Modality and Ellipsis: Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence 9783110213362, 9783110205091

Citation preview

Modality and Ellipsis

≥

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 202

Editors

Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Modality and Ellipsis Diachronic and Synchronic Evidence

by

Remus Gergel

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gergel, Remus, 1974Modality and ellipsis : diachronic and synchronic evidence / by Remus Gergel. p. cm. ⫺ (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 202) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-020509-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. English language ⫺ Syntax. 2. English language ⫺ Ellipsis. 3. English language ⫺ Modality. 4. Grammar, Comparative and general ⫺ Ellipsis. 5. Modality (Linguistics) I. Title. PE1369.G47 2009 425⫺dc22 2008050007

ISBN 978-3-11-020509-1 ISSN 1861-4302 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen. Printed in Germany.

Preface The goal of the present book is to offer a detailed discussion of two interacting linguistic phenomena, modality and ellipsis, conducted on the basis of diachronic and synchronic data. The main theoretical framework used is the Minimalist Program. The monograph concentrates on a core issue of current syntactic theory, for which it proposes a new application. The issue is in which ways exactly the interfaces of grammar can drive the narrow syntax. We address two key thematic questions in this respect. First, the question of how ellipsis is grammatically licensed. Second, the question of how grammaticalized forms of modality are best represented in structural terms. The overarching hypothesis is that the answers to these central questions are interrelated via interpretability within the syntactic component. The study primarily investigates the impact interpretable features can play in grammaticalizing and grammaticalized syntactic representations. Regarding ellipsis, the major line of argument can be sketched as follows. While both syntactic and semantic factors are known to play a role in the problem of antecedent retrieval, the book focuses on the class that most vividly interacts with the modals, viz. VP ellipsis and in particular on its licensing properties. Licensing takes place under the scope of a head with “auxiliary” properties. It is argued that interpretability has a direct influence on the process, which was traditionally thought to be part of a purely syntactic component in the sense of government theory. For the modals, on the other hand, it is argued that their syntactic representation hinges on interpretable features and that they fulfill the conditions required by ellipsis licensing in particular. The monograph is based on my 2005 dissertation at the University of Tübingen. It took shape within the project B13 (the main focus of which was on ellipsis) and within the SFB-441 research group (Linguistic Data Structures) supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. I particularly and wholeheartedly thank the members of my committee Susanne Winkler, Bernhard Drubig, Marga Reis, and Sigrid Beck for encouragement, informed criticism, support, and invaluable advice through comments and discussions at several stages. Special thanks for insightful proofreading of several previous versions of the current material go to Bernhard Drubig, Susanne Winkler, Edward Göbbel, Jutta Hartmann, Luis López, Andreas Konietzko, Kirsten Brock, and Jennifer Spohr. Besides the individuals mentioned I have incurred debts to many other dedicated people.

vi

Preface

Of the colleagues in Tübingen at the time of writing, I would like to say thanks for discussion in particular to Fabrizio Arosio, Katrin Axel, Christine Baatz, Serge Doitchinov, Boštjan Dvořák, Veronika Ehrich, Sam Featherston, Kirsten Gengel, Nathan Hill, Hanneke van Hoof, Gianina Iordăchioaia, Johannes Kabatek, Stephan Kepser, Peter Koch, Sveta Krasikova, Winnie Lechner, Reimar Müller, Doris Penka, Ingo Reich, Tina Schäfer, Romana Roman-Stoubæk, Augustin Speyer, Beate Starke, Arnim von Stechow, Ilona Steiner, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Richard Waltereit, Dirk Wiebel, Hedde Zeijlstra, and Bettina Zeisler. I have equally profited from the discussions with linguists from elsewhere. I am particularly grateful for advice and support during my studies (somewhat chronologically) to Michael Hegarty, Jon Ortiz de Urbina, Luis López, and Tony Kroch. Further, I thank the following colleagues for their input from various perspectives along the way: Sjef Barbiers, Jonny Butler, Alexandra Cornilescu, Bernard Comrie, Brendan Costello, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, Sonia Cyrino, Marcela Depiante, Maia Duguine, Kristin Eide, David Embick, Jin-Huei Enya Dai, Susan Fischer, Daniel Harbour, Anders Holmberg, Aritz Irurtzun, Christopher Johns, Kyle Johnson, Thomas Leu, Jaume Mateu, Jason Merchant, Krzysztof Middalski, Elixabete Murguia, Øystein Nilsen, Carme Picallo, Christer Platzack, Paul Portner, Ellen Prince, Gemma Rigau, Tom Roeper, Maribel Romero, Jouni Rostila, Oana Săvescu Ciucivara, Pieter Seuren, Michelle Sheehan, Tim Stowell, Balázs Surányi, Ioannis Thomadakis, Juan Uriagereka, Myriam UribeEtxebarria, Luis Vicente, Michael Wagner, and Anthony Warner. I also owe a lot to the consultants who helped me with judgments and linguistic insights in their native languages including in particular Kirsten Brock, Richard Cameron, Zöe Cobb, Luka Crnic, Boštjan Dvořák, Sam Featherston, Gianina Iordăchioaia, Nathan Hill, Andreas Konietzko, Luis López, Jaume Mateu, Anna Ripoll, Romana Roman-Stoubæk, Alia Santini, Balázs Surányi, and the native speakers of English in the language courses in Tübingen. All remaining errors in this work are clearly mine. While the current version is a re-edited and thus I hope improved version of the dissertation, its argument is still a reflection of the original work and of my knowledge state at that time. I remain in greatest debt for moral support to my family and friends while writing. For help in the editorial process I wish to thank in particular Ms. Birgit Sievert and Mr. Wolfgang Konwitschny of de Gruyter. The book is dedicated to my grandmother and grandfather.

Contents

Preface

v

List of abbreviations

x

Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Subject matter and aims 2. Roadmap Chapter 2 Modals and ellipsis in the architecture of grammar 1. Towards the contribution of modal predicates in syntax 2. The main-verb approach against Aux 2.1. Concepts of complementation: Ross (1969) 2.2. Contra a wide Aux category: Pullum and Wilson (1977) 2.3. On the role of fixed-points for verb movement: Baker (1991) 3. The functional-category analysis 3.1. Moving have and be: Emonds (1970/1976) 3.2. Deriving Infl for modals: Roberts (1985) 3.3. Morphological intricacies and emerging economies: Emonds (1994) 3.4. Minimalist questions: Roberts (1998), Chomsky (1995) 4. Theories of specialized functional projections 4.1. Correlates of meaning and structure: Jackendoff (1972) 4.2. Adverbs and functional heads: Cinque (1999) 4.3. On the status of epistemic modals: Drubig (2001) 4.4. Towards the connection of tense: Stowell (2004a) Chapter 3 Towards an account of VP ellipsis 1. Introduction 2. Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis 2.1. Semantic conditions and alphabetic variance: Sag (1976, 1980)

1 1 12

16 16 18 18 22 28 33 33 37 40 43 46 46 50 53 58

66 66 68 68

viii 2.2.

Contents

Syntactic equilibrium and dependency theory: Fiengo and May (1994) Extensions on full-fledged E-sites: Kennedy (1997), Postal (2001) The identity condition transferred to PF: Tancredi (1992) On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing Introduction Silence but with method: Hankamer and Sag (1976), Pullum (2000) The licensing question: Lobeck (1995) Syntactically represented anaphora: Wasow (1972, 1979) Towards the role of the computational system Issues and desiderata in a theory of VPE: Johnson (2001) Remarks on Minimalism and the concept of phases A derivational model applied to ellipsis: Winkler (2003)

96 100 104 104 110 113

Chapter 4 Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change 1. Towards a diachronic proposal 1.1. Brief introduction to reanalysis theory 1.2. The short-distance reanalysis hypothesis 2. The change 3. Analyzing the PPCME2 data 3.1. Some quantitative aspects 3.2. Licensers and configurations for the VECs 3.3. A licensing generalization for Middle and Modern English 4. More on the nature of VP ellipsis in Middle English 4.1. On the status of the ellipsis 4.2. On the categorial status of the licenser 5. Directionals and the Pr projection 5.1. A feature of Middle English modals 5.2. Directionals and the feature-based implementation 6. Conclusion Appendix: The Choice of subcorpora from the PPCME2

122 122 122 125 130 132 132 135 136 142 142 147 150 150 152 154 155

Chapter 5 Modals and ellipsis in synchrony 1. Setting the stage 2. Raising vs. basic aspects of the modals in English 3. Exploring the root vs. epistemic distinction

161 161 163 165

2.3. 2.4. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3.

72 77 82 87 87 89

Contents

3.1. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.2. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.3. 5.4. 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. 5.4.4. 5.4.5. 5.5. 6.

Scope asymmetries relative to functional material Negation Epistemic modals and tense Quantifiers Finiteness and non-assertive factors The finiteness requirement on epistemics Arguments from non-assertive contexts Further morphosyntactic evidence Effects of modal force Additional scope asymmetries Further evidence for necessity Morphosyntax and agreement VPE licensing as interpretability On the epistemic-ellipsis restriction Further arguments for semantically motivated licensing in CHL The counterfoil evidence of pro-forms The one-LF issue in MLE derivations Aspects of theta-theory Modal force with ellipsis Simplification: An interpretation-based account of licensing Towards interpretation in licensing Modal phrase structure: An approximation Locality and reduction Interpretation takes over Observations on anchoring the VP in MLE Independent evidence for VPE licensing anchored to interpretability Summary

ix 166 166 168 172 178 178 180 181 183 184 184 187 189 190 192 192 195 195 196 199 199 199 202 204 210 213 215

Chapter 6 Conclusion 1. Main results 2. Modals 3. Ellipsis 4. Modals and ellipsis

222 222 222 224 226

References Index

229 254

List of abbreviations

AAVE ATB BNC Brown CHL CFSH EM eModE FI FROWN GGL GLH IPE LI LF ME MICASE ModE MLE MP NICE NPE NS OE OED PDE PF P&P PPCME2 SAI SDR TAM VPE

African American Vernacular English Across the Board British National Corpus Brown Corpus of Standard American English Computational System of Human Language Complex-Functional-Status Hypothesis English Modals Early Modern English Full Interpretation, Principle of Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English Google-based Web Search Generalized Licensing Hypothesis IP Ellipsis (‘Sluicing’) Lexical Items Logical Form Middle English Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English Modern English Modally Licensed Ellipsis The Minimalist Program Negation, Inversion, Code, Emphasis (Main Auxiliary Contexts in English) NP Ellipsis Narrow Syntax Old English Oxford English Dictionary Present Day English Phonological Form Principles and Parameters Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second Version Subject-Auxiliary Inversion Short Distance Reanalysis Tense-Aspect-Mood (markers) Verb Phrase Ellipsis

Chapter 1 Introduction

1. Subject matter and aims In this chapter, we begin the discussion of the two major topics of the monograph and the main tenets of the assumed theoretical background. Subsequently, we will provide an overview of the individual chapters. The primary goal of this exploration is to provide an account of the interaction of two areas of linguistic study with the interfaces of grammar. First, it investigates the representation of the major grammaticalized carriers of modality in English, the modals, as exemplified in (1). Second, it explores the properties of ellipsis phenomena at the interfaces of grammar by concentrating on verb-phrase ellipsis (VPE), as illustrated in (2). 1 P

(1) (2)

P

Bill must/may be in his office. They did not search for truffles, but somebody else did [ search for truffles ]. S

S

A theory of modals and ellipsis needs to develop an account of the two phenomena consonant with their interface-dependency in the components of a grammar. On the one hand, the English modals are the linguistic means to express concepts about how the world is and how it could and should be, a main characteristic of their intensional nature (i.a. Lewis 1973; Kratzer 1981). Moreover, they do so as elements of a fully grammaticalized class of the lexicon, which possesses a range of conspicuous morphosyntactic properties (Roberts 1993; Warner 1993). English VPE, on the other hand, has the syntactic property of occurring under the scope of an auxiliary, standardly called licenser (Lobeck 1995; Johnson 1991), as for instance did in (2) above. The elided site has manifold interface properties that indicate, on a first approximation, that it preserves structure and meaning in relationship to an antecedent such as search for truffles in (2) above. Moreover, its phonological impact, viz. of bringing about silence, is anything but trivial. In particular, it affects not only the actual ellipsis site but also the prosody of its neighboring, non-elided material (Winkler

2

Introduction

2005). The list of interface ramifications can easily be continued. We will discuss the interplay of modality and ellipsis at the interfaces of grammar concentrating on the syntactic representation and the syntax-semantics interface. The goal is to develop an account of the grammaticalized representations of modals and ellipsis. The main claim for the modals is that they have developed into a lexical class bundling together complex collections of syntactic features in the following sense. We will argue that the modals represent well-principled forms functioning through syntactic mechanisms within the English auxiliary domain, but more specifically, that they do so on the basis of semantic motivation. As a first intuition, syntactic complexity can be seen as a refinement of syntactic proposals that view the modals dominated by an Auxlike node without giving an account of their semantic differences. This means that while the present work defends and builds on essential syntactic aspects of the historical reanalysis which has the modern modals as its output, it will additionally propose that advantage can be gained by closely considering the following factors in their grammaticalized representations: – modal semantic parameters (e.g., epistemicity) and their morphosyntactic reflexes; – subcategorial properties of the modals, in particular the role of temporal features; – a grammatical model capitalizing on motivation through interpretability. Ellipsis can be seen as the fourth and most important factor in the present investigation of the modals. In effect, all three linguistic ingredients listed above also become significant in the investigation of ellipsis. In more general terms, we will apply ellipsis diagnostics with three related goals in mind: to investigate the status of the modals in modern and earlier English; to develop an account of modally based licensing through heads with suitable properties at the interfaces; and to propose a generalization for VPE itself which capitalizes on interpretability and the role of semantically motivated and syntactically grammaticalized features. The investigative link between modality and ellipsis is required by recent linguistic proposals in each of these fields and by the virtual absence of comprehensive investigation in regard to their interaction. Despite vast and insightful research in each of the two domains (taken individually) and despite the fact that an empirical wealth of VPE cases are licensed by modals, there is much less concentrated work on modals and ellipsis. A cursory look through the major ellipsis literature will suffice to illustrate that

Subject matter and aims

3

there is hardly any material on modal licensers to be found in the examples, and if there happens to be any, it is usually not elaborated upon from the syntax-semantics perspective with sufficient regard to the actual impact of modality and the modals on the elision process. 2 Conversely, only few of the specialized studies on modals combine their expertise at the syntaxsemantics interface with ellipsis research, even though ellipsis licensing is a major property defining the auxiliary status of the class in English. It follows from the claims and the goal-setting of the present work that an essential empirical concern to be pursued from various perspectives consists in what can be descriptively captured by the intersection set of the two phenomena, namely by modally licensed ellipsis (MLE) – more specifically, in cases of directly licensed VPE, as illustrated in (3), and of colicensed VPE cases, as shown in (4). P

(3)

P

Thought dead for four years, Chuck discovers that his fiancée (Helen Hunt) has moved on with her life and now he must [ VP move on with his life], too. (Filmforce.Ign.Com, March 23, 2004) You probably have never heard of this factory town in coastal China, and there is no reason why you should have [ VP heard of this factory town in coastal China]. (The New York Times, January 3, 2005) B

(4)

B

B

B

One important descriptive distinction between the example in (3) and the one in (4) is that in (3) the modal must is the last overt licensing remnant. It directly precedes the ellipsis site and it only allows a root, more specifically, a so-called deontic obligational interpretation in this sentence (we return in more detail to modal readings below). In (4), on the other hand, the modal should is not a licenser but only co-assists the licensing of the missing VP site: It modalizes and helps retrieve the content of the elided VP, but together with the tempo-aspectual auxiliary have, which it precedes. In terms of interpretation, co-licensed VPE sites more readily allow, in general, epistemic, i.e., evidence-based readings. We will claim that the descriptive taxonomy of co-licensed and directly licensed MLE encapsulates a series of underlying grammatical properties, which will be investigated more closely as we go along. At the same time, we will focus on detecting and explaining the grammatical ingredients of the VPE-licensing process holding for modals as well as for auxiliaries more generally. On the premises of the modal-ellipsis interaction, the immediate objectoriented questions which arise are: What can be gained for our understand-

4

Introduction

ing of the way modality works in English from the study of ellipsis? Conversely, what is the conclusion for elliptical phenomena resulting from scrutinizing a class which constitutes its licenser category in a linguistically significant number of cases? We will argue that a good share about the grammatical shape of the English modal predicates can be disclosed by closely considering elliptical structures. Specifically, the evidence for two areas can be substantiated and refined in English by capitalizing on ellipsis research: first, the evidence of what is usually taken to mean functional status of the modals (Roberts 1985; Warner 1993; among others); and second, grammaticalized modal settings mapped to semantic representations (Butler 2003; Cinque 1999; Cormack and Smith 2002; Drubig 2001). Conversely, there are gains to be obtained by taking the impact of modal licensers into account when investigating ellipsis: First and foremost, MLE cases offer an empirically important domain in the study of ellipsis in English; second, the theoretical study of the modals helps establish the way licensing mechanisms function in a fashion that cannot be unambiguously determined on the basis of other licensers, e.g., due to more readily visible scope properties with the modals and further aspects of their intensional nature and grammaticalized properties in English. The main questions which we will therefore address in this connection are: 1. How do modality and ellipsis interact in English? More specifically, are there semantic and/or morphosyntactic properties correlating with the way modal relations map in conjunction with elliptical structures? 2. Is there historical evidence for the interaction of modals and ellipsis, and if so, what consequences can we draw for the reanalysis of the modals? 3. How is the interface interaction best approached in an economical model of grammar? Summarizing so far, the following five issues constitute the course of inquiry: Alongside the interface issues raised (i) by modals and (ii) by ellipsis, we will explore their interaction with one another. A prime goal therein will be (iii) to capitalize on properties of ellipsis to reveal grammaticalized characteristics of the modals. An equally essential aim is (iv) to offer an account of ellipsis which fits the properties of MLE but at the same time accounts for the occurrence of other types of ellipsis, such as the colicensed and the purely extensional species. Given that the modals as encountered in Modern English (ModE) are the result of a process of language change, an immediate question will be (v) whether and how their

Subject matter and aims

5

interaction was reflected in grammars preceding the modern distribution. This interaction becomes a grammatical tool from a comparative view. In investigating the relevant properties, we will thus necessarily pursue both diachronic and synchronic goals. When considering the historical reanalysis of the modals and the role of ellipsis with respect to it, diachronic data and language-change diagnostics applied mainly to the Middle English periods will be used. For the investigation of how precisely modals and ellipsis are represented in the grammaticalized grammars, we analyze synchronic data from a syntactic perspective and comine with observations regarding interpretation. A further methodological issue consists in striving to balance the complex evidence and theoretical issues involved with modality and ellipsis, on the one hand, and economy concerns of grammar and grammatical analysis, on the other. Recent theorizing such as the one surging from the Minimalist Program (MP) urges such economy considerations. 3 General considerations about the plausibility of linguistic analysis also urge them. The present work assumes a grammar without intermediate compartments such as Deep vs. Surface Structure, Case Module, etc., as was the case in earlier generative abstractions. The basic syntax-theoretical background is the MP as discussed in Chomsky (1995) and related work. The straightforward assumption is that the grammar, called the computational system of human language (C HL ), directly interfaces with the levels of meaning and sound – or logical form (LF) and phonological form (PF), as in technical terms – and that it syntactically merges feature-bundled lexical items drawn from lexical arrays and ultimately from the lexicon of a given language. 4 The basic architecture of grammar given within the MP is schematically illustrated in (5), a minimalistically simplified successor of what has been previously known as the Y- or T-model of language computation. P

P

B

P

(5)

B

P

Lexicon C HL B

PF

B

LF

The syntax is thus a mediator between the lexicon, via the numeration, and the systems of articulation and meaning, via what is termed Spell-Out. Within the model of language in (5), it will become imperative to concentrate on whether and how syntactic processes can be motivated through their output at the interfaces and the features of the lexical items participat-

6

Introduction

ing in them. Feature-based abstractions more generally are not new or intrinsically minimalistic. But they acquire an important role in recent theory since they allow a sharpening of the observations and contribute to modeling phenomena of natural language as well as to testing proposed generalizations. 5 The main issue to be pursued for present purposes will be to show that interpretable features have grammaticalized as formal reflexes in the essential morphosyntactic processes involving the modals and ellipsis. Semantically, we assume the basic parameters of modal interpretation as developed in the tradition of Lewis, Kratzer, and others (see, among others, Gamut 1991 and Kratzer 1981, 1991) comprising the distinction between various modal bases and the difference in modal force, that is, necessity vs. possibility. The formalization is based on the concept of possible worlds, which become the object of quantification. While we will concentrate on the morphosyntactic reflexes of modality, it is worth noting that the quantificational line allows one to economically approach the taxonomy of various types of modality as a useful abstraction and to use welldefined mechanisms at the level of LF. Generally, modality spans a notoriously wide semantic field and it can be used to indicate concepts including possibility and necessity, e.g., based on either evidence, logical inferences or other circumstances, deontic obligation and permission, as well as ability and volition, and further notions (Cinque 1999; Palmer 1986; among many others). Some of this variety is illustrated below. Let’s consider (6) first (adapted from Kearns 2000: 54). P

(6)

P

She might have fallen down the cliff a. -- thank goodness the safety harness held. b. -- we’re still waiting for the rescue team’s report.

