose that any anaphoric relation established via Move can be interpreted in principle as either a bound variable or referential one. Then it follows from (71) that when an A-chain is produced via pro-movement, it can yield the referential reading if it is repaired by pronouncing the tail or being mediated by operator movement. English illustrates the case of the repair strategy by pronouncing the tail; the following example is reproduced from (25): (72)

Many students believe that they are intelligent.

As observed with (25) above, they can be interpreted as either referring to the set denoted by many students or functioning as a variable bound by this quantifier. This is because the anaphoric relation between many students and they is created via pro-movement plus the repair strategy by pronouncing the tail of the resulting A-chain. A question immediately arises with respect to how the present movement theory of anaphora deals with cases of split antecedent. Recall that we observed that A-pro cannot take a split antecedent when it is locally bound whereas it can

102   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

take a split antecedent when it undergoes operator movement to take a remote antecedent; the relevant examples are reproduced below from (56a) and (57a): (73) ?*John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesutoi-ni gookaku-sita -Top -Dat that test -Dat passed ‘John1 told Bill2 that they1+2 passed the test.’ (74)

to] itta. Comp said

John1 -wa Bill2-ni [Mary-ga [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita to] -Top -Dat -Nom that test-Dat passed Comp omotteiru to] itta. think Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that Mary thought that they1+2 passed the test.’

The unacceptability of (73) would follow immediately since movement cannot take place from one position to more than one, but this would cause a problem with the acceptability of (74). I suggest that in such a case, the possibility of split antecedent is not derived syntactically but rather arises from a sort of accommodation that applies to the output of a syntactic representation. Thus, I assume that in such a case as (74), pro first undergoes operator movement to the embedded Spec-CP and then moves to the position occupied by either John-wa or Bill-ni; hence nothing special happens in narrow syntax. I suggest then that the produced A-chain is subject to such interpretive rules as the following, which incorporates (71): (75)

a. A chain forces the bound variable reading iff it is not repaired. b. If it is repaired, then either (i) or (ii): (i) It can produce either the bound variable reading or the referential one. (ii) The referential value of the tail must include that of the head.

The case of (75bii) is the one that takes care of split antecedent cases. Thus, the relevant reading of (74) is derived from the following schematic structure by applying the interpretive rule given in (75bii): (76)

John-wa Bill-ni [CP pro [TP NP [CP pro [TP pro …]] …]] …      

In this representation, the tail of the A-chain (John-wa, pro, pro, pro) can take the referential value of John and Bill, since this value includes that of the head of this

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   103

A-chain. Such a non-syntactic treatment of split antecedent will be supported by the fact that the entity that offers a referential value for accommodation does not have to be syntactically present. Thus, the same interpretation can be obtained from (74) even though the phrase Bill-ni is omitted, if Bill is salient enough in a given discourse to remind the hearer that John and Bill took an exam together. The present movement theory of Japanese A-pro is consonant with Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) treatment of the OC cases of PRO by way of A-movement. Hornstein takes up several properties of the OC cases of PRO that are amenable to this A-movement analysis. Among them are (i) unavailability of split antecedent (77a), (ii) required de se interpretation (77b), and (iii) required bound variable reading of only (77c): (77)

a. * Johni told Maryj PROi+j to wash themselves/each other. b.

The unfortunate expects PRO to get a medal.

c.

Only Churchill remembers PRO giving the BST speech. (Hornstein 1999, p. 73)

According to Hornstein’s movement theory of control, property (i) is straightforwardly captured; there is no way to create a double-headed chain that originates in one position. Hornstein derives property (ii) from the assumption that when more than one θ-position is related via A-movement, the latter “semantically forms a compound monadic predicate.” (p. 80) This forces a de se reading, and hence the antecedent of PRO the unfortunate must be able to identify the person denoted by PRO. As for property (iii), Hornstein basically attributes it to the fact that an A-chain forces a bound variable reading when it is headed by a QP or an operator like an only-phrase. Thus, (77c) is mapped onto a semantic representation like the following: (78)

only Churchill λx [x remembers x giving the BST speech]

This represents the reading in which it is only Churchill who remembers his/her own speech.¹⁴ We have already seen that A-pro cannot take split antecedents when it takes local antecedents, as shown in (73), which is explained under the present mechanism of pro-movement plus the interpretive rules given in (75). Further, it is the

14 See Chapter 7 for more evidence for the claim that OC cases only induce bound variable readings and for the further claim that OC cases sharply contrast with NOC cases in this respect.

104   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

case that when A-pro takes a local antecedent, it is forced to have a de se interpretation; compare the following examples: (79)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama -ga ii to] omotteiru. -Top head -Nom good Comp think ‘John1 thinks that pro1 is smart.’

(80)

ii to] itta to] John1 -wa [Mary-ga [pro1 atama -ga -Top -Nom head -Nom good Comp said Comp omotteiru. think ‘John1 thinks that Mary said that pro1 was smart.’

(79) strongly implies that John knows who it is that he thinks is smart. This contrasts sharply with such a case as (80) in which A-pro takes a non-local antecedent; the latter allows a non-de se reading. Thus, (80) can be uttered in the situation in which he does not know that it is himself that he thinks Mary said was smart. These facts can be captured by modifying slightly Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) assumption that when more than one θ-position is related via A-movement, the latter “semantically forms a compound monadic predicate,” that is, with the proviso that such a monadic predicate formation applies only when a produced A-chain is not repaired. Further, consider the following pair of sentences, in which A-pro takes a local antecedent in (81) whereas it takes a non-local antecedent in (82): (81)

John-dake1-ga [pro1 atama-ga ii to] only-Nom head-Nom good Comp ‘Only John1 thinks that pro1 is smart.’

(82)

to] itta to] John-dake1-ga [Mary -ga [pro1 atama-ga ii only-Nom -Nom head-Nom good Comp said Comp omotteiru. think ‘Only John1 thinks that Mary said that pro1 was smart.’

omotteiru. think

(81) allows only the bound variable reading of A-pro, namely the one in which only John considers himself to be smart. (82), by contrast, allows the referential reading of A-pro as well as its bound variable reading. Thus, it can be interpreted as such that only John thinks Mary said John was smart. These facts also follow

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   105

immediately under the present movement theory of Japanese A-pro plus the interpretive rules given in (75). There is one crucial point on which Japanese A-pro behaves differently from the OC variety of PRO. This is concerned with Rosenbaum’s (1967) Minimal Distance Principle, which captures the fact that PRO is forced to have object control, and not subject control, whenever a c-commanding object is available, as illustrated below: (83)

John1 persuaded Harry2 [PRO*1,2 to leave].

Hornstein (1999, 2001) derives this principle from Chomsky’s (1995) Minimal Link Condition. This generalization does not hold for A-pro, however, as shown below: (84)

Daremo1-ga John-ni [pro1 atama-ga warui everyone-Nom -Dat head-Nom bad ‘Everyone1 told John that pro1 was stupid.’

to] Comp

itta. said

This sentence only allows the bound variable reading of A-pro, just like the sentences in (7). Hence, we need to address the question why pro can undergo A-movement to the matrix subject daremo ’everyone’ across the indirect object John, and at the same time, a similar A-movement is blocked in such an OC case as (83). I do not have any definite answer to this question, but one possibility that comes to mind is to rely on the notion of equi-distance, devised by Chomsky (1993), to capture the fact that movement of pro across the object John-ni in (84) does not violate the MCL. Given that V-to-v-movement makes VP and vP constitute the same domain for calculating a distance of movement relevant for the MCL, we may claim that movement of pro to the subject daremo-ga ’everyone-Nom’ in (84) does not violate the MCL, since the subject and the intervening object John belong to the same domain in the relevant sense, hence equi-distanct from the embedded subject position that pro is originally merged in.¹⁵ As for such a control case as (83), it may be that the required object control has nothing to do with any syntactic condition, but rather is derived from the lexical property of the control verbs that take a non-finite clause headed by PRO or a thematic property of pre-

15 See Abe (1993) for the claim that the SSC effects observed in anaphors can be derived from a minimality condition applying to LF representations, and further that an apparent violation of this condition in such a case as the following can be solved by incorporating the notion of equidistance into it: (i)

John told Mary about himself.

106   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

dication in the sense of Williams (1980) to the effect that the antecedent of a predicate such as a non-finite clause headed by PRO must bear a theme function.¹⁶ I have shown how the movement theory of Japanese A-pro can capture the fact that A-pro is forced to function as a bound variable only when it takes an antecedent without violating the SSC. Given this theory, however, we have a prediction that does not follow from this latter generalization: A-movement should not take place from a position inside an island even though it obeys the MCL. This prediction is in fact borne out; consider the following examples, where A-pro appears in an adjunct clause in (85) and in a relative clause in (86): (85)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made hakondeiru aida] everyone-Nom that piano-Acc fifth floor-to be-carrying while kanozyo-no koto-o kangaeteita. girl friend-Gen thing-Acc thought ‘Everyone1 thought of his1 girl friend while pro1 was carrying that piano to the fifth floor.’

(86)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sokode atta] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru. everyone-Nom there saw student-with want-to-marry ‘Everyone1 wants to marry a student who pro1 saw there.’

These sentences allow the referential reading of A-pro, so that they may have the same reading as the ones in which A-pro is replaced by karera-ga ‘they-Nom’. This fact immediately follows under the present analysis of A-pro, since in these cases, pro cannot be directly moved to its antecedent, creating an A-chain, without violating island conditions. Hence, pro needs to undergo operator movement instead within the islands, and then undergo further movement to the position that will be overlaid by its antecedent, as schematically shown below: (87)

NP [island [CP pro [TP pro …]]] …    

Recall that in Chapter 2 we discussed a derivation of a PG construction that involves first a null operator-like movement within an adjunct clause and second

16 However, see fn. 5 of Chapter 7 for a possible account in terms of a syntactic condition for why A-pro and PRO differ with respect to the availability of the “subject-control” across object. Though it would be more desirable to deduce the relevant control effects from some movement properties under the present assumptions, it is beyond the scope of this book to pursue this possibility in any detail. See Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) for such an attempt.

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   107

an A’-movement into the position overlaid by its antecedent across this adjunct clause. I claimed there that the second step of movement is immune to an island condition since there is no Case position in which pro can be pronounced to meet the repair strategy by overt pronoun. The relevant condition is repeated below from (2.43): (88)

An island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case position where pro could be pronounced.

With much the same logic, we can claim that the second step of movement in (87) is also immune to island conditions. Recall that we have assumed that the repair strategy by overt pronoun is not available to Japanese, and further that operator movement of pro is an alternative strategy to it, which would mean that it applies only when the repair strategy by overt pronoun is required. In (87), then, the pro occupying the embedded Spec-TP cannot move directly to the position occupied by NP, since it would violate an island condition and this violation could be repaired by pronouncing pro. In such a situation, pro undergoes operator movement as an alternative to this repair strategy, so that the next step of movement can successfully cross the island since it does not require the repair strategy by overt pronoun, according to (88). Now we can attribute the availability of the referential reading of A-pro in such cases as (85) and (86) to the fact that operator movement of pro mediates in establishing the anaphoric relations between A-pro and its antecedents, in accordance with the interpretive rules given in (75). Further evidence for the claim that operator movement of pro mediates in establishing an anaphoric relation across an island comes from the availability of split antecedent, as shown in (89), and the availability of the referential reading of only, as shown in (90): (89)

a.

John1 -ga Mary2 -ni [pro1+2 sono piano-o gokai-made -Nom -Dat that piano-Acc fifth floor-to hakondeiru aida] hanasikaketeita. be-carrying while was-speaking ‘John1 was speaking to Mary2 while pro1+2 was carrying that piano to the fifth floor.’

108   

(90)

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

b.

John1 -ga Bill2 -ni [[pro1+2 sokode atta] gakusei-ga itiban -Nom -Dat there saw student-Nom most kirei da to] itta. beautiful be Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that a student who pro1+2 saw there was the most beautiful.’

a.

John -dake1-ga [pro1 piano-o gokai-made hakondeiru aida] only-Nom piano-Acc fifth floor-to be-carrying while kanozyo-ni meeru-siteita. girl friend-Dat was-typing-a-text ‘Only John1 was typing a text to his1 girl friend while pro1 was carrying a piano to the fifth floor.’

b.

John-dake1-ga [pro1 sokode atta] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru. only-Nom there saw student-with want-to-marry ‘Only John1 wants to marry a student who pro1 saw there.’

(90a) can mean that it was only John and nobody else who was typing a text while John was carrying that piano to the fifth floor, as well as its bound variable reading, according to which nobody except John was typing a text while he/she was carrying a piano to the fifth floor. Likewise, (90b) can mean that there was a student John met there and only John wants to marry that student, as well as its bound variable reading, according to which nobody except John wants to marry a student who he/she met there. There is one interesting case of OC that is relevant for the present discussion, namely an adjunct control case, as illustrated below: (91)

John1 heard Mary without/before/after PRO1 entering the room. (Hornstein 1999, p. 88)

That such a case is a species of OC is confirmed by the unavailability of split antecedent, as shown in (92a), and the obligatoriness of the bound variable reading with an only-phrase as the antecedent of PRO, as shown in (92b): (92)

a. *John1 told Mary2 a story after PRO1+2 washing themselves. b.

Only Churchill left after PRO giving the speech. = only Churchill λx [x left after x giving the speech] (Hornstein 2001, p. 46–47)

Deriving the SSC Effect from A-Movement   

   109

The interesting property that such an adjunct control case has is that it manifests OC properties despite the fact that an island intervenes in the anaphoric relation involved. Hornstein (1999, 2001) proposes a sideward movement approach to such a case to account for the island-insensitivity of the movement involved. Under the present movement theory, on the other hand, there is a plausible alternative to it that relies on the assumption made in (88): the pro-movement involved in producing an A-chain in OC cases takes place from a Caseless position, so that it can cross an adjunct island without recourse to the repair strategy by pronouncing the tail, according to (88). This contrasts with such Japanese examples as given in (85) and (86), in which pro-movement takes place from a Case position, hence sensitive to an island violation. Here is a prediction: if A-pro appears in a Caseless position within an adjunct island in Japanese, as in (91), then it should show the same properties as OC cases. This is in fact borne out; consider the following example: (93)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made hakobi-nagara] everyone-Nom that piano-Acc fifth floor-to carrying-while kanozyo-no koto-o kangaeteita. girl friend-Gen thing-Acc thought ‘Everyone1 thought of his1 girl friend while pro1 carrying that piano to the fifth floor.’

In this example, the adjunct clause involves a non-finite clause parallel to the one in (91), and it gives rise to only the bound variable reading of A-pro. Further, such an adjunct clause does not allow A-pro to take a split antecedent, as shown in (94), and forces the bound variable reading of only, as shown in (95): (94) ?*John1 -ga Mary2 -ni [pro1+2 sono piano-o gokai-made -Nom -Dat that piano-Acc fifth floor-to hakobi-nagara] hanasikaketeita. carrying-while was-speaking ‘John1 was speaking to Mary2 while pro1+2 carrying that piano to the fifth floor.’ (95)

John-dake1-ga [pro1 piano-o gokai-made hakobi-nagara] only-Nom piano-Acc fifth floor-to carrying-while kanozyo-ni meeru-siteita. girl friend-Dat was-typing-a-text ‘Only John1 was typing a text to his1 girl friend while pro1 carrying a piano to the fifth floor.’

110   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

(95) does not have the referential reading available to (90a). These facts indicate that pro can move across an island, undergoing direct A-movement to the position occupied by its antecedent, even in Japanese when it is moved from a Caseless position.

5.4 Implications for the Pro-Drop Parameter Finally, let me mention an important theoretical implication that the present movement theory of Japanese A-pro has for the so-called pro-drop parameter. Notice that according to this movement theory, the reason why this language allows null arguments quite freely is not that they are licensed in a special way in which they are not in such a non-pro-drop language as English, but rather that null arguments, as identified as pro, are available in any language in principle and whether they manifest themselves to the surface depends upon how they interact with repair strategies. According to the present theory of Japanese A-pro, there are two factors that “license” null arguments in this language, as summarized below: (96)

a.

Insensitivity to the NIC

b.

Availability of operator movement of pro as a repair strategy

The first property (96a) makes it possible for pro to undergo A-movement from an embedded subject to the next higher subject position without inducing any repair strategy, as is the case with such an example as (58), reproduced below: (97)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp hink say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

Recall that we observed in Chapter 2 that Japanese A-pro is sensitive to Condition B, as illustrated in (2.10), reproduced below: (98)

John-wa e kiratteiru. -Top hate ‘John hates e.’

This sentence cannot be interpreted in such a way that the null object refers to John. I proposed there that (98) is ruled out by a chain condition on A-movement

Implications for the Pro-Drop Parameter   

   111

a la Chomsky (1981) to the effect that an A-chain has at most one Case unless the resumptive pronoun strategy is exploited; the relevant condition is reproduced below: (99)

When an A-chain C = (a1, …, an) carries more than one Case, extra Cases must be phonetically realized, where an extra Case is one that is assigned/ checked in a position other than a1.

Notice that the A-chain produced by pro-movement in (97) would induce a violation of this condition if John must carry a nominative Case that is assigned/ checked by the embedded T. Thus this consideration leads to the conclusion that while assignment/checking of accusative Case is mandatory, assignment/ checking of nominative Case is optional in Japanese. This accords quite well with Saito’s (1985) view on the case system of Japanese, according to which accusative case is a manifestation of an abstract Case, hence licensed via the core system of Case assignment in UG, whereas nominative case is licensed in a more languageparticular way, basically assigned to whatever phrase is attached to a projection of a tensed T. The optionality of nominative Case assignment/checking is most clearly demonstrated in such phenomena as nominative-genitive conversion and subject-to-object raising, as shown in (60) and (62), in which nominative subjects are optionally turned into genitive and accusative ones, respectively. Thus, the first factor that permits null arguments, namely, insensitivity to the NIC, must be closely related to another property of Japanese, namely, optionality of nominative Case assignment/checking.¹⁷ It might even be the case that the former property follows from the latter, but more consideration is necessary before we reach this conclusion, a task I leave for future research. Given the present view on the availability of null arguments, that English does not allow them will follow from the fact that this language does not have either property described in (96); that is, it is sensitive to the NIC and uses the repair strategy of spelling-out of the tail of a produced A-chain instead of the null operator-like movement strategy.¹⁸ How about such typical cases of pro-drop lan17 It will then be predicted that the chain produced by A-movement of pro from an embedded subject to the higher subject position should have an option with respect to which member of the chain is pronounced, depending upon which member is assigned or checked with nominative Case. See Abe (2013) for the claim that there are in fact cases where the bottom copy of a relevant A-chain is pronounced in Japanese, cases of what Abe calls backward binding, on the model of backward control discussed by Polinsky and Potsdam (2002). 18 The exception is the occurrence of PRO, which may be involved in producing A-chains as well as utilizing operator movement as a repair strategy. These possibilities are permitted due to the inherent property of PRO being Caseless. See Chapter 7.

112   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

guage as Italian and Spanish, which only allow subject-drop, unlike Japanese? It might be tempting to characterize these pro-drop languages as cases that have the property (96a) but not (96b), but I am unaware of any evidence for indicating that they are free from the NIC. Further, there is compelling evidence, from the present point of view, that denies this conjecture; this is concerned with the interpretive possibility of null subjects in these languages. Montalbetti (1984) observes that the Spanish translation of the English sentence (72) with the embedded null subject pro, as shown below, has not only the bound variable reading of pro but also its referential reading, exactly like (72). (100) Muchos estudiantes creen que pro son inteligentes. If the anaphoric relation between pro and muchos estudiantes were to be established via an A-chain that was produced with no repair strategy, then it would be forced to give rise to only its bound variable reading, according to the interpretive rule (75a). This will then suggest that Spanish is sensitive to the NIC, hence requiring a repair strategy of some sort. I suggest that in such a pro-drop language, the relevant repair strategy can not only be spelling-out of the tail of the produced A-chain, but also rely on the morphology of the verb that agrees with it, thanks to the “rich agreement morphology” functioning to license subject-drop in terms of recoverability, following Taraldsen’s (1978) idea. There is evidence that supports this conjecture. Note that an overt pronoun can be inserted in (100), as shown below: (101) Muchos estudiantes creen que ellos son inteligentes. From the present point of view, this way of repairing an A-chain is redundant given that the agreement morphology can also serve to the same end. This suggests that insertion of an overt pronoun in this case has nothing to do with a repair strategy. This is corroborated by the fact, noted by Montalbetti (1984), that in such a case as (101), the bound variable interpretation of ellos is not available. The following examples also show the same point: (102) a.

b.

Nadie1 cree que pro1 es inteligente. ‘Nobody1 believes that he1 is intelligent.’ Nadie1 cree que él*1/2 es inteligente.

In (102b), the overt pronoun él cannot function as a variable bound by the negative quantifier nadie, unlike in (102a), in which pro can function as such. Recall

Implications for the Pro-Drop Parameter   

   113

that we have observed above that Japanese pronoun-like elements such as kare ‘he’ and karera ‘they’ cannot function as bound variables, either, as illustrated in (8a), reproduced below: (103) Daremo1-ga [karera1-ga atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. everyone-Nom they-Nom head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘Everyone1 thinks/says that they1 are stupid.’ In this sentence, karera cannot function as a variable bound by daremo ‘everyone’ but can only refer to the set denoted by this quantifier. Given this Japanese fact, it will not be unnatural to reason that Spanish overt pronouns also have what may be called a “quasi-pronominal-like” usage, under which they act as simply referring to their antecedents. It is not the case, however, that Spanish overt pronouns never function as bound variables, but, as Montalbetti observes, they do function as such only in the contexts where pro cannot appear instead, as illustrated below: (104) a.

Muchos estudiantes1 creen que [sus1 bicicletas] son azules. ‘Many students1 believe that their1 bicycles are blue.’

b. *Muchos estudiantes1 creen que [pro1 bicicletas] son azules. (105) a.

Muchos estudiantes1 quieren que María se case con ellos1. ‘Many students1 want Mary to marry them1.’

b. *Muchos estudiantes1 quieren que María se case con pro1. In both (104a) and (105a), the overt pronouns sus and ellos can function as variables bound by muchos estudiantes. (104b) and (105b) show that pro cannot appear instead of these pronouns. Under the present movement theory of anaphora, it is most natural to claim that in these cases, the overt pronouns are manifestations of pro as a repair strategy for a violation of a locality condition induced by the pro-movement involved in establishing the anaphoric relation in question, a LBC violation in the case of (104a) and a MCL violation in the case of (105a). Hence these overt pronouns can function not only as referring to the set denoted by the quantifier muchos estudiantes, but also as its variable, just like they in (72), the English translation of (100). The fact that overt pronouns cannot function as bound variables in such cases as (101) and (102b) then follows from an economy condition on the assumption that the repair strategy by way of rich agreement

114   

   Locality of Empty Pronouns in Japanese

morphology on a verb is less costly than that by way of pronouncing the tail of a produced A-chain.¹⁹ Let us now consider the subject-drop phenomena observed in Finnish and Hebrew, discussed in Section 5.1. I suggest that they belong to the type of prodrop that arises from having only the property given in (96a), namely insensitivity to the NIC, though necessary investigation remains to be conducted, especially regarding whether the subject pro gives rise to only a bound variable interpretation. Under this assumption, it follows that the subject pro shows SSC effects, as we saw in Section 5.1, since the A-movement involved in establishing an anaphoric relation between subject pro and its antecedent is subject to the MCL, as claimed in the previous section. Another candidate for this type of pro-drop is found in Brazilian Portuguese, as Ferreira (2004, 2009) and Rodrigues (2002, 2004) argue that the subject pro in this language shows all the properties of OC. I will not go into detailed discussions on their arguments here²⁰ except for noting 19 Montalbetti’s (1984) Overt Pronoun Constraint has an exemption to the effect that when an overt pronoun can be linked to an occurrence of pro that serves as a variable of a quantifier, it can also be bound by this quantifier even if it appears in a position in which pro can appear instead, as shown below: (i)

Muchos estudiantes1 dijeron que pro1 piensan que ellos1 son inteligentes. ‘Many students1 said that pro1 think that they1 are intelligent.’

Here ellos can function as a variable bound by muchos estudiantes thanks to the presence of pro that it can be linked to. Note that under the present movement theory of anaphora, this occurrence of ellos cannot be an overt form of pro as a result of a repair strategy since pro can appear in the same position with rich morphology on the verb son. Rather, it must be a “quasi-pronominal.” The fact about (i) then indicates that a quasi-pronominal can covary with a pronoun bound by a quantifier in Spanish. In this respect, it is more like so-called so-pronominals in Japanese such as soitu ‘that guy’ and sono hito ‘that person’. Consider the following examples: titioya-o sonkeisiteiru. (ii) a. ?* Doitumo1 soitu1-no everyone that guy-Gen father-Acc respect ‘Everyone1 respects his1 father.’ titioya-o sonkeisiteiru to] itta. b.  ? Doitumo1 [pro1 soitu1-no everyone that guy-Gen father-Acc respect Comp said ‘Everyone1 said that pro1 respects his1 father.’ There seems to be a significant though somewhat subtle improvement in (iib), compared with (iia), on the relevant reading. This indicates that so-pronominals in Japanese also have the ability of functioning as a variable of a quantifier as long as there is another pronoun bound by the same quantifier with which it can covary. 20 See Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) for their claim that the OC properties exhibited by null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese falsify the generalization drawn by Landau (2004) that indicative complements do not display those properties. According to our present analysis of Japanese A-pro, the OC properties are manifested when null subjects take their antecedents in

Implications for the Pro-Drop Parameter   

   115

that given Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) movement theory of OC, it is quite likely that the subject drop found in Brazilian Portuguese is best characterized as involving A-movement and that this option is made available from the NIC-free property. The above characterization of the pro-drop variation predicts that there is one more type, namely, the one arising from having only the property given in (96b): availability of operator movement of pro as a repair strategy. This type of pro-drop would be indistinguishable from the Japanese-type in its distribution but could be distinguishable from it in how the anaphoric relation established between an embedded subject and an antecedent in the next clause up is interpreted; such an anaphoric relation should produce not only a bound variable reading but also a referential reading. Given that no language has been reported to show this property, as far as I know, I speculate that this type of pro-drop is non-existent. Recall that I suggested in Section 5.1 that the option given in (96b) is available only to topic-prominent languages such as Japanese and that topicprominent languages are characterized by Li and Thompson (1976) as typically lacking “verb-agreement” (see fn. 6). Notice that the availability of the property given in (96a), namely insensitivity to the NIC, is also likely to have something to do with agreement; that is, the insensitivity to the NIC is observed when the verb that enters into a Spec/head relation with a null subject exhibits only a degenerate agreement or no agreement at all. Combining these assumptions will lead to the following entailment relation: if a given language has the property (96b), then it also has the property (96a) (but not vice versa). It follows, then, that there is no language that has the property (96b) alone.

the next clauses up, despite the fact that the complement clauses involved are indicative. Hence, this is another case that falsifies Landau’s generalization.

6 Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro This chapter aims to give support to one crucial property of the present movement theory of Japanese A-pro; namely, that it undergoes operator movement in mediating an anaphoric relation. In so doing, we examine those cases of null arguments that receive generic interpretation, as illustrated below: (1)

[[e] Siai-ni katu koto]-wa muzukasii. game-Dat win fact-Top difficult ‘It is difficult [e] to win a game.’

First of all, one may raise the question whether or not an instance of null arguments of this kind should be treated on a par with A-pro. As the translation suggests, one may identify such an instance of null argument with PRO, which is standardly distinguished from pro. However, given the above discussion in which there is assumed to be no significant distinction between pro and PRO except that the latter lacks Case, I will proceed with the following discussion, assuming that there is no such distinction. Furthermore, I follow Holmberg (2005) in his claim that “the bound null pronoun and the generic null pronoun are the same category.” (p. 552) More specifically, I propose, following Lebeaux’s (1984) analysis of PRO, that bound and generic null pronouns are in a sense two sides of the same coin; when pro undergoes operator movement, it either undergoes further movement to pick out its referent or functions as a generic operator. Hence, I hypothesize the following: (2)

Pro can be assigned generic interpretation when it becomes an operator.

Then, (1) will have the following representation, as a first approximation: (3)

[CP pro1 [TP t1 siai-ni katu koto]]-wa muzukasii

Here no antecedent is available for pro, thus the latter serving as a generic operator. Whether pro undergoes further movement to pick out its referent or functions as a generic operator is an option irrespective of whether a possible antecedent is available for it, as illustrated below: (4)

a.

John-wa [pro Mary-o settoku-suru beki-da to] omotteiru. -Top -Acc persuade should Comp think ‘John thinks that he should persuade Mary.’ or ‘John thinks that one should persuade Mary.’

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro   

b.

   117

John -wa [[Mary -ga pro settoku-suru no]-wa muzukasii to] -Top -Nom persuade -Top difficult Comp omotteiru. think ‘John thinks that it is difficult for Mary to persuade him’ or ‘John thinks that it is difficult for Mary to persuade anyone.’

(4a) is an instance of subject pro whereas (4b) is an instance of object pro. These sentences are ambiguous, depending upon whether pro refers to John or is interpreted as generic.¹ Thus, they indicate that the generic interpretation of pro is available regardless of the existence of a possible antecedent for it. In what follows, I argue for the syntactic characterization of generic pro given in (2), i.e., for characterizing generic pro as an instance of pro moving to operator position, hence giving support to the claim made in the preceding chapter that pro can undergo operator movement to Spec-CP in Japanese.

6.1 Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro In giving support to operator movement of pro, I will discuss cases where more than one instance of generic pro appears in a sentence to see how they interact in

1 Kuroda (1983) claims that the generic interpretation of null arguments in Japanese is possible only when they appear in subject position. He provides the following contrast (the judgments are his; NL in the glosses stands for nominalizer): (i)

a. [e Sensei-ni au no]-wa muzukasii. teacher-Dat meet NL-Top difficult ‘It is difficult [e to meet a teacher].’ b. *[Gakusei-ga e au no]-wa muzukasii. student-Nom meet NL-Top difficult ‘Lit. It is difficult [for a student to meet e].’

I agree that there is a clear contrast between these two sentences, but it does not seem to be the case that generic interpretation is generally precluded for null objects. The following examples are fairly good with generic interpretation of the null objects: (ii) a. [Kodomo-ga e settokusuru no]-wa muzukasii. child-Nom persuade NL-Top difficult ‘Lit. It is difficult [for a child to persuade e].’ b. [Kodomo-ga e sonkeisuru no]-wa ii koto child-Nom respect NL-Top good thing ‘Lit. It is a good thing [for a child to respect e].’

da. be

118   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

interpretation, especially focusing on whether the value of one instance covaries with that of the other. This examination is based upon Lebeaux’s (1984) observation and analysis of multiple occurrences of generic PRO in English. He observes that (5a) and (5b) below contrast sharply with respect to whether a person who wins games must be identical with a person who loses games. (5)

a.

PRO winning games requires PRO losing games.

b.

The winning of games requires the losing of games.

According to Lebeaux’s observation, the two occurrences of PRO in (5a) must take the same value when they are interpreted as generic; hence the sentence is interpreted as such that for any person x, x’s winning games requires x’s losing games. In (5b), in contrast, such a restriction is not imposed upon the subject of winning and that of losing, so that a person who wins games may be different from a person who loses games. In order to capture such a restriction imposed upon the two occurrences of PRO in (5a), Lebeaux proposes that a generic operator is involved in such a sentence, binding the two occurrences of PRO, as represented below: (6)

[OP1 [PRO1 winning games requires PRO1 losing games]]

Lebeaux further observes that it is not the case that when more than one occurrence of generic PRO appears in a given sentence, these occurrences of generic PRO must always take the same value, providing the following examples: (7)

a.

PRO winning the trust of the populace requires PRO having to serve in the army.

b.

PRO winning the trust of the populace requires that PRO having to serve in the army be abolished.

(7a) has the same configuration as (5a) in relevant respects and hence the two occurrences of generic PRO must take the same value. In (7b), in contrast, the two occurrences of generic PRO do not necessarily take the same value. Lebeaux derives this contrast from a restriction with respect to where a generic operator stands: (8)

A generic operator is adjoined to the minimal NP, S containing γ, where γ is the minimal S containing PRO.

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro   

   119

In (6), the clause corresponding to γ is [PRO winning games] for the first occurrence of PRO and [PRO losing games] for the second, and hence the entire sentence is the one to which a generic operator is adjoined for both occurrences of PRO. This results in a configuration where both occurrences of PRO are bound by one and the same generic operator, hence taking the same value. In (7b), on the other hand, while a generic operator is adjoined to the entire sentence to bind the first occurrence of PRO, another generic operator is adjoined to the embedded complement clause of requires to bind the second occurrence of PRO, and hence these two occurrences of PRO do not have to take the same value. Keeping this much in background, let us now consider comparable Japanese cases such as the following: (9)

a.

[pro Siai-ni katu koto]-wa [pro siai-ni makeru koto]-o game-Dat win fact-Top game-Dat lose fact-Acc hituyoo-to suru. require ‘Winning a game requires losing a game.’

b.

[Hito-ga siai-ni katu koto]-wa [hito-ga siai-ni person-Nom game-Dat win fact-Top person-Nom game-Dat makeru koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. lose fact-Acc require ‘A person winning a game requires a person losing a game.’

c.

Donna siai-ni oite-mo syoori-wa haiboku-o hituyoo-to suru. any game-in-also winning-Top losing-Acc require ‘In any game, winning requires losing.’

It seems that (9a) must be interpreted in such a way that the winner and the loser are the same person, just like (5a), hence forced to mean that for any person x, x’s winning a game requires x’s losing a game. On the other hand, (9b), in which the subjects of winning a game and losing a game are realized as hito ‘person’, sharply contrasts with (9a) with respect to the same person requirement; that is, in the former sentence, the winner and the loser can be different persons. For example, it may be interpreted as such that the existence of a winner implies that of a loser. In (9c), the nominals syoori ‘winning’ and haiboku ‘losing’ are used, and the most natural interpretation of this sentence is the one just given: in any game, the existence of a winner implies that of a loser. Another array of examples of a similar sort is given below:

120   

(10)

(11)

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

a.

[pro Hihan-suru koto]-wa [pro sonkei-suru koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. criticize fact-Top respect fact-Acc require ‘Criticizing requires respecting.’

b.

[Hito-ga hihan-suru koto]-wa [hito-ga sonkei-suru person-Nom criticize fact-Top person-Nom respect koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. fact-Acc require ‘A person’s criticizing requires a person’s respecting.’

c.

Hihan-wa sonkei-o criticism-Top respect-Acc ‘Criticism requires respect.’

hituyoo-to suru. require

[pro Kazoku-o motte-inai koto]-wa [pro syusse-suru koto]-o family-Acc have-not fact-Top promote fact-Acc yooi-ni suru. make-easy ‘Not having a family makes one promote easily.’

Again, in sentence (10a), the subject of criticizing is forced to take the same value as the subject of respecting. This sharply contrasts in the same person requirement with such a case as (10b) where the overt form hito ‘person’ serves as the subjects of criticizing and respecting and, also with such a nominalization case as (10c); in the latter two cases, the person criticizing someone can be different from the one respecting someone.² Likewise, (11) must observe the same person requirement, so that it is interpreted as such that for any person x, x’s not having a family makes x promote easily. We have seen that the same person requirement is not forced upon multiple occurrences of generic PRO in such a case as (7b), where the two occurrences of PRO belong to different domains, as defined in (8). We can construct a comparable case in Japanese; consider the following example: (12)

[pro [pro Siai-ni katu koto]-o yookyuu-suru koto]-wa [pro [pro game-Dat win fact-Acc request fact-Top siai-ni makeru koto]-o yookyuu-suru koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. game-Dat lose fact-Acc request fact-Acc require ‘Requesting one to win a game requires requesting one to lose a game.’

2 We will discuss object pro’s appearing in this sentence directly.

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro   

   121

Here, as in the above cases, the person requesting the winning of a game must be the same as the one requesting the losing of a game. The interesting point with this example lies in the fact that the person who wins a game can be different from the one who loses a game. This indicates that some locality condition is at work in imposing the same person requirement upon generic pro in much the same way as in the case of generic PRO. Before considering the exact domain within which the same person requirement is imposed, let us observe one more case, which involves object generic pro. We have not yet mentioned the possible interpretations of multiple occurrences of object generic pro in such a sentence as (10a, b). It is relatively clear that in such cases, the same person requirement is not enforced. Thus, (10a), for instance, can be interpreted as such that for any person x, y, z, x’s criticizing y requires x’s respecting z. Likewise, in (10b), in which the same person requirement is not enforced upon the subjects of criticizing and respecting due to the manifestation of hito ‘person’, the two occurrences of object generic pro can also be taken as referring to different persons, so that this sentence can be interpreted in such a way that anyone’s criticizing anyone else requires anyone’s respecting anyone else in a community or society for instance, which is close in meaning to (10c). Now let us consider how to formulate the domain in which the same person requirement is imposed upon generic pro/PRO. Notice, first of all, that Lebeaux’s (1984) formulation given in (8), repeated here as (13), is not only conceptually unsatisfactory but also empirically inadequate. (13)

A generic operator is adjoined to the minimal NP, S containing γ, where γ is the minimal S containing PRO.

Recall that we have assumed that pro can be interpreted as generic when it becomes an operator, as stated in (2). Suppose that the same characterization applies to PRO as well; that is, the generic interpretation is obtained when PRO moves to operator position rather than being bound by a different generic operator. Then, (13) will be modified as follows: (14)

When interpreted as generic, pro/PRO is adjoined to the minimal NP, S containing γ, where γ is the minimal S containing pro/PRO.

Here I assume that when more than one occurrence of pro/PRO adjoins to the same position, they must do so by way of ATB-movement, hence merging into one operator. Now the formulation given in (14) does not tell us exactly what notion is appropriate in characterizing the domain in question but simply describes mechanically what is the right domain, hence conceptually problematic. On top

122   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

of that, even though it takes care of those cases of subject generic pro in Japanese observed above, it gives rise to the wrong result with respect to object generic pro. Thus, consider (10a); given (14), all instances of pro, whether subject or object, would be adjoined to the matrix clause, since the latter is the minimal TP (=S) containing γ, which is in turn the TP that immediately contains pro’s. This means that all those instances of pro must undergo ATB-movement to adjoin to the matrix clause, hence bound by one and the same operator, as shown below: (15)

[TP pro1 [TP [TP t1 t1 hihan-suru] koto-wa [TP t1 t1 sonkei-suru] koto-o hituyooto suru]]

This incorrectly represents the reading in which all those instances must take the same value. Thus, a new formulation of the domain in which the same person requirement is enforced is called for. Note that the difference between subject and object pro’s with respect to the relevant domain for the same person requirement may suggest that the SSC is a key notion to define this domain, since the domain in question for object pro seems to be the clause it belongs to, whereas that for subject pro seems to be outside the clause it belongs to. Thus, the correct interpretation of (10a) will obtain if it is assigned the following representation:³ (16)

[CP pro1 [TP [CP pro2 [TP t1 t2 hihan-suru]] koto-wa [CP pro3 [TP t1 t3 sonkeisuru]] koto-o hituyoo-to suru]]

This correctly represents the fact that the subject of hihan-suru ‘criticize’ and that of sonkei-suru ‘respect’ must refer to the same person while the objects of these predicates can refer to different persons. Recall that we have discussed the case where operator movement of pro is prohibited since it is too short, as schematically represented in (5.70), reproduced below: (17) *[TP NP1 [CP pro1 [TP t1 …]] …] In this configuration, pro cannot undergo operator movement to the embedded Spec-CP and then undergo further movement to the position occupied by NP1. This is because the more economical movement is available in this case, namely the A-movement from the embedded subject position directly to the matrix Spec3 I will follow what we have been assuming with respect to the position to which pro moves when it undergoes operator movement; namely, Spec-CP.

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro   

   123

TP. We can now extend this notion of economy so as to accommodate those cases involving operator movement of generic pro. Let us hypothesize the following: (18)

Pro/PRO must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

(19)

The A-domain for α is the maximal category in which α could undergo A-movement.

Given this, the A-domains for the object pro’s in (16) are the TPs that immediately dominate them, whereas those for the subject pro’s are the entire TP, thus (18) correctly deriving the representation given in (16). This formulation of the domain for the same person requirement correctly captures the availability of the possible interpretations regarding this requirement in almost all the cases considered so far. Thus, in such cases as (5a) and (7a) where the same person requirement is imposed upon the two occurrences of PRO, the A-domain for these two occurrences of PRO is the matrix TP, since they could move out of the embedded TP without violating the MCL or the NIC, and hence both of them move to the matrix Spec-CP, merging into one generic operator, as shown below: (20)

a.

[CP PRO1 [TP [t1 winning games] requires [t1 losing games]]]

b.

[CP PRO1 [TP [t1 winning the trust of the populace] requires [t1 having to serve in the army]]]

In (7b), on the other hand, the first occurrence of PRO is moved to the Spec of the matrix CP for the same reason as those in (5a) and (7a), whereas the second occurrence of PRO is moved to the Spec of the embedded CP, as shown below: (21)

[CP PRO1 [TP [t1 winning the trust of the populace] requires [CP PRO2 that [TP [t2 having to serve in the army] be abolished]]]]

Here the embedded TP constitutes the A-domain for PRO2, given the standard assumption that A-movement does not take place across a tensed clause in English. Hence, in this case, the same person requirement is not enforced.⁴ Like-

4 We are deliberately confining our discussion to those cases where the landing site of operator movement of PRO is Spec-CP, as seen in the statement of (18), but notice that the original formulation of Lebeaux’s (1984) theory of generic PRO, given in (13), includes the case where PRO is

124   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

wise, in such Japanese examples as (9a) and (11), the two occurrences of subject pro both move to the matrix Spec-CP by way of ATB-movement, hence merging into one operator, as shown below: (22)

a.

[CP pro1 [TP [t1 siai-ni katu koto]-wa [t1 siai-ni makeru koto]-o hituyooto suru]]

b.

[CP pro1 [TP [t1 kazoku-o motte-inai koto]-wa [t1 syusse-suru koto]-o yooi-ni suru]]

Here the same person requirement is imposed upon the two occurrences of null arguments marked as t1 in each representation. In (12), on the other hand, though the subject pro’s of yookyuu-suru ‘request’ both move to the matrix Spec-CP, for exactly the same reason as those in (9a) and (11), hence taking the same value, the subject pro of katu ‘win’ and that of makeru ‘lose’ can take its own value, since the former moves to the Spec of the CP that is the subject of the matrix predicate hituyoo-to suru ‘require’ and the latter to the Spec of the CP that is the object of the matrix predicate, as schematically represented below with English glosses: (23)

[CP pro1 [TP

[CP pro2 [TP t1 [t2 win a game]-Acc request] fact]-Top [CP pro3 [TP t1 [t3 lose a game]-Acc request] fact]-Acc require]]

Here, the A-domains for pro2 and pro3 must be the embedded TP rather than the matrix TP since they cannot undergo A-movement to the latter domain across t1, the trace of pro1, without violating the MCL. Hence, they are allowed to undergo operator movement to the Spec-CP just above t1. There is one case left that seems to make the present theory problematic; this is concerned with such a sentence as (4a), reproduced below:

bound by a generic operator within the domain of NP. The necessity of admitting the latter case comes from such an example as the following: (i)

[PRO having ancestors in the Old World] doesn’t make [stories about [PRO winning the West]] any less interesting.

According to Lebeaux, this sentence does not impose the same person requirement upon the two occurrences of PRO. This indicates, under the present theory of generic PRO, that the second occurrence of PRO can undergo operator movement within the DP stories about … This follows immediately from a condition like (18) under the assumption that Spec-DP is a landing site for operator movement of PRO and that A-movement cannot move across DP. However, for ease of exposition, I concentrate on those cases that involve operator movement of pro to Spec-CP in the text.

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Pro   

(24)

   125

John-wa [pro Mary-o settoku-suru beki-da to] omotteiru. -Top -Acc persuade should Comp think ‘John thinks that he should persuade Mary.’ or ‘John thinks that one should persuade Mary.’

Given the present theory of operator movement of pro, the embedded subject pro in (24) must move to the matrix Spec-CP to act as a generic operator, since the matrix CP is the one that immediately dominates the A-domain for this pro. However, this runs counter to the intuition that only the embedded clause involves a generic statement; that is, the availability of the generic interpretation of the embedded clause in (24) seems to be ascribed to the availability of such an interpretation for the corresponding root sentence: (25)

pro Mary-o settoku-suru -Acc persuade ‘One should persuade Mary.’

beki-da. should

Thus, this indicates that pro should be located in the embedded Spec-CP to act as a generic operator in such a sentence as (24). If this is right, then what makes this instance of pro stay within the clause it belongs to, contrary to those instances of pro observed in such cases as (9a) and (11)? It is natural to conjecture that tense forms are relevant for distinguishing (24) from the other cases. Notice that in (25), the modal verb beki-da ‘should’ clearly contributes to the availability of its generic statement, as witnessed by the fact that the simple present or past tense does not make generic statements: (26)

pro Mary-o settoku-suru/-sita. -Acc persuade-Pres/-Past ‘NOT: One persuades/persuaded Mary.’

It is, then, natural to reason that what makes pro stay within the clause it belongs to is related to the existence of such a modal verb as beki-da ‘should’ that makes a generic statement possible. Let us call such a modal verb a generic supporting form (GSF). Other instances of the GSF are illustrated in the following sentence: (27)

pro Mary-o settoku-dekiru/ -sinakereba nara-nai. -Acc persuade-can -must ‘One can/must persuade Mary.’

Let us then hypothesize the following:

126   

(28)

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

A-movement cannot take place across a clause that bears a GSF.

Given this, the pro in (24) can be moved to the embedded Spec-CP to function as a generic operator, since the embedded TP, which includes the GSF beki-da ‘should’, is the A-domain for the pro. It is predicted that when such a GSF appears in an embedded sentence in such a configuration as (9a), the subject pro need not be interpreted as taking the same value as any other occurrence of subject pro. This is in fact borne out: (29)

[pro Mary-o settoku-suru beki-de aru toiu koto]-wa [pro Mary-ni -Acc persuade should Comp fact-Top -Dat murizii-suru beki-de-nai koto]-o imi-suru. force should-not fact-Acc mean ‘That one should persuade Mary means that one should not force Mary.’

(30)

[pro Mary-o settoku-sinakereba nara-nai toiu koto]-wa [pro Mary-ni -Acc persuade must Comp fact-Top -Dat tasuke-ni natte-moraw-anakereba nara-nai koto]-o imi-suru. help-Dat become-get-must fact-Acc mean ‘That one must persuade Mary means that one must get Mary to help.

Neither sentence has to be interpreted in such a way that the two occurrences of subject pro take the same value, but rather they can be interpreted as indicated in their translations, where the embedded subject and object clauses each constitute independent generic statements. This is exactly what is predicted under the present characterization of the domain to which pro moves, since in order to function as a generic operator, each occurrence of pro in (29) and (30) can move to the Spec of the immediately dominating CP, which contains such a GSF as beki-da ‘should’ or -nakereba nara-nai ‘must’.

6.2 A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement I have argued in the previous section that the generic interpretation of a null argument is obtained when pro undergoes operator movement to act as a generic operator and further that the location to which it moves is properly characterized by such a condition as (18), which is repeated below:

A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement   

(31)

   127

Pro/PRO must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

As predicted from (31), the application of this condition should not be confined to the generic interpretation of pro, but should be extended to its anaphoric use. A further investigation will immediately reveal that this is in fact the case; consider the following examples: (32)

a.

John1- ni-totte [pro1 Mary-o homeru koto]-wa [pro1 kanozyo-o for -Acc praise fact-Top her-Acc kenasu koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. speak-ill-of fact-Acc require ‘For John, praising Mary requires speaking ill of her.’

b.

John1- ni-totte [pro1 Mary-o homeru koto]-wa [hito-ga for -Acc praise fact-Top person-Nom kanozyo-o kenasu koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. her-Acc speak-ill-of fact-Acc require ‘For John, praising Mary requires a person’s speaking ill of her.’

In (32a), the same person requirement is imposed upon the two occurrences of pro, when either occurrence is intended to refer to John. That this imposition is not due to the implication of what this sentence means but is induced by a syntactic configuration of where these two occurrences of pro stand is indicated by the acceptability of (32b), in which the subject of kenasu ‘speak ill of’ is replaced by hito-ga ‘person-Nom’. Further, if both objects of homeru ‘praise’ and kenasu ‘speak ill of’ are omitted, as given in the following example, (33)

John1- ni-totte [pro1 pro homeru koto]-wa [pro1 pro kenasu for praise fact-Top speak-ill-of koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. fact-Acc require ‘For John, praising pro requires speaking ill of pro.’

the result is exactly what is predicted; that is, the same person requirement is again imposed upon the two occurrences of subject pro, whereas such a requirement is off for the two occurrences of object pro. Thus, this sentence can mean that John’s praising anyone requires his speaking ill of anyone else. A further indication that the anaphoric use of pro is also constrained by such a condition as (31) comes from the fact that even when the event a subject pro is involved in

128   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

denotes a simple past, the same person requirement holds in the same configuration as those where this requirement is imposed upon the generic use of pro. Consider the following examples: (34)

(35)

a.

John1 -wa Mary2 -ni [[pro1/2 siai-ni katta koto]-wa [pro1/2 -Top -Dat game-Dat won fact-Top siai-ni maketa koto]-o imi-siteita to] itta. game-Dat lost fact-Acc meant Comp said ‘John1 told Mary2 that that pro1/2 won a game meant that pro1/2 lost the game.’

b.

John1 -wa Mary2 -ni [[kare-ga siai-ni katta koto]-wa -Top -Dat he-Nom game-Dat won fact-Top [kanozyo-ga siai-ni maketa koto]-o imi-siteita to] itta. she-Nom game-Dat lost fact-Acc meant Comp said ‘John1 told Mary2 that that he won a game meant that she lost the game.’

a.

John1 -wa Mary2 -ni [[pro1/2/ Bill-o kenasita koto]-wa [pro1/2 -Top -Dat -Acc spoke-ill-of fact-Top izen-ni kare-o hometeita koto]-o imi-siteita to] itta. before he-Acc had-praised fact-Acc meant Comp said ‘John1 told Mary2 that that pro1/2 spoke ill of Bill meant that pro1/2 had praised him before.’

b.

John1 -wa Mary2 -ni [[kare-ga Bill-o kenasita koto]-wa -Top -Dat he-Nom -Acc spoke-ill-of fact-Top [kanozyo-ga izen-ni kare-o hometeita koto]-o imi-siteita she-Nom before he-Acc had-praised fact-Acc meant to] itta. Comp said ‘John1 told Mary2 that that he spoke ill of Bill meant that she had praised him before.’

In (34a), the same person requirement is imposed upon the two occurrences of subject pro, despite the fact that here the referent of these pronouns is fixed intra-sententially. Thus, the sentence will be interpreted in such a way that the person who won a game nonetheless was in effect the loser of the game. Again, this imposition is not due to the implication of what this sentence means, as is clear from the acceptability of (34b), in which different subjects are expressed for the two events connected by the predicate imi-siteita ‘meant’; this sentence is

A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement   

   129

most naturally interpreted in such a way that John was the winner and Mary was the loser of the same game. Likewise, in (35a), the two occurrences of subject pro need to refer to the same person, either John or Mary, though logically they could refer to different persons, as is the case with sentence (35b). Furthermore, the same person requirement is not forced upon object pro’s when the latter pick out their referents intra-sententially; consider the following example: (36)

Sensei-ga seito to sono hahaoya-ni [[zibun-ga pro teacher-Nom student and that mother-Dat self-Nom tyuui-si-nakat-ta koto]-wa [pro pro sinrai-siteita koto]-o admonish-not-Past fact-Top had-trusted fact-Acc imi-siteita to] itta. meant Comp said ‘The teacher told the student and his/her mother that that the teacher did not admonish pro meant that the teacher had trusted pro.’

In this sentence, the two occurrences of object pro can refer to different persons, as is the case with the reading in which the first occurrence of object pro refers to the student and the second to his/her mother. This sentence sharply contrasts with the following, which involves two occurrences of subject pro: (37)

Seito1 to sono hahaoya2-ga sensei-ni [[pro1/2 sensei-no iu student and that mother-Nom teacher-Dat teacher-Gen say koto-o yoku kiita toiu koto]-wa [pro1/2 sensei-o fact-Acc well listened Comp fact-Top teacher-Acc sinrai-siteita koto]-o imi-siteita to] itta. had-trusted fact-Acc meant Comp said ‘[The student]1 and [his/her mother]2 told the teacher that that pro1/2 listened to what the teacher said meant that pro1/2 had trusted the teacher.’

Although it is easily imaginable to think of the situation in which this sentence is uttered with the reading in which the first occurrence of subject pro refers to the student and the second to his/her mother, this sentence does not have such a reading but only allows the interpretations in which the two occurrences of subject pro refer to the same person(s), i.e., the student, his/her mother, or most naturally both. The examples given in (32)–(37) all point to the same conclusion: the condition on operator movement of pro/PRO in order to obtain generic interpretation should be extended so as to accommodate the anaphoric use of pro. This is exactly what the present theory predicts, in which the relevant condition that

130   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

regulates operator movement of pro is (31). Thus, in (32a) and (33), both occurrences of subject pro must move to the matrix Spec CP by way of ATB-movement, since the A-domain for them is the matrix TP, and hence they are merged into one operator, thereby subject to the same person requirement. The two occurrences of object pro in (33), on the other hand, can move to the immediately dominating CPs, since the embedded TPs are their A-domains, and hence the same person requirement is not imposed. The same explanation applies to the contrast between the two occurrences of subject pro in (34a), (35a) and (37) on the one hand and those of object pro in (36) on the other with respect to whether the same person requirement is enforced. A further examination reveals, however, that there is an important contrast between those cases of subject pro whose antecedents appear in -ni totte phrases, as in (32a) and (33), on the one hand and those in which the antecedent of subject pro is either the subject or the object in the next clause up, as in (34a), (35a) and (37) on the other. The former cases force the subject pro’s to have bound variable interpretations, as exemplified below: (38)

Daremo1- ni-totte [pro1 Mary -o homeru koto]-wa [pro1 kanozyo-o for -Acc praise fact-Top her-Acc kenasu koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. speak-ill-of fact-Acc require ‘For everyone, praising Mary requires speaking ill of her.’