Example (6) illustrate possibility with two different potentially available modal bases: a logical, or alethic one on the first given continuation, and an epistemic one on the second. Possibility and necessity are considered the natural-language backbone of the quantificational approach to modality. On such terms, necessity ties in with universal quantification and possibility with existential quantification. For instance, the epistemic reading of (6) informally means that “‘She may have fallen down the cliff’ is true if and only if there is at least one epistemically possible world w such that ‘She fell down the cliff’ is true in w” (Kearns 2000: 57, emphasis added). Quantification will always have to occur over the suitable possible worlds, that is, epistemic, alethic, deontic, etc., the choice of which is, in turn, largely determined by contextual information and pragmatic constraints

Subject matter and aims

7

(Brennan 1993; Kratzer 1981 and elsewhere; McDowell 1987; among others). The concepts of possibility and necessity are subsumed under the rubric of modal force and they can be instantiated with various types of modal bases and conversational backgrounds and, as (6) suggests, sometimes within one sentence. 6 Various pragmatic but also morphosyntactic clues disambiguate such cases. For instance, we observe that replacing might by must in (6) would exclude temporal relocation to the past able to scope over the modal and thus also rule out the counterfactual reading. 7 Some further commonly encountered types of modality are illustrated in (7)- (10). P

P

P

P

(7)

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Shell Oil Co. must pay $37 million to clean up an oil and gas field near Lake Charles even though the land owned by Ferdinand Heyd Sr. is valued at only $108,000. (New Orleans City Business, March, 2003) (8) This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg […]. (www.gutenberg.net) (9) To keep consumers satisfied in the meantime, Gates said a new version of Windows […] will begin shipping next month that can crunch more information at one time, handling 64 bits of data compared with 32 bits in the previous generation. (The New York Times, April 25, 2005) (10) Underscoring deep divisions in the opposition, some dissidents say they won't go. (The New York Times, May 13, 2005) Obligation and permission, illustrated in (7) and (8), respectively, are cases of deontic – that is, binding – modality. The modal force holds in such cases over “perfect obedience worlds” (Kearns 2000: 57). Ability and (more marginally in ModE) volition expressed through modals are illustrated in (9) and the ambiguous sentence in (10). The two are held to be the most verbal lexical, or least functional among the modal flavors and fall under the rubric of what is known as dynamic modality. 8 Volitional modality expressed through a core modal plays a minor role in ModE. Most examples of will, to the extent that they allow volitional (or bouletic) construals at all, also allow a future reading. 9 Deontic and root modality are subsumed under the heading of root modality, in which case this more general type is often contrasted with the epistemic or knowledge-based modality. Although English does not have a specified epistemic or evidential P

P

P

P

8

Introduction

morphology, relevant epistemic readings are often encountered, as illustrated in (12) with the preceding discourse context provided in (11). (11) The other night, I had some friends round for dinner. I cooked them pan-fried ostrich fillets on a bed of creamy celeriac mash, accompanied by a sauce made from trompette mushrooms and Chinese black vinegar. On to the plates (which I'd preheated), I stacked the ingredients in neat piles, topping each one with a sprinkling of blue Congo potato crisps. My guests were impressed that I'd gone to so much trouble, particularly on a week night. (New Statesman, February 10, 2003) (12) "This must have taken you ages," they said. "How did you manage?" (ibid.) The epistemic modal must in (12) is based on knowledge given through the evidence contextualized in (11) and an inference process. More generally, in its epistemic or knowledge-based variety, modality conveys the attitude or the degree of commitment of a speaker towards the proposition uttered based on various inference processes. Such processes can be perceptional or deductive in nature (Drubig 2001). Some recent approaches take genuinely epistemic and evidential modality to be closely related (as opposed, for instance to root, but also to logical, or alethic modality of the type we have seen in (6a) above). 10 The essential semantic aspects of modality have long been noted and refined by philosophers, logicians and linguists going back to Aristotle, with the modern standard possible-worlds framework attributed generally to Leibniz and developed in the work of Lewis, Kratzer and others (cf. Lewis 1973). 11 However, from today’s syntax-theoretic perspective (cf. Cinque 1999, Drubig 2007) – i.e., assuming the logico-semantic interpretive mechanics to be in essence controlled for – there is still an important issue from the point of view of grammar theory which requires further exploration, namely: What is the portion of work, if any, that other components of a language such as English are in charge of to achieve the required wellformed semantic interpretations? What are the possibilities for the grammaticalization of the pertinent features in the lexical entries? Do such features, moreover, correlate with morphosyntactic behavior and translate into formal features of a given natural-language system? From a syntactic perspective, let’s note in this context that although a wealth of ink has been spilled on the Aux-vs.-V debate in generative syntax, approaches which P

P

P

P

Subject matter and aims

9

consider the exact semantic shape and the indispensable ingredients of modality and then discuss their syntax are heavily underrepresented. We will focus on English here and other ways of grammaticalizing modality may well be – and are – different. The major issues we will raise for modality will be in what precise manner the English modals have grammaticalized into the auxiliary system of the language. Taking the semantic factors as the null-hypothesis, any additional involvement of modality will need syntactic evidence in accordance with the morphosyntax of a given language (see, e.g., Eide 2002, Kenesei 2001, Reis 2001). For English, we will argue that the modals’ semantic and formal feature packaging becomes significant during the course of the syntactic derivation and will make strong use of ellipsis to reveal its specifics. If modality seems an almost ubiquitous appearance in human communication, ellipsis, omission, or arguably (zero-)substitution of speech 12 is also a common linguistic presence, which often involves linguistically well delineated absence at the level of sound. Cross-linguistically, ellipsis is able to affect a wide variety of categories, as well as subcategories. To retrieve the corresponding meaning, speakers can use a multitude of means. These can range from syntactic mechanisms to an extensive additional package of semantic conditions, phonological signaling, discourse relations and contextual information. 13 While the exact impact on a given statement made by modality is a matter of debate with a time-honored tradition in logic and linguistics, the contribution made by ellipsis (no less time honored in the investigations; cf. section 1 in Chapter 3) seems rather clear: Brevity! – or, quick and concise rendering of information. However, beyond seemingly straightforward intuitions about function, what becomes equally apparent upon closer inspection is a fair amount of laws of linguistic “mechanics,” of equations of semantic and pragmatic reasoning established between antecedent and the ellipsis site, joined by a fair amount of work in morphology and syntax, which all regulate under precisely which circumstances which omission is licit and what meaning is conveyed under which conditioning factor. In fact, the linguistic quest for the meaning-form correspondence finds a rather acute manifestation within ellipsis research. For present purposes, ellipsis as a diagnostic will on the one hand prove essential to unearth aspects of modal syntax, as we have said, one important reason being that both phenomena are deeply rooted at the interfaces. For ellipsis itself, on the other hand, three main issues will be investigated. First, we will explore the nature of the elliptical sites, in particular, whether they have internal structure or whether they behave as some verP

P

P

P

10

Introduction

sion of unstructured and silent pronouns. Second, we will investigate the main aspects of the modularity question, that is, where precisely the implementation of ellipsis should be formalized within the model of grammar used: Should its analysis be tackled at LF, PF, or in C HL ? Third, an essential issue for the interaction of modals and ellipsis will consist in giving an account of the specifics of the licensing process of ellipsis. Regarding the first issue, a classical field of tension within ellipsis research has been produced by the question after the representation of the very nature of absent material. One strand has pursued an anaphoric or proform approach motivated by interesting distributional similarities to further substitutive phenomena. Another influential line has investigated a large series of diagnostics favoring fully articulated structure within the ellipsis site and the close correspondences such a site needs to bear to an antecedent. 14 We will explore both lines of research in some detail and propose the tension can ultimately be overcome in the case of VPE. The argument is that one line does neither theoretically nor empirically exclude the other for the range of VPE data at hand. Let’s consider (13) and (14). B

P

B

P

(13) I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar thinks that Sally did _. (14) Sally should take out the dog for a walk and Bob should do the dishes, but neither of them must_. Sentence (13) is an example of wh-extraction of which book, a typical indication noted in the literature (Fiengo and May 1994; Johnson 2001) for the fact that the direct object has originally been within the scope of the VPE site. On the full-fledged structure account VPE sites thus have enough structure to accommodate traces of extraction. They are conceived of as structural copies of their antecedents. Sentence (14), on the other hand, gives a flavor of the pro-form theory since the VPE has so-called split antecedents and will be hard to be thought of as an exact copy of one particular piece of anteceding structure. So how can the tension be accounted for? The main claim developed in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 will defend the fullstructure account. However, note that if the grammatical mechanisms in charge of ellipsis are envisaged as able to access substructures of an elided VP, then a natural consequence is that the entire VP should also be accessible as such, e.g., for the purposes of semantic operations. The theoretical argument is that if merge in a simple syntax is conceived of as a settheoretic type of operation and we can syntactically access the derivationally constructed subsets, 15 we should also be able to access the subset with P

P

Subject matter and aims

11

the largest cardinality, i.e., the entire set, or the VP itself, and to ship it as such to LF. This offers a logical space to account for a range of the facts noted in the literature suggesting a pro-form type of ellipsis site, if disagreeing with its conclusion about the alleged lack of internal representation – and thus reviving suggestions initially made by Wasow (1972). Second, with respect to the modularity question of the ellipsis site, we will argue by analyzing various perspectives put forth in the literature that the morphosyntactic, phonological, semantic, and pragmatic factors in the derivation of ellipsis cannot be overridden one to the detriment of the other. Thus semantic parallelism (traceable back to Sag 1976), a restricted type of syntactic isomorphism (in the sense of Fiengo and May 1994) and prosodic well-formedness (see Winkler 2003) constitute key ingredients. However, the necessary inter-modularity should be taken with no less care than strict modularity, if is to posses in its turn any explanatory potential. Thus the main idea, following the research program of Winkler (2003, 2005), is that VPE will need to be sanctioned at the interfaces with respect to the three ingredients just mentioned. However, in particular, it will also have to be manipulated through the syntactic derivation, which will be our main concern here. This leads to the third major issue we will investigate with respect to ellipsis, namely licensing. Specifically, we will argue that licensing is both necessary and that it takes place within syntax. The claim is that there are syntactic licensing mechanisms which cannot be circumnavigated by the other modules and we will propose a specific explanation for them based on temporal features. Thus the approach makes use of previous licensing theories (Bresnan 1971; Lobeck 1995) but dispenses with government-based theory and proposes a novel simplified account based on the role of the interfaces. In line with much of the MP, the motivating factors for the syntactic operations will be claimed to be significant insofar as they play a role at the interfaces. Along corroborating evidence from extensional case-studies, two main areas from MLE will play a major role: (i) the specific merge-move configurations in which the English modals have grammaticalized; (ii) the establishment of the ellipsis-licensing mechanisms within their scope. In a nutshell, we will propose that ellipsis licensing occurs through a grammaticalized syntactic procedure which consists in anchoring to semantically interpretable material in the phrase-marker, a particular instantiation of which will be the head T (contrary, for instance, to the Agr-based model of previous proposals in the literature). An interface-based proposal accommodates the evaluation of antecedent-ellipsis configurations, which can be notoriously large (Hardt 1991).

12

Introduction

To sum up, the primary interest of this work are the modals and ellipsis focusing on their interface-based interaction. The modal issue in the case of English is strongly tied to the historical development. From a diachronic point of view, we will argue that the ellipsis-modals interaction is meaningful predating the traditionally assumed reanalysis and insightful for the reanalysis itself. Synchronically, we will argue that the grammaticalized modals show signs of syntax-semantics interaction and that VPE, an interface-conditioned linguistic phenomenon itself, is a major diagnostic to corroborate the grammatical evidence for the modals. We will argue that many of the modal-ellipsis effects grammaticalized in English are linked to the hallmarks of modal semantics and to temporal features. We next turn to a brief summary of the chapters.

2. Roadmap The monograph subdivides into six chapters. After the introductory chapter, the discussion continues with a critique of strands of foregoing research within the domain of modality (Chapter 2), and within investigations of ellipsis (Chapter 3). In these chapters, we will test the possibilities opened up by previous lines of research, discuss some of their problems and propose first amendments relevant for modals and ellipsis. The further part of this work presents two rather detailed case studies on the interaction between modals and ellipsis in diachronic (Chapter 4) and synchronic terms (Chapter 5), respectively. On the basis of these case studies, it develops the idea of interface-motivated syntactic licensing and grammaticalization to interpretable features. Chapter 6 concludes the investigation. The subsequent Chapter 2 is structured around a survey of syntactic studies on the English modals which are contrasted to one another and especially in the case of the earlier studies discussed, complemented with more recent advances in the field. It begins with briefly considering the generalized hypothesis of modals as raising verbs, to then explore the representation of the English modals in conjunction with functional material. Three main research perspectives will be assessed: (1) the main verb approach, (2) the approach generating the modals in the locus of the clausal main node, and (3) approaches capitalizing on the syntax-semantics interface through specialized clausal architecture. We will argue that (3) is the most appropriate line of research from an up-to-date perspective, but precisely because it links up to the syntactic issues of both (1) and (2).

Roadmap

13

Chapter 3 presents the main empirical and theoretical diagnostics for VPE considering it within the research paradigm opened up by Hankamer and Sag’s (1976) seminal contribution. We defend the role of licensing within the syntactic component along the interface conditions for VPE. The first main section deals with the establishment of the proper relationships between antecedent and ellipsis site (the so-called identity, or isomorphism conditions) within the syntactic, the semantic and the prosodic component, respectively. The chapter then turns to the exploration of relevant syntactic diagnostics revealed by ellipsis research. Finally, it investigates the pertinent issues with respect to the grammatical representation of ellipsis and licensers in minimalist frameworks. Chapter 4 is a case-study on language-change essential both for the issue of reanalysis theory and for the generalization of further diagnostics. Technically, the chapter argues that the Middle English modals have a shorter distance to diachronically reanalyze to the T/Infl node than traditionally assumed in syntactic terms. The reason, in a nutshell, is that they can be observed to be in a more auxiliary-like position at a time prior to the assumed reanalysis. The claim is based on the analysis of two Middle English (ME) elliptical constructions, in whose licensing the premodals are unexpectedly involved if one assumes the standard account of their full lexical status preceding the reanalysis. Specifically, VPE and directional PPs will be closely investigated. The two phenomena have previously led to contradictory results regarding the status of the premodals. In the present account, an economy driven explanation will be proposed, based on an intermediate projection which unifies the two phenomena and at the same time gives an account of the patterns of modal complementation in the ME period. Chapter 5 presents the synchronic proposal. It argues that in ModE the modals are not only lexicalized as carriers of the essential semantic modal concepts, but to a great extent as objects containing formal syntactic features. The strongest evidence for interpretable syntactic properties comes from ellipsis. The modals show syntax-semantics interaction in the domains of ellipsis, but also tense, quantification, negation, and in further areas. If English modals make their contribution to a derivation in accordance not only with rules of a development of syntactic properties but also with parameters of modal semantics, then the lexicalization choice is not only parameterized along certain lines, 16 but also optimized on the basis of the interfaces. Ellipsis licensing is given an account in terms of interpretation, which is implemented through a temporal [T] feature rather than government. Further, while showing clear indications of structure, VPE and P

P

14

Introduction

especially MLE sites are claimed to be anchored to the overt part of the phrase-marker via interpretation. This property accounts for some problems of ellipsis theory such as the fact that MLEs can be accessed over long-distance antecedent configurations. The technical suggestion for ellipsis is not a compromise between a syntactically full-structure approach and an account which makes reference to the entire syntactic entity. It is both, as pointed out in section 1 above. Chapter 6 thematically summarizes the work conducted, recapitulates its major claims, and draws the main conclusions.

Notes 1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

Following common practice, strike-throughs or, abbreviating, low dashes stand for elided material. See, e.g., Fiengo and May’s (1994) landmark study of VPE but which focuses almost exclusively on extensional licensers. We cannot offer a detailed introduction to the MP within present scope, but will return to the relevant issues in due course. See Chomsky (1995) as the classical reference; cf. Chomsky (2001) on some revisions of the theoretical issues. Radford (1997, 2004) offers a clear and empirically richly illustrated introduction to the main minimalist issues. The introduction of lexical arrays allows one to use a numeration index on its items, a value which is exhausted with the end of a grammatical derivation. For the moment, the lexical items can be assumed as coming directly from the lexicon, we return to the issue when relevant. See, e.g., Hegarty (2005) for an illustration of some particularly strong syntactic consequences obtained on the basis of a feature-based framework. Alternatively to modal force, within the tradition of English studies the terms strong vs. weak modality are also used (see, e.g., Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 233) with some slight differences which are irrelevant for now. We analyze the morphosyntactic parts of this variation in Chapter 2 and 5. Sometimes only ability is understood to fall under it in the literature. Syntactically, Cinque (1999) takes ability modals to be structurally relatively low in clausal architecture and thus closer to the lexical domain in the syntactic metric. See Lasnik et al. (2005) for discussion of the functional-substantive cleavage from a recent grammar-theoretical perspective. For a typological functional delineation of the same type of modality and related mood morphemes, see, e.g., Bybee (1985). Volition and future meaning, of course, do not exhaust will, which allows further readings, to which we return when relevant. With respect to volition,

Notes

10.

11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16.

15

Chomsky (1971) notes that among (i)-(ii) only the negated (ii) allows a (negated) volitional reading, i.e. refusal. Palmer (1986) gives the affirmative (iii) for which he claims volition. (i) John will go downtown. (ii) John won’t go downtown. (iii) Well, I’ll ring you tonight sometime. The issue, however, also depends on register and person restrictions. For instance, used in the first person, will is more likely to be equated with resoluteness and volition than in the third person. See Haegeman (1982) for an empirical study of will in British English. See, among others, Condoravdi (2002), Drubig (2007), and Stowell (2004a). We will focus in Chapters 2 and 5 precisely on the investigation of possible syntactic consequences of this distinction. See i.a. Drubig (2001), Gamut (1991), Hollander (1999), von Stechow (2003), for recent discussion on some of the classical issues of modality. Or omission of natural-language material expressed otherwise. For instance, besides well-known cases of VPE in writing and speech stemming from a series of spoken languages such as Irish, Swahili, or Thai, non-verbal communication systems seem to also avail themselves of similar mechanisms. To keep the relationship to modals, note that American Sign Language has the possibility of emptying VPs which are syntactic complements of modals (Petronio 1993). British Sign Language, moreover, has equivalents of VPE structures licensed by modals (Brendan Costello, p.c., University of the Basque Country). See, e.g., Winkler (2003, 2005), for a recent proposal outlining the division of labor between various ellipses in this respect. See Winkler and Schwabe (2003) and Chapter 3 below for further details of this approximating and here simplified dichotomy in the research paradigms. There are constraints on syntactic accessibility determined by the point of Spell-Out. We return to relevant aspects. In more advanced phase-based models, this argument becomes even more acute. E.g., with respect to epistemicity, which will scope relatively high.

Chapter 2 Modals in the architecture of grammar

The modals have been claimed to have had an influential impact on the development of theories of basic clausal architecture (cf. Chomsky 1957; Emonds 1970; Frampton and Gutman 1999; Lasnik 1995; Roberts 1993; Ross 1969; Warner 1993). The chapter constitutes a critique of some of the essential studies of modals in the auxiliary system of English. It begins by briefly considering some of the possibilities for the syntactic representation of the modals. Section 2 addresses the main-verb approach; section 3 lays out aspects of the functional-projection hypothesis; finally, section 4 considers correlating semantic nuances of the modals with functional structure.

1. Towards the contribution of modal predicates in syntax There are various ways to encode modality in natural language, not all of them isomorphic with the properties of logical results. For instance, for a proposition p, while pure logical necessarily p implies p, must p – as in Bill must sort out his business – does not force the same entailment on the truth of p in the actual world. Moreover, while logical necessity and possibility come closest to objective modals (cf. also alethic or metaphysical modality), natural languages show further modal nuances. Most prominent among these figure the epistemic and root ones, with the latter including deontic and dynamic modality.1 An important alley for the exploration of modal semantics has been opened up by the introduction of possibleworlds semantics. Initially proposed by G. W. Leibniz, possible worlds have been brought to the vivid attention of the linguistic community particularly through the work of Lewis and Kratzer (cf. Kratzer 1981, 1991; Lewis 1973; von Wright 1951). These works have shown that a semantic approach needs to refine the domain of quantification and the corresponding restriction, as well as the closeness metric through which worlds may be eligible for verification of the truth conditions given through quantification. This line of thought has solved the implicational problem mentioned above and further paradoxes of modal logic (cf. Gamut 1991; Kratzer 1981). However, as Kratzer observes, less has been said about the syntax of the key notions of modality.