This sentence is interpreted only as such that for every person x, that x praises Mary requires that x speaks ill of her. Under the present assumptions, this indicates that the two occurrences of pro in (38) undergo direct movement to the position occupied by its antecedent, according to the interpretive rules given in (5.75), reproduced below: (39)

a.

A chain forces the bound variable reading iff it is not repaired.

b.

If it is repaired, then either (i) or (ii): (i) it can produce either the bound variable reading or the referential one. (ii) The referential value of the tail must include that of the head.

I suggest that in such a case, the antecedent is overlaid onto the Spec-CP position to which the two occurrences of pro undergo ATB-movement, as schematically shown below:

A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement   

(40)

a.

[CP pro1 [TP [CP t1 … ]-wa [CP t1 …]-o hituyoo-to suru]]    

b.

[CP daremo1 [TP [CP t1 … ]-wa [CP t1 …]-o hituyoo-to suru]]

   131

The final output is derived from (40b) by attaching -nitotte to daremo (cf. fn. 13 of Chapter 3). Notice that it is immaterial whether the movement involved is A- or A’movement regarding available interpretations, according to (39), but rather what matters is whether or not the produced chain is followed up by a repair strategy. Since the chain produced in the derivation given in (40) involves no repair operation, it gives rise only to the bound variable reading, according to (39a). The latter cases of subject pro, on the other hand, can have both bound variable and referential readings, as shown below: (41)

Daremo1 -ga Mary -ni [[pro1 siai-ni katta koto]-wa [pro1 siai-ni -Nom -Dat game-Dat won fact-Top game-Dat maketa koto]-o imi-siteita to] itta. lost fact-Acc meant Comp said ‘Everyone1 told Mary that that pro1 won a game meant that pro1 lost the game.’

This sentence can have not only the bound variable reading of the two occurrences of pro but also their referential reading, according to which it is interpreted as such that for every person x, x told Mary that the set E denoted by daremo having won a game meant E having lost the game. According to (39b), this indicates that the chain produced for establishing the anaphoric relation between the two occurrences of pro and their antecedent involves a repair operation; that is, the anaphoric relation is mediated by operator movement, as schematically shown below: (42)

a.

[CP pro1 [TP [CP t1 … ]-wa [CP t1 …]-o imisiteita] to]    

b.

pro1 Mary-ni [CP pro1 [TP [CP t1 … ]-wa [CP t1 …]-o imisiteita] to] itta  

The final output is derived from (42b) by overlaying daremo-ga onto the pro in the matrix subject position. Notice that in order for this derivation to be legitimate, we need to assume that neither of the two occurrences of pro can undergo direct A-movement to the matrix subject position. It is reasonable to claim that in such a case, the embedded subject clause that dominates pro counts as a pos-

132   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

sible landing site for it as well as for the pro that appears in the object clause, so that neither occurrence of pro cannot skip this subject position without violating the MCL. This necessitates an intermediate step of operator movement of pro, as shown in (42). Recall our discussion in Chapter 5 about how to prevent pro from undergoing operator movement when it could undergo A-movement directly to its antecedent, i.e., in such a configuration as (17), reproduced below: (43) *NP1 [CP pro1 [TP t1 …]] … In this configuration, operator movement of pro must be prevented; otherwise, it would incorrectly give rise to the referential reading of pro in such sentences as given in (5.11), repeated below: (44)

a.

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta to] everyone-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up Comp itta. said ‘Everyone1 said that pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

b.

John-ga daremo1-ni [pro1 sono piano-o -Nom everyone-Dat that piano-Acc

gokai-made 5th floor-to

motiageru yooni] itta. bring up Comp said ‘John told everyone1 pro1 to bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’ I claimed that in the configuration given in (43), operator movement of pro to the embedded Spec-CP is superfluous since pro can undergo movement directly to the position occupied by NP1 without any intermediate step. Recall further that I have assumed (28), reproduced below, when we discussed those cases of generic pro that involve GSFs: (45)

A-movement cannot take place across a clause that bears a GSF.

Given these two conditions, it is predicted even in the case of anaphoric pro that operator movement of subject pro to the Spec of the immediately dominating CP is permitted if that clause bears a GSF. This prediction is borne out; compare the following examples with those given in (44):

A Unification of Anaphoric and Generic Pro in Operator Movement   

(46)

   133

a.

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiageru beki-da everyone-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to bring up should to] itta. Comp said ‘Everyone1 said that pro1 should bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’

b.

gokai-made John-ga daremo1-ni [pro1 sono piano-o -Nom everyone-Dat that piano-Acc 5th floor-to motiageru beki-da to] itta. bring up should Comp said ‘John told everyone1 that pro1 should bring up that piano to the fifth floor.’

Unlike those in (44), these sentences are a lot easier to interpret with the referential reading of pro, in which it refers to the set of daremo ‘everyone’. This is exactly what the present theory predicts, since pro cannot undergo A-movement across the embedded TP, which includes the GSF beki-da ‘should’, and hence it undergoes operator movement to the embedded Spec-CP instead and then undergoes further movement to the position occupied by daremo. The resulting chain can give rise to the referential reading of pro, according to (39b).⁵ A further confirmation of the correctness of the present theory comes from relevant facts about split antecedent. Recall that we demonstrated in the previous chapter that pro cannot take a split antecedent when locally bound, as illustrated

5 Given that Spec-DP as well as Spec-CP is a possible landing site for operator movement of PRO, as suggested in fn. 4, it will be expected that if pro appears in a clause embedded in a DP, then it may undergo operator movement to the Spec of that DP, hence giving rise to a referential reading when it takes a quantifier as its antecedent. This expectation is borne out; consider the following example: (i)

Daremo1-ga [[pro1 sono piano-o gokai-made motiageta] tatemono/zikan/ sikata/ everyone-Nom that piano-Acc 5th floor-to brought up building time way riyuu-o oboete-inakat-ta. reason-Acc remember-not-Past ‘No one1 remembered the building in which/the time when/the way how/the reason why pro1 brought up that piano to the fifth floor.’

This sentence has the reading where pro refers to the set of daremo ‘everyone’, so that it may be interpreted as such that nobody remembered the building in which/the time when/the way how/the reason why they brought up that piano to the fifth floor together. The availability of this reading is explained under the assumption that Spec-DP is a possible landing site for operator movement of pro, and further that A-movement across DP is prohibited.

134   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

in (5.56), reproduced below, and that this is naturally attributed to the fact that no double-headed A-chain is created: (47)

a. ?*John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita to] itta. -Top -Dat that test-Dat passed Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that they1+2 passed the test.’ b. ?*John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita ka] tazuneta. -Top -Dat that test-Dat passed Q asked ‘John1 asked Bill2 if they1+2 passed the test.’

In these cases, pro cannot undergo operator movement first as an intermediate step toward further movement to the position occupied by either John or Bill, since such an intermediate step is superfluous; if it was not, the resulting chain could induce the “split antecedent reading,” according to the interpretive rule given in (39bii). Given condition (45), it is then predicted that when the embedded clause contains a GSF in such a case as in (47), the embedded subject pro should be able to take a split antecedent. This is in fact borne out; compare the following examples with those in (47): (48)

a.

John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku- subeki-da -Top -Dat that test-Dat pass should to] itta. Comp said ‘John1 told Bill2 that they1+2 should pass the test.’

b.

John1 -wa Bill2-ni [pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku- subeki ka] -Top -Dat that test-Dat pass should Q tazuneta. asked ‘John1 asked Bill2 if they1+2 should pass the test.’

Again, it is a lot easier to interpret these sentences with pro taking a split antecedent than those in (47).⁶

6 Again, if we assume that Spec-DP is a possible landing site for operator movement of pro and that A-movement cannot take place across DP, as suggested in the previous footnote, then it is predicted that if pro appears in a clause embedded in a DP, it will be allowed to take a split antecedent. This is borne out by the following example:

Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent   

   135

To sum up, we have reached the conclusion that such a syntactic condition as (31), reproduced below, plays a crucial role in constraining operator movement of pro when the latter functions as a generic operator or undergoes further movement to the position occupied by its antecedent. (49)

Pro/PRO must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

Since this condition requires that such a movement be long enough to exceed the A-domain for pro, this gives rise to the situation in which more than one occurrence of pro is forced to move to the same Spec-CP by way of ATB-movement, taking the same semantic value. Further, it comports well with the independently motivated condition according to which pro must undergo A-movement directly to the position occupied by its antecedent whenever this is possible, since in such a case, operator movement of pro is superfluous.

6.3 Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent In this section, we investigate the validity of the assumption made in Section 5.3 that when pro undergoes operator movement, the next step of movement to the position occupied by its antecedent is subject to the MCL. Since this last step of movement is A-movement, it follows that it cannot skip any A-position, a landing site that could be occupied by a possible antecedent. Given this assumption, operator movement of pro needs to be applied long enough to locate it in a position from which it can undergo A-movement to the position occupied by its antecedent without causing a violation of the MCL. If nothing were to block such an operator movement of pro from being applied at any distance, it would be impossible to determine whether the final step of A-movement obeys the MCL. Thus, we need to seek for cases where such an operator movement of pro is not locality-free. A case in point comes from the configuration where an island intervenes between pro and its antecedent, as illustrated below:

(i)

John1 -ga Mary2 -ni [[pro1+2 sono tesuto-ni gookaku-sita] zizitu]-o sotto tutaeta. -Nom -Dat that test-Dat passed fact-Acc secretly told ‘John1 secretly informed Mary2 of the fact that they1+2 had passed that test.’

The availability of split antecedent in this sentence falls out immediately since under the present assumptions, pro can undergo operator movement to the Spec of the DP headed by zizitu ‘fact’.

136   

(50)

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sokode atta] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru. everyone-Nom there saw student-with want-to-marry ‘Everyone1 wants to marry a student who pro1 saw there.’

It is argued in Section 5.3 that in such a case, pro undergoes operator movement within the island and then undergoes further movement to the position that will be overlaid by its antecedent, as schematically shown below: (51)

NP [island [CP pro [TP pro …]]] …    

That operator movement of pro is involved in this derivation is confirmed by the fact that (50) allows the referential reading of pro, so that it may have the same reading as the one in which pro is replaced by the overt pronoun karera-ga ‘they-Nom’. It is further claimed there that the second step of movement in (51) is immune to island conditions since there is no Case position in which pro could be pronounced to meet the repair strategy by overt pronoun. It is exactly in such a configuration as (51) that we can examine whether the second step of movement into A-position obeys the MCL. It has been standardly claimed since Kuno (1973) that topicalization in Japanese is not constrained by island conditions, as illustrated below: (52)

a.

Sono hito1-wa [pro1 sinda noni] daremo kanasima-nakat-ta. that person-Top died though anybody become-sad-not-Past ‘As for that person1, nobody became sad even though pro1 died.’

b.

yoohuku-ga yogoreteiru. Sono sinsi1-wa [pro1 kiteiru] that gentleman-Top is-wearing clothes-Nom dirty ‘As for that gentleman1, the clothes that pro1 is wearing are dirty.

Here the null arguments that refer to the topic phrases are inside an adjunct island (52a) or a relative clause island (52b). Based upon such data, Kuno (1973) draws the conclusion that the topic in Japanese can be base-generated in the sentence-initial position. Furthermore, Perlmutter (1972) attributes the possibility of such a construction as illustrated in (52) to the availability of a phonetically null pronoun, i.e., pro. Hence, in (52a, b), the topic phrases are base-generated in the sentence-initial position, binding pro’s that appear inside the islands. Under our analysis, on the other hand, it is most natural to claim that pro undergoes operator movement inside the islands first and then undergoes further movement to the positions occupied by its antecedents in topic position.

Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent   

   137

With this much in background, let us now consider the following examples: (53)

a.

hizyooni kiniitteiru. John1 -wa Mary -ga [pro1 utau] koe-o -Top -Nom sing voice-Acc very much like ‘As for John1, Mary likes the voice with which pro1 sings very much.’

b.

hotondo yonde-inai. John1 -wa Mary -ga [pro1 kaita] hon-o -Top -Nom wrote book-Acc almost read-not ‘As for John1, Mary has not read most of the books pro1 wrote.’

Note first that pro in these sentences must undergo operator movement within the relative clause islands under the present assumptions. It appears, then, that the acceptability of these sentences indicates that pro can move across the DP Mary-ga ‘Mary-Nom’ to reach its final destination.⁷ But notice that the topic phrase John-wa in (53) occupies A’-position whereas the matrix subject Mary-ga occupies A-position. Hence it is necessary to examine whether pro, if inside an island, can

7 The Japanese sentences in (53) are made on the model of the Chinese examples provided by Huang (1984), which are judged as unacceptable unlike those in (52), as shown below: (i)

shengyin. a. * Zhangsan1, wo hen xihuan pro1 changge de I very like sing DE voice ‘Zhangsan1, I like the voice with which pro1 sings.’ de shu. b. * Zhangsan1, wo nian-le bu shao pro1 xie I read-LE not few write DE book ‘Zhangsan1, I have read quite a few books that pro1 wrote.’

Huang further contrasts these sentences with the following sentences, which are acceptable: (ii) a. Zhangsan1, pro1 changge de shengyin hen haoting. sing DE voice very good-to-hear ‘Zhangsani, the voice with which pro1 sings is good.’ de shu bu shao. b. Zhangsan1, pro1 xie write DE book not few ‘Zhangsan1, the books that pro1 wrote are not few.’ Huang explains the contrast between the sentences in (i) and in (ii) by his Generalized Control Rule (GCR), which requires that an empty pronominal be coindexed with the closest nominal element. Thus, in (ii) Zhangsan acts as the closest nominal element for pro1, hence the latter empty pronominal observing the GCR, whereas in (i), Zhangsan is not the closest nominal element for pro1, hence this empty pronominal not observing the GCR. Under the present analysis, this may imply that pro in Chinese cannot move across any DP after it has undergone operator movement, irrespective of whether that DP occupies A or A’-position. Right now, I have nothing interesting to say about why such a difference obtains between Japanese and Chinese pro’s.

138   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

take an antecedent in A-position across a subject. That the answer is negative is clearly seen by comparing the sentences in (53) with those given below: (54)

a. ??John1 -wa [Mary-ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru -Top -Nom sing voice-Acc very much like to] omotteiru. Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Mary likes the voice with which pro1 sings very much.’ b. ?*John1 -wa [Mary-ga [pro1 kaita] hon-o hotondo yonde-inai -Top -Nom wrote book-Acc almost read-not to] itta. Comp said ‘John1 said that Mary had not read most of the books pro1 wrote.’

Further examples of a similar sort of contrast are provided below, where pro can be interpreted as either subject or object: (55)

a.

John1 -wa Mary-ga [pro1 hinansita] hito-o hizyooni -Top -Nom criticized person-Acc very much kiniitteiru. like ‘As for John1, Mary likes the person who criticized pro1 very much.’ or ‘As for John1, Mary likes the person who pro1 criticized very much.’

hizyooni b. ?*John1 -wa [Mary-ga [pro1 hihansia] hito-o -Top -Nom criticized person-Acc very much kiniitteiru to] omotteiru. like Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Mary likes the person who criticized pro1 very much.’ or ‘John1 thinks that Mary likes the person who pro1 criticized very much.’ (56)

a.

John1 -wa Mary-ga [pro1 nagutta] otoko-o sitteita. -Top -Nom hit man-Acc knew ‘As for John1, Mary knew the man who pro1 hit.’ or ‘As for John1, Mary knew the man who hit pro1.’

Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent   

   139

itta. b. ?*John1 -wa [Mary -ga [pro1 nagutta] otoko-o sitteita to] -Top -Nom hit man-Acc knew Comp said ‘John1 said that Mary had known the man who pro1 hit.’ or ‘John1 said that Mary had known the man who hit pro1.’ The unacceptability of the sentences in (54), (55b) and (56b) clearly indicates that the final step of A-movement of pro into the position occupied by its antecedent is subject to the MCL. Given this condition, it follows that in the grammatical sentences in (53)–(56), pro can take the topic phrases in A’-position as its antecedent, since the intervening DPs occupy A-position, whereas in the ungrammatical ones, it cannot take the topic phrases as its antecedent, since the matrix subjects, which occupy A-position, take the same values as the topic phrases and hence a violation of the MCL ensues when pro moves across the embedded subject to the matrix subject position. Hasegawa (1984/5) provides examples which show that when an empty pronoun is put within an island, it exhibits such a locality effect as imposed by the closest DP requirement; cf. fn. 7 (the judgments of the data are Hasegawa’s): (57)

a.

Sono inu1-wa [pro1 hoe-tara] akatyan-ga naki-dasita. that dog-Top bark-when baby-Nom cry-started ‘As for the dog1, a baby started crying when pro1 barked.’

b. ?*Sono inu1-wa akatyan-ga [pro1 hoe-tara] naki-dasita. that dog-Top baby-Nom bark-when cry-started ‘As for the dog1, a baby started crying when pro1 barked.’ (58)

a.

itakunaru. Sono okasi1-wa [proarb pro1 tabe-tara] onaka-ga that candy-Top eat-if stomach-Nom ache ‘As for that candy1, (you will) get stomachache if (you) eat pro1.’

b. ??Sono okasi1-wa John2-ga[pro2 pro1 tabe-tara] onaka-ga that candy-Top -Nom eat-when stomach-Nom itakunatta. ached ‘As for that candy1, John got stomachache when he ate pro1.’ In all the examples, the empty pronouns are put within adjunct clause islands. In (57), the only difference between the two sentences resides in the location of the adjunct clause; while it is put right after the topic phrase in (57a), it is put after the subject akatyan-ga ‘baby-Nom’ in (57b). The contrast in acceptability between these sentences appears to suggest that Japanese empty pronouns are subject to

140   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

the closest DP requirement, so that the empty subject of the adjunct clause in (57b) cannot take the topic phrase as its antecedent across the subject akatyan-ga. As for (58), Hasegawa assumes that the empty pronouns in object position referring to sono okasi ‘that candy’ undergo operator movement to the Spec-CP within the adjunct clause islands. Given this, the contrast in acceptability between (58a) and (58b) again seems to suggest that Japanese empty pronouns are subject to the closest DP requirement, so that the empty pronoun in the Spec-CP of the adjunct clause in (58b) cannot take sono okasi as its antecedent across the subject Johnga. Hence, it appears that these examples constitute counterexamples to the present claim that the final step of movement of pro to the position occupied by its antecedent is subject to the MCL. I demonstrate, however, that more careful examination of the relevant data will reveal that they will lend support to the present claim. First, (58b) does not seem so terribly bad, probably as good as the examples in (53). There are some other examples of the same configuration that are relatively acceptable; consider the following sentences: (59)

a.

Sono inu1-wa akatyan2-ga katute [pro2 pro1 mi-tara] naki-dasita. that dog-Top baby-Nom once see-when cry-started ‘As for the dog1, a baby once started crying when he/she saw pro1.’

b.

sibasiba [pro2 pro1 yon-dara] Sono ronbun1-wa John2 -ga that article-Top -Nom often read-when atama-ga itakunatta. head-Nom ached ‘As for that article1, John often got headache when he read pro1.’

As for (57), I agree upon Hasegawa’s judgments on these particular examples, but it is not obvious whether their acceptability is actually to be captured by such a locality condition as the closest DP requirement. I speculate that the unacceptability of such a sentence as (57b) has to do with a control effect of the matrix subject upon the subject of the adjunct clause when the latter clause is put right after the matrix subject, so that the adjunct clause subject is forced to refer to it. This is confirmed by the fact that when the null subject of the adjunct clause is further embedded so as to be freed from the control effect in question, its anaphoric relation to the topic phrase becomes possible, as shown below:

Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent   

(60)

   141

Sono inu1-wa akatyan2-ga katute [pro2 [pro1 hoeru] no-o that dog-Top baby-Nom once bark-Acc mitei-tara] naki-dasita. is-seeing-when cry-started ‘As for the dog1, a baby once started crying when he/she was looking at pro1 barking.’

This sentence is much better than (57b) and probably as good as such a sentence as (58b). This strongly suggests that the unacceptability of (57b) should be attributed to a restriction different from such a locality condition as the closest DP requirement. Thus, the above consideration of the relevant data reveals that they are compatible with the present claim that the final step of movement of pro to the position occupied by its antecedent is subject to the MCL. We can confirm this claim by examining whether pro, when embedded within an adjunct clause island, can refer to the matrix subject across an intermediate subject. The relevant data favor the present claim; consider the following examples: (61)

a.

Sono otoko-tati1-wa kodomo2-ga katute [pro2 [pro1 sawagu] that man-pl.-Top child-Nom once make no-o kiita toki] naki-dasita. noise-Acc heard when cry-started ‘As for the men1, a child started crying when he/she heard pro1 making a noise.’

b. ??Sono otoko-tati1-wa [kodomo2-ga katute [pro2 [pro1 that man-pl.-Top child-Nom once sawagu] no-o kiita toki] naki-dasita to] itta. make noise-Acc heard when cry-started Comp said ‘The men1 said that a child once started crying when he/she heard pro1 making a noise.’ (62)

a.

totuzen [pro2 pro1 atta ato-de] Sono otoko1-wa Mary2-ga that man-Top -Nom suddenly saw after kibun-ga waruku natta. spirit-Nom bad became ‘As for the man1, Mary suddenly got sick after she saw pro1.’

142   

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

b. ?*Sono otoko1-wa [Mary2 -ga totuzen [pro2 pro1 atta ato-de] that man-Top -Nom suddenly saw after kibun-ga waruku natta to] itta. spirit-Nom bad became Comp said ‘The man1 said that Mary suddenly got sick after she saw pro1.’ The contrast of each pair in acceptability indicates that the final step of movement of pro to the position occupied by its antecedent is subject to the MCL. Further confirmation of the present claim comes from those cases that involve wh-islands. Compare the following examples: (63)

a.

Mary1 -wa [titioya-ga [pro1 zibun-o migaku beki-da to] -Top father-Nom self-Acc improve should Comp John-ni itta to] omotteiru. -Dat said Comp think ‘Mary1 thinks that her father told John that pro1 should improve herself.’

b. *Mary1-wa [titioya-ga [pro1 dooyatte zibun-o migaku beki -Top father-Nom how self-Acc improve should ka] John-ni tazuneta to] omotteiru. Q -Dat asked Comp think ‘Mary1 thinks that her father asked John how pro1 should improve herself.’ c.

Mary1 -wa [titioya-ga [pro1 dooyatte zibun-o migaku beki -Top father-Nom how self-Acc improve should ka] John-ni tazuneta. Q -Dat asked ‘As for Mary1, her father asked John how pro1 should improve herself.’

(63a) shows that when there is no island intervening in the anaphoric relation of a null argument to its antecedent, this relation can hold across an intermediate subject, so that pro can refer to Mary across the intervening subject titioya-ga ‘father-Nom’. By contrast, (63b) shows that such a long-distant anaphoric relation is blocked when an island intervenes in this relation. This is because in (63b), pro needs to undergo operator movement within the most embedded wh-clause due to the islandhood of this clause and hence the final step of movement of pro to the position occupied by the matrix subject induces a MCL violation. (63c) confirms the present claim that it is the MCL rather than the closest DP requirement that regulates the anaphoric relation that involves an intervening island; in (63c),

Operator Movement of Pro and the Locality with Its Antecedent   

   143

pro first undergoes operator movement within the wh-island and it can undergo further movement across the intervening subject to the position occupied by Mary-wa without violating the MCL, since the final landing site is in A’-position. Let us finally make a brief discussion on the case of null topics. Recall that we have seen cases that lead Kuno (1973) to conclude that topic phrases can be basegenerated in the sentence-initial position (cf. (52)). Notice, however, that from the present viewpoint of the movement theory of anaphora, this will just show that in such a case, pro-movement to the topic position is successful and a topic phrase is simply overlaid onto the head of the produced A’-chain. This will naturally lead one to expect that a null topic behaves in the same way as an overt topic in the relevant respects discussed above. Recall that we have been assuming that a null topic is nothing but pro moving to the top of a sentence. Thus, we have assumed that (5.19a), for instance, has the following representation: (64)

[CP pro1 [TP t1 eigo-o hanasiteiru yo]]

We can now examine the validity of this assumption by investigating whether movement of pro to the top of a sentence obeys island conditions. At first sight, the relevant data seem to show that it does not; consider the following examples: (65)

(66)

a.

(talking about a particular person with the hearer who has died recently): pro1 [pro1 Sinda noni] daremo kanasima-nakat-ta yo. died though anybody become-sad-not-Past ‘As for pro1, nobody became sad even though pro1 died.’

b.

(talking about a particular gentleman with the hearer): pro1 [pro1 Kiteiru] yoohuku-ga yogoreteiru yo. is-wearing clothes-Nom dirty ‘As for pro1, the clothes that pro1 is wearing are dirty.

a.

(talking about a particular singer with the hearer): pro1 Mary-ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru yo. -Nom sing voice-Acc very much like ‘As for pro1, Mary likes the voice with which pro1 sings very much.’

b.

(talking about a particular writer with the hearer): pro1 Mary-ga [pro1 kaita] hon-o hotondo yonde-inai. -Nom wrote book-Acc almost read-not ‘As for pro1, Mary has not read most of the books pro1 wrote.’

144   

(67)

   Evidence for Operator Movement of Pro

a.

(talking about a particular dog with the hearer): pro1 Akatyan2-ga katute [pro2 pro1 mi-tara] naki-dasita. baby-Nom once see-when cry-started ‘As for pro1, a baby once started crying when he/she saw pro1.’

b.

(talking about a particular article with the hearer): pro1 John2 -ga sibasiba [pro2 pro1yon-dara] atama-ga itakunatta. -Nom often read-when head-Nom ached ‘As for pro1, John often got headache when he read pro1.’

However, under the present movement theory of anaphora, the apparent island insensitivity of the anaphoric relation of a null argument to a null topic is immediately explained: when an island intervenes between pro and the final destination, pro undergoes operator movement within the island first, and then undergoes further movement to the final destination, namely the matrix Spec-CP. This claim is supported by the fact that these null topic constructions exhibit such a minimality effect as caused by the MCL. Thus, compare the null topic sentences in (66) with those that are derived from the sentences in (54) by omitting the topic phrases: (68)

a.

(talking about a particular singer with the hearer): ??pro1 [Mary-ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru to] -Nom sing voice-Acc very much like Comp omotteiru. think ‘pro1 thinks that Mary likes the voice with which pro1 sings very much.’

b.

(talking about a particular writer with the hearer): ?*pro1 [Mary-ga [pro1 kaita] hon-o hotondo yonde-inai to] itta. -Nom wrote book-Acc almost read-not Comp said ‘pro1 said that Mary had not read most of the books pro1 wrote.’

All the other sentences presented above that exhibit minimality effects caused by the MCL also retain those effects even when the matrix overt topic phrases are turned into null topics. Again, all these facts lend support to the present claim that the pro in operator position and its antecedent are connected via Move and that this movement is constrained by the MCL.

7 An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO In Section 5.3, we have argued that when a null subject takes its antecedent in the next clause up, the anaphoric relation is established through A-movement of pro. In the course of the discussion, we have motivated this claim by demonstrating that the resulting A-chain exhibits the same properties as OC PRO, which thus makes it accord with Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) movement theory of control. According to this theory, such OC cases of PRO as given below involve A-movement of John from the position occupied by PRO to its surface position. (1)

a.

John1 hopes/expects/wants [PRO1 to win].

b.

Bill persuaded John1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 saw Mary without [PRO1 leaving the room].

We can easily adapt this mechanism of A-movement to our movement theory in such a way that it is in fact PRO that is moved and PRO-movement is followed up by overlay of its antecedent. In this chapter, we address the question of how our movement theory can accommodate NOC cases of PRO, as illustrated below: (2)

a.

It was believed that [PROarb shaving] was important.

b.

John1 thinks that it is believed that [PRO1 shaving himself] is important.

Hornstein (1999, 2001) treats the NOC species as the elsewhere case where A-movement cannot take place, and simply posits pro. He then claims that pro functions like a definite pronoun in such a case of (2b) and like an indefinite one in such a case of (2a). In the last chapter, we have argued that such a generic use of PRO as shown in (2a) involves operator movement of PRO, following Lebeaux’s (1984) theory. We have also demonstrated that such operator movement of PRO is constrained by the condition given in (6.49). Now it remains to be seen whether such an anaphoric use of PRO as shown in (2b), which involves long-distance dependency, is susceptible of the same analysis as that for the comparable cases of pro in Japanese. If we manage to demonstrate with reasonable plausibility that this is in fact the case, then this will in effect provide a unified treatment of pro and PRO with respect to their syntactic behaviors.

146   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

7.1 Lebeaux’s (1984) Theory of PRO In order to see if PRO can be treated on a par with pro in its NOC cases, it is most appropriate to first outline Lebeaux’s (1984) theory of PRO, since this theory provides a unified treatment of the generic and anaphoric uses of PRO in its NOC cases, and the discussion of pro with respect to its generic use given in the last chapter is crucially based upon this theory. The most ingenious ingredient of this theory is to posit a null operator to capture the following generalization: (3)

PRO can take a “long-distant” antecedent iff it can be interpreted as generic.

Lebeaux hypothesizes that PRO is an anaphor, hence subject to Condition A of the binding theory. The binding domain relevant for this condition is named binding category, whose definition is given below: (4)

Binding category: β is the binding category for PRO if β is the minimal NP, S dominating γ, where γ is the minimal S’ dominating PRO.

He also hypothesizes that when PRO is unbound in its binding category, it can satisfy Condition A by means of being bound by a null entity inserted in a designated position; he calls this operation closure, as given below: (5)

Closure: If PRO is unbound in its binding category, adjoin ei coindexed with PROi to the binding category.

And such a null entity obtains interpretation in the following way:¹ (6)

Operator interpretation: An e in an A’-position, not bound by an A’-antecedent, is construed as an operator O. If Oi is coindexed with an antecedent NPi, interpret it with the reference of that NP. Otherwise, interpret it as free (i.e. arbitrary), or, in marked cases, with a pragmatically picked out referent.

1 In the last chapter, we have discussed cases of multiple occurrences of PRO, introducing Lebeaux’s (1984) treatment of them. In that presentation, I put (6.13) as part of Lebeaux’s mechanism for dealing with the generic use of PRO, but actually that was strictly not an exact formulation. Given the operation of closure in (5) and the operator interpretation in (6), it is now clear exactly how Lebeaux derives generic interpretation of PRO.

Lebeaux’s (1984) Theory of PRO   

   147

The crucial point of this mechanism is that insertion of a null operator takes place as a last resort; that is, if PRO can find a possible antecedent within its binding category, it is forced to take it as its antecedent, and if not, a null operator is inserted into the binding category to save such an instance of PRO from violating Condition A. Given that such an operator can be interpreted as generic, as stated in (6), and also that the coindexation of this null operator with an antecedent NP, an option also admitted in (6), is free from any locality condition, then the generalization given in (3) follows. Now let us illustrate how the above mechanism works. Consider first the following examples, which illustrate OC cases for Hornstein (1999, 2001): (7)

a.

John1 tried [PRO1 to leave].

b.

John persuaded Mary1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 killed someone [PRO1 to get insurance money].

In these cases, the binding category for PRO is the entire sentence according to (4), since γ corresponds to the clause immediately dominating PRO and hence the binding category β corresponds to the minimal S dominating this clause. In this binding category, PRO is bound by John in (7a, c) and Mary in (7b), hence satisfying Condition A.² Notice that in these cases, there is no need for PRO to rely on the operation of closure given in (5) and hence that it is predicted under this mechanism that PRO in these instances cannot be interpreted as arbitrary nor can it take a “long-distant” antecedent. That this prediction is borne out is demonstrated in the following examples: (8)

a. *John tried [PROarb to leave]. b. *John persuaded Mary [PROarb to leave].

2 Note that Lebeaux’s (1984) theory of PRO is silent about which NP is the real antecedent for PRO among possible antecedent NPs in such a case as (7b), as long as those NPs are within the binding category for PRO. Thus, independent of the syntactic aspects of PRO that are captured under this theory, there must be other aspects that are accommodated into the control theory in terms of the lexical properties of controlling verbs or the thematic properties of predication, as mentioned in Section 5.3. I pointed out there that there is a piece of evidence that favors such an approach over the one in terms of such a syntactic constraint as the Minimal Distance Principle, proposed by Rosenbaum (1967) and an updated version of this principle, advocated by Hornstein (1999, 2001). Note further that under this conception, PRO is different from pro in that it is subject to a control theory of the sort just mentioned. However, see fn. 5 for an alternative way in terms of Case theory to capture the difference between these two items with respect to the availability of “subject-control” across object.

148   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

c. *John killed someone [PROarb to get insurance money]. (9)

a. *Bill1 said that John tried [PRO1 to leave]. b. *Bill1 said that John persuaded Mary [PRO1 to leave]. c. *Bill1 said that John killed someone [PRO1 to get insurance money].

We have just seen cases of what Williams (1980) calls Obligatory Control such as (7a) and (7b). Much the same pattern of facts obtains with such a verb as decide, which is classified as a Non-Obligatory Control verb according to Williams (1980), since this type of verbs allows PRO in its complement clause to have an arbitrary reading, as shown in (12): (10)

John1 decided [PRO1 to behave himself/*oneself].

(11)

a. It was decided by John1 [PRO1 to behave himself/*oneself]. b. *Mary1 knew that it had been decided by John [PRO1 to behave herself]. (Manzini 1983, p. 424–427)

(12)

It was decided [PROarb to shave oneself].

(ibid., p. 430)

In (10) and (11a), the binding category for PRO is the entire sentence, in which John can serve as the antecedent of PRO, hence no other option is available for an antecedent of PRO; in particular, insertion of a null operator is unnecessary. This accounts for the unavailability of the arbitrary interpretation of PRO, which is reflected in the illegitimacy of the use of oneself in (10) and (11a). In (11b), the binding category for PRO is the embedded clausal complement of knew, in which John can serve as the antecedent of PRO, hence no need for null operator insertion. This accounts for the unavailability of “long-distant” antecedent for PRO in (11b). Contrary to the three sentences just analyzed, (12) does not have any possible antecedent for PRO and hence a null operator is able to be inserted in the binding category in order for PRO to be interpreted as arbitrary. Let us now consider cases in which PRO appears in subject and extraposed infinitival clauses, which illustrate NOC cases for Hornstein (1999, 2001): (13)

[PROarb to shave oneself] is difficult.

(14)

a.

John admitted that [it was uncalled for [PROarb to buy oneself that]].

b.

John1 admitted that [it was uncalled for [PRO1 to buy himself that]].

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   149

In (13), the binding category for PRO is the entire sentence, in which no possible antecedent is available, and hence a null operator is allowed to be inserted, receiving arbitrary interpretation. (14) illustrates a case in which a null operator can either be interpreted as arbitrary or pick out its antecedent intra-sententially. In these sentences, the binding category for PRO is the embedded clausal complement of admitted, into which a null operator is inserted due to the unavailability of any possible antecedent for PRO. (14a) is a case in which this null operator is interpreted as arbitrary and (14b) is a case in which it takes the matrix subject John as its antecedent. The following example shows that when a null operator picks out its antecedent intra-sententially, basically no locality condition is imposed upon such an anaphoric relation: (15)

John said that Mary thought that [PRO to feed himself/herself/oneself] would be impossible.

In this sentence, the binding category for PRO is the embedded clausal complement of thought, into which a null operator is inserted to bind PRO since no possible antecedent is available. The legitimacy of the use of oneself in this sentence indicates that this null operator can be interpreted as arbitrary. Moreover, the legitimacy of the use of himself and herself indicates that the null operator can take as its antecedent not only the embedded subject Mary but also the matrix subject John.

7.2 Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory Lebeaux’s (1984) theory of PRO is quite compatible with Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) movement theory of control in that the former takes the same position as the latter, but differs from Williams’s (1980) original position, with respect to where a line should be drawn between the OC and NOC cases, and that the NOC cases are accounted for by relying on a last resort mechanism, insertion of a null operator under Lebeaux’s theory and insertion of pro in Hornstein’s theory. Given our movement theory of anaphora, it is most natural to adopt Hornstein’s (1999, 2001) A-movement analysis for the OC cases and to adopt Lebeaux’s (1993) null operator analysis for the NOC cases. This approach enables us to treat PRO much in the same way as Japanese A-pro. Thus, there are mainly two ways to establish an anaphoric relation for PRO. One is to undergo A-movement directly to the position occupied by the antecedent of PRO (the OC case), and the other is to move into an operator position, typi-

150   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

cally Spec-CP, to function as a generic operator or to undergo further movement to the position occupied by its antecedent (the NOC case). Recall that in the case of Japanese A-pro, operator movement of pro is simply an option freely taken to make a long-distant anaphoric relation possible, as long as it satisfies the condition given in (6.49), reproduced below: (16)

Pro/PRO must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

Notice that PRO differs crucially from Japanese A-pro in this respect, given Lebeaux’s characterization of closure by a null operator as a last resort. Recall that this last resort character of closure explains not only that in the sentences of (8), (10) and (11a), PRO cannot be interpreted as arbitrary, but also that in the sentences of (9) and (11b), PRO cannot take a long-distant antecedent. This means under the present theory that unlike Japanese A-pro, PRO can undergo operator movement only as a last resort. The question is why Japanese A-pro and PRO differ with respect to the way the two available options interact. I suggest that this is attributed to the property of pro vs. PRO with respect to Case: while pro has its own Case-feature valued as other normal DPs do, PRO simply lacks a Case-feature, contra the null Case theory proposed by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993).³ The claim that PRO appears only in a Caseless position in effect confines the distribution of PRO to the subject position of a non-finite clause, as originally argued by Bouchard (1984). The null Case theory of Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) is partly motivated by those cases which show that A-movement of PRO exhibits a last resort effect with respect to Case. Relevant examples are given below: (17)

a. *We want [PRO1 to strike t1 [that the problems are insoluble]]. b. *We want [PRO1 to seem to t1 [that the problems are insoluble]].

Under the null Case theory, the ungrammaticality of these sentences is attributed to a violation of the Last Resort Principle, since PRO can get Case in its original position without moving to Spec-TP. Under the approach advocated here, the ungrammaticality of (17a, b) is explained as a violation of the chain condition given in (2.11), reproduced below:

3 It should be reminded that PRO carries one Case that is going to be checked in the position where it is overlaid by its antecedent, so strictly what is claimed in the text is that PRO lacks Case that is to be checked in its original position.

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

(18)

   151

When an A-chain C = (a1, …, an) carries more than one Case, extra Cases must be phonetically realized, where an extra Case is one that is assigned/ checked in a position other than a1.

Under the present movement theory, the relevant anaphoric relations involved in (17a, b) are established by applying pro-movement from the position marked with t1 through the embedded Spec-TP to the position occupied by we. Since the original positions are Case-positions by definition, the resulting A-chains must manifest their Cases phonetically according to (18), but they do not, violating this chain condition. In this way, we can accommodate the last resort nature of PROmovement without invoking any special Case-feature attributed to PRO. Given that PRO lacks a Case-feature, I now hypothesize the following: (19)

An invisible argument XP cannot move across a visible argument YP.

where visibility is defined in terms of whether or not XP has a Case that has already been checked/valued. In order to see how this condition works, let us consider the following schematic structure: (20)

[C’ C

[TP DP … [TP PRO1 [vP t1 … ]]]] +Case –Case

This structure represents the stage of derivation where PRO is moved from its original position in Spec-vP to Spec-TP without violating condition (19); I assume that this movement is to satisfy the EPP of T. Further, if no argument intervenes between PRO and DP, PRO can be moved to the position occupied by the DP in order to create an A-chain, but it cannot undergo operator movement to Spec-CP, crossing the visible argument DP, due to condition (19). Hence, PRO can undergo operator movement to Spec-CP only when no argument intervenes in this movement. This correctly captures the last resort nature of such movement. In the cases given in (7), reproduced below: (21)

a.

John1 tried [PRO1 to leave].

b.

John persuaded Mary1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 killed someone [PRO1 to get insurance money].

PRO must be moved to the position occupied by its antecedent to create an A-chain, as shown below, where DP(PRO) expresses PRO being overlaid by DP:

152   

(22)

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

a.

John(PRO)1 tried [t1 to leave].

b.

John persuaded Mary(PRO)1 [t1 to leave].

c.

John(PRO)1 killed someone [t1 to get insurance money].

The fact that PRO in these instances cannot be interpreted as arbitrary, as indicated in (8), is attributed to condition (19), which bans PRO from undergoing operator movement across visible possible antecedents to act as a generic operator. Further, the fact that PRO in these instances cannot take a long-distant antecedent, as shown in (9), is given basically the same explanation as above; that is, PRO is prohibited from exploiting operator movement as an intermediate step to further movement to the position occupied by a long-distant antecedent. Exactly the same account carries over to the cases with the “non-obligatory control” verb decide, given in (10) and (11).⁴,⁵ A word is in order for such an adjunct control case as (21c). I assume that in such a case, PRO can undergo A-movement across the object without violating (19), because the adjunct clause containing PRO can be adjoined to a position higher than the object. This means that the notion of “move across” used in (19) needs to be refined in such a way that α cannot move across β only if the latter c-commands the original position of α. Given the present tenet that the notion of c-command should be got rid of under the movement theory of anaphora, it is 4 Gerundive complements behave differently from infinitival complements with respect to the availability of the arbitrary reading of PRO. Consider the following example: (i)

John discussed [PRO scratching himself/oneself].

That PRO can refer to John in this sentence appears to be straightforwardly explained under the present theory. However, that PRO can also be interpreted as arbitrary indicates that gerundive complements constitute DPs, so that PRO can undergo operator movement to the Spec-DP. Thus, (i) can have the following representation under this assumption: (ii) John discussed [DP PRO1 [TP t1 scratching himself/oneself]] Here PRO can either function as a generic operator or undergo further movement to the position occupied by John. Note that we are now led to the same conclusion as that reached in fns. 4-6 of Chapter 6: Spec-DP is a possible landing site for operator movement of PRO. See Abe (1987) for relevant discussion. 5 Under the present theory, it might be claimed that the reason why a case of object control such as (21b) does not allow PRO to take subject as its antecedent is that the movement of PRO to the subject in such a configuration would violate the condition in (19). I am not sure at this point how plausible such a claim is, since in Section 5.3, I suggested that the notion of equi-distance is relevant for the MCL, so that object does not block movement of pro to subject across it in the same clause. Thus, in order to motivate this claim, we need to address the question of why the notion of equi-distance is not relevant for condition (19). I must leave it for further research.

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   153

natural to use such a notion as possible landing site as an alternative in refining the notion “move across.” Thus, we can reformulate (19) as something like the following: (23)

An invisible argument XP cannot move across a visible argument YP if the position occupied by YP is a possible landing site for XP-movement.

where a possible landing site for a given movement is determined in terms of whether the movement to that site satisfies the EC. Given this condition (and to put aside the question whether equi-distance is relevant here; fn. 5), in such a case as (21b), PRO cannot move to the position of John across the object position occupied by Mary since the latter is a possible landing site for this instance of PRO-movement. In (21c), on the other hand, it is possible to adjoin the adjunct clause in a position high enough to preclude the object someone from counting as a possible landing site for the PRO-movement from within the adjunct clause. This allows the PRO-movement to take place across the object without violating (23). The examples given in (12)–(15) illustrate cases where operator movement of PRO is allowed. The crucial question to ask here is whether condition (16) regulates the landing sites of such operator movement properly. Notice that in all the examples in (12)–(15), the A-domain for PRO is the immediately dominating TP that is a tensed clause (note that we have assumed above that A-movement cannot take place across such a clause in English), so that PRO must move at least as far as the Spec of the CP which immediately dominates that TP. Given this condition, the examples in (12)–(15) can have the following representations: (24)

[CP PRO1 [TP it was decided [TP t1 to shave oneself1]]]

(25)

[CP PRO1 [TP [TP t1 to shave oneself1] is difficult]]

(26)

a.

John admitted [CP PRO1 that [TP it was uncalled for [TP t1 to buy oneself1 that]]]

b.

John(PRO)1 admitted [CP t’1 that [TP it was uncalled for [TP t1 to buy himself1 that]]]

a.

John said that Mary thought [CP PRO1 that [TP [TP t1 to feed oneself] would be impossible]]

b.

John said that Mary(PRO)1 thought [CP t’1 that [TP [TP t1 to feed herself] would be impossible]]

(27)

154   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

c.

John(PRO)1 said [CP t”1 that [TP Mary thought [CP t’1 that [TP [TP t1 to feed himself] would be impossible]]]]

In (24), (25), (26a), (27a), PRO, functioning as a generic operator, is interpreted as arbitrary. Such an instance of PRO is also allowed to undergo further movement to the position occupied by its antecedent, as in (26b) and (27b). In the case of (27c), PRO undergoes successive-cyclic movement to the first embedded Spec-CP and then moves to the position occupied by its antecedent. Notice that in such a case, pro must undergo operator movement to the Spec-CP that is closest to its antecedent; otherwise, the final step of movement to the position occupied by its antecedent would violate the MCL (If PRO underwent A-movement to the position occupied by John from that occupied by t’ in (27c), then this movement would violate the MCL since it skipped the position occupied by Mary). Further one may raise the question whether such an operator movement of PRO does not violate the crossing constraint given in (23). I assume that once it becomes eligible for an operator, PRO becomes visible in the sense relevant to (23), hence immune from the effect of this constraint. Suppose that when PRO undergoes operator movement, it does so in a successive-cyclic fashion, as indicated in (27c).⁶ Then, it is clear from the representations given in (27a) that the position marked with t’ in (27c) is an operator position PRO could stay at. Hence it is not unreasonable to claim that when PRO occupies this position, it becomes visible in the sense relevant to (23), since it qualifies as an operator in this position. Hence the movement of PRO from t’ to the next higher Spec-CP does not violate (23), even though it crosses the argument DP Mary. To recapitulate, we can capture Lebeaux’s generalization given in (3) by assuming that for PRO to take a long-distant antecedent and to be interpreted as arbitrary are both made possible by operator movement of PRO, just as operator movement of pro serves to the same end in the case of Japanese A-pro.⁷ Further, 6 Otherwise, it would induce a MCL violation under the assumption that Spec-CP is a possible landing site for operator movement. 7 An apparent counterexample to the present theory as well as Lebeaux’s arises from such a construction that is standardly claimed to involve null operator movement: (i)

We told them that John is too stubborn to bother ourselves/themselves about. (Chomsky 1986a, p. 128)

Under the standard assumption, (i) has the following representation: (ii) we1 told them2 that John3 is too stubborn [CP OP3 [TP PRO1/2 to bother ourselves1/themselves2 about t3]] The present theory cannot account for why PRO can refer to we or them in this representation, since PRO can undergo neither direct A-movement to the position occupied by either we or them

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   155

the fact that operator movement of PRO is sensitive to (23), unlike that of pro, is attributed to the inherent nature of PRO as lacking Case. Thus, to the extent that we are successful in capturing an apparent syntactic difference between PRO and pro by way of the presence of Case and (23), the present theory enables us to unify PRO and pro into one syntactic entity. Under this conception, it is predicted that PRO behaves as a bound variable when it undergoes direct A-movement to its antecedent, while it behaves like a normal pronominal having the ability to refer when the movement to its antecedent is mediated by operator movement, given our interpretive rules on chains, reproduced below: (28)

a.

A chain forces the bound variable reading iff it is not repaired.

b.

If it is repaired, then either (i) or (ii): (i) it can produce either the bound variable reading or the referential one. (ii) The referential value of the tail must include that of the head.

There is evidence that validates this prediction. Consider first the following examples: (29)

a.

Every boy tried [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

b.

John persuaded every boy [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

c.

Every boy did exercise every day [PRO to be able to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

nor operator movement to the Spec of the CP that is the complement clause of told, due to condition (23). I do not have any good answer to offer here for this problem, but it seems that the availability of the matrix arguments for the antecedents of PRO in (ii) is related to the fact that in this configuration, OP must pick out John as its antecedent, so that the latter is no longer a candidate for an antecedent of PRO. Notice that Lebeaux’s generalization holds true even in this construction; that is, in such a configuration as (ii), PRO can not only refer to either we or them but also be interpreted as arbitrary, as shown in the following example: (iii) We told them that John is too stubborn [PRO to bother oneself about].

(ibid.)

This follows under the present theory if PRO can undergo operator movement to the Spec-CP above John so as to function as a generic operator.

156   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

In these sentences, PRO must function as a variable bound by every boy, so that the semantic value of PRO needs to covary with that of every boy. Thus, (29a), for instance, has the reading where each boy separately tried to bring up the piano to the fifth floor alone or the one where the set of the boys denoted by every boy tried collaboratively to bring up the piano to the fifth floor together. Crucially, this sentence does not have such a reading as paraphrased below, in which PRO refers to the set of the boys while each boy made a separate attempt: (30)

Every boy tried independently of the others so as for the boys to bring up the piano to the fifth floor together.

The same holds true for (29b, c): these sentences can have either the distributive or collective reading, as long as PRO covaries with its antecedent every boy in its semantic value, hence lacking such readings as paraphrased below: (31)

a.

John persuaded every boy independently of the others so as for the boys to bring up the piano to the fifth floor together.

b.

Every boy did exercise separately every day so as for the boys to be able to bring up the piano to the fifth floor together.

These facts are exactly what we predict, given the interpretive rule (28a), since in these cases, PRO necessarily undergoes direct A-movement to the position occupied by every boy. The same pattern of facts obtains with the control verb decide, as illustrated below: (32)

Every boy decided [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

Just as in the sentences in (29), PRO in this sentence must be interpreted as a variable bound by every boy, so that this sentence may have either the distributive or collective reading, as long as PRO covaries with every boy in its semantic value. Hence, it does not have such a reading as paraphrased below: (33)

Every boy decided independently of the others that the boys should bring up the piano together.

Again, these facts are predicted under the present theory of PRO, since PRO in (32) must undergo direct A-movement to the position occupied by every boy, so that it must be interpreted as a variable bound by it, according to (28a).

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   157

On the other hand, in those cases in which PRO is allowed to undergo operator movement, it need not function as a bound variable but rather can refer to its antecedent, given the interpretive rule (28bi), since under the present assumptions, operator movement of PRO as an intermediate step is most plausibly characterized as a repair strategy for direct A-movement to its antecedent. Consider the following examples: (34)

a.

Every boy thought that [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor] would be impossible.

b.

Every boy thought that it would be impossible [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

Interestingly, these sentences can have the reading that is paraphrased as follows: (35)

Every boy thought that it would be impossible for the boys to bring up the piano together.

Given that the process of thinking takes place individually, the semantic value of PRO in this reading does not covary with that of its antecedent every boy, but rather it picks out the set denoted by every boy as its referent. This fact is straightforwardly explained under the present theory of PRO, since in these cases, PRO can undergo operator movement to the Spec of the embedded CP as an intermediate step, so as to be able to refer to the set denoted by every boy, according to (28bi). Further, recall that in Section 5.3, we saw some properties of the OC cases of PRO, pointed out by Hornstein (1999, 2001), that can be subsumed under his A-movement theory; the relevant examples are reproduced below, with one further case regarding VP deletion added in (36a): (36)

a.

John expects PRO to win and Bill does too. (= Bill win)

b. *John1 told Mary2 PRO1+2 to wash themselves/each other. c.

The unfortunate expects PRO to get a medal.

d.

Only Churchill remembers PRO giving the BST speech.

(36a) shows that PRO only allows sloppy readings in the context of VP deletion, (36b) that split antecedent is unavailable for PRO, (36c) that de se interpretation is required for PRO and (36d) that the bound variable reading of only is required for PRO. Hornstein (1999, 2001) argues that all these properties are derived essen-

158   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

tially in the same way as the comparable cases of A-chains. On the other hand, he claims that the reason why none of these properties carries over to the NOC cases of PRO, as shown below, is that those cases involve simply insertion of pro, a normal null pronoun: (37)

a.

John thinks that PRO getting his resume in order is crucial and Bill does too.

b.

John1 told Mary2 that PRO1+2 washing themselves/each other would be fun.

c.

The unfortunate believes that PRO getting a medal would be boring.

d.

Only Churchill remembers that PRO giving the BST speech was momentous. (Hornstein 1999, p. 73)

(37a) shows that the NOC variety of PRO allows not only sloppy readings but also strict readings in the context of VP deletion, (37b) that split antecedent is available for it, (37c) that de se interpretation is not forced upon it and (37d) that it allows not only the bound variable reading of only but also its referential reading. Under the present theory of PRO, these properties can all be attributed to the availability of operator movement of PRO as an intermediate step. Thus in such a case, PRO is able to refer to its antecedent according to (28bi), hence deriving the availability of the referential reading of only, as shown in (37d). Further, this variety of PRO can take a split antecedent according to (28bii), as shown in (37b). As for the de se reading, Hornstein (1999) derives the fact that this reading is forced upon the OC cases of PRO from the assumption that when more than one θ-position is related via direct A-movement, the latter “semantically forms a compound monadic predicate,” (p. 80) thereby forcing a de se reading. Given this assumption, it follows that de se interpretation is not forced upon the NOC cases of PRO. The availability of the strict reading in the context of VP deletion, as shown in (37a), will require a more elaborate explanation. This property is basically attributed to the availability of operator movement of PRO as an intermediate step in the antecedent clause, so that the resulting chain can produce a referential reading that allows the corresponding DP in the elided VP to refer to the same entity. Thus, the strict reading of (37a) will be derived from the following structure: (38)

John(PRO)1 thinks [CP t’1 that [TP t1 getting his resume in order is crucial]] and Bill does [VP think that John’s getting his resume in order is crucial] too

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   159

In this structure, the VP in the second clause can get deleted under identity with the corresponding VP in the first clause, since the chain (John1, t’1, t1) can be taken as simply referring to John. Finally, there is an interesting case that apparently does not conform with Lebeaux’s (1984) generalization, given in (3), repeated below: (39)

PRO can take a “long-distant” antecedent iff it can be interpreted as generic.