Towards the contribution of modal predicates in syntax

17

The essential factors from the semantic insights are the modal base and the modal force (both analyzed in more detail in Chapter 5). Another inspiring point that follows from the semantic tradition is the nature of the modal operators. While a high semantic type seems appropriate for the representation of modality in formal semantic terms, it has become a matter of debate whether modals also necessarily have a structurally high syntax (cf. Butler 2003; Cinque 2001; Drubig 2001; Eide 2002; Kenesei 2001; Reis 2001; van Riemsdijk 2002). Starting from the null-hypothesis that modality may be viewed in terms of its contribution at LF and that syntactically relevant features should indeed be tested syntactically, we observe that pre-Spell-Out involvement of modal features is a departure from this hypothesis and we will examine morphosyntactic evidence. A first issue with respect to the syntactic shape of modals is whether they involve raising or control. Since Ross (1969), epistemic modals have been approached via raising, whereas root modals have been taken to involve control. Wurmbrand (1999) proposes unification in terms of raising. Alongside further tests, Wurmbrand considers expletive insertion (cf. Perlmutter 1970:115), illustrated in (1). (1)

a. There may be singing but no dancing on my premises. b. There can be a party as long as it’s not too loud. c. There must be a solution to this problem on my desk, tomorrow!

Wurmbrand interstingly shows that some instances of root modals will be hard to accommodate as control structures. (Dynamic modals are not discussed; in particular, dynamic can would fail the test in (1)). One may adopt this approximation for English, e.g., in conjunction with Zubizarreta’s (1982) amendment on adjunct theta-roles for residual problems in thematic assignment. But the attractive unification may also need further investigation. For instance, in German, where wollen ‘want’ patterns syntactically with the modals through coherence (cf. Kiss 1995; Reis 2001, among others), the question arises whether it is not rather a control verb (cf. von Stechow and Sternefeld 1988).2 While the issues surpass present scope, let’s finally note that proposals have also been put forth which would cut the Gordian knot more radically in theoretical terms. Thus, if the approach that reduces control to raising – as pursued, e.g., by Hornstein (1999) – is on the right track, then the unification hypothesis would a fortiori be confirmed. Backwards control (Polinski and Potsdam 2002) may endorse the reduction. An upshot is that an in-depth exploration of the syn-

18

Modals in the architecture of grammar

tax of modality in syntactic terms becomes even more urgent, if the output from the raising-control distinction is at least partially obliterated. There are two classical alternatives for the syntactic representation of the modals: Treating them on a par with the other verbs of the language vs. as a distinct functional category, essentially as heads in complementary distribution with, and structurally equivalent to, tenses. This debate clearly harks back to the auxiliary vs. main-verb issue in early generative grammar. Interestingly however, more recent results, while revealing new evidence, are often reminiscent of some of the earlier strands of thought instead of refuting them. Stowell (2004a: 622) observes: This question [i.e. whether modals are auxiliaries or verbs (RG)] has not been definitely resolved in contemporary formal theories of syntax and semantics, despite the development of a rich formal theory decomposing inflectional elements in terms of the theory of functional projections in later Government-Binding theory and the Minimalist Program.

In the following, we address both the main-verb and the Aux-based view. It will be argued that neither is tailored quite right. The essential issue consists in combining functional structure with the syntax-semantics interface. We use the issue for the analysis of the later chapters. But first things first.

2. The main-verb approach against Aux 2.1. Concepts of complementation: Ross (1969) The main-verb analysis of the modals has taken much of its impetus from the work of John R. Ross. Ross (1969) starts out from Chomsky’s characterization of AUX and claims it to be inadequate. One often neglected contribution of Ross is that it offers what is by now the standard constituency structure for English sequences of multiple auxiliaries. Unlike, e.g., Chomsky (1957) and Steele et al. (1981), who suggested that English auxiliary groups were clustered constituents, Ross proposes (2). (2)

[Tom [might [have [been [building a house]]]]

The constituency of (2) can easily be confirmed with standard constituency tests as more appropriate than many alternative early generative proposals (cf., e.g., Radford 1997: 102, 124). We may note that this fact does, however, not entail that all the constituents above are identical (e.g., VPs).

The main-verb approach against Aux

19

Ross’ main counterargument against the analysis of the Aspects theory is that, under a main verb analysis, instead of searching for {M, have, be}, rules such as question formation would look only for [+V, +Aux], a more natural and elegant alternative according to this author. Call this the mixed bag of auxiliaries issue. The suspicious set of items behaves distinctly from main verbs in the well-known NICE contexts (Huddleston and Pullum 2002). Ross mentions subject inversion, negation, and VP ellipsis (VPE). (3) (4) (5)

Have you noticed? (question formation) Tom is not going anywhere. (negation) (VPE) Mike may build a house and Tom may [VP ] too.

Roberts (1985) and Pollock (1989) extend the list of tests to include quantifiers and adverb placement. Grammars of English mention polarity emphasis as a feature setting auxiliaries apart (e.g., Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 93). Further, the main individual characteristics comprise various more fine-grained phenomena. For instance, inversion seems to apply not only in interrogatives,3 but also with various types of focus-preposing: e.g., the preposed particle only, the anaphor so, or preposed negative constituents.4 Further ramifications obtain. Ellipsis processes involving verbs, for one, of course also go far beyond (5).5 Nonetheless, the list above presently suffices. Ross characterizes the set {M, have, be} as unnatural. The question arises, however, what a natural syntactic criterion might be if not a common pattern across different contexts. An analysis singling out Aux may seem just as simple on theoretical grounds. Whatever can be merged to the relevant position, is a candidate for participating in the processes observed by Ross. Triggering of the pertinent processes can be envisaged through the properties of that position itself, and it can lead to further movement to C. Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1995) may call for it, e.g., in interrogatives. Considering the VPE process somewhat more closely among the three contexts mentioned by Ross, there is indeed a difficult issue which, though mentioned by various researchers (cf. Lobeck 1995; Sag 1976), has not yet been satisfactorily answered: Why should elliptical sentences such as And Tom may too and at the same time the longer sequence and Tom may have been too both be possible at all if the AUX position is to license ellipsis? A further intriguing fact adduced by Ross refers to that and which pronominalization Here, it may seem that the modals, even in modern usage, take a direct objects and should be treated as verbs; cf. (6) and (7).

20 (6)

(7)

Modals in the architecture of grammar

They said that Tom likes ice cream, a. which he does / and that he does. b. which he may / and that he may. They said that Tom might have been sleeping, a. which he might (have (been )). b. and that he might (have (been )).

However, in addition to the NICE diagnostics (which are easily verified) we may propose two arguments against a main verb analysis. The first relies on properties of propositional entities (Hegarty et al. 2001); cf. (8). (8) (9)

There was a snake on my desk. That scared me. It scared my officemate too. There was a snake on my desk. It scared me.

According to Hegarty et al., it in (8) can anaphorically pick up the abstract entity of the first proposition because the relevant proposition has become an in-focus element in this context. By contrast, if the pronoun it had been inserted right after the first sentence, as in (9), it could not naturally have picked up the abstract referent. Another entity (the snake) would have been in-focus. It (unlike that) would have obligatorily referred to that entity. The observation further relevantly extends from subject to object arguments, as the following examples from Hegarty et al. illustrate. Thus, while the discourse sequence in (10) is infelicitous, the one in (11) is fine. (10) A: I read somewhere that the poodle is one of the most intelligent dogs around. B: ??Well uhm… I definitely wouldn’t dispute it. (11) A: I read somewhere that the poodle is one of the most intelligent dogs around. B: Well uhm… I definitely wouldn’t dispute that. C: I certainly wouldn’t dispute it either. In fact, a poodle saved my life once. Let us now combine the observations. Building on Ross’ suggestion, the first part of sequences like the ones above is close to getting verified. (12) They said that Tom likes ice cream, and that he may/ *and it he may/ *and he may it.

The main-verb approach against Aux

21

In (12), that is just the felicitous pronoun according to the tests, it might be argued. Trying to impose it might fail for information-structural reasons (Hegarty et al. 2001), and not for syntactic reasons. However, by applying Hegarty et al.’s reasoning, it can be seen that that under a modal and the complements of main verbs like scare or dispute do not pattern together. (13) A: They said that Tom likes ice cream… B: …And that he may. C: *Yes, and his sister may/must/could/might/should it (too). C’: *Yes, and it may/must/could/might/should his sister (too). Thus recovering the referent with it is ungrammatical even if Speaker C in the above sentence makes his contribution at an information-structurally appropriate juncture in the discourse; cf. by contrast the grammaticality of that in (11) or the (grammatical) second it in (11) above. A second argument against the claim that the modals take nominalized complements is that objects should be able to appear not only in fronted positions, as in (12) and (13) above, but also following the verb. The complement of, say, the purported verb may is, however, infelicitous; cf. (14). (14) *And he may/must/should that/it. While Ross’s preposed that has anaphoric properties, it is nonetheless syntactically distinct from propositional arguments of main verbs. Of interest for the discussion on epistemicity and for the issue of ellipsis and pro-predicates is also an observation about German. The pro-form es can only restrictedly replace predicates under modals, cf. (15) vs. (16). (15) Ottokar muss singen, und du musst es auch/ das musst du auch. O. must sing, and you must es (it) too/ that must you too. (16) *O. muss Krebs haben, und du musst es auch/ das musst du auch. O. must cancer have, and you must es (it) too/ that must you too. Ross phrases the relevant distinction by referring to the modal in (15) as ‘transitive’ and the one in (16) as ‘intransitive.’ An important factor is the root/epistemic dichotomy (Drubig 2001; López and Winkler 2000). While the deontic modal can license the presence of the pro-predicate, the epistemic variant cannot. It may be tempting to adjust the mechanism of eslicensing to VPE in English. Recent studies, however, show that this might be too rough a generalization. On the one hand, the entire syntactic make

22

Modals in the architecture of grammar

up of the clause may differ in German; see, e.g., Reis (2001) and Sternefeld (2006). On the other hand, German similar ellipses are much more restricted than English VPE (Klein 1993; Winkler 2003). Summarizing the main results from Ross (1969): (i) it offers accurate constituency structures for sequences of auxiliaries; (ii) it observes the problem of VPE in sequences of multiple auxiliaries; (iii) it represents a forerunner in observing the distinctive role of epistemicity.

2.2. Contra a wide Aux category: Pullum and Wilson (1977) Pullum and Wilson (1977, henceforth P&W) take up the issues raised by Ross and, enriching the analysis, argue for main-verbhood for modals. Starting out on a historical note, P&W observe that Chomsky’s (1957) and related analyses had been associated with autonomous-syntax (and Ross’s (1969) with the generative semantics tradition). P&W take this to be an accident and claim that the verb analysis should be maintained. The analysis of P&W comprises less commonly discussed auxiliaries, including have and be, but also ought, need, modal is (i.e. the modal form of be that appears only in finite contexts), and others. As one widens the focus of study, P&W claim that there is less evidence for a homogeneous auxiliary class. With respect to this kind of approach, it could be countered that it is only natural that once the class is widened, its differences from main verbs will become less and less salient. P&W’s study explicitly deals with links between auxiliary verbs and elliptical phenomena. These are: (i) gapping; (ii) VPE; (iii) deletion of ‘proform’ do (in P&W terms, the latter should substitute classical do-insertion). P&W claim that gapping affects both auxiliaries and main verbs, cf. (17). (17) a. I drank water and Bill _ wine. b. Harry may leave and Fred _ stay. However, we may note that the gapped material may range over different kinds of categories without forcing one to equate those categories. As a different comparison, phrasal ellipsis can target distinct categories as well. Variability does, however, not force an analysis which puts one and the same label on everything that is possibly elided (IP, NP, VP, etc).6 Moreover, restricting attention to gaps which have the feature [+V], i.e. excluding the nominal domain and considering auxiliary and main-verb gaps for concreteness, we still get differences. Gaps which apparently lack only T

The main-verb approach against Aux

23

and those in which both the main verb and the tense are omitted – i.e. simple and complex gaps (Johnson 1996, 2003) – function quite differently. A vivid empirical illustrations of the difference relates to scope as in (18) vs. (19) (cf. also, i.a., Siegel 1987; Winkler 2003 for discussion). (18) Ward can't eat caviar and his guest _ eat dried beans. (19) Ward can't eat caviar and his guest _ _ dried beans. While the simple gap in (18) only allows for narrow scope, i.e. with the modal distributed individually over each conjunct, the complex gap in (19) additionally allows for a simultaneity effect giving the modal wide scope. Turning to VPE and VP fronting, P&W claim that these phenomena can be reformulated to operate on clausal constituents, like all the other rules which suggest that the English auxiliaries behave differently on the surface. P&W adopt this specific view ultimately as a convention and note McCawley’s (1974: 92) alternative proposal to re-label the purported sentence obtained and ascribe it VP status again after deletion. A node AUX is then redundant. Discussing fronting and ellipsis together is meaningful at a certain level if one considers that the two constituency tests yield similar results in many cases which are, for instance, by and large a subset of the constituents selected by coordination. It should be noted, however, that there are also cases in which movement and ellipsis single out different sequences as constituents, as Phillips’ (2003: 56) approach shows. (20) John said he would give books to them, … and give books to them he did [on each other’s birthdays]. (21) Mary said she would congratulate every boy, … and congratulate every boy she did [at his graduation]. (22) *John gave books to themi on each otheri’s birthdays, and Mary did _ [on each otheri’s first day of school]. (23) *Mary congratulated every boyi at his graduation, and Sue did _ [at hisi 21st birthday party]. These data are explained if one assumes the following: Fronting occurs after the chain containing anaphors or variables in Phillips’ sense is formed, as in (20) and (21). But ellipsis destroys anaphor-binding and variable-binding relations in the process of deletion, thus yielding the ungrammatical (22) and (23). Such observations may offer more or less credence to specific approaches to ellipsis, but it might be argued that for the specific concern raised by P&W, they do not help the decision either way.

24

Modals in the architecture of grammar

Let’s therefore assume with Phillips for now that modulo the differences inflicted by the possibility of destroying configurations through ellipsis, the two tests are “extremely similar in the range of constituents they can apply to” (p. 55).7 However, even with this abstraction in mind, namely that the two tests give fairly similar results, there remain three major issues which the main-verb approach would need to tackle with respect to the claims that anything applying to VP could be redefined as applying to full sentences, thus trying to obliterate the VP vs. TP taxonomy and making T, or Aux, redundant. First, as is well known, both in VP fronting and ellipsis, the functional licenser plays a key role (Johnson 2001; Lobeck 1995; Zagona 1988). Second, the status of the constituents that deletion picks out cannot arbitrarily fluctuate between VP and TP. Although both VPE and sluicing are forms of ellipsis, there are empirical differences, for instance, when it comes to island constraints. While it has been observed that sluicing may salvage a derivation which would otherwise violate the complex NPconstraint, Chung et al. (1995) invoke examples such as (24) (cf. Fox and Lasnik 2003: 144, 146), where VPE does not save the structures. (24) I believe the claim that he bit someone, but they don’t know who (*I believe the claim that he bit). (25) We left before they started playing party games. *What did you leave before they did _? Among the proposals recently put forth, Chung et al. argue for a radical disentanglement of VPE and sluicing in that the former involves PF deletion and the latter LF copying. Fox and Lasnik, on the other hand, maintain that, given that VPE with island repair also exists, the difference relates exactly to the size of the deleted constituent (Fox and Lasnik 2003: 149): [R]epair is possible in sluicing since every intermediate projection is deleted. By contrast, in VPE a smaller constituent is deleted, leaving one (or more) of the islands pronounced and consequently unrepaired.

Further, VPE and sluicing have conspicuously distinct cross-linguistic distributions. Some languages that allow sluicing do not allow VPE. Besides the possibility of illustrating this fact with parallel examples from a VPE-language and a non-VPE language (see, e.g., Lobeck 1995, López and Winkler 2000, who show that VPE is not a generally available option in German), there is another area where this variation shows effects. In language contact situations, there are attested examples where, for example, bilingual speakers with command of both German and English may switch

The main-verb approach against Aux

25

from the former to the latter at a point of discourse where typical parallelism requirements would license VPE, but the grammar they happen to use at the moment (German) would preclude using it, as shown in (26). (26) ich hab mei Brot und mei Butter hier gemacht, nit in Deutschland und if I have _, I have my bread and my butter here made, not in Germany and if I have you know, freilich hat sich halt so viel, so viel geändert you know, of course has itself PRT so much so much changed ‘I have made my living here, not in Germany, and if I have, you know, so much has certainly changed.’ [B Haimerl; born in Bavaria, 1925; New York 1951; Interview: R. Ganahl, 2000, New York]8

As a foil for a further argument for the redundancy of Aux, P&W use Jackendoff’s (1972) parallelism between speaker-oriented adverbs and epistemicity (cf. also section 4.1 of this chapter below) and implement it configurationally. The idea is that in order for the interpretation of the adverbs and epistemic modals to be processed in the same way, they would have to overlap one-to-one in sentence structure. For instance, P&W (1977: 750) claim that configurations such as (27) and (28) do not fulfil the requirement of parallelism between the adverb and the modal – translating and simplifying their formulation – because M is too deeply embedded. (27)

S NP

ADV

(28)

S NP

…

AUX T

…

M

By contrast, the phrase markers in (29) and (30) are claimed to feed semantic interpretation with the parallel, hence correct, surface structure. (29)

S NP

ADV

(30) …

S NP

V

…

With hindsight from cross-linguistic work in the wake of Cinque (1999), two qualifications must be made: (i) at least large classes of adverbs are in a close syntactic relationship with the syntactic locus of functional heads

26

Modals in the architecture of grammar

(if with anything); (ii) close does not entail that the two classes overlap, but e.g. that they may fall into spec-head relationships at LF. One feature of P&W’s analysis distinct from mainstream syntactic conceptualizations is the way they handle the auxiliary do. Instead of relying on last-resort insertion in the well-known triggering contexts of, e.g., interrogatives or negation, the core of their analysis consists in taking do as an instance of a pro-form which invariably replaces a verb phrase. Moreover, with actual VPE, the same pro-form becomes a target (rather than a licenser) of deletion.9 The main piece of evidence comes from the existence of the do pro-form in some British dialects (cf. also, e.g., Quirk et al. 1985) as shown in (31), (32) (taken here from P&W, p. 761). (31) I didn’t know the answer, but John may do. (do = know the answer) (32) I haven’t seen him, but John may have done. (done = seen him) An important step in the argumentation is the claim that do in such instances is as much an auxiliary verb as be. Empirically, this draws on the fact that both *be being and *be doing are illicit in most dialects which make use of forms like (31) and (32). This is illustrated by (33) and (33). (33) *I’m not working, but Bill may be doing. (34) *If you’re not working, you should be doing. The parsimony of the approach consists in assuming that one and the same constraint is involved in both *be being and *be doing constructions, i.e. one which explicitly “blocks stranded occurrences of supportive do or passive be when the progressive auxiliary precedes” (P&W 1977: 762). The particular use of do may indeed show similarities with be in barring the progressive. While the inner logic of the argument based on downgrading auxiliary do to be is impeccable, we may alternatively propose, following Quirk et al. (1985: 875), and Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 101), that this analysis is collapsing two in effect different instances of do. Thus the British type of do dialectally and grammatically distinguishes itself from the well-known periphrastic do. First, there is the clear difference in VPE licensing properties. Second, besides the areal delimitation and distinct distributional properties of the two items, the above-mentioned grammars attest that there are instances in which they can co-occur in the relevant dialects, as in (35) and (36).