This is illustrated with the control construction where PRO acts as the subject of an infinitival interrogative complement clause, like the following: (40)

John asked how [PRO to behave himself/oneself].

In this configuration, PRO can be interpreted as arbitrary, whose availability is indicated by the use of oneself in (40). On the other hand, PRO cannot take a “long-distant” antecedent in the same configuration, as illustrated below: (41) *Mary thinks that her father asked how [PRO to behave herself]. The unacceptability of this sentence shows that PRO cannot refer to Mary. How can we accommodate this apparent exception to Lebeaux’s generalization under the present theory of PRO? First of all, it appears that PRO can undergo direct A-movement to the position occupied by its antecedent in such a case as (40). Recall that in Section 5.3, it was argued that in an adjunct control case such as the following: (42)

John1 heard Mary without/before/after PRO1 entering the room.

PRO can undergo direct A-movement to the position occupied by its antecedent thanks to exemption from an island violation being operative to a Caseless chain, as stated below: (43)

An island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case position where pro could be pronounced.

However, this cannot be true in the case of a control case involving an infinitival interrogative complement clause such as (40); if it was, that would suppress the option of operator movement of PRO, hence disallowing arbitrary readings

160   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

of PRO. Here I explore another possibility. Recall that in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, we discussed cases where the TP that immediately dominates pro includes a GSF, claiming that in such cases, pro can undergo operator movement to the Spec-CP just above that TP. In order to maintain this claim, I made the hypothesis given in (6.45), repeated below: (44)

A-movement cannot take place across a clause that bears a GSF.

There is good reason to hold that the infinitival to of the embedded interrogative clause in (40) is taken as a GSF, as witnessed by the paraphrase relation of (40) with oneself to the following sentence, where the embedded interrogative clause takes a full-fledged tensed form: (45)

John asked how one should behave oneself.

Suppose that this is the case. Then, given (44), operator movement of PRO to the Spec of the embedded interrogative CP is permissible in (40), since direct A-movement of PRO to its antecedent position is prohibited. Thus, (40) can have the following representation: (46)

John asked [CP how [CP PRO1 [TP t1 to behave himself/oneself]]]

Here let us assume that a CP recursion allows PRO to appear in the lower Spec-CP; the higher Spec-CP must be occupied by the wh-phrase how, probably because the whole CP needs to satisfy the selectional requirement of the higher verb ask. In this representation, PRO can act as a generic operator, giving rise to its arbitrary reading or undergo further movement to the position occupied by John.⁸ 8 Though PRO can undergo operator movement within the infinitival interrogative clause in such a construction as (40), there is evidence that such an instance of PRO is still subject to a restriction arising from the control properties of higher predicates. Consider the following examples: (i)

a. John1 asked Mary how PRO1 to behave himself under such circumstances. b. * John asked Mary1 how PRO1 to behave herself under such circumstances. (Nishigauchi 1984, p. 231)

(ii) John told Sue when to wash herself/oneself/*himself/*themselves/??each other. (Culicover and Jackendoff 2001, p. 500) The contrast in acceptability between (ia) and (ib) shows that the verb ask requires as its lexical property that PRO in its infinitival interrogative complement clause be controlled by the subject of the verb. (ii), by contrast, shows that the verb tell requires that PRO in the same syntactic configuration as that in (i) be controlled by the object of the verb. The unacceptability of using the

Incorporating the NOC Cases of PRO into the Movement Theory   

   161

Let us now consider a case such as (41) in which PRO cannot take a longdistant antecedent. First, PRO cannot undergo direct A-movement to the position occupied by Mary, since it would induce a violation of the MCL, skipping a possible landing site for it, namely, the position occupied by her father (as well as a violation of the visibility condition (23)). Neither can PRO undergo operator movement directly to the Spec of the CP complement of thinks, since it would induce a violation of condition (23). The only remaining option is for PRO to undergo successive-cyclic movement to the same Spec-CP through the lower Spec-CP of the most embedded infinitival interrogative clause, as shown below: (47)

Mary thinks [CP PRO1 that [TP her father asked [CP how [CP t’1 [TP t1 to behave herself]]]]]

In this case, the step of movement of PRO from the most embedded Spec-CP to the higher one would not violate the visibility condition (23), since, as we assumed above, once PRO occupies an operator position, thereby eligible for an operator, it becomes visible in the sense relevant for this condition (cf. the discussion around (27) above). However, this step of movement violates the MCL, since it has skipped a possible landing site, namely the one occupied by how. Hence there is no way of connecting PRO to Mary via Move in (41), which thus explains why PRO cannot take a long-distant antecedent when it is embedded in an interrogative complement clause. That operator movement of PRO is involved in such a case as (40) is supported by the fact that the referential reading of PRO is possible in such a configuration. Consider the following example: (48)

Every boy asked me how [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

This sentence has not only the reading where PRO covaries with every boy in its semantic value but also the reading where it simply refers to the set denoted by every boy, so that it can be paraphrased as follows:⁹

reflexive themselves and the reciprocal each other in (ii) further shows that this control property is so strict as to exclude split antecedents. These facts then lend further support to the claim that the lexical control properties of predicates regulate the choice of antecedent of PRO, independently of the syntactic mechanism assumed in the text. 9 Though Norbert Hornstein (personal communication) informed me that if a reflexive or a reciprocal is put within the infinitival interrogative clause of such a sentence as (40), so as to force the referential reading, then the resulting sentence becomes degraded:

162   

(49)

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

Every boy asked me independently of the others how the boys should bring up the piano to the fifth floor together.

The availability of this reading follows immediately from the interpretive rule (28bi), since operator movement of PRO is treated as a repair strategy under the present theory of PRO.¹⁰

7.3 An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO In this final section, I summarize what we have found out in Chapters 5 through 7 by way of presenting an overall picture of the theory of pro/PRO based upon those findings. Let us begin with how null arguments are licensed in a given language or construction. First of all, the present movement theory of anaphora has been based upon the following hypothesis: (50)

Pro undergoes Move to establish an anaphoric relation.

Then, whether pro shows up on the surface or not depends upon mainly two factors: (i) whether the application of Move to pro violates any locality condition; (ii) how a locality violation of pro-movement is remedied. Relevant to the first (i)

*Every boy asked me how to behave themselves/to talk to each other.

This might be attributed to the fact that an every-phrase bears singular in its ϕ-features, so that it is not compatible with such plural forms as themselves and each other. 10 Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) observe that the PRO that appears as subject of an infinitival interrogative clause exhibits typical properties of OC. Thus they observe that PRO “can only have a bound interpretation when controlled by only-DPs,” as shown in (i), and “only licenses sloppy reading under ellipsis,” as shown in (ii), and “requires de se readings in the appropriate contexts,” as shown in (iii): (i)

A: Only John wondered what to do. B: No! I also wondered what I/#he should do.

(ii) John doesn’t know what to eat, and Mary doesn’t either. ‘… and Mary also doesn’t know what she/*he should eat.’ (iii) The unfortunate wondered how to get along with people after the war. (Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes 2010, p. 75) These facts are unexpected under the present theory, according to which PRO in such a construction can undergo operator movement as an intermediate step. I speculate that these unexpected properties of PRO in this construction have something to do with the fact that such an instance of PRO is affected by the control properties of the higher verbs, as shown in fn. 8.

An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO   

   163

case is the instance of subject A-pro that takes its antecedent in the next clause up, as exemplified in Japanese: (51)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

In this case, pro-movement takes place from the embedded to the matrix subject position. In a language like English, such pro-movement induces a violation of the NIC, and hence it needs to be followed up by the repair strategy of pronouncing the tail of the produced chain, as shown below: (52)

John1 thinks/says that he1 is stupid.

Japanese, on the other hand, is free from the NIC, hence no need to rely on such a repair strategy. This allows pro to show up on the surface in such a sentence as (51). I suggested that this type of subject drop occurs in Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew as well. Another case of pro-movement that need not be assisted by a repair strategy arises when pro has started its movement from a Caseless position. This is how what is traditionally called the OC case of PRO is licensed, as illustrated below: (53)

a.

John1 tried [PRO1 to leave].

b.

John persuaded Mary1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 killed someone [PRO1 to get insurance money].

In these cases, PRO-movement does not violate the NIC or the Tensed S Condition in the sense of Chomsky (1973), hence no need for any repair strategy. Furthermore, in an adjunct control case like (53c), the PRO-movement appears to induce an island violation, but we have been assuming that such a violation need not be repaired when it takes place from a Caseless position, as stated below: (54)

An island violation is exempt from the repair strategy by overt pronoun if the chain produced by the island-violating Move lacks a Case position where pro could be pronounced.

As for the second case of licensing null arguments, the type of subject drop found in Italian and Spanish is licensed since the NIC violation induced by promovement is remedied by rich agreement morphology on a verb rather than pro-

164   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

nouncing the tail of the produced chain, as exemplified in the following Spanish sentence: (55)

Muchos estudiantes creen que pro son inteligentes.

Here, a violation of the NIC induced by pro-movement from the embedded subject position is remedied by rich agreement morphology being manifested on the verb son instead of pronouncing the tail of the produced A-chain. Japanese exploits another way of remedying a locality violation of pro-movement: instead of applying direct A-movement to pro, apply operator movement to pro as an intermediate step to the final destination to avoid violating such a locality condition as the MCL. I suggested that this is an option alternative to the repair strategy by pronouncing the tail of the produced chain or manifesting rich morphology on a verb and hence that it is available only to languages that do not have the latter options. PRO-movement (a special case of pro-movement in which the tail of the produced chain is Caseless) can also exploit this operatormovement option and it can do so even in those languages that have the other repair options, since these latter options cannot be used as repair strategies for locality violations of PRO-movement due to the Caseless property of PRO. Though this option provides PRO with a way to reach a more distant antecedent in much the same way as operator movement of pro does in Japanese, the availability of this option to PRO is constrained by the following condition, due to the fact that PRO is invisible in the sense of being Caseless: (56)

An invisible argument XP cannot move across a visible argument YP if the position occupied by YP is a possible landing site for XP-movement.

This condition in effect makes the option of operator movement of PRO the last resort, unlike that of pro in Japanese. As for the interpretation of the chains that establish anaphoric relations, I proposed that they are subject to the following interpretive rules: (57)

a.

A chain forces the bound variable reading iff it is not repaired.

b.

If it is repaired, then either (i) or (ii): (i) it can produce either the bound variable reading or the referential one. (ii) The referential value of the tail must include that of the head.

An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO   

   165

According to (57a), an A-chain created without violating any locality condition should induce only a bound variable reading. That this is in fact the case is illustrated by null subjects in Japanese when they take quantificational DPs as their antecedents in the next clauses up, as exemplified below: (59)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. everyone-Nom head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘Everyone1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

The OC cases of PRO also show the same property, as illustrated in (29), reproduced below: (59)

a.

Every boy tried [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

b.

John persuaded every boy [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

c.

Every boy did exercise every day [PRO to be able to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

The present movement theory of pro/PRO also explains the fact that when they take a local antecedent, they cannot take split antecedents, only allow sloppy readings in the context of VP deletion, etc. Since A-movement of pro to its antecedent obeys the MCL, it cannot take a more distant subject across a closer one, which in effect has the same effect as the SSC. Furthermore, it is natural to reason that null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew also undergo A-movement to their antecedents. This explains why they must find their antecedents in the next clauses up and why they cannot take split antecedents, etc. When pro undergoes operator movement as an intermediate step toward further movement to the position occupied by its antecedent, it may behave like a referring expression, unlike the case where it undergoes direct A-movement to its antecedent, since this option of operator movement is taken as a repair strategy, hence obeying the interpretive rule (57b). This explains the fact that when pro takes a distant DP as its antecedent, it is not forced to be interpreted as a variable bound by the antecedent, as witnessed by those instances of Japanese pro where direct A-movement to its antecedent is impossible, as shown below, and the NOC cases of PRO, as shown in (34), also repeated below:

166   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

(60)

Daremo1-ga [Mary -ga [pro1 atama-ga warui to] everyone-Nom -Nom head-Nom bad Comp omotteiru. think ‘Everyone1 thinks that Mary says that pro1 is stupid.’

itteiru to] say Comp

(61)

a.

Every boy thought that [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor] would be impossible.

b.

Every boy thought that it would be impossible [PRO to bring up the piano to the fifth floor].

The availability of operator movement in such cases also explains the fact that pro and PRO can take split antecedents (cf. (57bii)), allow strict as well as sloppy readings in the context of VP deletion, etc. This option of operator movement should not be accessible to null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew, and I suggested that the inaccessibility has something to do with the properties of subject- vs. topic-prominent languages in the sense of Li and Thompson (1976): only in topic-prominent languages is the option of operator movement of pro available. According to what has been claimed about repair strategies, this parametric property should also be related to the availability of overt pronoun as a repair strategy; that is, operator movement of pro is available as an alternative to this latter option. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss this matter in any detail, but I speculate that agreement is the key notion to differentiate one from the other with respect to the availability of this option; that is, if pro enters an Agree relation with a functional head like T, as is the case in Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew, then this somehow prevents it from undergoing operator movement. Right now I have not come up with any good answer to the question of exactly what causes such a prohibition, but there is an array of facts that may be given the same account by whatever prevents operator movement in such a configuration. It is well known that null operator movement from the subject position of a tensed clause does not give rise to a good sentence, irrespective of whether or not that is present at the C just above the subject position, as witnessed by such parasitic gap constructions as given in (62) or such tough-constructions as given in (63). (62)

a. *someone who John expected t would be successful though believing that e is incompetent b. *?someone who John expected t would be successful though believing e is incompetent (Chomsky 1982, p. 53)

An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO   

(63)

   167

a. *Mary is hard for me [to believe that t kissed John]. b. *?Mary is hard for me [to believe t kissed John]. (Cinque 1990, p. 105–6)

If we assume that it is in fact pro that undergoes operator movement in these constructions, then the ungrammaticality of these sentences can be attributed to the very condition suggested above, which dictates that if pro enters into an Agree relation with T, it cannot undergo operator movement. Suppose then that whatever condition to this effect is at work to constrain operator movement of pro. This will correctly account for not only why pro in Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew cannot undergo operator movement, but also why such movement is available for pro in Japanese and PRO, since in the latter cases, no apparent manifestation of agreement is attested.¹¹ Operator movement of pro is subject to a condition regarding how far the movement in question must take place; the relevant condition is repeated below: (64)

Pro must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

(65)

The A-domain for α is the maximal category in which α could undergo A-movement.

(64) expresses the conception according to which A-movement takes precedence over A’-movement when both options are available, which will be made sense of in terms of locality of movement. Empirically, there is ample evidence for it, as has been shown above in the cases of Japanese pro and of PRO. The most noticeable consequence of the present mechanism of operator movement of pro that incorporates (64) is that it enables us to capture Lebeaux’s (1984) generalization, reproduced below, more appropriately than his original mechanism in that the present mechanism accommodates the fact that this generalization holds not for PRO alone but rather for pro in general.

11 As noted in the first paragraph of Chapter 6, Holmberg (2005) claims that the bound null pronoun and the generic null pronoun are the same entity in Finnish. If this is correct, then it means that the generic interpretation of pro is possible in Finnish even if it does not undergo operator movement. According to Holmberg, such an interpretation obtains when pro remains in SpecvP. I do not find any connection of this claim to the present movement theory of pro developed in the text; it seems that we need a totally different treatment to the availability of the generic interpretation of pro in Finnish.

168   

(66)

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

Pro/PRO can take a “long-distant” antecedent iff it can be interpreted as generic.

In such a topic-prominent language as Japanese, pro can undergo operator movement to the matrix Spec-CP, where it can function as a null topic, picking out its referent from the discourse, as demonstrated in Section 5.1. At this point, a question arises with respect to PRO: whether it can also function as a null topic. If we follow Huang (1982), as we actually did above, in assuming that a null topic is one of the properties peculiar to topic-prominent languages, then English ought not to allow this option, since it is a subject-prominent language. However, it is not immediately obvious whether this is indeed the case. Bresnan (1982) claims that “‘PRO’ does have the capacity to refer independently to specific extrasentential referents,” (p. 328) providing the following examples: (67)

a.

Mary was happy and excited. To have involved herself in the group was a risky action. But it was proving that she could change her life.

b.

Tom felt sheepish. Pinching those elephants was foolish. He shouldn’t have done it.

c.

She sighed and looked around the empty room. It was unclear what to do with herself now that Molly was gone.

The subject PRO in the infinitival clause of the second sentence in (67a) refers extrasententially to Mary, the one in the gerund of the second sentence in (67b) to Tom, and the one in the infinitival interrogative clause in (67c) to whatever she refers to.Bresnan further claims that “‘PRO’ can also be understood as referring to a specific referent which is specified in the nonverbal context of an utterance.” (p. 328–329) Thus, when two observers have witnessed a young man commit suicide, one observer can say the following sentence to the other: (68)

I think that killing himself was a terrible mistake.

Though these data seem to be good evidence for the claim that PRO can function as a null topic, it is not immediately clear whether this option is as freely available as in the case of Japanese pro.¹² Given the current situation in which enough investigation has not been done yet regarding such a use of PRO in English, I would rather not pursue this issue here, leaving it for future research. 12 See Sportiche (1983) for a different view with respect to these data, which runs counter to Bresnan’s (1982) claim.

An Overall Picture of the Theory of Pro/PRO   

   169

Let me make a final point about null operators that are standardly assumed to be involved in such constructions as the tough sentence (69a), the infinitival relative clause (69b), the purpose clause (69c) and the parasitic gap (70): (69)

(70)

a.

John is easy to please.

b.

a man to talk to

c.

I bought a book to read.

Which article did you file without reading?

Assuming that the null operators involved in these constructions are in fact instances of pro (call such an instance of pro proOP), let me consider here how such instances of proOP should be characterized under the present movement theory of pro. In so doing, it will be most appropriate to compare them with PRO. There are at least two characteristics that differentiate these two occurrences of null pronouns: (71)

a.

Whether to carry Case

b.

How to be licensed

As we assumed above, PRO lacks Case while proOP does bear Case, as illustrated in the examples of (69), whose rough structures and derivations are given below (here, movement of PRO is not represented): (72)

a.

John(pro)1 is easy [CP t’1 [TP PRO to please t1]]

b.

a man(pro)1 [CP t’1 [TP PRO to talk to t1]]

c.

I bought a book(pro)1 [CP t’1 [TP PRO to read t1]]

Recall that we assumed that since PRO lacks Case, it is treated as an invisible argument, which is incapable of moving across a visible argument, as stated in (56), reproduced below: (73)

An invisible argument XP cannot move across a visible argument YP if the position occupied by YP is a possible landing site for XP-movement.

On the other hand, proOP is immune to this condition since it carries Case. Hence, it can be merged in any argument position as long as it can get access to a Case-

170   

   An Extension to the NOC Cases of PRO

marked position from this original position, and undergo operator movement across a visible argument, as shown in (72). As for licensing, PRO is licensed as long as PRO-movement does not induce any locality violation (the OC case) or is mediated by operator movement (the NOC case). ProOP, on the other hand, needs to be licensed in a designated position, i.e., an operator position. When it appears in an operator position in such infinitival clauses as in (72), it must initiate a predicate structure that is subject to the rules of predication, according to Williams (1980), which pick out the antecedent for the predicate structure. When proOP appears as a parasitic gap in such a construction as in (70), it must move to an A’-position where the resulting A’chain is able to undergo chain composition with the chain of the real gap, according to Chomsky (1986b) and Browning (1987). Hence, ProOP crucially differs from the case of PRO that undergoes operator movement in the way they are licensed: while the former is licensed in operator position by way of predication and chain composition, the latter requires no designated position to license it, so that it can move to any Spec-CP, as long as the movement respects any condition imposed upon it, including the condition given in (73).¹³ To summarize, I have shown what the theory of null pronouns looks like, under the assumption that there is only one entity, namely pro. The approach advocated here seems to share its basic idea with the functional determination approach of empty categories proposed by Chomsky (1982); that is, one pronominal entity shows different properties, depending upon which language it appears in, a subject-prominent or topic-prominent language, or whether or not the language in question exhibits a rich agreement system, and also depending upon which construction it appears in, so-called a non-finite control clause, a non-finite clause involved in predication, or a construction that allows A’-chain composition, etc.

13 Given the availability of ProOP in such a subject-prominent language as English, it is conceivable that some such languages allow ProOP to be licensed in the matrix Spec-CP as a null topic. There are in fact such languages: Huang (1984) demonstrates that “what appears to be a zero object pronoun in German turns out to be a variable bound by a zero topic,” (p. 548), and Raposo (1986) argues that the same analysis is tenable for the null object in European Portuguese. If this reasoning is right, then it may lead to the conclusion that being a topic-prominent language is just a sufficient condition for the availability of a null topic, but not a necessary condition for it.

8 A Movement Theory of Reflexives In this last chapter, we give support to a movement theory of reflexives by examining how the Japanese reflexive zibun is best characterized syntactically. It has been demonstrated in Chapters 5 through 7 that Japanese A-pro and PRO are basically divided into two kinds, one involved in A-chains and the other involved in A’-chains. The main claim of this chapter is that much the same holds true for zibun; that is, it is involved in either A- or A’-movement. The idea that the anaphoric relation between zibun and its antecedent is captured by movement has been advanced since the LGB era (see Katada (1991) for a most influential work at that time). Thus, to propose a movement theory of zibun itself is not new, but I believe that the present work is unique in making an attempt to give support to such a work as Abe (1997) that proposes a lexical ambiguity hypothesis about zibun, according to which this reflexive is characterized as either a pure anaphor or a logophor. The present work incorporates this idea in such a way that the pure anaphor zibun is involved in A-movement whereas the logophor zibun is involved in A’-movement.

8.1 Lexical Ambiguity of Zibun: Pure Anaphor or Logophor Abe (1997) claims that zibun is lexically ambiguous between a pure anaphor and a logophor. As a pure anaphor, zibun obeys the following requirements:¹

1 Abe (1997) claims that zibun, as a pure anaphor, also obeys the subject orientation requirement. This book, however, does not deal with how this requirement is accommodated under the movement theory of zibun proposed in what follows. See Motomura (2001) for deriving the subject orientation requirement on zibun from the Merge-over-Move principle proposed by Chomsky (1995). One more note about the locality of the pure anaphor zibun: it has been standardly observed since Yang (1984) that the Japanese reciprocal otagai, which is alleged to be a typical case of pure anaphor, shows SSC effects but not NIC effects, as shown below: (i)

John to Mary -wa [otagai-ga and

hannin da to]

omotta.

-Top each other-Nom criminal be Comp thought

‘John and Mary thought that each other was a criminal.’ (ii) * John to Mary -wa [Bill -ga and

-Top

otagai-o

nikundeiru to]

-Nom each other-Acc hate

omotta.

Comp thought

‘John and Mary thought that Bill hated each other.’ Based upon this observation, Abe (1997) assumes that the pure anaphor zibun is also free from the NIC.

172   

(1)

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

a.

the c-command requirement

b.

the Specified Subject Condition (SSC)

On the other hand, zibun, as a logophor, obeys a condition like the following: (2)

It requires its antecedent to take a point of view from which a given sentence is uttered.

Abe assumes that this requirement derives the awareness condition on zibun observed by Kuno (1972, 1973): (3)

John1 -wa [kare/*zibun1-o korosita] sono -Top he self-Acc killed the otoko-to mae-ni atta koto-ga atta. man-with before had-met ‘John1 had met before the man who killed kare/*zibun1.’

This sentence is unacceptable with zibun, since the referent of zibun, namely John, could not have been aware of being killed. What motivates the lexical ambiguity hypothesis of zibun comes from the fact that such an awareness condition is not always observed; consider the following example: (4)

Mary1 -wa John-ni zibun1-no ie-de koros-areta. -Top -by self-Gen house-in was-killed ‘Mary1 was killed by John in zibun1’s house.’

This sentence is acceptable in spite of the fact that Mary could not have been aware of being killed. The lexical ambiguity hypothesis solves this problem quite neatly: zibun shows such a logophoric property as the awareness condition only in the context in which it cannot be a pure anaphor due to the SSC. Since zibun can be a pure anaphor in (4), it does not exhibit the logophoric property in question, contrary to the case of zibun in (3), which must be a logophor due to the SSC and hence obeys the awareness condition.²

2 One might raise the question whether the contrasted pair in (3) and (4) actually shows that the relevant distinction is properly made in terms of the SSC; it might be that zibun obeys awareness only when it appears in a subordinate clause. This is exactly what Kuno (1972) claims; he provides the following pair:

Lexical Ambiguity of Zibun: Pure Anaphor or Logophor   

   173

Abe (1997) provides further data to support the lexical ambiguity hypothesis of zibun. Let us consider the following data: (5)

Miyuki1-wa zibun1-no titioya-o aisiteiru. -Top self-Gen father-Acc love ‘Miyuki1 loves zibun1’s father.’

(6)

a.

omotteiru. Miyuki1-wa [zibun1-no titioya-ga saikoo da to] -Top self-Gen father-Nom the best be Comp think ‘Miyuki1 thinks that zibun1’s father is the best.’

b.

zibun1-no titioya-o kiratteiru to] Miyuki1-wa [Yoichi-ga -Top -Nom self-Gen father-Acc hate Comp omotteiru. think ‘Miyuki1 thinks that Yoichi hates zibun1’s father.’

As for (5), suppose that Miyuki loves her husband and further that he is in fact her father, but she does not know this fact. In this context, nothing is wrong with saying (5); that is, this sentence can be interpreted as true even when the referent of zibun, namely, Miyuki, does not have access to the fact that the referent of “self’s father” is her husband. This is because zibun in this sentence can be a pure anaphor, locally bound by Miyuki, without violating the SSC. Let us now consider (6a, b). Suppose that Miyuki thinks that her husband is the best and also thinks that Yoichi hates him, i.e. her husband. Suppose, further, that her husband is in fact her father, but she does not know this fact. In this context, it is infelicitous to say (6b), but it is not infelicitous to say (6a); in other words, (6a) can be true even when the referent of zibun has no access to the fact that the referent of “self’s father” is her husband, but (6b) cannot be true unless she knows that they are

(i)

a.

* John1 -wa [Mary -ga zibun1-o korosita toki] Martha -to neteita. -Top -Nom self-Acc killed when -with was-sleeping ‘John1 was in bed with Martha when Mary killed zibun1.’

motte-imasen desita yo. b. (*) John1 -wa [zibun1-ga sinda toki] issen-mo -Top self-Nom died when penny-even have-not Past ‘John1, when zibun1 died, didn’t have even a penny.’ Kuno judges (ib) as unacceptable, marking it with *. At the same time, he notes that this sentence becomes acceptable when zibun is taken as contrastive. Abe (1997) claims that contrary to (ib), (ia) does not have such an overriding effect with the contrastive use of zibun, thereby indicating that the pair given in (i) does not invalidate his claim that the awareness condition holds only when zibun cannot be a pure anaphor.

174   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

one and the same person. These facts follow straightforwardly under the lexical ambiguity hypothesis. In (6a), zibun can be a pure anaphor, and hence its referent, i.e., Miyuki, does not have to be aware of the proposition described by the embedded clause. In (6b), in contrast, zibun cannot be a pure anaphor due to the SSC, and hence it must be a logophor, requiring that its referent, i.e., Miyuki, must be aware of the proposition described by the embedded clause. To give one more example to make the same point, let us consider the socalled statue reading of zibun, which is available to such a simple sentence as the following:³ (7)

Mary1 -ga zibun1-o nadete-ita. -Nom self-Acc was-patting ‘Mary1 was patting zibun1.’

This sentence can mean either that Mary was patting herself or that Mary was patting a statue that imaged her. With this in mind, let us compare the following two sentences: (8)

a.

John1 -wa [pro1 [zibun1-ga heya-no mannaka-ni tatteiru -Top self-Nom room-Gen middle-in be-standing no]-o mite] waratta. NL-Acc seeing laughed ‘John1 laughed when he1 saw zibun1 standing in the middle of the room.’

b.

John1 -wa [pro1 [Mary-ga zibun1-o nadeteiru no]-o mite] -Top -Nom self-Acc be-patting NL-Acc seeing waratta. laughed ‘John1 laughed when he1 saw Mary patting zibun1.’ (?*statue reading)

There is no problem getting the statue reading with (8a) whereas it is a lot difficult to get such a reading with (8b).⁴ This contrast is accounted for under the lexical ambiguity hypothesis, together with the natural assumption that the

3 See Jackendoff (1992) for the observation that such a statue reading is available to English reflexives. 4 There are some Japanese native speakers who do not see the contrast given in (8); that is, both sentences are OK with the statue reading. For those who see the contrast, it is relatively clear that when zibun-o is scrambled in front of Mary in (8b), the statue reading becomes available:

Lexical Ambiguity of Zibun: Pure Anaphor or Logophor   

   175

statue reading is available only to pure anaphors; logophors by their nature need to act, along with their antecedents, as holders of points of view from which given sentences are uttered.⁵ Thus, (8a) can have the statue reading of zibun since it can be a pure anaphor, whereas (8b) does not have such a reading since zibun must be a logophor due to the SSC. Further support for the lexical ambiguity hypothesis for zibun comes from the c-command requirement on this reflexive. Typical examples for illustrating this requirement are something like the following:⁶ (9)

a.

John1 -wa zibun1-no tuma-o -Top self-Gen wife-Acc ‘John1 loves zibun1’s wife.’

aisiteiru. love

aisiteiru. b. *Zibun1-no tuma-ga John1 -o self-Gen wife-Nom -Acc love ‘Zibun1’s wife loves John1.’

(i)

John1 -wa [pro1 [zibun1-o Mary -ga -Top self-Acc -Nom

nadeteiru no]-o mite] waratta. be-patting NL-Acc seeing laughed

In this case, there is no subject intervening between zibun and its antecedent pro, which in turn refers to John, and hence zibun can be a pure anaphor. 5 The standard observation with the availability of the statue reading is due to Litz (2001): What Reinhart and Reuland (1993) call SELF-anaphors such as the Dutch reflexive zichzelf are “nearreflexives,” so that they allow the statue reading whereas what they call SE-anaphors such as the Dutch reflexive zich are “pure-reflexives,” so that they do not allow the statue reading. As far as I know, the availability of the statue reading has not been discussed in the context of logophoricity. The data given in (8) will indicate that the distinction in terms of a morphological shape such as SELF- vs. SE- anaphors is not decisive in determining whether a given reflexive is a near- or pure reflexive. See Giorgi (2007) for a similar observation with the Italian possessor proprio and the Chinese reflexive ziji; that is, these anaphoric elements disallow the statue reading only when they are non-locally bound. Giorgi proposes that in such non-locally bound cases, these anaphoric elements are regarded as “the spell-out of an unsaturated position, saturated in the course of the derivation via θ-identification with the antecedent,” (p. 321) hence giving rise to only pure-reflexive readings. Although there is an important issue here regarding whether the unavailability of the statue reading is related to θ-identification or logophoricity, I must leave a further investigation for future research. 6 (9b) does not actually show that zibun obeys the c-command requirement, since it also violates the subject orientation requirement. I have not come up with any way to construct relevant examples to tease these two requirements on zibun apart. At any rate, notice that it will not affect the discussion in the text whether (9b) is taken as a illustration of the c-command requirement or of the subject orientation requirement, since (10) does not seem to obey either requirement. See also fn. 7.

176   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

However, there is a notorious exception to this requirement, as noted by Kuno (1973) and others: (10)

[[Yosiko -ga zibun1-o nikundeiru] koto]-ga Mitiko1 -o -Nom self-Acc hate fact-Nom -Acc zetuboo-e oiyatta. desperation-to drove ‘That Yosiko hated zibun1 drove Mitiko1 to desperation.’

Here, the antecedent of zibun, namely Mitiko, is the matrix object, just as in (9b).⁷ The contrast between (9) and (10) is naturally attributed to the fact that (10) can

7 This is a follow-up to the previous footnote. One might wonder whether zibun is actually not c-commanded by the matrix object Mitiko in (10), given Belletti and Rizzi’s (1988) analysis of psych-predicates, according to which the surface subject of such a predicate is base-generated below the experiencer object. I am not sure whether the main predicate zetuboo-e oiyaru ‘drive to desperation’ used in (10) is of the same kind as Belletti and Rizzi discuss. We can test this by examining the behavior of the Japanese reciprocal otagai, which is usually taken as a pure anaphor, with such a predicate. First of all, this reciprocal obeys the c-command requirement, but not the subject orientation requirement, as shown below: (i)

a.

John to Bill -wa otagai-no tuma-o aisiteiru. and -Top each other-Gen wife-Acc love ‘John and Bill love each other’s wives.’

b. * Otagai-no tuma-ga John to Bill -o aisiteiru. each other-Gen wife-Nom and -Acc love ‘Each other’s wives love John and Bill.’ (ii) Mary -wa John to Bill -ni otagai-no tuma-o syookaisita. -Top and -Dat each other-Gen wife-Acc introduced ‘Mary introduced each other’s wives to John and Bill.’ Now, consider the following example: (iii) ?* [[Otagai-no tuma-ga uwakisiteiru] koto]-ga John to Bill -o zetuboo-e each other-Gen wife-Nom have-an-affair fact-Nom and -Acc desperation-to oiyatta. drove ‘The fact that each other’s wives had affairs drove John and Bill to desperation.’ This sentence does not have the intended reading, namely the one on which the fact that John’s wife had affairs drove Bill to desperation and the fact that Bill’s wife had affairs drove John to desperation. The unacceptability of (iii) indicates that otagai ‘each other’, which is embedded in the surface subject clause, is not c-commanded by the matrix object John to Bill ‘John and Bill’. This in turn indicates that the c-command relation does not hold between zibun and its antecedent in (10) as well.

A Movement Theory of Zibun   

   177

be taken as an assertion made by Mitiko’s point of view, one expressing her “internal feeling” to use Kuno’s (1973) terminology. Thus, under the present hypothesis, we can claim that in (10) zibun can be a logophor taking Mitiko as its antecedent since the latter can act as the point-of-view holder of this sentence. In (9b), on the other hand, zibun cannot be a logophor since its antecedent does not act in the same way as Mitiko in (10) nor can it be a pure anaphor due to the c-command requirement. In this way, an apparent exception to the c-command requirement on zibun falls into place under the lexical ambiguity hypothesis for this reflexive.⁸

8.2 A Movement Theory of Zibun Having established that zibun is lexically ambiguous between a pure anaphor and a logophor, let us consider how such a property is best captured syntactically. I would like to pursue a movement approach to this task, putting forth the following as my main proposal:⁹ (11)

The pure anaphor zibun is involved in A-movement while the logophor zibun is involved in A’-movement.

As for the pure anaphor zibun (henceforth, zibunA), I follow what was assumed in Chapter 2; namely, zibunA is inserted as a sort of repair strategy for the resulting chain produced by pro-movement. Recall how we ruled out a case of Condition B violation such as the following: (12) *John1 -wa e1 kiratteiru. -Top hate ‘John1 hates e1.’ This sentence would be derived by pro-movement taking place from the object to the subject position and then the top copy of the resulting chain being overlaid

8 See Huang and Liu (2001) for much the same claim with the Chinese reflexive ziji; that is, this reflexive is lexically ambiguous between a pure anaphor and a logophor. 9 The reviewer raises the question whether the lexical ambiguity hypothesis of zibun is compatible with the assumption that pronouns and reflexives are not simply lexical items but rather manifestations of grammatical processes such as repairing. We probably need to assume that zibun has two separate entries in the lexicon, that is, one as a pure anaphor and the other as a logophor. However, we still maintain that these lexical items are not included in the numeration but rather inserted as a result of chain formation, as will become clear in what follows.

178   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

by John. I proposed that this resulting chain is ruled out by the following chain condition: (13)

When an A-chain C = (a1, …, an) carries more than one Case, extra Cases must be phonetically realized, where an extra Case is one that is assigned/ checked in a position other than a1.

Sentence (12) violates (13), since the chain created by pro-movement carries an extra Case that is not phonetically realized, i.e., accusative Case checked with the main verb. I then suggested that (12) can be “repaired” by inserting the reflexive zibun, as shown below: (14)

John1 -wa zibun1-o -Top self-Acc ‘John1 hates zibun1.’

kiratteiru. hate

Under the present assumptions, it is zibunA that is inserted in this case, i.e., when the pro-movement involved is too local to satisfy the condition given in (13). However, this is not the only case where zibunA is inserted. Recall that promovement can take place from an embedded subject to the next higher subject position without inducing any locality violation in such a case as the following: (15)

John1 -wa [pro1 atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that pro1 is stupid.’

In such a case, pro can be replaced by zibun without any significant change of meaning, as shown below: (16)

John1 -wa [zibun1 -ga atama-ga warui to] omotteiru/ itteiru. -Top -Nom head-Nom bad Comp think say ‘John1 thinks/says that zibun1 is stupid.’

I thus propose the following: (17)

ZibunA may be inserted into the tail position of the A-chain produced by pro-movement.

A Movement Theory of Zibun   

   179

Here the A-chain relevant in (17) is confined to the chain produced by direct A-movement of pro to the position occupied by its antecedent with no intermediate operator movement involved. Given this characterization of zibunA, we can derive the SSC effect of zibunA from the MCL. Let us consider the following example: (18)

John1 -wa [Mary -ga zibun1-o kitarretiru to] -Top -Nom self-Acc hate Comp ‘John1 thinks that Mary hates zibun1.’

omotteiru. think

Here pro cannot undergo direct A-movement from the object position of kiratteiru ‘hate’ to the matrix subject position, since it would violate the MCL, crossing the embedded subject Mary.¹⁰ Thus, in such a case, the resulting A-chain must be mediated by operator movement, thereby prohibiting insertion of zibunA to its tail position in accordance with (17). This forces the logophor zibun to be inserted instead, as will be seen directly. Under the present assumptions, the acceptability of (4), reproduced below, indicates that pro-movement takes place from Spec-DP without inducing a LBC violation in Japanese. (19)

Mary1 -wa John-ni zibun1-no ie-de koros-areta. -Top -by self-Gen house-in was-killed ‘Mary1 was killed by John in zibun1’s house.’

Recall that in this sentence, zibun must be a pure anaphor; otherwise, due to the property of the logophor zibun, the referent of its antecedent, i.e., Mary, should have known the fact that she was killed by John in her house, which is impossible. Thus, in this case, pro moves from the Spec position of the DP [pro ie] directly to the position occupied by Mary-wa, and the tail position of the resulting chain is overlaid by zibunA. Notice that in this case, no violation of the MCL will be induced by the pro-movement involved.¹¹ Likewise, in such a sentence as (6a), reproduced below, pro can undergo A-movement from the position occupied by zibun directly to the position occupied by its antecedent Miyuki.

10 See Hornstein (2001) for much the same account of the SSC effect of English reflexives. 11 It is predicted that when zibun is replaced by pro in such a sentence as (19), the anaphoric relation between pro and its antecedent should show the A-chain properties discussed in Section 5.3. The data relevant for this prediction, however, resist clear judgments. For instance, let us consider the following example:

180   

(20)

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

Miyuki1-wa [zibun1-no titioya-ga saikoo -Top self-Gen father-Nom the best ‘Miyuki1 thinks that zibun1’s father is the best.’

da to] be Comp

omotteiru. think

We have shown above that zibun in this sentence can be a pure anaphor, hence not constrained by the awareness condition imposed upon the logophoric use of zibun. This indicates under the present assumptions that in (20), zibunA is inserted in the tail position of the A-chain that is produced by pro-movement taking place from the Spec of the embedded subject DP [pro titioya] directly to the matrix subject position. Under the present movement theory, the c-command requirement on zibunA will be attributed to that on the movement involved. The relevant examples are reproduced below: (21)

a.

John1 -wa zibun1-no tuma-o -Top self-Gen wife-Acc ‘John1 loves zibun1’s wife.’

aisiteiru. love

aisiteiru. b. *Zibun1-no tuma-ga John1-o self-Gen wife-Nom -Acc love ‘Zibun1’s wife loves John1.’ (21a) is grammatical since the pro-movement involved is upward, hence obeying the EC while (21b) is ungrammatical since the pro-movement involved would be downward, hence violating the EC. Let us now consider the logophoric use of zibun (henceforth, zibunL). I propose that contrary to zibunA, zibunL is involved in operator movement of pro, as stated below: (22)

(i)

ZibunL may be inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain produced by pro-movement.

Mary1 -dake-ga John-ni [pro1 ie]-de koros-areta. -only-Nom -by house-in was-killed ‘Only Mary1 was killed by John in her1 house.’

Without any overt indication that ensures that the house in question is Mary’s, it is very hard to judge whether the intended anaphoric reading gives rise to both its bound variable and referential interpretations or the former interpretation only. The same difficulty also applies to such a sentence as (20) in which zibun is replaced by pro.

A Movement Theory of Zibun   

   181

Thus, such a sentence as (18), which does not allow zibunA to appear due to the MCL, involves the following derivation: (23)

a.

__ [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga pro1 kiratteiru] to] omotteiru       (operator movement of pro)

b.

pro1 [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga pro1 kiratteiru] to] omotteiru   (A-movement of pro)

c.

John1-wa [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga zibun1-o kiratteiru] to] omotteiru (overlay of John-wa in the top of the chain and of zibunL-o in its tail)

Here the operator movement of pro shown in (23a) evades a violation of the MCL; since Mary-ga does not count as a possible landing site for this operator movement, the latter does not violate the MCL. In (23b), the pro1 in the embedded Spec-CP and its trace constitutes an A’-chain, and hence its tail can have zibunL inserted, according to (22). It should be the case that when zibunL is inserted, as in (23c), the referent of the composed A-chain, i.e., John in this case, functions as the point-of-view holder for the proposition that contains zibunL. Let us assume that the CP whose Spec pro moves to corresponds to the domain whose proposition is expressed from the point of view held by the antecedent of zibunL. Thus, in (23c), John functions as the point-of-view holder whose point of view applies to the proposition expressed by the embedded clause, i.e., the proposition that Mary hates zibun (= John). Let us now consider the case where the c-command relation does not hold between zibunL and its antecedent, which is reproduced below from (10): (24)

[[Yosiko -ga zibun1-o nikundeiru] koto]-ga Mitiko1 -o -Nom self-Acc hate fact-Nom -Acc zetuboo-e oiyatta. desperation-to drove ‘That Yosiko hated zibun1 drove Mitiko1 to desperation.’

Here a question arises as to how pro-movement is applied to establish the anaphoric relation between zibun and its antecedent Mitiko. Given that the c-command relation does not hold for this anaphoric relation, one might be led to claim that sideward movement will do for this purpose. Recall, however, that we have assumed the following condition:

182   

(25)

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

The link produced by sideward movement cannot constitute part of an operator-variable chain.

(24) remains acceptable even though Mitiko is replaced by a quantifier like daremo ‘everyone’, as shown below: (26)

[[Yosiko -ga zibun1-o nikundeiru] koto]-ga daremo1-o -Nom self-Acc hate fact-Nom everyone-Acc zetuboo-e oiyatta. desperation-to drove ‘That Yosiko hated zibun1 drove everyone1 to desperation.’

Thus we need to seek for a different solution. Here I suggest, following Torrego’s (2002) idea, that experiencer phrases can undergo covert movement to the Spec of a head called P in which the referents of these phrases serve as point-of-view holders. Under this assumption, (24) will be derived in the following way: (27)

a.

[DP[CP pro1 [TP Yosiko-ga pro1 nikundeiru]] koto]-ga pro zetuboo-e oiyatta      (operator movement of pro)

b.

[PP pro1 [DP[CP pro1 [TP Yosiko-ga pro1 nikundeiru]] koto]-ga pro1 zetuboo-e …    (ATB-movement of pro)

c.

[PP pro1 [DP[CP pro1 [TP Yosiko-ga zibun1-o nikundeiru]] koto]-ga Mitiko1o zetuboo-e oiyatta] (overlay of zibunL-o and Mitiko-o)

In (27a), pro undergoes operator movement from the complement position of nikundeiru ‘hate’ and then it undergoes ATB-movement with the pro that functions as the experiencer of the matrix predicate, reaching the Spec of P, as shown in (27b). Finally, the original position of the experiencer pro is overlaid by Mitikoo and the tail position of the A’-chain created by the operator movement of pro is overlaid by zibunL-o, as shown in (27c). Here, Mitiko functions as the point-ofview holder for the proposition expressed by the sentential subject. Finally, let us discuss the question whether the anaphoric relation between zibun and its antecedent exhibits island effects. Abe (1997) cites the following example from Kuno (1972), claiming that the pure anaphor zibun can appear within a relative clause:

A Movement Theory of Zibun   

(28)

   183

kekkonsi-tagatteiru yo. John1 -wa [zibun1-ga osieteiru] gakusei-to -Top self-Nom is-teaching student-with want-to-marry ‘John1 wants to marry a student who zibun1 is teaching.’

Abe agrees with Kuroda (1973) in his observation, contrary to Kuno’s, that the referent of zibun does not have to be aware of the fact that the student that he wants to marry is among the students that he is teaching. This indicates that zibun in (28) can be a pure anaphor. Under the present movement approach, it suggests that pro-movement can take place from the position occupied by zibun directly to the position occupied by its antecedent John, as shown below, since zibunA can be inserted only into the tail position of an A-chain according to (17). (29)

a.

pro1 [pro1 osieteiru] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru yo   (A-movement of pro)

b.

John1-wa [zibun1-ga osieteiru] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru yo (overlay of John-wa onto the top copy of pro and of zibunA-ga onto its bottom copy)

This in turn suggests that pro-movement is island-insensitive when the tail position of the resulting chain is overlaid by zibun. Recall that we have demonstrated in Section 5.3 that the pro-movement in question is in fact island-sensitive, as is most clearly evidenced by the fact that the resulting chain allows not only its bound variable reading but also its referential reading: (30)

Daremo1-ga [pro1 sokode atta] gakusei-to kekkonsi-tagatteiru. everyone-Nom there saw student-with want-to-marry ‘Everyone1 wants to marry a student who pro1 saw there.’

It was claimed there that the availability of both readings is attributed to the way pro-movement takes place in the case where an island intervenes in the anaphoric relation in question: in such a case, pro cannot be directly moved to its antecedent without violating an island condition and hence needs to undergo operator movement instead within the island, and then undergo further movement to the position overlaid by its antecedent, as schematically shown below: (31)

NP [island [CP pro [TP pro …]]] …    

184   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

Here the second step of movement is immune to an island condition since there is no Case position in which pro could be pronounced to meet the repair strategy by overt pronoun (cf. (2.43)). Now we can attribute the availability of the referential reading of pro in such a cases as (30) to the fact that operator movement of pro mediates in establishing the anaphoric relation between pro and its antecedent (cf. the interpretive rules given in (7.57)). It is natural to attribute the apparent island-insensitivity of the anaphoric relation between zibun and its antecedent to the insertion of zibun onto the tail position of the resulting A-chain of pro-movement; in other words, the insertion of zibun serves as a repair strategy for island violations, just like the repair strategy by overt pronoun discussed in Chapter 2.¹² Notice, however, that this repair strategy is confined to island violations, unlike the latter strategy; insertion of zibunA does not serve to remedy a violation of the MCL, for instance. Here is a prediction. Recall that we have seen in Section 6.3 that the second step of movement in (31) obeys the MCL, so that it cannot skip a possible landing site, i.e., one that is occupied by a possible antecedent. That this is the case is shown by such examples as (6.54), reproduced below: (32)

a. ??John1 -wa [Mary -ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru -Top -Nom sing voice-Acc very much like to] omotteiru. Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Mary likes the voice with which pro1 sings very much.’ b. ?*John1 -wa [Mary -ga [pro1 kaita] hon-o hotondo yonde-inai -Top -Nom wrote book-Acc almost read-not to] itta. Comp said ‘John1 said that Mary had not read most of the books pro1 wrote.’

These sentences are unacceptable since the step of pro-movement from inside the relative clause island takes place across a possible landing site for it, namely the one occupied by Mary, hence inducing a MCL violation. Now it is predicted that if the tail position of the pro-movement is overlaid by zibun, the sentence should become acceptable. This is in fact borne out, as shown below: 12 Here I follow Ito (2010) in assuming that simplex reflexives such as zibun are instances of resumption, though the implementation is not the same, and that this is a cause of island insensitivity of such reflexives.

A Movement Theory of Zibun   

(33)

   185

a.

[zibun1-ga utau] koe-o hizyooni John1 -wa [Mary -ga -Top -Nom self-Nom sing voice-Acc very much kiniitteiru to] omotteiru. like Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Mary likes the voice with which zibun1 sings very much.’

b.

John1 -wa [Mary -ga [zibun1-ga kaita] hon-o hotondo -Top -Nom self-Nom wrote book-Acc almost yonde-inai to] itta. read-not Comp said ‘John1 said that Mary had not read most of the books zibun1 wrote.’

Notice that in these cases, it is zibunL that must be inserted into the tail of the resulting chain of pro-movement, since the latter movement needs to move across the embedded subject Mary. Thus, (33a), for instance, is derived in the following way: (34)

a.

__ [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru] to] …       (operator movement of pro)

b.

pro1 [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga [pro1 utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru] to] …    (A-movement of pro)

c.

John1-wa [CP pro1 [TP Mary-ga [zibun1-ga utau] koe-o hizyooni kiniitteiru] to] omotteiru (overlay of John-wa onto the top copy of pro and of zibunL-ga onto its bottom copy)

In (34a), pro undergoes operator movement out of the relative clause island to the Spec of the embedded Spec-CP, crossing the embedded subject Mary. This movement would have induced an island violation if the tail position were not overlaid by zibunL. The A-movement from this operator position, shown in (34b), does not induce a MCL violation. Finally, insertion of John-wa and zibunL-ga into the top and bottom copies of the resulting chain, as shown in (34c), gives rise to the correct output.

186   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

8.3 Multiple Occurrences of Zibun This section aims to examine cases of multiple occurrences of zibun to see how the movement theory proposed in the previous section can accommodate these cases. Howard and Niyekawa-Howard (1976) claim that in such an example as the following, the two occurrences of zibun must take the same antecedent.¹³ (35)

Taroo -wa [Hanako-ga zibun-no heya-de zibun-no sigoto-o -Top -Nom self-Gen room-in self-Gen work-Acc siteita to] itta. was-doing Comp said ‘Taroo said that Hanako was doing zibun’s work in zibun’s room.’ (Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976, p. 230)

Under the present assumptions, the available readings will be derived as follows: (36)

a.

Taroo-wa [CP [TP pro1 [pro1 heya]-de [pro1 sigoto]-o siteita] to] itta           (ATB-movement of pro)

b.

Taroo-wa [CP [TP Hanako1-ga [zibun1-no heya]-de [zibun1-no sigoto]-o … (overlay of Hanako-ga onto the top copy of pro and of zibunA-no onto its two bottom copies)

13 Zushi (2001) makes a different observation with respect to the relationship between two occurrences of zibun and their antecedents: only crossing dependencies are unacceptable. She provides the following examples (the judgments indicated are hers): (i)

zibun2-o hihansita to] itta to] John -wa [Mary -ga [zibun1-no otooto-ga -Top -Nom self-Gen brother-Nom self-Acc criticized Comp said Comp omotteiru. think ‘John thinks that Mary said that zibun1’s brother criticized zibun2.’ a. b.

OK

John = zibun2, Mary = zibun1

* John = zibun1, Mary = zibun2

To me, this sentence has the same status as Howard and Niyekawa-Howard’s (=(35)) in that it only allows the two occurrences of zibun to take the same antecedent. Though I find that some people agree with Zushi’s judgments, I will put these judgments aside in the text (but see fn. 14 for relevant discussion). See Zushi (2001) for an account of them in terms of a crossing constraint on movement.

Multiple Occurrences of Zibun   

(37)

   187

a.

__ [CP pro1 [TP Hanako-ga [pro1 heya]-de [pro1 sigoto]-o siteita] to] itta       (ATB-movement of pro into the embedded Spec-CP)

b.

pro1 [CP pro1 [TP Hanako-ga [pro1 heya]-de [pro1 sigoto]-o siteita] to] itta    (A-movement of pro to the matrix subject position)

c.

Taroo1-wa [CP pro1 [TP Hanako-ga [zibun1-no heya]-de [zibun1-no sigoto]-o siteita] to] itta (overlay of Taroo-wa onto the top copy of pro and of zibunL-no onto its two bottom copies)

The final output of (36) represents the reading where both occurrences of zibun take Hanako as their antecedent, and that of (37) represents the reading where both occurrences of zibun take Taroo as their antecedent. The other two possible readings will be represented as in (38), which represents the stage where the whole embedded CP is constructed. (38) *[CP pro1/2 [TP pro2/1 [pro1 heya]-de [pro2 sigoto]-o siteita] to] Notice that to derive sentence (35) from this representation, either pro1 or pro2 must be overlaid by zibunL and the other by zibunA. Thus, under the present lexical ambiguity hypothesis, it is natural to attribute the unavailability of the two readings in question to the prohibition against a mixed insertion of zibunA and zibunL. Recall that we have assumed that in (38), the proposition expressed by this whole embedded CP corresponds to the domain over which the referent serving as the antecedent of zibunL holds its point of view. Now I propose that the relevant condition should be characterized as follows: (39)

ZibunA cannot be inserted in the point-of-view domain of zibunL.