The main-verb approach against Aux

27

(35) Bob says he is going to join the Labour Party. It will be interesting to see whether he DOES (do). (36) He won’t believe that I wrote it, but I DID do. Thus an Aux analysis (for the auxiliary do) does not seem to be ruled out in general on these grounds. Moreover, based on the criteria defined in Emonds (1970) and discussed in more detail below, it is precisely the finite-context restriction that motivates the assumption about the English auxiliary class consisting of auxiliary do and the modals. A possible consequence then is as follows. While the standard appearances of the modals and the auxiliary do fulfil this criterion, the pro-form use of do does not, as P&W show. On a more general note, P&W (cf. p. 765) make the observation that tense, for instance in Navajo, is realized on complementizers and draw the conclusion that tense realization is never syntactic, but purely morphological.10 The discussion includes what have later been called sloppy morphological copying mechanisms (see, e.g., Oku’s 1999 subsetprinciple), as in the case of the perfect in (37) and (38). (37) Mary has done well, but John hasn’t (*-en). (38) I haven’t done it yet, but I will [VP do it]. The two types of sentences above are claimed to present a paradox to previous syntactic approaches. Based on (37), it had previously been claimed (Akmajian and Wasow 1975) that affixation has to apply early, in order for -en not to remain ungrammatically stranded. By contrast, P&W maintain that this earliness makes sentences such as (38) underivable. VPE seems to apply there as if the affixes were not (yet) present. P&W’s conclusion is to “exclude affixes like –EN and –ING from syntax altogether” (p. 767). The problem P&W note is real in that most generative syntactic approaches on the auxiliary and verbal system of English had indeed taken sides either with a strong syntactic view or a strong lexicalist view. Lasnik (1995) points out further problems with respect to the issue and proposes the by now well-known hybrid approach to verbal morphology in which English main verbs are essentially merged bare into the derivation while auxiliaries may already come as inflected. This account in particular also predicts the contrasts between various types of ellipsis, as in (39), i.e., between elided main verbs and the auxiliaries have/be (cf. also Warner 1995).11 (39) a. John has slept, and Mary will too. b. *John has left, but Mary shouldn’t [VP have left].

28

Modals in the architecture of grammar

Example (39a) illustrates the possibility of sloppy morphology, i.e. an infinitive at the VPE site vs. a participle in the antecedent. On a similar configuration, (39b) results in ungrammaticality because an auxiliary verb with a different derivational genesis is involved. Finally, P&W argue that there is some naturalness in the modals' lack of non-finite forms, in that lack of agreement might be a common phenomenon, where these putative verbs fit in. They cite ineffable data for certain person-verb combinations involving the verb be (p. 769); cf. (40). While the issue may be raised whether such interesting facts on be bear on the modals’ lack of inflection, they can also be interpreted the opposite way (cf. also Barbiers and Sybesma 2004). Be is an auxiliary and therefore shows restrictions. (40) I, or else possibly you, *am/ *are in need of a rest. Summing up, P&W first insightfully show that the Aux-vs.-V debate has a place in syntax beyond framework confrontations. Second, they propose to simplify earlier analyses, even if the warning arguably holds that the syntactic argumentation is achieved by considering quite distinct auxiliaries and quasi-auxiliaries. Third, a key feature consists in pro-forms and ellipsis. What P&W generally clearly show is that an analysis of the English auxiliaries certainly needs revision beyond the classical Aux analysis.

2.3. On the role of fixed-points for verb movement: Baker (1991) The approach of C.L. Baker (1991) is critical of the generative view of the auxiliary domain and movement, targetting it from the verbal domain on a distinct level from P&W. Baker proposes to narrow down, rather than widen, the focus of inquiry. He concentrates on one of the triggers of the Aux analysis, namely negation, and calls into question the precise scope of how much the research conducted in the Principles-and-Parameters (P&P) framework can and should cover and explain. One of the main questions raised by Baker is whether the domain outside core grammar is possibly much larger than usually thought. The specific reason for looking into this study is the twist it adds to the assumed issue of fixed-points relevant for our concerns on clausal architecture. For example, in the widely adopted approach of Pollock 1989 (going back to Emonds 1970, 1976, 1978) one core assumption is that negation is a fixed-point in clausal cartography. Empirically, negation crucially stands on the trajectory of verb movement and one can thus test syntactic displacement in relationship to it. Various

The main-verb approach against Aux

29

surface effects related to it in the auxiliary domain would then be derived as epiphenomena of core-grammar, i.e. phrase-structure in conjunction with movement principles. Some direct criticism to this type of approach has been constructed on questioning its base line.12 Williams (1994: 189) states: “these assumptions are widely shared and reasonable ones, but I think incorrect.” Baker’s approach is distinct, in that it not only questions the specific assumptions, but also the framework, proposing a rule-based grammar. Baker (1991) argues that, on the one hand, the negation facts are not part of core-grammar and, on the other, that the claimed portion of noncore grammar follows certain linguistic regulations, essentially languagespecific in nature, and most of them not motivated by theories conducted on the basis of the Emonds/Pollock tests for verb movement to Infl. To achieve this goal, Baker (1991: 390-391, 398-399) starts out with a set of assumptions, the most important of which are rendered in (41)-(48). (41) A preverbal adverb can attach to a V´ as a left sister, yielding a larger V´, which is itself eligible for attachment to another preverbal adverb. V´ Adv

V´

(42) Not is a preverbal adverb. (43) Except for minor (chiefly semantic) restrictions, these adverbs (including not) occur randomly with respect to one another in Dstructure, with the expected differences in scope. (44) [A]uxiliary verbs are like other verbs in that they serve as heads of verb phrases. (45) An English-particular transformational rule moves a finite verb to the left of not. (46) Another English-particular rule moves unstressed finite verbs to the left periphery of their phrases. (47) In the structures that serve as input to rules [(45) and (46)], verbs and affixes are already joined. (48) The rule moving finite verbs across not is obligatory. The complete set of assumptions amounts to a considerable size, but at the same time it lays all the cards on the table by making very precise what is

30

Modals in the architecture of grammar

derived and what is not, so its cardinality should not count as a counterargument. Moreover, the single statements are relatively straightforward in their contents even though there may be some complications in the consequences. The premise in (41) coupled with (43), though not exhaustive (elsewhere in the article Baker correctly adds that adverbs can also linearize to the right of the verb phrase, or V´), is not unconventional. It has been the traditional standard for a long time in regarding adverbs as adjuncts without special needs as to syntactic combinatory restrictions. The combination of (41) with (46) yields for instance that unstressed ‘verbs’ will move leftward across all adverbs. What Baker’s formulation of these two rules factually means is that auxiliary verbs can undergo this movement because full verbs are not assumed by Baker to lose stress “under any conditions” (p. 396). The assumption in (47) in effect substitutes affix hopping. The classification in (42) is one of the most striking ones from the main set of assumptions above for a standard view on ModE. Though similar ideas have been proposed for other languages, for the syntax of English it seems that both not and the affixal n’t (the latter is not discussed by Baker; see Zwicky and Pullum 1983 on the affix analysis) have properties rather distinct from adverbs (see Haegeman and Guéron, 1999: Chapter 3, for a concise discussion of the well-known issues). To still account for the difference between negation per se and adverbs, the approach must postulate further assumptions. Interestingly, as Baker (n. 7) notes, a problem arises with (45) and (46). One ultimately has two rules for one and the same item if negation is but an adverb, as (42) says. Rule (46) in fact requires some further translation if one has a standard syntactic phrase structure in mind (say with subjects being in the same phrase with the auxiliaries, i.e. the ‘unstressable verbs’. Clearly, (46) should most likely not be assumed to predict those verbs to move across subjects at surface structure, or one would obtain a string resembling Irish rather than English word order in which the verb is standardly assumed to have moved over the subject without the subject having moved further. The assumptions in (45) and (48) are designed to exclude sentences such as (49), in which an auxiliary item appears linearly to the right of not. (49) *Carol not will send the package. The presence of the negative in (49) is crucial given that, in Baker’s (1991: 392) syntactic modelling, auxiliary verbs stay put unless there is overt evidence, specifically as instantiated through not, that they moved. While the account aims to be closely in touch with the direct empirical evidence

The main-verb approach against Aux

31

available at PF (i.e. in simplified terms, along the lines of the maxim a head did not move unless we have detected it moving across something), it is at the same time somewhat construction-specific. For instance, while the article does not explicitly deal with the further auxiliary properties (e.g., Huddleston and Pullum’s 2002 NICE criteria), its logic would necessitate to further stipulate similar assumptions for, say, question formation, given that auxiliaries move from underlying word-order in those contexts as well. While the original system proposed by Baker accounts for a range of data, there are some wrinkles to it. Under the assumption that no full verb of English loses its stress under any conditions, the rule in (46) has the effect of moving only auxiliaries to the left of their phrases when unstressed.13 An issue stems from the mixed context in which this rule is discussed and the mixed uses of the concept of stress. First, it is observed that auxiliaries can (in fact must) appear to the right of adverbs when stressed. (50) Harold never WAS very polite. (51) *Harold WAS never very polite. It turns out that there may be two types of issues involved in generalizing data such as (50) and (51) to postulate an in-situ condition for emphatically stressed auxiliaries; cf. (52)-(54). (52) Bill HAS obviously taken the key. (53) George CAN quickly leave the conference room. (54) *Jack not WAS very polite. On the one hand, although there are certain restrictions, auxiliaries can appear stressed and to the left of adverbs, e.g., with verum focus as in (52). The observation carries over to modals, as in (53). On the other hand, in the case of the ‘adverb’ not, stressing does not improve the structure either when it comes to keeping the alleged verb in situ, cf. (54). Though the rule making movement of not obligatory accounts for this last example, it still faces the issue of contradicting the first rule of the above, which places adverbs and not into the same group. Overall, Baker’s article remains a landmark contribution in the wake of the Emonds/Pollock types of proposals. One essential merit of this contribution lies in having alerted the linguistic community’s attention to the fact that much of the heuristic diagnosing revolving around movement to Infl is constructed as a relative view and, as with anything that is relative, one had better pay attention to what kind of structural reference points it actually

32

Modals in the architecture of grammar

relates to. However, a more critical issue perhaps is that although the approach starts out with a broad critique of the move-alpha approach, it assumes movement as well, at various steps, as we have seen above. The assumptions it encompasses, moreover, though not numerous per se give rise to complexity and learnability issues, should they be multiplied for each domain (besides negation) in which the auxiliary properties (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002) become relevant. Thus the trade-off does not seem to be quite even since the putative reduction of movement principles comes at the cost of enriching the base-rules (cf. Hegarty 2005 for discussion of this point). Although Baker posts the important warning with respect to the status of the reference points, the article at the same time recognizes that similar results might also be achieved on an Infl-analysis. Finally, there is another useful result, on a more abstract level. What we will say about modality (e.g. with regard to scope markers such as tense or quantifiers) will be phrased in relative terms first, with phrase-structural implementation undertaken only after stronger corroborating evidence.

2.4. Conclusions and outlook from early approaches The line of argumentation within theoretical syntax claiming full verb status for modals has been influential on the line of research arguing against it (cf. next section), and it has also prepared the ground for more general concerns relating to modal interpretation. Though no recent studies have retained Ross’ (1969) original hypotheses on auxiliaries or, say, McCawley’s (1971) initial (“reversed”) proposal of tenses as verbs, many of the older ideas can fruitfully be approached and explored in recent frameworks. The role of ellipsis in the auxiliary debate, insofar as we considered it up to now, is not an argument for modals as verbs in English. However, the licensing properties with respect to anaphoric processes are worth being kept in mind for their interaction with the modals. Gapping, moreover, was one of the strong empirical arguments of the main-verb approach, but, as has been argued, not a compelling one. Furthermore, as we will see later, important scope issues emerging in the recent literature on modals draw attention to the possibility of a distinction between two separate temporal contributions in clauses with modals. The consideration that alongside the eventuality time, the evaluation time impacts on the derivation will also play a role. Given that only one out of the two stems from a verb, the second must come from the modal. We will partially have

The functional-category analysis

33

to look at the contribution of verbs and modals in parallel, though it will have to be different from regarding them structurally on a par.

3.

The functional-category analysis

3.1. Moving have and be: Emonds (1970/1976) Although some of the arguments against an Aux-analysis can be overcome, we still face P&W’s objection that the early version of the auxiliary system is too heterogeneous. In this section, the view will be defended that an analysis for a subset of what traditionally constitutes the auxiliary class has advantages over the early generative view of Aux. While preceding generative work had been generous in treating various syntactic phenomena as transformations of one another, up to Joseph Emonds’ dissertation not much attention had been paid to the question of how structure was to be preserved along the way. Chomsky (1965) had proposed restrictions and global conditions on transformation so that these would be reduced to interpretive functions. One of the rather general conditions states that a rule like deletion cannot apply unless coupled with recoverability of the deleted material (Chomsky 1965: 138). But local conditions and particularly concerns about structure before and after the application of transformations were generally still scarce in the 1960s. For illustration, consider (55), a string containing a constituent A in position pi preceding, and in pj following, the application of a transformation T. (55) - - - -A - - - -A - - - - T pj pi One might assume that the internal structure of A is the same in pre- and post- transformational configurations. However, this assumption is not trivial (cf. feature-based models, which allow feature-movement and consequently a possible scattering of the element in question; cf. also section 3.4). But the harder issue glossed over in early studies had been whether the external syntax of the phrase structure corresponding to the linearizations above was respected by the transformation. The theory presented in Emonds (1970, 1976) is an attempt to come to terms with the issue of structure preservation. The main areas for which this issue is tested are movement of phrasal and non-phrasal nodes and insertion rules, which according to Emonds (1976: 212), “must not add to the store of syntactic

34

Modals in the architecture of grammar

features.” In order to explore the syntax of the inflectional node, we need the discussion of verb raising in Emonds’ theory. The key evidence adduced for motivating the existence of verb raising is morphosyntactic, a pioneering approach within formal tradition. Specifically, the morpho-syntactic rationale – which assigns have and be as basegenerated to a category, contra Chomsky’s earlier work – is empirically substantiated with sentences such as (55)-(61) (cf. Emonds 1976: 207). (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61)

To have been chosen for this post is a great honor. He helped by being cheerful at the right moment. Prices have started being quoted daily. Prices have been being quoted early. Our prices should be being quoted daily. These desks may have been cheap.

Thus (55)-(61) illustrate the main discriminating criterion introduced by Emonds at work. It consists in assigning those lexical entries which allow affixation to a lower position than Chomsky’s initial AUX and later Infl. In this respect, have and be pattern with main verbs. Modals do not allow attachment to the aforesaid affixes. The morphological criterion can be given a syntactic correlate considering that a representation with the affix in a super-ordinate position may undergo a process akin to affix movement. Chomsky’s earlier work had been based on an account centered on numerous phrase structure rules used to account for the possible orders of auxiliary sequences. Emond’s line of argument is that, with fewer assumptions, the main verb proposal alternatively accounts for the absence of modals in V-nodes and for certain recursions with the other auxiliaries as shown above. A further direct upshot of the morphosyntactic approach is that be in be going to and be of expectation constructions are analyzed as modals, as exemplified in (62)-(64). Similarly, what Emonds distinguishes as be of necessity also falls into the class M, i.e., Aux, as in (65)-(66) – the data and judgments are taken from Emonds (1970).14 (62) (63) (64) (65) (66)

*A demonstration may be going to be held at six. Three senators are to be here for the conference. *The senators’ being to be here surprises me. You are to read one book every evening. *They insisted on your being to read one book every evening.

The functional-category analysis

35

What the examples are intended to show is that the quasi-auxiliaries in question share some of the properties of the modals.15 However, the approach does not obviously account for the fact that while be can, auxiliary have must not follow itself. Second, have cannot follow the progressive be, and third, the latter cannot follow itself. For the first two of these facts, Emonds suspects that aspectuality is involved, the heart of the argument being that have can generally not appear as second after verbs marking “temporal aspect” (cf. Emonds 1976: 209). (67) *John began/continued/resumed having said something important. (68) *Harry tended/ceased/went on to have written a letter. Thereby the restriction of have after have and aspectual be would equally follow. The third restriction has to do with the fact that V-ing-V-ing sequences are generally ruled out. The logic is that this corroborates the treatment of have and be on a par with main verbs, if one considers data such as (69)-(70), in which arguably similar restrictions obtain. (69) *John regretted being eating when Mary arrived. (70) *After being singing for so long, I’d like to eat. To bridge the verbal morphological make-up of have and be to their auxiliary-like syntactic properties, Emonds assumes verb raising. Further key evidence comes from the observation that have and be invert in questions, precede negation and the emphatic particles too and so, can precede adverbs like frequently and ever, and moreover can precede quantifiers, as illustrated in (71)-(77). Main verbs (including main-verb uses of have and be) do not display these characteristics, as shown in (78)-(84). (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76)

Was John helping him? Why had the boy come in? They were not examined. Bill has so seen a doctor. He has frequently sung. I wonder if he was ever a radical. (77) You would all enjoy a movie.

(78) (79) (80) (81) (82) (83)

*Helped John her? * Why left the boy? *The girl read not the letter. *John knows so French. *He has frequently to sing. *… if he eats ever cherries.

(84) *We enjoyed all a movie.

The strategy is to obtain a structural reference point in relationship to which derivations can be compared. To illustrate this, Emonds (1976: 205)

36

Modals in the architecture of grammar

takes negation as an independent node “just to the right of the AUX and outside the VP.” Pace the objections we have discussed in the previous section, evidence that NEG is outside VP can be adduced from ellipsis since the negation, unlike adverbs, does not delete along, but must remain overt.16 (85) Bill came early, but Mary did not _. (86) Ellen refuses to buy grapes, and I try not to _. The proposal proceeds in a similar fashion for other pieces of evidence, e.g., sentential adverbs and emphatic markers. In particular, Emonds (1976: 205) suggests that emphatic markers have a position between AUX and V. (87) John has certainly not finished his task. (88) *John has certainly so finished his task. To sum up, Emonds (1970, 1976) starts out from Chomsky’s (1957, 1965) analysis of auxiliaries as a distinct node in the clausal phrase marker, and revises it in such a way as to accommodate several morphosyntactic facts which had not previously been considered. Crucially, the mixed-bag problem in the Aux class finds a neat solution under this treatment. The proposal consists in loosening the connection between have/be on the one hand and the modals on the other through a movement analysis for the former. The innovation of disentangling the two classes along the lines done in Emonds has proven a stimulating line of thought reaching up to minimalist approaches (e.g., Lasnik 1997; Roberts 1998), and we will touch upon it several times. A further fruitful venue opened up by this type of research concerns the cross-linguistic options for verb movement. Thus, based on adverb, negation and quantifier diagnostics, and following to a large extent the approach of Emonds, Pollock (1989, 1997) comes to the conclusion to split the traditional projection of inflection not into subconstituents as in earlier generative accounts (cf. also Steele et al. 1981), but rather into distinct full-fledged projections, namely tense and agreement. While main verbs stay put in English and move in French, auxiliaries like have and be are more complex in both languages. While in French it is precisely the properties of non-finites that have motivated much of Pollock’s (1989) approach, in English, especially finite have and be can be found in higher positions not shared by other verbs.

The functional-category analysis

37

3.2. Deriving Infl for modals: Roberts (1985) The seminal account of the modals in Roberts (1985) builds on three major strands of research which are geared to the requirements of a P&P-theory. Roberts follows Lightfoot’s (1974, 1979) approach to the syntax of the earlier and the Modern English (ModE) modals. But whereas Lightfoot (1974) claims the introduction of a category Aux into English with the advent of the ModE period, Roberts adopts the universal auxiliary/inflectional node hypothesis (Steele et al. 1981).17 The third major direction covered includes aspects of the theory of thematic roles. From a comparative perspective, if Infl is assumed to be universal, then it will be present in grammars both before and after the changes occurring in early Modern English (eModE) – with the essential difference that it had affixal status before (cf. also particularly the –en ending on the infinitives), but free-morpheme status (e.g., modals and to) after the diachronic reanalysis process (see Roberts 1993; Roberts and Roussou 2003; and Chapter 4 for further diachronic details). For the theoretical embedding of the type of parametric variation Roberts (1985) resorts to a theory of verbal visibility which he links to common assumptions of the syntactic theory of the 1980s, specifically theta criterion and government, in the sense of Chomsky (1981) and much related work. Main verbs have to be licensed morphologically or syntactically by a functional head α. This then results in the possible configurations given in (89)-(91); cf. Roberts (1985: 29). (90)

(89)

α

VP

(91) [W V= Stem α= Af]

α

V

V The options given are strongly reminiscent of case theory in at least two respects. On the one hand, the idea is that a verb is marked or made visible by inflection, similarly to the way a NP/DP may be identified by case; on the other hand, there are various ways to fulfil this assumed requirement. In terms of the diachronic motivation for the change, there are three essential causes for the hypothesized structural shift (diachronic reanalysis) of the modals from full verbs to inflectional markers, as summarized in (92).18 (92) a. loss of subjunctive and replacement through modals

38

Modals in the architecture of grammar

b. morphological irregularity of modals c. loss of inflection (most importantly 2SG –st, and INF -en) Under these and similar conditions, the modals are syntactically reinterpreted to a structurally higher category of their own during the sixteenth century. While we concur with the core fact of the reanalysis, it will be argued in Chapter 4, based on ellipsis data from Middle English, that the formulation of the scenario (even when spelled out in the usual, arguably abstracting syntactic metric) needs revision. Let us now test the consequences of some of the synchronic arguments proposed. Roberts’ original line of argumentation applied to the case in point is appealing since it starts out from a minimal set of assumptions, concretely, a loosely verbal (+V) nature assigned to the modals. From this standpoint, a higher position (specifically outside VP) for the ModE modals is essentially derived. Theoretically, this is a considerable improvement on approaches assuming the modals in an auxiliary node, and in principle a sound strategy. The suggestion put to work within this strategy in the P&P framework is given in (93). (93) Theta-role correlation (Roberts 1985) V assigns theta-roles iff V is governed For a verb which assigns thematic roles, Roberts (1985: 29) translates the condition given in (93) exactly into the three possibilities shown in (89)(91) above. (93) contains two implications. If we read the condition as stated, we will find the situation extant in historical varieties of English. Modals were both governed and theta-role assigners, so the condition seems to be valid mainly because it describes the facts of Middle English (ME). While focusing more widely on diachrony in Chapter 4, as mentioned, to obtain the consequences of the principle for the synchronic modals, it is useful to apply contraposition, or negative conversion of the twoway hypothetical. This translates into the equivalent statement A head H is not a theta-assigner iff H is not governed. A first follow-up then is whether the facts would endorse as strong an equivalence. The necessity for a head directly merged in a high structural position (Infl) to have no argument-grid seems to be plausible and is the less controversial issue. Notice that this also provides an interesting intermediate result for grammaticalization theory. The notion that grammaticalizing elements become devoid of meaning or bleached in some sense is as old as grammaticalization theory itself. However, in this generality it has also already been refuted with various arguments. Traugott and König

The functional-category analysis

39

(1991) review various empirical cases in which meaning is in fact added to the items undergoing grammaticalization and point out a number of pitfalls and possible overgeneralizations. In formal terms, von Fintel (1995) draws attention to a very natural fact from a truth-conditional semantics standpoint: If it is true that full-fledged verbs develop into modals, then this goes hand in hand with development of high-type semantic entries (i.e. not bleached but rather highly complex semantic units). A problematic part of the condition above is the question whether its implications also constitute a sufficient factor. Second, why are not all theta-role-less verbs, for instance arguably raising verbs, functional elements? Third, auxiliary uses of have and be are not in the same class with the modals. But how can this be ruled out by the theory? They can hardly be assumed to carry theta-roles. Therefore, they should appear ungoverned, or updating (and simplifying) the account: merged high up in Infl/T. But it is exactly structurally lower down that we find them according to Emonds’ morphosyntactic diagnostic from the previous section. Given this paradox, the full form of the original reasoning cannot be maintained. With the concept of government gone, today a further set of questions regarding (93) and its logical equivalence class is whether the above could be parsed in more recent theoretical terms. On close inspection, it turns out that the main weight of the argument rests indeed on theta-roles. While Roberts argues that these were assigned in earlier stages of English, they cannot standardly be assigned in modern registers. Moreover, the proposal might minimalistically be equated with the need of merging the modals higher than the VP due to their inability to assign proper theta-roles. In addition to the empirical arguments, in hindsight a more adequate way of argumentation would only permit a one-way implication in the condition on appearance in the Infl domain. Given that the modals are syntactically in that position mainly with the arguments developed in the tradition following Emonds, one might not need to reinforce this argument with the purported sufficient condition on thematic roles. Conversely, however, the claim regarding the functional status of those elements seems to have the lightness of the modals as a useful prerequisite (the necessary condition). With respect to distinctions between modal meanings, Roberts (1985: 50; cf. also Cinque 1999, Marrano 1998, i.a.), observes that subject oriented adverbs and root modals correlate in a restriction barring them in the middle construction. A possibility here would be that the agent-orientedness of some root modals at least conflicts with the middle construction, which lacks the implication of agentivity.19

40

Modals in the architecture of grammar

(94) *The book sold voluntarily. (95) *Arabic can read easily (96) *Dinner must serve best at 8.

(with root interpretation) (with root interpretation)

Despite possible non-sequiturs in retrospect, Roberts (1985) remains a landmark for combining syntactic theory with modal concerns. Some of the open issues are in fact judiciously pointed out in the article itself and here we provide a few further ones in a brief outlook for present concerns: First and foremost, the epistemic/root dichotomy is ultimately not accounted for, though interesting effects such as theta-assignment issues are discussed. Second, the theta-role based equivalence we have seen above turned out to be too strong a condition (cf. also next section). Third, a clearer delimitation of Infl will be needed to update Emonds’ (1976) observations. Fourth, a fuller discussion of the diachronic issues needs to be undertaken taking modally-licensed ellipsis into account.

3.3. Morphological intricacies and emerging economies: Emonds (1994) This subsection reviews aspects of the proposal of Emonds (1994). There are at least three strands currently relevant. First, Emonds argues against Roberts' (1985) proposal, which connects Infl-status one-to-one to impoverishment in terms of theta-roles. Second, even more strongly, the article argues against the analysis of Emonds (1976) by considering a range of apparent idiosyncrasies of have and be. Third, the most important point for present purposes, Emonds argues, within the context of the initial minimalist works emerging at the time, that there are various ways in which the grammar may implement economy desiderata, and that lexicalization of certain items is a prominent one among them. Emonds considers Roberts’ (1985) suggestions with respect to the reanalysis of the modals to the Infl domain. While agreeing with the historical precondition that for the modals to occupy the Infl-node their theta roles might have had to be dispensed with, Emonds takes issue with the biconditional character of the account. Part of Emonds’ illustration in this discussion draws on data regarding the verb get. Kimball (1973) had argued that get is but the inchoative counterpart to be and have. The observation essentially yields a comparable theta role-less grid and explains parallel structures such as Mary got/was taken to the station and Ann had/got a cold. Nonetheless, “finite be uniformly acts like an I[=Infl], and finite get uniformly does not” (Emonds 1994: 158). Perfective have also behaves

The functional-category analysis

41

like an Infl and in some English dialects even possessive have does so (cf. Was/*Got Mary taken to the station? Has/*Gets Sue many calls these days?). Emonds (1994) rejects the classical movement analysis of Emonds (1976) for have and be and proposes base-generation in the main node of the clause (I) for what he takes to be singly listed forms (is, was, etc). The discussion of the methods presented is interesting from the point of view of move vs. first-merge (i.e., base-generation). Emonds presents both a representational and a derivational principle of economy, as illustrated in (97) and (98) (cf. Emonds 1994: 161-162). (97) Economy of Representation: A given subcategorization must be fulfilled in a domain using as few phrasal nodes as possible. (“Use as few phrases as possible.”) (98) Economy of Derivation: The most economic realization of a given deep structure minimizes insertion of free morphemes. (“Use as few words as possible.”) However, an essential factor interferes. When it comes to economy, the way structure is lexicalized can be more important than concerns of derivational transformations. Emonds proposes: “choices about how given structures are lexicalised play a more important role than choices measured strictly in terms of transformational operations” (p. 155). This idea is empirically linked to the specialized morphosyntactic traits of have and be and theoretically to (97) and (98). If Emonds (1994) is correct, there is even less verb raising in English than standardly thought, emptying arguments that have and be appear inconsistently ‘French’ in their syntax if raised.20 [T]he paradigms of English, when carefully analyzed reveal that no V actually raises in English, contrary to my own previous and relatively widely accepted account. (Emonds 1994: 170)

Economy is another issue at stake closely tied to lexicalization. Emonds summarizes the characteristics of be/have raising (on the initial assumption that they are feasible options) as in (99). The eventual main structure proposed is equivalent to the one given in (100). (99) Move V to I: a. obligatory for be b. obligatory for have in __V +en (perfective)21

42

Modals in the architecture of grammar

c. optional for other stative uses of have d. a “trace” of stative [have, -PAST] can be spelled as got. (100)

IP | I´ [I, tense] is

VP V

XP

Ø

…

Invariably merging auxiliaries in the I node does, however, not appear as convincingly superior since there are lower instances of have and be (Emonds 1976). The principle of representational economy is put to work for a higher-boundary of intermediate projections between I(nfl) (where, e.g., copular is now is merged) and say, the AP of a copular predicate. Emonds proposes that there is an empty V head due to an assumed selectional frame (although this violates the principle of derivational economy), but then restricts further generation of empty heads through (97) (“Use as few words as possible”). A main effect of the principle of representational economy then is to stop further phrases from intervening between Infl and the main predicate AP. The derivational economy on the other hand yields the choice of [is] + [0] over [do] + [be]. The latter only becomes available in (negative) imperatives for which Emonds assumes lack of finiteness. One can raise the question what happens to non-finite forms of have and be, i.e. the ones remaining in-situ in Emonds (1970/1976). Merging them in the central clausal node Infl, as Emonds proposes for the finite forms, would produce a problem, notably in sequences in which they follow modals. Emonds (1994) posits them in situ too, i.e., in V. Various options would be open given that auxiliaries tend to move to I and in some approaches even their non-finite counterparts do so (Roberts 1998). A third point, is that while Emonds (1994) criticizes the split within auxiliaries with respect to the optionality in movement, the approach creates a new split, namely the +/- finiteness diacritic of have and be influencing their position. In Chapters 3 and 4, we will navigate a course between Emonds (1970) and Emonds (1994) in that we will first-merge have/be in functional projections, but notably of a type lower than standard Infl (in outline, of an Asp/Pred type). The common trait with the higher Infl will be that these projections encompass an interpretable [+T] feature in their feature matri-

The functional-category analysis

43

ces which will be crucial for ellipsis licensing. A more general point for the present course will be that, if the way single items are lexicalized has the strong kind of influence on grammar Emonds argues for, then it becomes interesting to ask to what extent the grammaticalizing options of the modals and the lexicalization resulting from it determine their syntax.

3.4. Minimalist questions: Roberts (1998), Chomsky (1995) Why do syntactic entities undergo displacement? In this section, the issue of motivating movement in the case of auxiliaries is critically discussed based on Roberts (1998) and the earlier minimalist approaches with the suggestion of an implementation along Move F(eature) (Chomsky 1995). Splitting off a feature F in the Minimalist Program (MP) can be interpreted to take place from the item with which F entered the numeration, with oc22 casional pied-piping of the entire feature-bundle of the item in question. The ideas put forth in Emonds’ work from the 1970s have proven influential on more recent work. Roberts (1998) builds on the same line and discusses possible implementations in the spirit of the MP. As we address theories of specialized functional projections later, here we operate with essentially one main functional category. Chomsky (1995) for instance opts for eliminating Agr(eement) projections (Pollock 1989) due to lack of interpretation. Roberts deals with some still pending issues about auxiliaries we have touched on above in terms of an Agr-free syntax. Given the facts of auxiliary raising, the indeed minimalistic main question Roberts asks is why in English it is only auxiliaries that raise. Two direct predecessors in the emerging minimalist tradition are Chomsky (1995: Chapter 3 and elsewhere) and Lasnik (1995). Chomsky had proposed that due to purported lack of interpretation auxiliaries should be deleted at LF. The essential background assumption is that the inflectional head bears a V-feature which needs checking with the verb. Such views of the facts would then motivate auxiliary movement to T before Spell-Out and particularly before the critical LF (at which helping verbs would disappear). This can, however, not be the end of the story, given that even have and be build minimal pairs such as in (101), which do not mean the same thing (cf., i.a., Kayne 1993; Roberts 1998: 116). Therefore at least one of the two can be taken to have some (relational) meaning. (101) a. John has a father. b. John is a father.

44

Modals in the architecture of grammar

A second alternative to the question of why the English auxiliaries raise has been proposed by Lasnik (1995). There are some interesting parallels and differences to the first road taken. While Chomsky’s (1995: Chapter 3) approach rests on an abstract morphological feature (the V-feature) associated with the inflectional domain, Lasnik’s proposal takes the special morphological feature of the raised verbs to be essential. Before we see where this leads, let’s recall that the peculiar morphological properties of have and be, i.e. the most likely candidates for raising, can this time also be given an overt correlate and do not rest on abstract postulates solely (cf. also sections 2.2 and 3.3). The irregular inflection displayed by be is immediately visible: am, are, is etc.; the one shown by have is also more complex than that of lexical verbs (even compared to so-called irregular verbs with idiosyncratic past formation, a feature which have incidentally also shares). The point is, as Pullum and Wilson (1977) have argued, that the person inflection for the third singular is not simple affixation to a stem 23 since /has/ is not regularly obtained as /have/+/s/. Returning to Lasnik’s suggestion regarding the morphological package, it seems reasonable to state that auxiliaries come inflected from the lexicon, while the other verbs get their inflection in the syntactic process. The most striking application of this line of reasoning concerns VPE. Beyond sloppiness of referent identity, VPE allows a sloppy type of morphological matching between antecedent and elided constituent as in (102). The same fact does, however, not generally occur with auxiliaries, as (103)-(105) show. Where have does not raise, the lexical-verb pattern is paralleled, cf. (106) (Roberts 1998: 117). (102) (103) (104) (105)

John slept, and Mary will sleep too. * John was here, and Mary will be here too. * John has left, but Mary shouldn’t have left. * John hasn’t a driver’s license, but Mary should have a driver’s license. (106) John doesn’t have a driver’s license, but Mary should have a driver’s license.

The implementation of the distinction concerning the locus of inflection in the approach initiated by Lasnik is as follows (Roberts 1998: 117): Since main verbs are always and only inserted as bare stems, deletion (which takes place before syntactic affixation) is always possible; in [(102)] sleep has not undergone affixation to form slept when deletion under iden-

The functional-category analysis

45

tity applies. On the other hand, since auxiliaries are inserted fully inflected, the identity condition is not satisfied in cases like [(103)-(106)]

The consequence is that one obtains a prediction about the timing of ellipsis. However, Roberts ultimately tries to challenge this view, attributing the ellipsis facts to a different rule which would only accept antecedents if they contained no traces. When have and be raise – as arguably in the antecedents of (103)-(105), they also leave traces. Two counterarguments, however, to the hypothesis of having no trace in the antecedent that Roberts mentions are the fact that VPs containing wh-traces and NP-traces can function as antecedents for VPE, and that even non-finite be fails to antecede VP ellipsis as in (107) and (108) (cf. Roberts 1998). (107) ?*The children have been very good here. I wish they would be good at home. (108) *John was being obnoxious, and Mary will be obnoxious too. To counter such arguments, Roberts suggests that the “no-trace-inantecedent” argument be restricted to V-traces, and that even in non-finite examples like (107) and (108), the verb has raised. This yields (109). (109) [VP [V e] X] (where X may be null) cannot antecede VP-ellipsis Given that the ellipsis facts can, according to Roberts, be explained by the trace prohibition within the antecedent, his proposal comes down to the view that auxiliaries are exhausted by formal features, and therefore are light enough to raise preceding Spell-Out. Main verbs additionally have lexical features (e.g. thematic information). Therefore they would procrastinate. The final refinement Roberts proposes is to dispense with the notion of Procrastinate, and to state checking of formal features directly, i.e. through feature movement. The conspicuous difference from auxiliaries is that in the case of the latter, the whole item can be pied-piped along with the formal features, given that there are no lexical features left behind. Roberts does, however, not discuss PF-features. Two important final issues are that some modals may now be able to raise, too (cf. also the semimodal ought to). Moreover, exclusive elision of the lower VP, i.e. in a Larsonian structure, is impossible in English. Consider (110). (110) *John washed the car and Mary washed the car too.

46

Modals in the architecture of grammar

Therefore ellipsis takes place not at the borderline v-V, where v is the projection verbs obligatorily raise to, but given (110), structurally higher up. Summing up, compared to the standard MP formulation, Roberts’ (1998) approach is holistic, in that the entire item will move, and thereby appears to be more compatible with more recent minimalist approaches.24 What happens in Roberts’ proposal is that light auxiliary elements such as have and be are in fact features. There are two areas in this connection that we will connect to and more closely investigate later. First, we will propose that light elements in ME involved in the configurations of a modal followed by a directional phrase involve an aspectual feature (Chapter 4). Second, we will propose that an interpretable feature both in the case of have and be and the modals licenses VPE (Chapter 5).

4. Theories of specialized functional projections 4.1. Correlates of meaning and structure: Jackendoff (1972) In this subsection we consider the link between the syntactic concerns of earlier approaches and interface-bound issues such as the status of epistemic modality in grammar. Jackendoff (1972) implements the AUXanalysis (as in Emonds 1970) and puts it to test at the interfaces. A major concern in Jackendoff’s study are adverbs and adverbials. The position taken can be interpreted as drawing the line between sentence adverbials and VP-adverbials (cf. also Thomason and Stalnaker 1973 for contemporary views). Jackendoff’s work, however, also constitutes explicit input to more recent approaches; cf. Cinque (1999). There is in fact a considerable cross-module parallelism between the two seminal studies. Jackendoff’s work, though declared semantic, has also inspired numerous syntactic endeavours. Cinque’s endeavour, on the other hand, though pursuing a syntactic-universal objective, has triggered a series of interface explorations given that it is based on tight syntax-semantics correlations. Syntactically, Jackendoff adopts Emonds’ (1970) version of the auxiliary analysis. Building on it, he sets out to account for how the particular (modal) syntactic structure can relate to semantic interpretation and offers one of the early accounts in the generative framework dealing with the root/epistemic dichotomy (see also Hofmann 1966/1976 and Ross 1969). On the conceptual side, the idea argued for by Jackendoff is that semantic interpretation applies within a component of its own, and for it to generate grammatical output, the syntactic component (which applies one step ear-

Theories of specialized functional projections

47

lier, as on standard assumptions to the present day) has to hand over the appropriate structures. The grammar model thus envisaged is as in (111). (111) The model of the grammar proposed in Jackendoff (1972)

Transformational cycle 1 component cycle 2 cycle n Surface structures

Functional structures Modal structures and table of coreference Focus and presupposition

Semantic representations

Deep structures

Semantic component

Base rules

The connections between the modules in this model is not unfamiliar from a minimalist vantage. The various syntactic cycles between the input and the output (1, …, n above) communicate with, and hand over a partial input to, the semantics before the final evaluation of the structure.25 What we then get is effectively close to a minimalist derivational model. Concerning modality, Jackendoff develops tools to handle it in two contexts which are dealt with separately. On the one hand, the discussion of adverbs, which are viewed in parallel with the modals through rules of projection (Jackendoff 1972: Chapter 3). On the other hand, the discussion of reference properties of noun phrases, which is claimed to hinge on socalled modal structure (Jackendoff 1972: Chapter 7). Of these two doors to modality, we will only enter the first one. We first need the formulation of the four types of projection rules and how they apply to adverbs. We discuss these rules in their original transparent formulation. The notational basis for them is as follows. Let S be a sentence containing a non strictly subcategorized adverb Adv. Remove Adv from S, and thus get S’ (with the same functional structure as S since, according to Jackendoff, “Adv does not contribute to the functional structure”, p. 69). Finally, let Adj be the adjective counterpart of Adv and ADJ its semantic content. With these notational preliminaries, four different semantic types can be postulated, where each type can be expressed trough various syntactic structures as illustrated below. The first type involves predicating an ADJ of a sentence, and possibly of a speaker; (112)-(113).

48

Modals in the architecture of grammar

(112) It is evident (to me) that Frank is avoiding us. (113) Happily, Frank is avoiding us. (with the given paraphrase: ‘I am happy that F. is avoiding us.’) The conceptual representation Jackendoff proposes for such predicates is rendered in (114)-(115), and is (later in the study) dubbed Pspeaker. (114) ADJ (f ( NP1, …, NPn)) (115) ADJ (SPEAKER, f( NP1, …, NPn)) In the second projection type, S’ is embedded as a sentential complement of a main clause containing Adj. One of the NPs of S must also be represented in the main clause. (119) gives Jackendoff’s projection rule Psubject. (116) (117) (118) (119)

John was careful to spill the beans. It was clumsy of John to spill the beans. John was clumsy in spilling the beans. ADJ (NPi, f(NP1, …, NPn))

The third type refers to manner, degree, and time adverbs, cf. (120).26 (120) Dave speaks eloquently. Jackendoff generally allows semantic information to be added both through lexical entries and through the projection rules. For instance, an element of violence is introduced through the former with a verb like smash, but through the latter in break violently. However, given that the semantic component must relate syntactic structure to meaning, if adverbs enter the derivation, they will already be equipped through their entries with the information which semantic structures they can participate in; cf. (121). (121) a. certainly is a predicate over S; happily is a predicate over S and a speaker; b. carefully (non-manner reading) is a predicate over S and an unspecified NP; c. eloquently, frequently, completely are semantic markers modi fying functions; d. merely is an adverb of its own class.

Theories of specialized functional projections

49

Let us now see how the rules and the adverb discussion relate to the modality concerns in terms of Jackendoff’s syntax-semantics mapping. First, epistemics are explicitly interpreted through the Pspeaker rule. This is a desirable result (i.e. no additional, say Pepi, rule for epistemic adverbs or modals is introduced). Rather, the rule already introduced for speaker-oriented adverbs is claimed to hand over the right structure for the interpretation of epistemic modality. Intriguingly, the main evidence is syntactic, and comes from two main areas. The first two arguments involve questions and onlypreposing which both favor root interpretation, cf. (122) and (123), whereas counterparts without the application of these transformations keep their ambiguous status (p. 103); cf. also Drubig (2001) and Progovac (1998) for further discussion. (122) Only three people must/ should/ may Max see. (123) Must / Should/ May Max leave? In the same vein, Jackendoff (p. 84) observes that “Many S adverbs do not feel comfortable in questions,” and offers data as in (124)-(125); cf. Katz and Postal (1964). (124) *Did Frank probably beat all his opponents? (125) *Who certainly finished eating dinner? Fourth, speaker-oriented adverbs may precede, but not follow, subjectoriented adverbs. The same is true of epistemic modals, although the degree of unacceptability is not as strong (cf. Jackendoff’s (3.268)). (126) ?*Carefully Pete should creep out of there soon.