Here “the point-of-view domain of zibunL” means the domain over which its referent holds its point of view. From this condition, it follows that zibunA cannot be inserted into the tail position of either pro1 or pro2 in (38) if the tail position of the other pro is overlaid by zibunL. This in turn means that sentence (35) cannot be properly derived without having the two occurrences of zibun take the same antecedent.¹⁴ 14 Those Japanese native speakers that share their judgments with Zushi (2001), as noted in the previous footnote, may be claimed not to obey condition (39) for some reason, hence simply obeying a constraint on crossing dependencies. It seems that the latter constraint works for

188   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

The above account is supported by the fact that as long as there is no violation of (39), two occurrences of zibun can take different antecedents. Let us consider the following example, which is a variant of (35) in which zibun-no heya-de ‘in self’s room’ is scrambled in front of the embedded subject Hanako-ga: (40)

Taroo -wa [[zibun-no heya-de]1 Hanako -ga t1 zibun-no sigoto-o -Top self-Gen room-in -Nom self-Gen work-Acc siteita to] itta. was-doing Comp said ‘Taro said that Hanako was doing zibun’s work in zibun’s room.’

Comparing this sentence with (35), we immediately see that unlike (35), it has the reading on which the first occurrence of zibun refers to Taroo whereas the second refers to Hanako.¹⁵ This reading is derived as follows: (41)

a.

[CP [TP [pro1 heya]-de [TP pro2 [pro2 sigoto]-o siteita]] to]               (A-movement of pro2 to the embedded subject position)

b.

[CP [TP [pro1 heya]-de [TP Hanako2-ga [zibun2-no sigoto]-o siteita]] to] (overlay of Hanako-ga onto the top copy of pro2 and of zibunA-no onto its bottom copy)

c.

pro1 [CP [TP [pro1 heya]-de [TP Hanako2-ga [zibun2-no sigoto]-o siteita]]   to] itta (A-movement of pro1 to the matrix subject position)

anaphoric relations more generally, including those anaphoric relations that involve pro. Let us consider the following example, which is a variant of (i) in fn. 13 where both occurrences of zibun are simply omitted: (i)

itta to] omotteiru. John -wa [Mary -ga [[pro1 otooto]-ga pro2 hihansita to] -Top -Nom brother-Nom criticized Comp said Comp think ‘John thinks that Mary said that pro1’s brother criticized pro2.’ a. b.

OK

John = pro2, Mary = pro1

* John = pro1, Mary = pro2

Even in this case, the crossing dependency (the case of (ib)) is prohibited whereas the nesting dependency (the case of (ia)) is allowed. This suggests that the condition on crossing dependencies is a general condition on anaphoric relations that works independently of condition (39). 15 See Kim and Kitagawa (2002) for the original observation that scrambling makes possible what they call mixed readings of zibun, i.e., those where multiple occurrences of zibun take different antecedents.

Multiple Occurrences of Zibun   

d.

   189

Taroo1-wa [CP [TP [zibun1-no heya]-de [TP Hanako2-ga [zibun2-no sigoto]-o siteita]] to] itta (overlay of Taroo-wa onto the top copy of pro1 and of zibunA-no onto its bottom copy)

Note that the A-movement of pro from the Spec of the DP [pro heya] to the matrix subject position at the stage given in (41c) does not cross any possible antecedent, hence satisfying the MCL. Thus, zibunA is inserted into the tail position of the resulting A-chain, which thus makes condition (39) irrelevant. Let us consider another example that illustrates a case where two occurrences of zibun can take different antecedents: (42)

John1 -wa [[zibun1-ga sukina] tomodati]2-ga zibun1,2-no dooryoo-o -Top self-Nom like friend-Nom self-Gen colleague-Acc izimeta to] kiita. bullied Comp heard ‘John1 heard that [a friend zibun1 likes]2 bullied zibun1,2’s colleague.’

In this sentence, the second occurrence of zibun can take as its antecedent not only John but also zibun-ga sukina tomodati ‘self’s favorite friend’. The reading on which the two occurrences of zibun take different antecedents is derived as follows: (43)

a.

[CP [TP pro2 [pro2 dooryoo]-o izimeta] to]       (A-movement of pro2 to the embedded subject position)

b.

[CP [TP [pro1 sukina tomodati]-ga [zibun2-no dooryoo]-o izimeta] to] (overlay of [pro1 sukina tomodati]-ga onto the top copy of pro2 and of zibunA-no onto its bottom copy)

c.

pro1 [CP [TP [pro1 sukina tomodati]-ga [zibun2-no dooryoo]-o izimeta]   to] kiita (A-movement of pro1 to the matrix subject position)

d.

John1-wa [CP [TP [zibun1-no sukina tomodati]-ga [zibun2-no dooryoo]-o … (overlay of John-wa onto the top copy of pro1 and of zibunA-no onto its bottom copy)

The pro-movement at the stage given in (43c) does not violate the MCL, hence producing an A-chain. Thus, zibunA is inserted into the tail position of pro1. Note that

190   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

in this case, the island violation that would be caused by the movement of pro1 is nullified by this insertion of zibunA. Here again, condition (39) is irrelevant, since neither occurrence of zibun is zibunL. Let us now consider the following example: (44) *Sono kisya1-wa Obama2 -kara [zibun1-no dooryoo-ga zibun2-no that reporter-Top -from self-Gen colleague-Nom self-Gen huku-daitooryoo-o syoosan-siteiru to] kiita. vice-president-Acc admire Comp heard ‘The news reporter1 heard from Obama2 that zibun1’s colleague admired zibun2’s vice-president.’ This sentence does not have the most natural reading indicated by indices. There are two possible ways to derive this reading under the present system. One is shown below:¹⁶ (45)

a.

[CP pro2 [TP [pro1 dooryoo]-ga [pro2 huku-daitooryoo]-o syoosan-siteiru]     to] (A’-movement of pro2)

b.

pro1 pro2-kara [CP pro2 [TP [pro1 dooryoo]-ga [pro2 huku-daitooryoo]-o …   (A-movement of pro1 and pro2)

c. *pro1 pro2-kara [CP pro2 [TP [zibun1-no dooryoo]-ga [zibun2-no huku-daitooryoo]-o syoosan-siteiru] to] kiita (insertion of zibunA-no into the bottom copy of pro1 and of zibunL-no into the bottom copy of pro2) At the stage of (45a), A’-movement of pro2 takes place from the Spec of the DP [pro2 huku-daitooryoo] to the embedded Spec-CP. At the stage of (45b), pro2 under16 As noted in fn. 1, zibunA obeys the subject orientation requirement, so that when zibun takes Obama as its antecedent in such a sentence as (44), it must be a logophor. The following example shows that the anaphoric relation of zibun and Obama is possible in such a configuration: (i)

zibun1-no Sono kisya-wa Obama1 -kara [nihon-no syusyoo-ga that reporter-Top -from Japan-Gen prime minister-Nom self-Gen huku-daitooryoo-o syoosan-siteiru to] kiita. vice-president-Acc admire Comp heard ‘The news reporter heard from Obama1 that the Japanese Prime Minister admired zibun1’s vice-president.’

Multiple Occurrences of Zibun   

   191

goes further movement to the matrix position to which -kara ‘from’ is attached and pro1 undergoes A-movement from the Spec of the DP [pro1 dooryoo] to the matrix subject position. In this representation, zibunA cannot be inserted into the bottom copy of pro1 if at the same time zibunL is inserted into the bottom copy of pro2, since this would induce a violation of (39). The other way of deriving sentence (44) would involve A’-movement of not only pro2 but also pro1, so that the tail positions of the resulting A’-chains are both overlaid by zibunL. In this case, the derivation proceeds as follows: (46)

a.

[CP pro1, pro2 [TP [pro1 dooryoo]-ga [pro2 huku-daitooryoo]-o     syoosan-siteiru] ... (A’-movement of pro1 and pro2)

b.

pro1 pro2-kara [CP pro1, pro2 [TP [pro1 dooryoo]-ga [pro2   huku-daitooryoo]-o … (A-movement of pro1 and pro2)

c. *pro1 pro2-kara [CP pro1, pro2 [TP [zibun1-no dooryoo]-ga [zibun2-no huku-daitooryoo]-o syoosan-siteiru] to] kiita (insertion of zibunL-no into the bottom copy of pro1 as well as into the bottom copy of pro2) One may naturally raise the question whether or not this derivation involves a superfluous movement of pro1; since pro1 can undergo A-movement directly to the matrix subject position, as shown in the derivation given in (45), it would be superfluous if it underwent operator movement as an intermediate step to the final destination. In fact, I have claimed in Section 5.3 that such a superfluous movement is prohibited by an economy condition. However, in those cases where zibun is inserted into the tail positions of the resulting chains, such an intermediate step of operator movement will not be superfluous, since it will furnish insertion of zibunL instead of zibunA, thereby changing the semantic role of its referent into a point-of-view holder. Suppose that this reasoning is right, which thus allows operator movement of pro1 at the stage of (46a). Even under this supposition, the derivation given in (46) will be ruled out by the natural condition that forces a unique point of view in a given domain; let us call it Unique Point-of-View Condition (henceforth, UPVC). In (46c), then, insertion of zibunL into the tail positions of pro1 and pro2 leads to a violation of the UPVC, since their point-of-view domains coincide. In this way, we can exclude the possible derivations of (44) under the intended readings. That the UPVC is independently necessary is shown by such an example as the following, which is a variant of (44) where Obama and sono kisya ‘that reporter’ are swapped in their occurring positions:

192   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

(47) *Obama1 -wa sono kisya2-kara [zibun2-no dooryoo-ga -Top that reporter-from self-Gen colleague-Nom zibun1-no huku-daitooryoo-o syoosan-siteiru to] kiita. self-Gen vice-president-Acc admire Comp heard ‘Obama1 heard from the news reporter2 that zibun2’s colleague admired zibun1’s vice-president.’ In this case, both occurrences of zibun must be of the type zibunL; zibun1 cannot be of the type zibunA since its anaphoric relation to its antecedent crosses the embedded subject, and zibun2 cannot be of the type zibunA, either, since its antecedent is a non-subject (see fn. 16). As a result, both occurrences of zibun take the whole embedded clause as their point-of-view domain, hence violating the UPVC. It is then predicted that if two occurrences of zibunL can take different pointof-view domains, then this will give rise to an acceptable sentence. Consider the following example, provided by Zushi (2001): (48)

John1 -wa [Bill2-ga zibun1-no otooto-ni [zibun2-ga tensai -Top -Nom self-Gen brother-Dat self-Nom genius da to] itta to] omotteiru. be Comp said Comp think ‘John1 thinks that Bill2 told zibun1’s brother that zibun2 was a genius.’

Zushi claims in her note 46 that this sentence is acceptable with the reading where the first zibun refers to John and the second refers to Bill, though she also claims that the opposite reading is also possible. To me, the latter reading is unavailable and the former is quite easily available to (48). As noted in fn. 13, some people, including Zushi, allow the reading where two occurrences of zibun make nesting dependencies with their antecedents, whereas other people, including me, disallow such a reading. Under the present system, this reading is excluded as a violation of condition (39), as seen by the following stage of derivation for the relevant reading of (48): (49)

[CP pro1 [TP pro2 [pro2 otooto]-ni [CP pro1 [TP pro1 tensai da] to] itta] to]    

 

This represents the stage where the intermediate CP domain is produced. Here pro2 has undergone direct A-movement to the embedded subject position from the Spec of the DP [pro2 otooto] whereas pro1 has undergone successive-cyclic A’-movement to the Spec of the topmost CP. In this representation, zibunA cannot

Multiple Occurrences of Zibun   

   193

be inserted into the tail position of the resulting A-chain of pro2 without violating (39) if at the same time zibunL is inserted into the tail position of the resulting A’chain of pro1, since in that case, the point-of-view domain of zibunL would be the whole CP in (49), in which zibunA would be included. How about the other reading that gives rise to a cross-dependency of the two anaphoric relations involving zibun, as indicated in (48)? Under the present approach, the availability of this reading is exactly what it predicts. There are in fact two different ways to derive the reading in question. One involves the following derivation in the intermediate CP domain: (50)

[CP pro1 [TP pro2 [pro1 otooto]-ni [CP [TP pro2 tensai da] to] itta] to]    

In this derivation, pro1 has undergone A’-movement from the Spec of the DP [pro1 otooto] to the topmost Spec-CP whereas pro2 has undergone direct A-movement to the topmost Spec-TP from the embedded subject position. In this representation, however, zibunA cannot be inserted into the tail position of the resulting A-chain of pro2 without violating (39) if zibunL is also inserted into the tail position of the resulting A’-chain of pro1. There is another derivation, however, that does not induce a violation of (39), as shown below: (51)

[CP pro1 [TP pro2 [pro1 otooto]-ni [CP pro2 [TP pro2 tensai da] to] itta] to]    

 

In this derivation, pro2 has undergone A’-movement from the embedded subject position to the Spec-CP just above it and then has undergone further A-movement to the topmost Spec-TP. In this representation, the tail positions of the two resulting chains are both overlaid by zibunL and notice that these two occurrences of zibunL take different point-of-view domains: one overlaid onto the tail position of pro1 takes the whole CP as its point-of-view domain whereas the other takes the embedded CP as its point-of-view domain. Hence it does not induce a violation of the UPVC. In this way, (48) with its intended reading is derived in the way given in (51) where both occurrences of zibun function as logophors taking different point-of-view domains. Note that the acceptability of such a sentence as (48) with its intended reading strongly indicates that a constraint of the sort, proposed by Kim and Kitagawa (2002), that prohibits cross-dependencies of multiple occurrences of zibun altogether cannot be maintained. On the other hand, the present theory of zibun properly answers the question why an apparent cross-dependency does

194   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

not necessarily lead to the unavailability of the relevant reading: the reading in question obtains as long as the second occurrence of zibun is inserted into the tail position of a resulting A’-chain and as a logophor takes a point-of-view domain different from that of the first occurrence of zibunL. Compare (48) with such sentences as (35), (44) and (47), in which there is no such option available. Thus, a case such as (48) gives strong support to the present movement theory of zibun. Further support comes from the obvious prediction that the present theory makes: in such a case as (48), the second occurrence of zibun should show logophoric properties unambiguously. The prediction seems to be borne out, though the judgments involved may not be crystal-clear. Consider the following examples: (52)

a.

Mary1 -wa [Bill2-ga kanozyo1-no otooto-ni [zibun2-no -Top -Nom she-Gen brother-Dat self-Gen musume-ga uwaki-siteiru to] itta to] kiite daughter-Nom have-an-affair Comp said Comp hearing odoroita. was-surprised ‘Mary1 was surprised to hear that Bill2 had told her1 brother that zibun2’s daughter had an affair.’

b.

zibun1-no otooto-ni [zibun2-no Mary1 -wa [Bill2-ga -Top -Nom self-Gen brother-Dat self-Gen musume-ga uwaki-siteiru to] itta to] kiite daughter-Nom have-an-affair Comp said Comp hearing odoroita. was-surprised ‘Mary1 was surprised to hear that Bill2 had told zibun1‘s brother that zibun2’s daughter had an affair.’

(52a) allows the reading on which Bill does not know the fact that the woman that had an affair was in fact his daughter. Suppose that Bill witnessed a woman he had become acquainted with recently having an affair but that he does not know that the woman is one of his daughters he was separated from a long time ago. Knowing all of these, Mary was surprised to hear that Bill had witnessed his daughter having an affair. Under this scenario, (52a) can be appropriately uttered. This is because in (52a), zibun can be taken as a pure anaphor, hence not obeying the awareness condition that is imposed upon the logophor zibun. (52b), on the other hand, does not allow such a reading: unlike in (52a), Bill must be aware that the woman that had an affair was in fact his daughter. This follows under

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

   195

the present theory of zibun, since the second occurrence of zibun in (52b) must be a logophor taking the most embedded CP as its point-of-view domain. As a logophor, it requires its antecedent Bill to serve as a point-of-view holder of the proposition that self’s daughter had an affair, which thus implies that Bill must know that the woman that had an affair was his daughter. The same point can be made with the availability of statue readings to zibun. Consider the following examples: (53)

a.

Mary1 -wa [Bill2-ga kanozyo1-no otooto-ni [zibun2-ga -Top -Nom she-Gen brother-Dat self-Nom hadaka-de tatteiru to] itta to] kiite odoroita. naked stand Comp said Comp hearing was-surprised ‘Mary1 was surprised to hear that Bill2 had told her1 brother that zibun2 was standing naked.’

b.

Mary1 -wa [Bill2-ga zibun1-no otooto-ni [zibun2-ga hadaka-de -Top -Nom self-Gen brother-Dat self-Nom naked tatteiru to] itta to] kiite odoroita. stand Comp said Comp hearing was-surprised ‘Mary1 was surprised to hear that Bill2 had told zibun1‘s brother that zibun2 was standing naked.’

(53a) allows the statue reading of zibun. This is because zibun in this case can be taken as a pure anaphor. (53b), on the other hand, does not seem to allow the statue reading in question. Again, this follows, since the second occurrence of zibun must be a logophor in this case.

8.4 Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun This final section discusses the generic use of zibun and provides evidence for an approach of the kind presented in the previous section by examining multiple occurrences of generic zibun. A typical example of the generic use of zibun is provided below: (54)

[Zibun-ga katu koto] -ga zyuuyoo self-Nom win -Nom important ‘It is important for zibun to win.’

dearu. be

196   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

In this example, zibun does not refer to any particular person but rather to an arbitrary person, and hence to omit it in (54) does not change the meaning of this sentence in any significant way. This use of zibun has an interesting property with respect to its distribution: it is allowed only if no possible antecedent is available for it. Compare the following examples: (55)

a.

[Zibun-ga tomodati-o tasukeru koto]-ga zyuuyoo dearu. self-Nom friend-Acc help -Nom important be ‘It is important for zibun to help his/her friends.’

b.

[Tomodati-ga zibun-o tasukeru koto]-ga zyuuyoo dearu. friend-Nom self-Acc help -Nom important be ‘It is important for a friend to help zibun.’ (no generic reading of zibun)

(55a) is just like (54) in having the generic interpretation of zibun. (55b), on the other hand, lacks such an interpretation, apparently because tomodati-ga ‘friendNom’ is available for zibun as its antecedent. Such a restriction is not observed with generic sentences with pro; compare the following examples with those given in (55): (56)

a.

[pro Tomodati-o tasukeru koto]-ga zyuuyoo dearu. friend-Acc help -Nom important be ‘It is important to help his/her friends.’

b.

[Tomodati-ga pro tasukeru koto]-ga zyuuyoo dearu. friend-Nom help -Nom important be ‘Lit. It is important for his/her1 friends to help pro1.’

Recall that we have argued in Chapter 6 that generic interpretation of pro is derived from the following assumption: (57)

Pro can be assigned generic interpretation when it becomes an operator.

Thus, both in (56a) and (56b), pro undergoes operator movement to the matrix Spec-CP and functions as a generic operator there. To capture the fact that zibun can also give rise to generic interpretation, I first hypothesize the following: (58)

ZibunA may be inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain headed by a generic operator.

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

   197

Recall that we have assumed above that zibunA may be inserted into the tail position of the A-chain produced by pro-movement (cf. (17)). What (58) states is that there is another option for zibunA, namely, to be inserted into the tail position of the chain produced by operator-movement of pro that receives a generic interpretation by the operator being turned into a generic operator. Given this, it is natural to claim that the contrast shown in (55) with respect to the availability of the generic interpretation of zibun is attributed to the last resort nature of the insertion of zibunA into an A’-chain. To capture this, I modify (58) into the following: (59)

ZibunA may be inserted into the tail position T of the A’-chain headed by a generic operator only if there is no possible A-chain available that could be produced from T.

With this in mind, let us consider the stage of the derivation of (55b) and (56b) where the CP contained by the matrix subject is created: (60)

[CP pro1 [TP tomodati-ga pro1 tasukeru]]

In this structure, pro1 creates an operator-variable chain, and hence may be given a generic interpretation according to (57). Notice, however, that in this case, zibunA cannot be inserted into the tail position of this operator-variable chain, since it is possible to produce an A-chain from this position, namely the chain produced by pro-movement taking place from the position in question to that occupied by tomodati-ga ‘friend-Nom’. Thus, (59) correctly captures the fact that generic interpretation is possible with (56b), but not with (55b). Interestingly, as Chizuru Nakao (personal communication) pointed out to me, the generic interpretation of zibun becomes available with (55b) if some element is added that provides a perspective from which the expressed proposition is looked at. Thus, when the supporting verb kureru is attached to the verb tasukeru ‘help’ in (55b), as shown below, the generic interpretation of zibun becomes available: (61)

[Tomodati-ga zibun-o tasukete-kureru koto]-ga zyuuyoo dearu. friend-Nom self-Acc help -Nom important be ‘It is important for a friend to help zibun.’

According to Kuno and Kaburaki (1977), kureru is a verb used when the action is looked at from the point of view of the referent of a nonsubject. Thus, to add kureru in (61) has the effect of looking at the action of helping from the point of view of a person other than the subject tomodati ‘friend’, that is, an arbitrary

198   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

person serving as the referent of zibun. Given this, it is natural to reason that logophoric zibun can also give rise to generic interpretation. Thus, (58) should be modified in the following way: (62)

Either zibunA or zibunL may be inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain headed by a generic operator.

The insertion of zibunA in this case is subject to the condition given in (59) and that of zibunL requires a linguistic element that indicates that the referent of zibunL serves as the point-of-view holder. The last resort nature of the insertion of zibunA, as expressed in (59), reminds us of a restriction imposed upon the availability of the generic interpretation of PRO, as discussed in Chapter 7. As observed there, the OC cases of PRO do not allow the generic or arbitrary interpretation, as reproduced below: (63)

(64)

a.

John1 tried [PRO1 to leave].

b.

John persuaded Mary1 [PRO1 to leave].

c.

John1 killed someone [PRO1 to get insurance money].

a. *John tried [PROarb to leave]. b. *John persuaded Mary [PROarb to leave]. c. *John killed someone [PROarb to get insurance money].

We have followed a movement theory of control along the lines of Hornstein (1999, 2001) in that in the OC cases, PRO undergoes A-movement. Further, we have proposed, along the lines of Lebeaux (1984), that in the NOC cases, PRO undergoes operator movement to Spec-CP, and that such a null operator-like PRO can either be interpreted as arbitrary or undergo further movement to the position that will be occupied by an antecedent in a higher clause. Following the line of Hornsein’s (1999, 2001) characterization of NOC as a last resort, we have proposed the following: (65)

An invisible argument XP cannot move across a visible argument YP if the position occupied by YP is a possible landing site for XP-movement.

where visibility is determined by whether or not a given argument has checked its Case. Given that PRO is invisible in that it simply lacks Case, it follows from (65) that PRO cannot be interpreted as arbitrary in such OC contexts as given in

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

   199

(64), since it cannot move across John or Mary to move to the matrix Spec-CP and act as a generic operator. Given this characterization of generic PRO, it is tempting to capture the last resort nature of the generic interpretation in both cases of PRO and zibunA in a unified way, but I have not so far found any possible line of pursuing this unification; note that the pro-movement involved in producing an operator-variable chain for generic zibunA is an instance of movement of a visible argument, as witnessed by the insertion of zibunA with a case-marker. I must leave this endeavor for future research. We are now in a position to discuss cases of multiple occurrences of generic zibun. First, consider the following example: (66)

[Zibun-ga siai-ni katu koto] -wa [zibun-ga siai-ni self-Nom game-Dat win -Top self-Nom game-Dat makeru koto]-o hituyoo-to suru. lose -Acc require ‘[Zibun winning a game] requires [zibun losing a game].’

In this case, both occurrences of generic zibun must take the same value, so that this sentence is interpreted as such that for any person x, x’s winning a game requires x’s losing a game. Recall that we have made the same observation with generic sentences involving multiple occurrences of pro in Section 6.1, as reproduced below: (67)

[pro Siai-ni katu koto] -wa [pro siai-ni makeru koto]-o game-Dat win -Top game-Dat lose -Acc hituyoo-to suru. require ‘[pro winning a game] requires [pro losing a game].’

Here again, (67) must be interpreted in such a way that the winner and the loser are the same person, just like (66). Under the assumption that when more than one instance of pro moves to the same Spec CP, the movement involved must be applied in an ATB-fashion, (67) will involve the following derivation: (68)

[CP pro [TP [pro siai-ni katu koto]-wa [pro siai-ni makeru koto]-o hituyoo-to     suru]]

200   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

(66) will then be derived when the tail positions of the resulting A’-chains of the ATB-movement of pro are both overlaid by zibunA.¹⁷ We have also observed in Section 6.1 that the same person requirement imposed upon multiple occurrences of generic pro does not always hold, as shown below: (69)

[pro [pro Siai-ni katu koto] -o yookyuu-suru koto]-wa [pro [pro game-Dat win -Acc request -Top siai-ni makeru koto] -o yookyuu-suru koto] -o game-Dat lose -Acc request -Acc hituyoo-to suru. require ‘[pro requesting pro to win a game] requires [pro requesting pro to lose a game].’

This sentence must be interpreted in such a way that the person requesting the winning of a game must be the same as the one requesting the losing of a game, just as in (67), but the interesting point with this example lies in the fact that the person who wins a game can be different from the one who loses a game. In order to capture this fact, we have proposed the following: (70)

Pro must undergo operator movement at least as far as the Spec of the CP immediately dominating the A-domain for it.

(71)

The A-domain for α is the maximal category in which α could undergo A-movement.

Given (70), (69) will have the following representation:

17 We need to assume that the sentential subject [pro siai-ni katu koto]-wa ‘winning games’ is not a possible landing site for the movement of the second occurrence of pro, so that there is no possibility of producing an A-chain from the original position of this pro; otherwise, zibunA would not be inserted into the resulting A’-chain without violating condition (59). This may indicate that proposition-like arguments do not count as possible landing sites for pro-movement when (59) is calculated. Notice that the same proviso is necessary for those cases that involve multiple occurrences of generic PRO, as illustrated below: (i)

PRO winning games requires PRO losing games.

In this case too, it is necessary to assume that the sentential subject [PRO winning games] does not count as a possible landing site for the movement of the second occurrence of PRO, hence not inducing a violation of (65).