(epi)

Given that Jackendoff seems inclined to handle epistemic modals through the rules for speaker-oriented adverbs, the related question for the root modals arises: Specifically whether root modals show similar parallelism effects to any of the adverb projection rules. This second unification, of root modals in particular with Psubject does, however, not go through, as Jackendoff (1972: 104) observes. Notice that in terms of the linearization processes envisaged by Jackendoff, root modals can precede speakeroriented adverbs, cf. (127) and (128) while subject-oriented adverbs cannot. (127) Bill should probably have left by now.

50

Modals in the architecture of grammar

(128) Fred must usually get out by climbing the wall. Despite many innovations since Jackendoff (1972), one connection to more recent work, in particular also Cinque (1999), is that the root (but not the epistemic) domain is spilt into more projections, an asymmetry also argued for by Drubig (2007). The currently most relevant part of Jackendoff’s contribution consists in the discussion of syntactic correlates to the semantic epistemic-root distinction. The question that becomes prominent is the one regarding the precise syntactic representation of such correlates.

4.2. Adverbs and functional heads: Cinque (1999) In the previous subsection, Jackendoff’s observations on the behavior of epistemic adverbs and modals remained unmatched in terms of clear-cut syntactic predictions. Following Cinque (1999) and Drubig (2001), in this subsection and the next one, we address the question whether it is possible to coalesce the early grammatical observations with the Emonds/Roberts functional-category view of the modals and thus arrive at more substantial generalizations in particular regarding the status of epistemic modality. Some of the proposals in the theory of functional projections in the 1990s have received impetus from configurational research conducted in the domain of adverbs building on Jackendoff’s program; cf. Cinque (1999, 2001), Alexiadou (1997), Laenzlinger (1996), who propose various types of mechanisms (mainly spec-head) between functional heads and adverbs. Laenzlinger, for instance, sees the generation of adverbs in specifier positions as advantageous when compared to adjunction and implements configurationality in terms of (a maximum of) two specifiers, which are appendixed to functional projections. Cinque, on the other hand, relates to the standard X-bar schema, with exactly one specifier per projection and opts for merging the adverbs in the same position.27 Cinque, moreover, claims that functional heads stand in a universally fixed (c-commanding) relationship to one another. This is due to semantic import, but the ordering relationship is syntactic. Such structural hypotheses are apparently lean in terms of internal structural assumptions, but turn out to have a richly articulate character in terms of the projections involved. We give a relevant proper subset of Cinque’s hierarchy of projections in (129). (129) epistemic modality > alethic necessity > alethic possibility > volition > deontic necessity > dynamic/deontic possibility

Theories of specialized functional projections

51

Although Cinque does not give the entire structure he envisages, given the detailed discussions on pairwise ordering of the projections at various stages and the transitivity property of c-command, the resulting proposal regarding the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) markers is rather clear. The projections are labelled in accordance with semantic correlates of mood, modality, tense, and aspect. As an argument for the claimed prime role of syntax in the hierarchy, Cinque considers paraphrases, which sometimes go against the syntactic constraints that hold for grammaticalized functional material (e.g., it is probable for probably, etc. – and particularly in their Italian counterparts). Among the examples from English, prospectiveaspect adverbs (almost, imminently), for instance, follow retrospective and proximate adverbs (just, soon), as in (130). However, by paraphrasing the prospective, one can obtain the reversed order, as in (131) (Cinque, p. 136). (130) He will soon almost be there./ *He will almost soon be there. (131) He is about to soon be admitted to hospital. Caution, however, may be in order with respect to paraphrases since (i) they are not always available and (ii) when they are, they do not necessarily have precisely the same meaning as the functional material which Cinque explores. With respect to epistemic modality, asymmetries between the scope of epistemic adverbs and negation have also been observed; cf. Williams (1994: 23), who notes for (132) that it “does not mean ‘It is not probable that John left’ even though this is a sensible thing to say.” (132) John didn’t probably leave. What can be witnessed in (132) instead is an epistemic adverb obligatorily scoping above negation, though the relationship could be otherwise semantically, as Williams’ paraphrase shows, and syntactically, as seen at PF. The question then still remains why certain configurations appear in one specified hierarchical order, one of the crucial results pointed out by Cinque. We will discuss further specific evidence not mentioned in Cinque’s study, emphasizing the role played by epistemicity in Chapter 5, but underlining that semantic factors are not to be underestimated in this respect.28 Moreover, the question of why the observed effects play such a crucial role in linearization reveals itself just as important and has not yet been answered in previous studies.29

52

Modals in the architecture of grammar

One important issue is the precise status and delimitation of epistemic modality. Cinque (1999) delineates it from alethic modality as follows: While the former is concerned with the speaker’s deductions or opinions, the latter with necessary truths (i.e., propositions that are true in all possible worlds) and with possible truths (i.e., propositions that are not necessarily false, being true in at least one possible world). (Cinque 1999: 78)

Cinque allows a space for alethic modality within the clausal functional hierarchy, whereas, e.g., Palmer (1986) and others question its status in natural language reserving it to the logical system solely. One of the arguments that endorse Cinque’s approach comes from English dialects such as Hawick Scots, which allow multiple modals. In this dialect, a modal like must, in fact claimed to have only an epistemic reading in the variety in question (Brown, 1991: 75) cannot appear under the scope of the future marker will. By contrast, alethic uses of might and can in Scots linearly and scopally follow the future-specialized T head will. Moreover, for Standard English, besides empirical arguments capitalizing on Jackendoff (1972) and Roberts (1985) (yes/no questions, subject orientation, behavior in the middle construction etc.), Cinque endorses the structural claims and specifically a rough division of adverbs according to their compatibility with the C-domain based on the observation that only a subset of adverbs (in particular not the epistemic ones) allow extraction (Cinque, 1999: 17). (133) How elegantly do you think that he was dressed? (134) *How luckily has he won? (135) *How probably will he arrive late? If one may have second thoughts revolving around the existence of one functional projection or another in the clausal (Infl-)domain,30 then at least proportionally as many similar questions could be asked for the array of functional projections by a critic to argue that what you see is what you get. Let’s consider the sentences in (136) and (137). (136) Prices must not have been being raised. (137) Prices rise. While it may seem rather straightforward to recognize the type of functional structure in (136), a more difficult question is how to see whether a sentence such as (137) has even roughly just as much structure. Perhaps one of Cinques’s strongest arguments is as follows:

Theories of specialized functional projections

53

The conclusion that [(137)] may not be fundamentally different in functional structure from [(136)] is rendered plausible by the observation that concerning it we know that it is active rather than passive, generic rather than progressive, positive rather than negative, declarative rather than interrogative, etc.: implicit, not inexistent information. (Cinque 1999: 131)

While part of the critique against Cinque’s theory stems from worries against rich articulate theories per se, some of its further potential problems need additional investigation. For instance, the question as to how a richly articulate model relates to learnability concerns needs further inquiry. The problem of reduplication of some of the heads in Cinque’s monograph, the lack of interrelatedness of some of the posited hierarchies – for instance Cinque assumes both a hierarchy of TAM markers based on semantic correlates and one of further heads, e.g. for quantifiers (Beghelli and Stowell 1997). For adverbs, simplicity questions have been raised. It has been proposed that comparable results may be achieved with fewer positions (cf. Svenonius 2002). Moreover, adverb paradoxes (Bobaljik 1999) and issues with the theory of movement, as well as with first-merge need further discussion if one pursues the model in its entirety and its universalist spirit. Nonetheless, there are also strong benefits of the theory. Its catalytic character in the field need hardly be underscored. A series of investigations in the area, including some of those arguing explicitly against Cinque, follow the ideas of the same work and have revealed interesting results. Finally, the syntactic hierarchy is very much in line with the minimalist spirit of interpretability of features: Though numerous, the functional heads have clear weights in terms of interpretable features that may help the derivation progress towards LF. While the wide cross-linguistic investigation and the concern of relating adverbs to functional heads are beyond present concerns, the subset of interest from the structural relationships argued for by Cinque will be simplified and evidence will be discussed as we go along.31

4.3. On the status of epistemic modals: Drubig (2001) Having outlined the schema proposed within the research on articulate functional projections, it becomes necessary to investigate two issues: (i) How can the functional part relating to modals be developed in research specifically concerned with the precise type of modality and the status of epistemicity in particular? (ii) What is the role of the syntactic effects in

54

Modals in the architecture of grammar

English within the typological perspective? Concentrating on modality and phases in recent work, Drubig (2001; cf. also 2003, 2007) makes a case for its characteristic syntactic properties and endorses its evidential-based nature. Drubig’s line of research and Cinque’s concur in that both defend a cartographic implementation of epistemicity and both adduce corroborating typological data alongside some striking observations even from widely studied languages such as Italian and English. Whereas Cinque pursues the adverb connection to functional material as discussed above, Drubig focuses on the status of epistemic modality (modals in particular) arguing for their extra-propositional status and additionally presenting focus-related as well as semantic/pragmatic arguments bearing on the syntactic evidence.32 From a typological perspective, it is worth noting that speakers of various languages overtly qualify the propositions they make with respect to the evidence available for its assertability by taking recourse to grammaticalized morphosyntactic means. Drubig (2001: 3-4) discusses the Tuyucan evidential system based on Barnes (1984) and exemplified in (138). (138) The Tuyuca evidential system a. díiga apé - wi soccer play - VISUAL ‘He played soccer.’ (I saw him play.) b. díiga apé - ti soccer play - NONVISUAL ‘He played soccer.’ (I heard the game and him, but I didn't see it or him.) c. díiga apé - yi soccer play - APPARENT/DEDUCTION ‘He played soccer.’ (I have seen evidence that he played: his distinctive shoe print on the playing field. But I did not see him play.) d. díiga apé - yigi soccer play - SECONDHAND ‘He played soccer.’ (I obtained the information from some one else.) e. díiga apé - hĩyi soccer play - ASSUMED ‘He played soccer.’ (It is reasonable that he did.)

Theories of specialized functional projections

55

Tuyucan morphology has at its disposal five morphological endings for marking evidentiality. Not all of the above sources of evidence are directly perceptional, but some involve metarepresentational reasoning, deduction in particular.33 Drubig aligns this system to the functional possibilities of epistemic modals in English by proposing that the latter also mark propositions with respect to the evidence within a rudimentary evidential system, namely as deductions.34 This property may be seen from examples such as (139) originally from Alice in Wonderland (cf. also Westmoreland 1998). (139) So she began. "O Mouse, do you know the way out of this pool?" Alice thought this must be the right way of speaking to a mouse. (140) Alice thought ["O Mouse"] must be the right way of speaking to a mouse... Thus, while richly evidentiality-grammaticalizing languages like Tuyuca may disclose more specific information on the source, English shows the inference made in the reasoning of a speaker through an epistemic modal. Drubig points out that such data have a further implication, which may turn out to be an impasse for a simple syntax-semantics mapping. The issue is whether and how epistemic modals embed: It is important to see that MUST φ in [(139)] is not the proposition which functions as the complement of the propositional attitude verb think. The propositional complement of think is φ. In other words, MUST φ does not affect the context; rather, stating MUST φ makes φ available to the context. (Drubig 2001: 3)

Within such a system, the epistemic-evidential modal can then be analyzed as a label which marks the core proposition as a deduction, but intriguingly not as one embedding regularly within it (cf. also the irregular properties of epistemic questions). Drubig moreover points out a link of this type of syntactic behavior to stance predicates (Hegarty 1992), which display similar characteristics in connection with epistemic modals; consider (141). (141) I hope/doubt that Jane must be in the attic. What a speaker expresses through (141) is not that s/he hopes or doubts that there is evidence for the proposition (i.e. Jane be in the attic), but rather that the verb of hope or belief directly complements the proposition which is labelled as epistemic. The epistemic modal thus appears to be outside the scope of the proposition. This converges with morphosyntactic

56

Modals in the architecture of grammar

effects from various other empirical domains, such as question formation, tense, and obviation effects, aspects of which have been pointed out by Jackendoff (1972), McDowell (1987), Picallo (1990) among others. In recent undertakings such as Butler (2003), Drubig (2007), it has moreover been proposed that the extra-propositional character of the epistemic modals may be tied to phase-theory in the sense of Chomsky (2001). The main link consists in the fact that phases are defined in terms of propositional domains, mainly relating to the traditional lexical (vP) and the functional (roughly CP) domain. Despite difference in the way they are spelled out, various proposals on modals agree in that epistemic modals are at least outside Chomsky’s (2001) lower phase. Butler (2003), for instance, capitalizes on Brennan’s (1997) use of symmetric predicates (e.g., shake hands with or look like) and notes in this context that if an epistemic modal is introduced into a proposition, the typical inference for such a predicate in the clause, i.e., R(x,y)
R(y,x), is not hindered. By contrast, a root modal obstructs the inference, as example (142) (adapted here from Butler 2003: 978) illustrates. (142) a. Arthur looks like Susan
Susan looks like Arthur b. Arthur must/might look like Susan
Susan must/might look like Arthur c. Arthur must/can look like Susan ¬
Susan must/can look like Arthur Given that the notion of proposition is generally based on rather lose notions in syntactic terms (e.g., Chomsky proposes that vP and CP are propositional, but does not give an account of why TP, or other categories, for that matter, should be excluded),35 we will follow the empirical insight of such arguments, without necessarily subscribing to all of their theoretical implications in phase-theory. What one can observe with Drubig (2001) are essentially syntax-semantics mapping effects of the root/epistemic dichotomy: In the case at hand, the epistemic modal does not interfere with the symmetric predicate whereas the root modal does. A further diagnostic to distinguish between root and epistemic modals that has been tested in the literature is the relationship to negation. Cormack and Smith (2002) have thus put forward an interesting view on English modal predicates. The similarity with Cinque-style approaches consists in the fact that it also makes use of more than one modal projection. The main difference, however, is that the division of labor between the two projections is not left solely to the root/epistemic distinction, but is in fact

Theories of specialized functional projections

57

mainly drawn across the strong vs. weak type of quantification (e.g., obligation/permission) divide of the modals. Drubig (2001, 2007) emphasizes the difference in scope between epistemic and root modality with respect to negation and other scope bearing elements, but questions the evidence regarding the weak vs. strong distinction based on negation within the epistemic domain. In particular, both epistemic may and must scope out negation. We should eventually obtain an account both of the distinguishable behavior and the scopally non-distinguishable facts (cf. Chapter 5) Two further essential insights of Drubig (2001) are the relationship of epistemic modals to tense and the treatment of ellipsis. With respect to VPE, (143) and (144) (cited from Drubig 2001: 30; cf. also López and Winkler 2000; McDowell 1987)36 strongly degrade on epi(stemic) readings. (143) John must wash his car every day and Peter must _ too. (*epi) (144) John will often sit there and do nothing and Bill will _ too. (*epi) Whereas McDowell stipulates that this epistemic restriction only applies to ambiguous modals, Drubig operates without the ambiguity assumption. In Chapter 5, it will be argued that this may be indicative of a wider generalization, which will be complemented with further observations. Moreover, while it is well known that tenses do not usually productively combine with the modals in English, Drubig observes an instance in which the two categories interact, originating in Hoffman’s (1976) rule of past-tense replacement. This states that, in certain delimited contexts, the English past tense morpheme (-ed) is realized as have. Through this replacement, the past tense can override the dilemma of getting bound to an inhospitable host such as the modal (cf. *musted, or the absence of may+ed). While a typical perfect interpretation in English (see also next section) would be ungrammatical with temporal adverbs such as yesterday, or last year,37 the past-tense replacement have is grammatical in such environments, as (145) shows, where the epistemic (‘epi’) modal scopes over the tense, here past. (145) Sue may have bought the book yesterday/last year. (epi > past) All in all, approaches positing a high syntactic position for epistemic modals seem to fare well with some of the minimalist tenets. They account for otherwise unexplained syntactic facts and accord with interface legibility due to the inbuilt accounting for arguable ‘extrapropositionality’ effects.

58

Modals in the architecture of grammar

However, a warning is in order. Through the MP and the principle of Full Interpretation, one has a necessary, not a sufficient condition fulfilled for a semantically meaningful hierarchy. In particular, only interpretable projections are reflected in phrase structure if Chomsky’s (1995) proposal is on the right track. An essential task will therefore consist in gathering enough evidence for rendering the hypothesis more plausible that the features and projections proposed are formally implemented in the phrasemarker. A further task will be to reduce the phrase-marker to a simpler basic one. Therefore we will argue, complementing the evidence with facts from ellipsis licensing, that the semantics of the modal base has implications for its syntax. Moreover, it will be proposed to also take into account the differences with respect to modal force coming from ellipsis and further domains while attempting to solve some of their problematic aspects.

4.4. Towards the connection of tense: Stowell (2004a) In this section, we approach the modals-tense interaction in English by analyzing some of the arguments put forward in Stowell (2004a, 2004b), which we will complement and will put to use in particular in Chapter 5. Detecting the modals’ precise interaction with tense in English is not a trivial matter given that the language does not posses productive morphological tense marking for modals in current varieties. On the other hand, intensional contexts generally have been a matter of some debate as to whether they involve tenses (von Stechow 1995; Condoravdi 2002). Clearly, it becomes necessary to pose the latter question for modals given that their class, as one type of carriers of modality in English, naturally gives rise to various intensionality effects. For instance, while Abusch (1997) claims tenseless modals, von Stechow (1995) makes the case for zero-tenses in intentional contexts. On the morphosyntactic side, which we concentrate on, the issue is at least as intricate, given that languageparticular morphosyntactic conditions further complicate matters. As we have seen above, Cinque (1999) and Drubig (2001) have proposed analyses closely taking into consideration essential aspects of the syntactic interaction between tense and epistemic modality in particular. While Cinque uses typological co-occurrence facts (e.g., auxiliaries in Guyanese Creole and affix-ordering in Garo), Drubig enriches the typological considerations with the parallel to rich evidential systems and at the same time the English specific arguments on evidentiality. As discussed in section 4.3 above,

Theories of specialized functional projections

59

Drubig demonstrates the relevance of Hoffmann’s (1976) past-tense replacement rule involving have under the scope of a modal, a key empirical indication for the involvement of tense with the modals. The issue regarding the actual involvement of tense under modals has, however, been recently contested. Condoravdi (2002), for instance, argues explicitly against the analysis of English have under a modal as a free tense morpheme, and takes it invariably as an aspectual marker. In this subsection, we will argue that there are both empirical and theoretical arguments that make the involvement of temporal features plausible while preserving Condoravdi’s insight on scope reversal situations. Stowell’s (2004a, 2004b) analysis in particular offers an interesting link. Stowell concentrates on what he calls the “true modals,” i.e. the core modals in the case of English and offers a syntactic formulation of some of the crucial issues concerning their syntax. The starting point is an apparent paradox if one assumes Cinque’s structural hierarchy. Specifically, in languages like English there are cases in which apparent epistemic modals can be scoped out by temporal operators. For instance, in (146), the modal appears to scope over have, as expected. But in (147), the so-called reverse-scope reading obtains. (146) The Dodgers might have won the game – we should check the newspaper to find out. (147) At that point, the Dodgers might still have won the game. In (147), although might linearly precedes have, the modal of possibility scopes low. Drawing on the semantic investigation of Condoravdi (2002), with initial observations dating back to Mondadori (1978), as well as on syntactic work on tense (Stowell 1996; Zagona 1990), Stowell’s recent work explores the thesis that epistemic modals cannot fall under the scope of tenses after all, a thesis to which this author adduces several amendments. Stowell thus points out that the reverse-scope reading obtains with alethic or metaphysical modals and not with the genuinely epistemic ones. This solves the contradictions with the predictions of the syntactic hierarchical relationships, but leaves open two further issues: (i) is tense involved at all (see above); (ii) what is the explanation that the Head Movement Constraint (Travis 1984) seems to be violated? One argument from Condoravdi with respect to the involvement of aspect rather than tense is based on the fact that adverbs such as already are infelicitous with the past tense but naturally co-occur in English perfect contexts. Consider (148) (cf. Stowell 2004b: 5).

60

Modals in the architecture of grammar

(148) He may/might/could/must have already left last week. Adverbs like already are then licensable in modal+have environments, as (148) shows. Stowell’s contention, on the other hand, is that such examples show that a perfect reading can, but not that it must, obtain. Good candidates for detecting tense-modal scope relations are the past tenses, an issue which Condoravdi (2002) and Stowell (2004a) exploit. This, however, turns out not to be sufficient. The essence in the argumentation of both approaches is to distinguish between two times in such contexts, viz. the modal evaluation and the eventuality time. This step is of interesting utility. It can allow us to detect the two types of readings, as shown in (149). (149) a. Joe might have read a novel. b. PRES (MIGHT) PAST (read novel) c. PAST (MIGHT) PRES (read novel) Example (149) shows that a modal such as might is ambiguous with respect to have. A related point is that there is an indirect interplay between modals and tense mediated through the aktionsart of the modal complement. Examples (150) and (151) illustrate this particular point. (150) a. b. (151) a. b.

John must/should be in class today. John could/may be at home. Joe must/should leave today. Joe could/may take the train.

In the case of a stative complement, cf. (150), the eventuality time of an epistemic modal coincides with the modal time and future readings can also obtain. When the modal complement of an epistemic is eventive, only a future-shifted reading would obtain. With root modals, however, the future-shifted reading will obtain regardless of aktionsart, with the exception of the ability readings of can and could. Thus, if the modals in (151) have a root interpretation, they induce a future-shift of the event time. What we might gather from such observations is that root and deontic modals have selectional properties with respect to temporality whereas epistemic modals do not. Furthermore, moving on with the direct modal-tense interaction, it is noteworthy that while the dynamic reading allows greater freedom with respect to tense in the examples with can, cf. (152), the epistemic variant in (153) only allows a default interpretation for the time of modal evaluation.

Theories of specialized functional projections

61

(152) a. b. c. d. (153) a.

Carl can’t move his arm. (ability at UT) Carl couldn’t move his arm. (ability at a past time) Max can’t go out after dark. (permission at UT) Max couldn’t go out after dark. (permission at a past time) Jack’s wife can’t be very rich. ‘It is not possible that Jack’s wife is very rich.’ b. Jack’s wife couldn’t be very rich. ‘It is not possible that Jack’s wife is very rich.’ *‘It was not possible that Jack’s wife was very rich.’

To see the distinction more sharply, it is useful to compare core modals to a quasi-modal like had to ((154), (155); cf. Stowell 2004a). (154) John had to stay home last night because he was sick. (155) There had to be at least a hundred people there. The parallel between the preceding examples and the pair in (154)-(155) is that the epistemic modal stands out in the case of have to, just like with could in (153) above. The time of modal evaluation is present. The similarity stops, however, when one considers the eventuality time. While epistemic could does not relocate the event to the past, epistemic have to does. Having at least one of the two temporal parameters involved with a modal predicate as past is instrumental in Stowell’s framework in fleshing out Cinque’s scope order “epistemic > past tense” with English data. One piece of evidence with regard to temporal properties comes from Abusch’s (1997) observation that the modals might, could, ought, and should, can display a modal evaluation time in the past under attitude verbs; cf. (156) illustrating this property for the possibility modals on epistemic readings. Instead of assuming tenseless modals (Abusch 1997), Stowell suggests that this behavior indicates a more general involvement of tense, cf. (157). (156) a. Caesar knew that his wife might be in Rome. b. Fred thought that there could be at least a hundred people at the party. (157) a. Sam might say that he lived in Paris. b. Sam could claim that he knew the answer. For (157), one obtains a simultaneous reading. If one adopts the tense theory of Stowell (1996), such sentences help detect temporal features within the modals of the main clauses. Only a past reading relative to the past of

62

Modals in the architecture of grammar

the main-clause tense remains available if the modals in (157) above are substituted by morphologically “present” modals such as may. Stowell (2004a: 628) more specifically argues: Since the relevant syntactic conditioning environment for a simultaneous construal of a morphological past tense in a complement clause involves an occurrence of a morphological past tense in the main clause, this supports the view that the modals […] may in fact be morphologically complex forms containing morphological past even though the interpretation of these modals is such that the past tense in question can never be understood to scope over an epistemic modal in the same clause.

We may note, moreover, that even a past from an interval t in the past is possible in the presence of an English core modal, as (158) illustrates, one reading of which informally paraphrased is “say-Past (…‘possible-Pres that frustration was behind attack’).” (158) One patient said that residents were tiring of the American presence, and that frustration might have been behind the attack. (The New York Times, July 27, 2003) To conclude, recall the original scope problem posed by Stowell (2004a). Condoravdi’s distinctions in modal contexts have proven descriptively apposite. At the same time, following Drubig (2001) and Stowell (2004a), we have argued that tense is involved in at least a subset of them. A residual question is: Could the remaining set of cases involve aspect after all? And if so, what is the consequence? For current purposes, not much will change from this angle, in particular if we adopt a view of aspect at the syntax-semantics interface as advocated in Demirdache and UribeEtxebarria (2000).38 On such a view, aspectual operators have the same shape as temporal ones, i.e. as dyadic ordering predicates. We will implement this through a [T(ense)] feature (rather than category) which allows multiple heads marked as [+Tense] in a clause (e.g., deontic modal + perfective have + progressive be). We will, moreover, argue in Chapter 5 that a tense feature present in the feature matrices of temporal, aspectual, and some modal heads has consequences in motivating ellipsis licensing.

Notes

63

Notes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

We follow standard terminology; cf. Palmer (1986) and Chapter 1. More finegrained distinctions and problems will be discussed as they become relevant. Geilfuß (1992) and Gergel and Hartmann (2004) adduce evidence that even this modal has in fact certain properties that distinguish it from control verbs. Moreover, embedded interrogatives invert in Belfast English (Henry 1995). See, e.g., Drubig (1992), Gergel, Gengel and Winkler (2007), Howard (1994), Merchant (2003), and references therein for some suggestions. Gapping is conspicuously distinct from VPE (Jackendoff 1971; Lobeck 1999), and not restricted to auxiliaries. Ross and others have drawn on this argument. There are, however, recent arguments (cf. Johnson 2003) as to how the mechanisms of gapping auxiliaries and gapping of verbs may in fact also present more fine-grained differences. For more details on the issues in relationship to scope, modals, and VPE, see Oherle (1987), Murguia (2004), Siegel (1987), Winkler (2003), and below. See also Jackendoff (1971) and Steele et al. (1981: 237). Moreover, the categorial argument holds independently of the analysis of gapping. For recent views, see Johnson (1996) for the classical across-the-board analysis with conjuncts smaller than TP, Coppock (2001) for a revival of the deletion account, and Agbayani and Zoerner (2004) and Winkler (2003) for relating pertinent ATB properties with the analysis of sideward movement (Nunes 2001). We make the assumption for the sake of argument and return to relevant issues; cf. also Johnson (2001). A further difference between fronting and deletion is the distributive readings of all under the former (Phillips 2003: 56). Thanks to Verena Schneider who located this example while using it for other purposes in a class on Non Standard English Susanne Winkler and I co-taught. The analysis does not carry over to cases in which (Standard English) auxiliary do licenses VPE. The auxiliary cannot be deleted along (Johnson 2001). Tense is indeed often morphologically represented. Baker (1988) and Cinque (1999) present, however, empirical evidence that morphological representation is not disentangled from syntax, but that the well-known Mirror Principle is operative. Moreover, not all cases of morphological representations (arguably in relationship with syntax) need be triggers for syntactic operations: see the case of the Latin morphology (Roberts and Roussou 2003). Masullo and Depiante (2004) claim similar distinctions involving gender and number in the nominal domain in Spanish. Cf. also Bobaljik (1997), Fox and Nissenbaum (2003), and Iatridou (1990). This contradicts the position discussed that ‘verb’ (i.e. head) movement ‘takes place when not is present, but fails to take place when it is absent’ (p. 392). M is the node to be distinguished from V as originally used in Emonds (1970).

64

Notes

15. While the semi-auxiliaries cannot be discussed in detail here, some relevant examples will be discussed in due course. A few further observations can be made. The conclusion drawn by Emonds in his earlier work from these restrictions is slightly too strong. First, the general point that the items in question have defective paradigms holds. However, for instance, periphrastic futures expressed by be going to can in fact appear in lower, non-finite positions, as shown in (i) (cf. Huddleston and Pullum, 2002: 210): (i) He may be going to resign. Emonds’ point might be partially enforced though with forms like *being going (instead of infinitives), which are ungrammatical (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 211). Moreover, the non-finiteness restriction Emonds (1970, 1976) aims at seems somewhat stronger with modal be+to, for which not only gerund-participle forms (in the sense of Huddleston and Pullum) seem more widely unacceptable, but also infinitives, as shown in (ii), here from Quirk et al. (1985) – cf. also Pullum and Wilson (1977), discussed above. (ii) *The children may be to go to bed now. However, the issue whether non-finite forms are ruled out is not settled even for this case, cf. (iii). (iii) Genes may be to blame for infidelity. (BBC News World Edition, June 7, 2004; news.bbc.co.uk) 16. Similar facts hold for other languages; cf. German anaphoric form es (Ross 1969; Drubig 2001; López and Winkler 2000), and also for cases of aber and auch ellipsis, as discussed by Winkler (2003: 190), and illustrated in (i). (i) a. weil Jan die Aufgabe lösen kann und Anna auch. because Jan the task solve can and Anna too b. weil Jan die Aufgabe nicht lösen kann und Anna auch nicht. 17. For the historical evidence of partial early Infl properties pertinent to the development of the modals and/or early auxiliarization properties, cf. also Goosens (1987), Plank (1994), Warner (1993), and others. 18. One of the revisions in Roberts (1993) compared to Roberts (1985) is that the loss of inflection does not force the reanalysis of the modals (cf. the the loss of inflection in Mainland Scandinavian); it is rather a necessary condition. 19. We cannot extend this hypothesis to root modality in general. Recall Wurmbrand’s point discussed in section 1 of this chapter when we considered root examples which seemed to lack agent orientedness. 20. Cf., e.g., Baker (1991). A consequence for VPE would be that there are no mixed elliptical categories. For instance Lobeck (1995) assumes that have and be licensing gives rise to a so-called mixed empty category, i.e. one consisting of the trace of the purportedly raised verb plus the elided substantive VP. 21. This is best interpreted as (English) perfect despite the use of ‘perfective.’ 22. More recently, this interpretation has been rejected (cf. Chomsky 2001). 23. Both Lasnik (1995) and Roberts (1998) omit mentioning this point or take it for granted (as does Emonds 1994), though it is crucial for their discussions.

Notes

65

24. An amendment will be necessary only for main verbs, for which Roberts (1998) assumes a split of features. However, given that this phenomenon has no syntactic effects, it can be assumed to be an instantiation of AGREE rather than a stripping away and movement of some feature from the verb. 25. Inter alia, the base rules have been strongly reduced in later (narrow) syntactic work, if not in all related paradigms; cf. Frank (2002) for discussion. 26. There is a fourth type: the so-called “merely class of adverbs”. 27. This raises the question of subjects. Cinque (1999) assumes that licensing of subjects occurs in another hierarchy of Agr-type projections which is a function of the type of subject. For example, a hierarchy à la Beghelli and Stowell (1997) is invoked (but cf. Surányi 2004). The precise relationship between the tense-mood-aspect hierarchy and the subject hierarchy is not addressed. 28. Cinque (1999) does not rule out some “intrinsic” (also semantic) or generally syntax-extraneous factors (including the relationship between tense and epistemic modality) but ultimately argues for an overall syntactic encoding for claimed simplicity reasons. For some critical points see below and Chapter 5. 29. Cf. also Butler (2003), von Fintel and Iatridou (2003) and Gergel (2003), which despite certain new data and proposed generalizations, do not fully address this issue. The relevant part of these studies is discussed in Chapter 5. 30. Cf., e.g., Haider (1997) for German, and the discussion in section 2.3 above. 31. One reason adverbs will remain outside the narrow scope of investigation here is that they do not license the grammaticalized type of ellipsis as modals do. Further, while adverbs, like many other lexical items, can express modality, it remains unclear whether they can be related one-to-one to purported corresponding functional heads; i.e. the issue would be, for instance, whether probably conveys the same meaning as, say, may. Since the precise meaning of the modals will become crucial as we go along, adverbs will be used for the sake of comparison, but without assuming Cinque’s connection. 32. In line with the present goals, we mainly concentrate here on the argumentation as pertaining to the syntactic implications. 33. Cf. Ifantidou (2001), Papafragou (1998), and Sweetser (1990), i.a., for certain cognitive aspects regarding metarepresentations and epistemic modality. 34. By contrast, Cinque (1999) takes evidentials and epistemics as distinct. Cinque (2004) assings both types of modality to the same syntactic domain. 35. E.g., for Bouchard (1995), Tense is the most prominent sentential projection. 36. McDowell (1987) and Drubig make similar claims about pseudogapping, the discussion of which is left aside; See Lasnik (1999) for the additional syntactic operations involved on independent grounds. Cf. Agbayani and Zoerner (2004) and Winkler (2003) for differences between pseudogapping and VPE. 37. With the exception of existential readings, of course; cf. McCawley (1974). 38. See, e.g., Klein (1994), Stowell (1996), Zagona (1990) for related discussion.

Chapter 3 Towards an account of VP ellipsis

1.

Introduction

Ellipsis and zeros in linguistic representations have often been taken to range from implicit meaning to lack of overt portions in morphology, syntax and phonology in places they might be expected to be fully present. They have long been sensed by grammarians and philosophers literally for millennia (cf. McGregor 2003). A particularly intense preoccupation with the internal makeup and the factors licensing omission can be found in the second half of the 20th century. This delimitation, as much of what follows that narrows the discussion down more strongly, is necessarily eclectic.1 This chapter is concerned with verb-phrase ellipsis (VPE for short), the grammaticalized type of ellipsis found in English which most conspicuously interacts with the modals. The goal is twofold. First, we explore the factors through which VPE licensing comes about. Second, we outline the tools for handling syntactic grammaticalization properties relating to ellipsis and modals. After an introduction to the essential classifications in this section, section 2 turns to the beginning of comprehensive research on ellipsis as a grammar-bound phenomenon. Section 3 moves on towards the basic hallmarks of VPE in syntactic terms beyond identity conditinos. Section 4 discusses the motivation in recent approaches to ellipsis. Following up on Winkler (2005), we will illustrate how licensing of verbal ellipsis is essentially constrained by a close interplay of the three major components of the grammar: semantic identity conditions, prosody, and, crucially for the angle of the present investigation, morphosyntactic requirements. After presenting all three domains, we focus on the latter and the grammaticalizing properties of licensing material. Morphosyntax is both parameterized (it allows VPE in English, but not in French) and crucial within the languages which do allow VPE. As an illustration, consider the following. If all identity conditions are satisfied but the language does not have the morphosyntactic licensing mechanism, systematic VPE will fail, whereas if the mechanism is available, VPE examples are in fact spo-

Introduction

67

radically attested in the absence of equilibrium conditions and (though rarely) even in the absence of an obvious linguistic antecedent. There are some general distinctions between various anaphoric strategies and ellipsis; early approaches in the literature on VPE have aimed at classifying it with respect to anaphors. Grinder and Postal (1971), for instance, have drawn the line along such concepts as identity of reference vs. identity of sense: VPE is a strategy retrieving the semantic content rather than the reference of its antecedent. This approach has been superseded by Bresnan’s (1971) dichotomy between filled vs. empty pro-forms and particularly by the deep-vs.-surface taxonomy of Hankamer and Sag (1976). These classifications, however varied, treat VPE as a deletion process, as does much work of the 1970s. The issue of deletion is taken up again in the 1990s and explored in minimalism (cf. Winkler and Schwabe 2003). Against the background of the notorious issues raised by the attempts to relate meaning and (missing) sound, it will be argued that however elegant, theories based merely on semantic or syntactic conditions, or on mechanisms relating ellipsis directly and solely to PF need heavy empirical and model-theoretic stipulations; e.g., narrow-syntactic licensing transferred to semantics, or putative semantic identity computation at PF, without which they strongly overgenerate the not so wide-spread use of VPE.3 What will be pursued instead is the idea that a theory of ellipsis driven by the computational system (Chomsky 2001; Winkler 2003) offers a more appropriate way of mediating the interaction between the interfaces in order to derive elision and licensing. Within such a system, the type of elliptical material of interest here will be marked as such in situ under direct c-command of a licensing head. The licensing mechanism itself is crucial (Lobeck 1995). However, contrary to previous claims in the literature in which mainly the functional nature of the licensing material has been stressed (see, for instance, the Agr-head in Lobeck 1995), it will be argued that the relevant concept of “functional” is not to be equated with “bleached” or “semantically empty.” It is precisely the interpretable nature of the licensing remnants that offers the precondition for VPE. This can be derived from the theory according to which only interpretable material finds a representation in phrase-structure (cf., e.g., Chomsky 1995). The central claim related to this developed in the current work will be that VPE needs to be anchored to phrase structure through anchors solid enough to survive a forgetful derivation (cf. Chomsky 2000, 2001). Moreover, with Winkler (2005) and further research, it will be argued that the ellipsis sites have internal representation. The chapter prepares the main diagnostics for the argument in Chapter 4, where a refinement of the ellipsis mechanism and bootstrapping

68

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

of the licensing material along the functional hierarchy will be proposed. Chapter 5 links up to this chapter by arguing that the way to ensure that both the representation of the ellipsis site and the grammaticalized “deletion command” of the licenser are not lost throughout the derivation is through passing on the information via interpretable heads to the interfaces. The latter are locus of parallelism requirements, a few of which we will discuss next.

2. Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis 2.1. Semantic conditions and alphabetic variance: Sag (1976, 1980) Alongside Williams (1977), Sag (1976, 1980) is a major study to investigate the distinction between phenomena determined by the grammar and discourse-bound mechanisms. From the 1960, the evidence was increasing that an account of VPE would need requirements on parallelism and conditions on transformations, both of which began to be generously available. Chomsky (1965) observed inadequacies with identity and proposed nondistinctness. Lees (1960) had noted that string identity fared poorly in accounting for elliptical phenomena. While (1) is a grammatical pair, (2), which removes the common string and conjoins the pair, is ill formed. (1) (2)

a. Drowning cats are hard to rescue. b. Drowning cats is against the law. *Drowning cats, which is against the law, are hard to rescue.

Bresnan (1976) proposed a grammar-constrained VPE account dependent on conjunction. Searching for a more comprehensive account, Sag’s work proposes a modification of Bresnan’s transformational rule (in (3)), first towards a conjunction-independent rule (as in (4)), and second, into a rule in which the antecedent (the “trigger VP”) is entirely eliminated, as in (5). (3) (4) (5)

Verb Phrase Deletion (adapted after Bresnan 1976) [SW – AUX – VP – X ] & [SY – AUX – VP – Z] : 2nd VP deletes Verb Phrase Deletion (Sag 1976: Chapter 1) X – VP – Y – AUX – VP2 – Z, where VP2 deletes Verb Phrase Deletion (Sag 1976: Chapter 2) X – AUX – VP – Y, where VP can optionally be deleted

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

69

The first move is well motivated. VPE can well occur beyond conjunction. The second modification – cutting out the antecedent from the schema – is motivated by Sag through antecedent-contained-deletion (ACD): “no formulation of VPD which ‘mentions’ the trigger VP will allow those sentences to be generated”; cf. Sag (1980: 115). Making VPE sites dependent on themselves instead of a possibly remote antecedent is an ideal situation for theoretical approaches, and in particular for derivational ones (e.g., with reduced space available in working memory). However, we will see, following Fiengo and May (1994) and others, that structural parallelism cannot be discarded in the relationship between ellipsis sites and antecedents, so more needs to be done. Nor is ACD an impediment in the antecedent-ellipsis link any longer. As is well known, the object is usually raised by quantifier raising (May 1985). Regarding the taxonomy of deletion in syntax, Sag proposes a unification of two phenomena that had previously been viewed as distinct: VPE and auxiliary ellipsis. Akmajian and Wasow (1975, A&W) proposed a separate rule of ellipsis applying to auxiliaries. Although both VPE and auxiliary deletion are in most cases optional, the latter should for A&W only apply under the condition that VPE has applied, cf. (6a). Independent application of auxiliary ellipsis would be ungrammatical, as in (6b). (6)

a. John must have been using drugs, and Bill must have too. b. *John must have been using drugs, and Bill must have _ using drugs too.

Here one could try to argue that output sentences like (6b) would be ruled out by independent requirements: for instance, in checking theory as envisaged in early minimalism (cf. Radford 1997 for an implementation), or simply in terms of selection. Thus, in simplified terms, have in (6) could only check a past, but not a present participial form, a formal feature which, if unchecked, would make the derivation crash. In order to account for what are claimed to be degrading effects when more than one auxiliary is deleted, as putatively in (7), A&W propose that auxiliary ellipsis can only safely elide one auxiliary. (7)

If Bill has been using drugs, then his brother Sam a. must have been _ b. ?must have _ c. *must _

However, with Sag (1980: 28) we observe that the genuinely degraded sentence among the options in (7) is (c). Moreover, positing deletion of

70

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

precisely one auxiliary would also produce problems. In (8), deleting more than one auxiliary is not ungrammatical. In (9), deleting one auxiliary after the modal is exactly the option that results in unacceptability.3 (8) (9)

John has been being hassled by the cops, and Betsy has _, too. John must have eaten and Bill must *(have _ ), too.