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

(72)

[CP1 pro1 [TP1 [[CP2 pro2 [TP2 pro1 [pro2 siai-ni katu koto]-o      to win a game

   201

yookyuu-suru]] requesting

koto]-wa [[CP3 pro3 [TP3 pro1 [pro3

siai-ni makeru koto]-o to lose a game

yookyuu-suru]] koto]-o requesting

hituyoo-to suru]] require In this representation, the upper pro’s, namely, those functioning as the subjects of requesting, must move to the matrix Spec-CP, just like those in (68), via ATB-movement; hence the same person requirement is imposed upon them. On the other hand, the lower pro’s, i.e., pro2 and pro3, can move to the Spec’s of the subject and object CPs of the predicate hituyoo-to suru ‘require’, namely, those of CP2 and CP3, respectively, since they cannot be extracted out of TP2 and TP3 by A-movement due to the intervening subject pro1, hence TP2 and TP3 constituting A-domains for them. This gives rise to the interpretation in which generic pro2 and pro3 take different values. One might then expect that when the lower pro’s in (69) are replaced by zibun, as given below, these occurrences of zibun do not have to take the same value. (73)

[pro [Zibun-ga siai-ni katu koto] -o yookyuu-suru koto] -wa [pro self-Nom game-Dat win -Acc request -Top [zibun-ga siai-ni makeru koto]-o yookyuu-suru koto] -o self-Nom game-Dat lose -Acc request -Acc hituyoo-to suru. require ‘[pro requesting zibun to win a game] requires [pro requesting zibun to lose a game].’

Contrary to this expectation, the two occurrences of zibun must take the same value; on top of that, they must take the same value as the upper pro’s. This is exactly what we predict, however, given condition (59): In (72), insertion of zibunA into the tail positions of the A’-chains produced by operator movement of pro2 and pro3 is prohibited by this condition, since there are possible A-chains available that could be produced from the original positions of pro2 and pro3, namely those whose head would be pro1 in Spec-TP. Instead, the two occurrences of zibun must be inserted into the tail positions of the A-chains that are produced

202   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

by pro moving to the positions occupied by the upper pro’s, as indicated by the following representation: (74)

[CP1 pro1 [TP1 [[CP2 [TP2 pro1 [pro2 siai-ni katu koto]-o yookyuu-suru]] koto]-wa       to win a game requesting [[CP3 [TP3 pro1 [pro3 siai-ni makeru koto]-o yookyuu-suru]] koto]-o   to lose a game requesting hituyoo-to suru]] require

In this representation, zibunA can be successfully inserted into the tail positions of the A-chains produced by movement of pro2 and pro3. Since both pro2 and pro3 are connected to pro1 via Move, all these three occurrences of pro take the same value, which means that when zibunA is inserted into the A-chains of pro2 and pro3, it must take the same value as the upper pro’s in (73). This account is confirmed by the fact that given a configuration where the upper pro’s do not have to take the same value, then the two occurrences of zibun do not have to take the same value, either. Let us first consider the following example: (75)

[pro [pro Siai-ni katu koto] -o yookyuu-suru koto] -wa [pro [pro game-Dat win -Acc request -Top siai-ni makeru koto] -o yookyuu-suru no] to onazi-kurai game-Dat lose -Acc request with same-extent zyuuyoo dearu. important be ‘[pro requesting pro to win a game] is as important as [pro requesting pro to lose a game].’

In this example, the upper pro’s can refer to different persons, unlike those in (69). This will follow from the fact that the second upper pro is located within the adjunct phrase -to onazi-kurai ‘to the same extent …’, so that its A-domain is confined in this adjunct phrase. Suppose that pro can undergo operator movement to the Spec of the -to phrase of -to onazi-kurai in such a case. Then, (75) can have the following representation: (76)

[CP1 pro1 [TP1 [[CP2 [TP2 pro1 [pro2 siai-ni katu koto]-o yookyuu-suru]] koto]-wa       to win a game requesting

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

[PP pro3 [[CP3 [TP3 pro3 [pro4       onazi-kurai zyuuyoo same-extent important

   203

siai-ni makeru koto]-o yookyuu-suru]] no]-to] to lose a game requesting dearu]] be

Here pro1 and pro3 undergo operator movement independently, hence being able to take different values. Let us now consider the case in which the lower pro’s in (75) is replaced by zibun: (77)

[pro [Zibun-ga siai-ni katu koto] -o yookyuu-suru koto] -wa [pro self-Nom game-Dat win -Acc request -Top [zibun-ga siai-ni makeru koto]-o yookyuu-suru no] to self-Nom game-Dat lose -Acc request with onazi-kurai zyuuyoo dearu. same-extent important be ‘[pro requesting zibun to win a game] is as important as [pro requesting zibun to lose a game].’

Here the two occurrences of zibun can refer to different persons, though they must refer to the same persons as the upper pro’s, respectively. This fact follows immediately since (77) is derived from (76) by inserting zibunA into the tail positions of the A-chains produced by movement of pro2 and pro4. The following example, provided to me by Roger Martin (personal communication), shows that it will not suffice just to insert zibunA into the tail position of a generic operator chain and make the other occurrence of zibun licensed in situ. (78)

[Zibun-ga katu koto] -ga [tomodati-ga zibun-o sukuu] koto -o self-Nom win -Nom friend-Nom self-Acc save -Acc kanoo-ni suru. make-possible ‘That zibun will win makes it possible for his/her friend to save zibun.’

This example is interpreted in such a way that the first occurrence of zibun functions as generic and the second occurrence of zibun refers to tomodati ‘friend’, but crucially it cannot have the reading where both occurrences of zibun are interpreted as generic. This fact follows under the assumption that each occurrence of the generic uses of zibunA must be inserted into the tail position of a generic operator chain. As predicted, both occurrences of zibun in (78) can be interpreted as generic if the second occurrence of zibun is properly licensed as a logophor.

204   

   A Movement Theory of Reflexives

Thus, this generic interpretation becomes available with (78) if the supporting verb kureru is attached to the verb sukuu ‘save’, as shown below: (79)

[Zibun-ga katu koto] -ga [tomodati-ga zibun-o sukutte-kureru] self-Nom win -Nom friend-Nom self-Acc save koto -o kanoo-ni suru. -Acc make-possible ‘That zibun will win makes it possible for his/her friend to save zibun.’

In this case, the generic interpretation will be derived from the following representation: (80)

[CP1 pro1 [TP1 [pro1 katu koto]-ga [CP2 pro2 [TP2 tomodati-ga pro2 sukutte-kureru …                

Here zibunA may be inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain of pro1 without violating (59) and zibunL may be inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain of pro2 thanks to the supporting verb providing a designated point of view. A question will arise with respect to how the occurrence of pro2 in Spec-CP functions in the representation given in (80). We have seen that it functions as a generic operator, but notice that when zibunL is inserted into the tail position of the generic operator chain, pro2 should also function as the marker of the point-of-view domain for the referent of zibunL. The relevant question is, can this occurrence of pro serve for both functions? There is evidence that the answer is negative, which has to do with the same person requirement. Notice that given representation (80), it will be predicted that the two occurrences of generic pro do not have to covary in their semantic values. This is in fact borne out with the following example: (81)

[pro Katu koto]-ga [tomodati-ga pro sukutte-kureru] koto -o win -Nom friend-Nom save -Acc kanoo-ni suru. make-possible ‘That pro will win makes it possible for his/her1 friend to save pro1.’

This sentence can be interpreted as such that for any person x, y, that x will win makes it possible for y’s friend to save y. For instance, (81) may be uttered in the situation where everyone expects anyone participating in Olympic games to win medals, so that this may create an atmosphere of people saving each other’s friends from their crisis in living. On the other hand, (79) does not allow such a

Multiple Occurrences of Generic Zibun   

   205

reading but rather demands that the two occurrences of generic zibun covary in their semantic values. The same reading obtains even if the first occurrence of zibun is turned into pro, as shown below: (82)

[pro Katu koto]-ga [tomodati-ga zibun-o sukutte-kureru] koto -o win -Nom friend-Nom self-Acc save -Acc kanoo-ni suru. make-possible ‘That pro will win makes it possible for his/her1 friend to save zibun1.’

This indicates that when zibunL is inserted into the A’-chain of pro2 in (80), the occurrence of pro2 in Spec-CP uniquely functions as the marker of the pointof-view domain for the referent of zibunL, so that it needs to be anchored to an independent generic operator, the occurrence of pro1 in the matrix Spec-CP in the present case. This results in the reading where both occurrences of generic zibun take the same value in (79) and where generic pro and generic zibun take the same value in (82).

9 Conclusions Under the theme that construal rules must be reformulated in terms of Move, I have demonstrated how a movement theory of anaphora can be constructed on the basis of the insights of linking theory. One important ingredient of this theory is a repair strategy by overt pronoun. It has been standard to separate anaphoric relations from those produced by movement since only the latter exhibit some locality effects such as those induced by islands. I have claimed that this difference is reduced to the necessity of the repair strategy by overt pronoun: though anaphoric relations involve Move, their locality effects are covered up by this strategy. Our movement theory of anaphora aims to explain mainly obviation effects such as those of Conditions B and C and strong and weak crossover. It incorporates such movement properties as upward movement, sideward movement, and ATB-movement. To restrict the application of movement to being upward guarantees that the anaphoric relations that induce Condition C violations are not derivable. Sideward movement is exploited to establish non-ccommanding coreference relations. ATB-movement is exploited to establish the anaphoric relations that involve weakest crossover configurations, whereas weak crossover cases are explained as a violation of the identity requirement on the target phrases of ATB-movement. Furthermore, I have shown that a minimality condition on ATB-movement plays a crucial role in explaining a variety of strong crossover effects. Especially, the effects of Barss’s (1986) COC are naturally captured by this minimality condition. There are mainly two consequences of this movement theory of anaphora. One is concerned with reconstruction effects of binding and scope. I argued that this movement theory enables us to maintain an approach that assumes no reconstruction, hence compatible with Chomsky’s (1995) position that no reconstruction takes place in A-chains. Thus, this theory argues against Lebeaux’s (2009) position that reconstruction takes place in any member of a produced chain in principle, hence depriving such accompanying postulations as Single Tree Condition and homogeneity conjecture of their validity. The other consequence of this movement theory of anaphora is concerned with so-called pro-drop phenomena. Given the assumption that an anaphoric relation is established via pro-movement, this theory provides us with a new way of dealing with these phenomena. Especially, it allows us to claim that pro-drop is licensed when pro-movement does not induce any locality violation. This case is instantiated in pro-movement taking place from the embedded subject position of a tensed clause to the higher one in such a language as Japanese that does not show NIC effects. The pro-movement in this case produces an A-chain without

Conclusions   

   207

any repair strategy followed up. The other case that licenses pro-drop arises in a language that allows operator movement of pro as a repair strategy alternative to pronouncing the tail of a produced chain. This option allows pro to take a longdistant antecedent thanks to the availability of operator movement as an intermediate step. The most significant consequence of this characterization of pro-drop is that the two options of licensing pro-drop correlate in a perspicuous way with the OC and NOC cases of PRO. This enabled us to develop a unified theory of pro and PRO. Finally, I have argued for a movement theory of reflexives by examining the Japanese reflexive zibun. Following the lexical ambiguity hypothesis proposed by Abe (1997), according to which zibun is ambiguous between a pure anaphor and a logophor, I have proposed that the anaphor zibun is inserted into the tail position of the A-chain produced by pro-movement, whereas the logophor zibun is inserted into the tail position of the A’-chain produced by operator movement of pro. Again, this nicely fits into the recurrent picture in which one and the same element participates in A-chains for its local anaphoric relations and in A’-chains for its long-distant anaphoric relations.

References Abe, Jun. 1987. ‘Anaphoric INFL’, in J. Abe, H. Ohnishi, and S. Saito (eds), Tsukuba English Studies Vol. 6, Tsukuba English Linguistic Society, University of Tsukuba. Abe, Jun. 1992. ‘The Nature of Anaphors and Distributivity’, ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. Abe, Jun. 1993. Binding Conditions and Scrambling without A/A' Distinction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Abe, Jun. 1997. ‘The Locality of Zibun and Logophoricity’, Report for Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies, 595–626. Abe, Jun. 2002. ‘On the Displacement Property of Language and Minimality’, ms., Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai. Abe, Jun. 2009. ‘Identification of Null Arguments in Japanese’, in H. Hoshi (ed), The Dynamics of the Language Faculty: Perspectives from Linguistics and Cognitive Neuroscience. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers, 135–162. Abe, Jun. 2012a. ‘Can a Modular Approach to Binding Be Successful?’, English Linguistics 29, 382–412. Abe, Jun. 2012b. ‘String-Vacuity and LF Interpretation in A-Chains: Cases of ECM and Nominative-Genitive Conversion’, ms., Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai. Abe, Jun. 2013. ‘Backward Anaphora in Japanese: Cases of Condition C Violations’, in K. Yatsushiro and U. Sauerland (eds), Proceedings of FAJL 6, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 66, 5–15. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and Its Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. ‘Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. ‘A-Chains at the PF Interface: Copies and ‘Covert’ Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 197–267. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2007. ‘Overt Copies in Reflexive and Control Structures: A Movement Analysis’, in A. Conroy, C. Jing, C. Nakao, and E. Takahashi (eds), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15. College Park, Maryland: UMWPiL, 1–46. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Borer, Hagit. 1989. ‘Anaphoric AGR’, in O. Jaeggli and K.J. Safir (eds), The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 69–109. Bouchard, Dennis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. ‘Control and Complementation’, in J. Bresnan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 282–390. Browning, Margaret. 1987. Null Operator Constructions, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1, 181–234. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. ‘Conditions on Transformations’, in S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds), Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 232–286. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

References   

   209

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1–52. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. ‘Categories and Transformations’, in N. Chomsky, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 219–394. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’, in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89–155. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. ‘Beyond Expanatory Adequacy’, in A. Belletti (ed), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. ’On Phases’, in R. Freidin, C.P. Otero, and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 133–166. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. ‘The Theory of Principles and Parameters’, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann (eds), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 506–69. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’ Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. 2001. ‘Control is Not Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 493–512. Ferreira, Marcelo. 2004. ‘Hyperraising and Null Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese’, in A. Castro, M. Ferreira, V. Hacquard, and A.P. Salanova (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax, 57–85. Ferreira, Marcelo. 2009. ‘Null Subjects and Finite Control in Brazilian Portuguese’, in J. Nunes (ed), Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–49. Fox, Danny. 1999. ‘Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157–196. Freidin, Robert. 1986. ‘Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding’, in B. Lust (ed), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 151–188. Giorgi, Alessandra. 2007. ‘On the Nature of Long-Distance Anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry 38, 321–342. Gutman, Eynat. 2004. ‘Third Person Null Subjects in Hebrew, Finnish and Rumanian: An Accessibility-Theoretic Account’, Journal of Linguistics 40, 463–490. Hasegawa, Nobuko (1984/5). ‘On the So-Called ‘Zero Pronouns’ in Japanese’, The Linguistic Review 4, 289–341. Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik and Robert May. 1991. ‘Reciprocity and Plurality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63–101. Hicks, Glyn. 2009. ‘Tough-Constructions and Their Derivation’, Linguistic Inquiry 40, 535–566. Higginbotham, James. 1981. ‘Reciprocal Interpretation’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1.3, 97–117.

210   

   References

Higginbotham, James. 1983. ‘Logical Form, Binding, and Nominals’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 395–420. Holmberg, Anders. 2005. ‘Is There a Little Pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36, 533–564. Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96. Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move!: A Minimalist Approach to Construal. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. Howard, Irwin and Agnes Niyekawa-Howard. 1976. ‘Passivization’, in M. Shibatani (ed), Syntax and Semantics 5. New York: Academic Press, 201–238. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574. Huang, C.-T. James and C.-S. Luther Liu. 2001. ‘Logophoricity, Attitudes, and Ziji at the Interface’, in P. Cole, G. Hermon and C.-T.J. Huang (eds), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 33: Long-Distance Reflexives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 141–195 Ito, Yuki. 2010. ‘Move versus Non-Move: Minimalist Analysis of Long-Distance Reflexives and Logophoric Pronouns’, Linguistic Research 26, Working Papers in English Linguistics. English Linguistics Association, The University of Tokyo, 67–103. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Katada, Fusa. 1991. ‘The LF Representation of Anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–313. Kayne, Richard. 2002. ‘Pronouns and Their Antecedents’, in S.D. Epstein, T.D. Seely (eds), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 133–166. Kim, Ae-Ryung and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. ‘Opacity in Japanese and Korean’, in N.M. Akatsuka and S. Strauss (eds), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 601–614. Kim, Soowon. 1999. ‘Sloppy/Strict Identity, Empty Objects, and NP Ellipsis’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 255–284. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Kuno, Susumu. 1972. ‘Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 161–195. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1976. ‘Subject Raising’, in M. Shibatani (ed), Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 17–49. Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. ‘Empathy and Syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627–672. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1973. ‘On Kuno’s Direct Discourse Analysis of the Japanese Reflexive Zibun’, Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2, 136–147. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1983. ‘What can Japanese Say about Government and Binding?’, in M. Barlow, D.P. Flickinger, and M.T. Wescoat (eds), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association, 153–164. Landau, Idan. 2004. ‘The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 811–877.

References   

   211

Larson, Richard. 1988. ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391. Lasnik, Howard. 1994. ‘Operators and Obviation’, in J. Abe, L. Ferro, L. Laporte-Grimes, D. Takahashi, and M. Yamashina (eds), UConn Working Papers in Linguistics 4: Papers in Honor of David Michaels, 99–110. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. ‘A Note on Pseudogapping’, in R. Pensalfini and H. Ura (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: Papers on Minimalist Syntax, 143–163. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. ‘Chains of Arguments’, in S.D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 189–215. Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. ‘Weakest Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687–720. Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka. 1988. A Course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lebeaux, David. 1984. ‘Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO’, in C. Jones and P. Sells (eds), Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts. Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Lebeaux, David. 1990. ‘Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation’, in J. Carter, R.-M. Déchaine, B. Philip, and T. Sherer (eds), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 20. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, 318–332. Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where Does Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. ‘Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language’, in C.N. Li (ed), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489. Litz, Jeffrey. 2001. ‘Condition R’, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 123–140. Manzini, Maria Rita. 1983. ‘On Control and Control Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421–446. May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Motomura, Mitsue. 2001. ‘Zibun as a Residue of Overt A-movement’, in M.C. Cuervo, D. Harbour, K. Hiraiwa, and S. Ishihara (eds), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41, 309–325. Montalbetti, Mario M. 1984. After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1984. ‘Control and the Thematic Domain’, Language 60, 215–250. Nunes, Jairo. 2001. ‘Sideward Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303–344. Nunes, Jairo. 2012. ‘Sideward Movement: Triggers, Timing, and Outputs’, in M. Uribe-Etxebarria and V. Valmala (eds.), Ways of Structure Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114–142. Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A Theory of Selection and Reconstruction in the Minimalist Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Perlmutter, David. 1972. ‘Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization’, in P.M. Peranteau, J.N. Levi, and G.C. Phares (eds), The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 73–105. Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2002. ‘Backward Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 33:245–282. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1992. ‘Anaphors in English and the Scope of Binding Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303. Raposo, Eduardo. 1986. ‘On the Null Object in European Portuguese’, in O. Jaeggli and C. Silva-Corvalán (eds), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 373–390. Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland. 1993. ‘Reflexivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720. Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

212   

   References

Rodrigues, Cilene. 2002. ‘Morphology and Null Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese’, in D. Lightfoot (ed), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160–178. Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-Movement out of Case Domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Safir, Ken. 1984. ‘Multiple Variable Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603–638. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Sportiche, Dominique. 1983. Structural Invariance and Symmetry in Syntax, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Tanaka, Hidekazu, George Tsoulas and Norman Yeo. 2011. ‘(Quantificational) Objects on the Edge’, Talk given at Nanzan University in December, 2011. Taraldsen, K. Tarald. 1978. ‘On the NIC, Vacuous Application and the That-Trace Filter’, ms., MIT. Torrego, Esther. 2002. ‘Arguments for a Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations Based on Clitics’, in S.D. Epstein and T.D. Seely (eds), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 249–268. Ueda, Masanobu. 1986. ‘On the Japanese Reflexive Zibun’, in D. Lebeaux and A. Mester (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10, 81–113. Uchibori, Asako. 2000. The Syntax of Subjunctive Complements: Evidence from Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Uchibori, Asako. 2001. ‘Raising out of CP and C-T Relations’, in M.C. Cuervo, D. Harbour, K. Hiraiwa, and S. Ishihara (eds), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 3, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 41, 145–162. Vainikka, Anne and Yonata Levy. 1999. ‘Empty Subjects in Finnish and Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 613–671. Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric Relations in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Williams, Edwin. 1978. ‘Across-the-Board Rule Application’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31–43. Williams, Edwin. 1980. ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238. Yang, Dong-Whee. 1984. ‘The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors’, Theoretical Linguistic Research 2, 195–218. Zushi, Mihoko. 2001. Long-Distance Dependencies. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

Index A-domain 123–127, 130, 135, 150, 153, 167, 200–202 Agree 10, 166–167 agreement – rich 112–113, 163–164, 170 – verb-, 86, 115 anaphor – zibun (zibunA) 177 antecedent – “long-distant” 146–148, 159, 168 – split 95–96, 101–103, 107–109, 133–135, 157–158, 161 binding category 146–149 chain composition 170; see also composed chain clause – infinitival interrogative 159–162 – infinitival relative 169 – purpose 169 closure 146–147, 150 composed chain 41–42, 44–45, 48, 50, 52–54 condition/Condition – adjunct 27, 29–30; see also adjunct (clause) island – awareness 172–173, 180, 194 – B 3, 11–12, 57, 71–72 – bound variable 66, 68 – C 14–15, 17, 39–40, 66, 68, 70–72 – Chain Obviation (COC) 41–42, 45, 47–48, 51–54 – Extension (EC) 14–15, 17–18, 22–23, 34, 44, 55, 65, 68, 70, 153 – Left Branch (LBC) 24, 26, 30–32, 67–68, 113, 179 – Minimal Link 105 – minimality 35–37, 42–45, 48–52, 54–55, 63 – negative 4, 70–72 – Nominative Island (NIC) 11, 97–99, 110–112, 114–115, 123, 163–164, 171

– Single Tree 61–64, 66, 68 – Specified Subject (SSC) 78–79, 81–85, 97, 99, 101, 105–106, 114, 122, 165, 171–175, 179 – Tensed S 163 – Unique Point-of-View (UPVC) 191–193 conjecture – homogeneity 4, 71–72 – interface 4, 71 constraint/Constraint – crossing 154, 186 – Overt Pronoun 114 constructions – parasitic gap (PG) 25–26, 31, 34, 36, 40, 44, 47, 53, 106, 166, 169–170 – tough- 25–26, 31, 34, 166, 169 control – adjunct 5, 16, 29, 108–109, 152, 159, 163 – long distance 52 – non-obligatory (NOC) 5–6, 145–146, 148–150, 152, 158, 165, 170, 198 – obligatory (OC) 5–6, 103, 105, 108–109, 145, 147–149, 157–158, 162, 165, 170, 198 crossover – strong 3, 33–34, 37–42, 47, 52–53 – weak 3, 24, 30, 32–35, 38 – weakest 25, 31, 34, 37 dependency – crossing/cross- 188, 193 – nesting 188 de se interpretation 103–104, 157–158, 162 direct linking 54 distributor 90 – covert (covert D) 87–89, 91–92 equi-distance 46, 105, 152–153 experiencer 60, 63, 176, 182 Freidin-Lebeaux generalization 17 functional determination approach 170

214   

   Index

Generalized Control Rule (GCR) 137 generic – pro/PRO 117–118, 120–122, 200, 204 – supporting form (GSF) 125–126, 132–134, 160 – zibun 195, 199, 205 implicit argument 94 (in)visible argument 151, 153, 164, 169–170, 198–199 island(-) – adjunct (clause) 16, 109, 136, 139–141 – insensitive/insensitivity 109, 183–184 – relative clause 69–70, 136–137, 184–185 – sensitive 183 – wh- 142–143 language – subject-prominent 85–86, 166, 168, 170 – topic-prominent 85–86, 115, 166, 168, 170 last resort 13, 101, 147, 149–151, 164, 197–199 Last Resort Principle 150 lexical ambiguity hypothesis 6, 171–175, 177, 187 logophor(ic) 171–172, 174–175, 177, 180, 190, 193–195, 203 – zibun (zibunL) 171, 177, 179–182, 185, 187, 190–194, 198, 204–205 Minimal Distance Principle 105, 147 Minimize Chain Links (MCL) 10–11, 28–29, 46–47, 99–101, 105–106, 113–114, 123–124, 132, 135–136, 139–144, 152, 154, 161, 164–165, 179, 181, 184–185, 189 movement – across-the-board (ATB-) 24–27, 30–34, 37, 43, 45, 49–50, 54–55, 63, 121–122, 124, 130, 182, 186–187, 200–201 – pro-/PRO-, 5, 8, 11–13, 19, 24, 64, 97, 99, 101, 109, 153, 162–164, 181 – sideward 5, 15–19, 21–25, 37–38, 64, 67, 69, 71, 73, 109, 181–182 nominative-genitive conversion 97–98, 111 non-c-commanding anaphora 17

null – Case 150 – topic 83–86, 143–144, 168, 170 operator – generic 116, 118–119, 121, 123–126, 154, 160, 196–199, 203–205 – interpretation 146 – null 25–26, 39–40, 51, 83–84, 106, 146–149, 154, 166, 169 partition 87, 89 path 35–37, 43, 51, 54–56, 63 point-of-view – domain 187, 191–195, 204 – holder 177, 181–182, 191, 195, 198 possible landing site 10–11, 28, 46, 99–100, 133–134, 152–154, 161, 164, 169, 181, 184, 198, 200 pro – adjunct 65–66 – anaphoric (A-pro) 78, 82–86, 89–90, 92–94, 96 – -drop 5–6, 12, 76, 110–112, 114–115 pronominalization 13 quantifier lowering 60 Quantifier Raising (QR) 22, 24, 65–66, 68 quasi-pronominal 113–114 quasi-quantifier 87, 89, 92, 94 raising – subject-to-object 98, 111 – subject-to-subject 98 reading – bound variable 79–83, 85, 101–104, 108–109, 112, 115, 130–131, 155, 157–158, 164–165, 183 – de se, see de se interpretation – referential 80–83, 85, 101–102, 104, 106–107, 110, 112, 115, 130–133, 136, 155, 158, 161, 164, 183–184 – sloppy 157–158, 162, 165–166 – statue 174–175, 195 – strict 158, 166 reciprocal 60, 161, 171, 176

Index   

reconstruction – A-(chains) 3, 57–58, 60, 71 – Condition A 59–60 – Condition C 4, 17–18, 70–71 reflexivization 13–14, 73 repair strategy by overt pronoun 9, 11, 13, 15–16, 20, 24–25, 27, 29, 46–47, 49, 52, 59, 67, 69, 74, 97, 99, 107, 136, 159, 163, 184 requirement – anti-c-command 40, 42, 54 – c-command 21–23, 172, 175–177, 180 – closest DP 139–142 – same person 119–124, 127–130, 200–201, 204 – subject orientation 171, 175–176, 190

   215

theory – indexing 42, 47–48, 52 – linking 1–3, 23–24, 34, 41–42, 48, 53 topicalization 37–38, 48, 136 transitivity 51, 53–54 trapping effect 61–62 visibility 12, 75, 151, 161, 198 visible argument, see invisible argument VP deletion 157–158, 165–166