The example in (9) illustrates how the auxiliary have has a valued [+T] feature and licenses omission of its syntactic complement. Further, we may observe with Sag that the proposals requiring identity at the level of deep structure were equally falling short of capturing the mechanisms of ellipsis, as the sentence in (10) exemplifies (Sag 1980: 91). (10) John was hassled by the police, and Sam was _, too. The example in (10) shows that transformations such as passivization (similarly in Sag subject-to-subject raising and easy-to-V construction) can introduce variance between antecedent and ellipsis, but generate grammatical outputs. The logic is extendable to tempo-aspectual mismatches, notably with morphologically overt marking in the licenser, as in (11). (11) John has never ridden a camel, but his sister did _ yesterday. In (11), the antecedent VP is in the scope of a perfect have, but the ellipsis site is a clear past tense in the scope of did with the definite temporal reference yesterday. Equally interesting are examples such as (12) and (13), in which the event of the antecedent VP and the deleted VP differ as to whether they are to be interpreted as specific or generic (Kuno 1974). (12) Jane ended up marrying a doctor, although she didn’t want to _. (13) a. They caned a student severely when I was a child, but not like Miss Grundy did _ yesterday. b. Miss Grundy caned a student yesterday, just like they did _ when I was a boy. The sentences in (12) and (13) display a specific-nonspecific ambiguity, viz. with regard to the object of the VP. The examples in (13) additionally indicate that the “specific vs. generic” dichotomy can obtain not only with the object DP, but also with the event. (See, e.g., Krifka et al. (1995) for further discussion of eventive and referential genericity.) Under the as-

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

71

sumption that the computational system (CHL) includes operators such as genericity, these sentences also show that there are mismatches that a theory solely driven by identity requirements would have to account for. Sag (1980: 98) is reluctant to commit himself to LF and posits the socalled Shallow Structures, i.e. an intermediary level. However, if one assumes, e.g. with Heim and Kratzer (1998: 250), that the relevant level is, translated into recent terms, that of LF, a simplification of the model ensues. While there may be reasons to posit intermediate interpretation/evaluation targeting the interfaces (cf. phase-theory: Chomsky 2001; Uriagereka 1999; Winkler 2003), positing a full additional layer of the grammar seems theoretically problematic and empirically unmotivated. The classical apparatus Sag applies to a vast array of data is Church’s lambda calculus (Church 1941; cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998 i.a.). Sag proposes alphabetic variance as a semantic condition for VPE, as in (14). (14) Alphabetic variance (cf. Sag 1980: 104) For two λ-expressions, λx(A) and λx(B), to be alphabetic variants, every occurrence of x in A must have a corresponding instance of y in B, and vice versa. Also, any quantifier in A that binds variables (in A) must have a corresponding (identical) quantifier in B that binds variables in all the corresponding positions. On the basis of the bi-directional condition, Sag provides a first tool to discriminate e.g. between (15) (exemplifying alphabetic variants) and (16). (15) a. b. c. (16) a. b. c.

λw (w loves John) = λz (z loves John) λw ((∀y [w likes y]) = λz ((∀q [z likes q]) λw ((∃z) [w ate z] = λq ((∃r) [q ate r] λw (w loves John) ≠λz ( z loves Mary) λx (x likes y) ≠ λw (w likes z), as in the pair in c. below (∃y) [John, λx (x likes y)] and (∀z) [Bill, λw (w likes z)]

The pairs that are alphabetic variants, i.e., in (15), differ only in the names of the variables. They preserve the same binder-variable structure. By contrast, (16b) for example, does not include alphabetic variants even though it contains the same variables going by different names, given that the variable z is not bound within that expression and, as we see in (16c), it can be bound differently later on. This does not yet account for cases in which a quantifier binds a variable from outside the pertinent expression. As a whole, such expressions could still be alphabetic variants in the definition

72

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

we have seen so far, but would fail to license ellipsis. In a further step, the alphabetic-variants condition is adjusted to such cases with the proviso in (17). With this incorporated, the condition for VPE ensues as in (18). (17) The outside-quantifier case for alphabetical variance (Sag 1980) If there are any variables in A that are bound by some quantifier outside of λx(A), then the corresponding variable in λx(B) must be bound by the same operator. (18) Condition for VPE (alias VPD; cf. Sag 1980) With respect to a sentence S, VPD can delete any VP in S whose representation at the level of logical form is a λ-expression that is an alphabetic variant of another λ-expression present in the logical form of S or in the logical form of some other sentence S´, which precedes S in discourse. Sag observes that the rules are not an improvement over previous proposals in the simple cases, but argues for their superiority in examples involving quantifiers. Effects are naturally expected (the rules are designed with reference to quantification; cf. (14)). While the left conjunct in (19) has freedom of scope on its own, when used as an antecedent to an ellipsis, only the LF with the existential scoping out is possible (cf. Sag: 1980: 60, 107). (19) Someone hit everyone, and (then) Bill did _. (20) a. (∃x)[x, λ y((∀z) [y hit z])] b. Bill, λw ((∀u)[w hit u]) Sag’s explanation is that the resulting semantic representation is the only one under which the two conjuncts are alphabetic variants as in (20). Sag’s main contribution consists in formulating the conditions for recoverability and a clear program for LF-identity. While it will be necessary to explore some of the syntactic and interface properties of ellipsis further, an additional issue which one can observe from this vantage is that an ellipsis site is grammatically not actually copied or made after an antecedent. Antecedent and ellipsis rather seem to stand in a parallelism relationship to one another. (Cf. also Hirschbühler 1982 and Fox 1995.)

2.2. Syntactic equilibrium and dependency theory: Fiengo and May (1994) F&M modify and build on Sag’s identity requirements. They suggest a platform to determine how far syntax may control for VPE. The empirical

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

73

upshot is a proposal to cope with complex cases of reference retrieval and with cases of sloppy identity. So-called indexical structure is part and parcel of F&M’s system. Identities, as defined in F&M’s terms, become crucial. We first illustrate F&M’s main background tenets. With regard to nominal entities entering the syntax, F&M distinguish between coreference (identity of reference) and not-coreference, i.e. situations in which the grammar does not provide the information necessary to decide whether the speaker may be dealing with coreference or noncoreference. Not-coreference therefore does not necessarily mean disjoint reference. Consider (21) and (22). (21) He put John’s coat on. (22) He thinks John is crazy. (21) is typically interpreted with disjoint reference for he and John. There are, however, scenarios (say, when the speaker does not recognize the person talked about, e.g., I don’t know who he was, but he put John’s coat on) on which this sentence could mean that the speaker does not want to (or cannot) commit herself to the referential relationship between the two individuals. Similarly, (22) is typically interpreted with disjoint reference (binding principle C). According to F&M, even for this sentence, known as the masked-ball situation, scenarios are possible on which, a speaker truthfully asserts it without commitment to reference. Second, inscription of entities in the syntax does not only include the values (e.g., 1, 2,...), but also their dependency types, i.e. whether they are dependent or independent occurrences. Consider (23) (cf. F&M, p. 47). (23) John saw his mother. a. α α b. α β In this sentence, the possibility of two readings arises from the indexical type of the occurrences. While the first entity, John, is necessarily independent, and thereby an α-occurrence, the second, his, can be either independent (e.g., when accompanied by ostension) or dependent, and then contingent on the previous occurrence (in which case it is a β -occurrence). So far, this represents a relatively straightforward formal system with precise options for the entities entering its syntax. What is more important, however, is the question what applications such a system can accomplish. A great deal of F&M’s work is devoted to VPE. And with regard to ellip-

74

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

sis, one of the most interesting results of F&M is the concept of vehicle change. This result is a derivative of the conditions on syntactic identity. Third, a crucial part of dependency theory is given by indexical dependencies, defined as in (24). (24) Indexical dependency (adapted from F&M 1994: 51) An indexical dependency ID is a triple consisting of a sequence of elements, an index, and a structural description: , where the elements of the sequence contain one and only one α-occurrence of I – the antecedent – and at least one β-occurrence of I – the dependents, and SD specifies the structure that connects the elements that bear occurrences of the index. In the simplest case, an ID contains a sequence of two elements (n=2), both given indices from I which are specified by structural properties (SD). Fourth, indexical dependencies can stand in a certain resemblance relationship to each other, in which case they are so-called i-copies, as in (25). (25) i-copies (adapted from F&M 1994: 95) Indexical dependencies are i-copies if and only if they have the same elements and the same structural descriptions […] Vehicle change is an identity relation phrased in syntactic terms which views those expressions on a par which have the same index and the same type. This can be achieved without identical lexical realizations of the expressions involved. The process is an invariance condition, cf. (26). (26) Vehicle Change (F&M 1994: 218) Simply put, vehicle change is closed under invariance of indices. That is, in a reconstruction, a nominal can take any syntactic form as long as its indexical structure (type and value) is unchanged (modulo identity for β-occurrences). The result is indiscernablitiy of nominal expressions (possibly up to null categories such as PRO and traces, according to F&M 1994: 218) if they obey the conditions on vehicle change. The concept is also applied to a related type of vehicle change which refers to indiscernability with respect to the values of syntactic features, as in (27), where the ellipsed possessive their can for instance vary from the overt anteceding expressions my on the sloppy reading, or as in (28), in which quantifier features are not matched.

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

75

(27) I turned in my assignment, but most of the other students didn’t _. (28) Max talked to someone, but Oscar didn’t _. Reconstruction in F&M’s sense is defined as “a structural carbon copy of its antecedent, up to indexical type” (F&M 1994: 165), or, in other words, a concept of syntactic identity which “prohibits variation in indexical type, whether the indexical occurrence is an α-occurrence or a β-occurrence, but allows variation in indexical value for β-occurrences, if they are associated with indexical occurrences which are i-copies” (F&M 1995: 796). To see this type of reconstruction proposal at work, let’s reconsider the possible inadequacies in previous theories of ellipsis. What F&M mostly take issue with, and attempt to improve on, is the treatment of the conditions which allow VPE as semantic equations alone (cf. Sag 1976, 1980). Intuitively and in a number of empirically pertinent cases, one seems encouraged to take the antecedent vs. the elliptical equivalent to be isomorphic in a certain sense in terms of their meanings, as for instance in (29). Insertion of the antecedent at the ellipsis site would not alter interpretation. (29) Max has reached the train station just in time and Mary has _ too. Moreover, example (30) below shows that the apparently straightforward meaning conservation transfers to some cases of reference identification with multiple resolution possibilities. That is, in (30), the ellipsed and the spelled-out variant show the strict/sloppy ambiguity in a similar fashion. (30) a. b.

Max saw his mother and Oscar did too. Max saw his mother, and Oscar saw his mother too.

However, F&M argue that certain changes in meaning are in fact what one obtains once more complex cases are taken into consideration. To this end, they analyze a series of facts obtained from the comparison of elided structures with their overt equivalents, originally observed in the 1970s by Östen Dahl. The pertinent facts subdivide into three groups of puzzles out of which we will pick out one group for illustration. This eliminative puzzle of ellipsis, labeled by F&M the many-pronouns puzzle, pertains to the fact that by increasing the number of pronouns, the number of readings does not increase at the rate which is predicted by approaches developed in the wake of Sag. In such a theory, one would expect the example (31), to display the four-way ambiguity rendered in (32).

76

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(31) Max said he saw his mother, and Oscar did, too. (32) a. Maxi λx (x said hei saw hisi mother), and Oscarj λy(y said hei saw hisi mother) b. Maxi λx (x said x saw x’s mother), and Oscarj λy(y said y saw y’s mother) c. Maxi λx (x said x saw hisi mother), and Oscarj λy(y said y saw hisj mother) d. Maxi λx (x said hei saw x’s mother), and Oscarj λy(y said hei saw y’s mother) However, the reading represented in (32d) is not available. F&M claim that the filtering out of such ungrammatical readings follows as a consequence of Dependency Theory.4 Let us see how. The algorithm proposed is to “copy” the occurrence of an index if the occurrence is an independent inscription, and to copy the dependency if the occurrence is dependent.5 The realizable and non-realizable options are in (33)-(36) (cf. F&M, p. 150). (33) Max1 said he1α saw his1α mother, and Oscar2 said he1α mother (34) Max1 said he1β saw his1β mother, and Oscar2 said he2β mother (35) Max1 said he1β saw his1α mother, and Oscar2 said he2β mother (36) *Max1 said he1α saw his1β mother, and Oscar2 said he1α mother

saw his1α saw his2β saw his1α saw his2β

While (33) and (34) instantiate the across-the-board strict and sloppy readings, respectively, (35) instantiates a so-called mixed reading with referents as indicated by the index types and values. However, another mixed reading, as illustrated in (36), is argued to be impossible.6 In order for it to be possible, one would have to provide for the left-hand conjunct a representation that is an i-copy of , for which there are three theoretical possibilities, as in (37) (cf. F&M, p. 151). (37) a. - not an i-copy b. - not realized c. - not an ID Given that none of these possibilities can be generated within dependency theory, the ungrammatical reading is thus argued to be filtered out.

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

77

All in all, the module where F&M see the identity requirements best anchored would have to be formulated within syntax, and in particular starting from the very level a derivation begins up to the level of LF. While it may be doubtful that semantic conditions should therefore be dispensed with, F&M’s approach by itself has delivered results in the notion of vehicle change. A further remark pertains to the finer details of elliptical processes, which are often swept under the rug in identity-based approaches to ellipsis. F&M point out some of the differences between the way identity applies to VPE, and, say, stripping (p. 112), and moreover judiciously note its limitations in this respect. Furthermore, they importantly observe that without a theory of licensing, VPE is just insufficiently captured (p. 147). While F&M present a comprehensive syntactic approach, let’s also mention some of the critical issues. First, while in the domain of reference very sharp consideration are made in the way this can be established, the general approach on ellipsis is restricted to sentence grammar and noncoordinated structures are excluded. Second, there is an empirically onesided concern with the licensing through do support. Third, the fact that the fourth, i.e. the arguably non-extant reading in the many-pronouns puzzle could still possibly be derived, as conceded in F&M, p. 151, n. 19, makes the predictions unclear.7 Fourth, occasionally in the discussion of indices it seems that the speaker-hearer abstraction is probably intended but not thoroughgoing. The work has a convincing introductory discussion on syntactic inscriptions, including their interaction with certain speech act situations. In such an approach, it would then be interesting to see how the formal apparatus developed also takes these into account. Finally, one theoretical issue with F&M’s account is that while it was adequate for the syntactic theory of its time, its formalism becomes less tenable on the baseline of the Minimalist Program: While indices are dispensed with in recent theorizing, their weight via super- and sub-scripted diacritics is in fact doubled in F&M.

2.3. Extensions on full-fledged E-sites: Kennedy (1997), Postal (2001) This subsection considers further implications of the apparatus of vehicle change by focusing both on a practical more direct application of the mechanism and then on apparent contrary evidence discussing Kennedy (1997) and Postal (2001). Both strands of thought, moverover, underline the idea of having structure involved at the ellipsis sites.

78

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

To grasp one more application of the mechanism of vehicle change, consider the interaction of VPE with parasitic gaps. Parasitic gaps are omission sites of logically potential argument positions, the licensing of which depends on the existence of a further silent site which typically comes about through extraction, as e.g. in (38). (38) a. Here is the paper that John read _ before filing _. b. Who did John’s talking to _ bother _ most? One of the well-known characteristics of parasitic gaps is their interaction with extraction. For instance in (38), the paper and who have been extracted via relativization and question formation, respectively. Parasitic gaps are therefore also sensitive to islands, as illustrated in (39), for whislands, extraction from adjuncts, complex NPs, and the Coordinate Structure Constraint, respectively (for further discussion, see Culicover 2001; Culicover and Postal 2001; Kennedy 1997). (39) a. *Which article did you read after Jim asked who would be willing to summarize? b. *Which movie did you see because Polly was so excited after going to? c. *Dick Dale, who we attempt to emulate despite the admonitions of many people who say we shouldn’t try to sound like, is performing tonight at the Catalyst. d. *Which books did you read after learning that Erik read and found them interesting? Kim and Lyle (1996) have challenged this view with examples in which VPE induces amelioration and thus makes the island effects virtually disappear. This is illustrated in (40) for the four types of islands respectively. (40) a. Which article did you read after Jim asked who would be willing to_? b. Which movie did you see because Polly was so excited after she did_? c. Dick Dale, who we attempt to emulate despite the admonitions of many people who say we shouldn’t _, is performing tonight at the Catalyst. d. Which books did you read after learning that Erik did _ and found them interesting?

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

79

Assuming that the examples above are parasitic gaps in conjunction with the elision of VPs, Kim and Lyle’s contention is that since VPE ameliorates the abovementioned island effects, it is useful to think of it as a copying procedure applying at LF. The lack of a violation is thus claimed to ensue – there being no violation because there was no parasitic-gap chain to begin with; the structure of the elided/copied VP being inserted late in the tradition of the copying mechanism to ellipsis (cf. Chung et al. 1995). Kim and Lyle’s argument is based on two points that need closer scrutiny. First, copying into an ellipsis site is not a clear-cut matter. For instance, F&M’s reconstruction mechanism was designed precisely to cope with variation between antecedent and ellipsis. Second, we have assumed that the ameliorated examples involve parasitic gaps. What if they do not? Kennedy (1997) claims that the amelioration is due to the fact that the apparent gaps in (40) are not genuine parasitic gaps, but pronouns that undergo elision together with the VP containing them and are bound by the overt wh-operator in all of the above clauses. Two kinds of empirical evidence can be presented in support of this claim. First, pronouns are not sensitive to cross-over, while parasitic gaps are. Thus the sentences in (41)(42), involving pronoun dependencies, are grammatical, while the contrast in (43)-(44) is due to the fact that parasitic gaps do not tolerate cross-over. (41) Which candidatei did Maureen vote for because hei asked her to_? (42) Whoi did you nominate without himi knowing that you did_? (43) *This is the guy whoi they arrested before hei realized that they suspected. (44) This is the guy who they arrested before anyone realized that they suspected. Kennedy’s second argument involves sensitivity of pronouns to condition B of Binding Theory. On closer inspection, what has been a putative parasitic-gap type of dependency now turns out to generate ungrammatical sentences, just as if one had pronouns in the representation. Both the putative parasitic gap in VPE and the pronoun are ungrammatical: (45) *Whoi did you nominate at the same time that hei did _? (46) *Whoi did you nominate at the same time that hei did nominate himi? What Kennedy claims to be at work in such cases then is Fiengo and May’s vehicle-change operation, which he restates as (47) (cf. F&M 1994: 218).

80

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(47) Vehicle Change: X [+pro]i is a reconstruction of Y[-pro]i Kennedy (1997), mentioning the ameliorated cases, concludes: These are not variables in the syntax (i.e. resumptive pronouns, as suggested in Fiengo and May 1994); if they were, they would exhibit strong crossover effect, as shown by McCloskey’s work on Irish (cf., e.g., McCloskey 1991). The pronouns in the LF representations of [(40)] are ordinary English pronouns […]

The above line of argument seems to strongly reinforce the idea of vehicle change as a relation between dependencies that agree in indexical value as in F&M’s system without necessarily agreeing in feature content. Clearly, an important if indirect byproduct of Kennedy’s analysis is that the VPE sites considered in all the examples above include structured material, a conclusion not inconsistent with Kim and Lyle (1996). The tableau of parasitic gaps, however, reveals further complexity. Although Postal (2001) concurs with Kennedy’s descriptive observations as far as the data presented therein are concerned, he notes on the basis of additional material that a logical generalization of Kennedy’s argument is not warranted. To start the discussion, consider the contrast between the following two sentences originally noted by Engdahl (1985). (48) *a person whoi you admire ti because close friends of _ seem to become famous (49) ?a person whoi you admire ti because close friends of _ seem to_ First, (48) shows a violation of a similar sort as the ones discussed (cf. (39) and (40)). Second, (49) displays an amelioration of the putative violation under VPE, a familiar effect by now too. Both sentences then seem to parallel the patterns seen above. But note that replacement of Kennedy’s (1997) silent “ordinary English pronouns” through an actual audible pronoun in such cases, as illustrated in (50), does not yield a parallel result any longer, as shown in (50) (cf. the much higher acceptability of (49)). (50) *a person whoi you admire ti because close friends of _ seem to admire himi This type of sentences then prima facie yields a diametrical result to the prediction made by a logical extension of Kennedy’s account. Postal addresses this puzzle and his starting point is as follows (Postal 2001: 405):

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

81

[I]t is useful to distinguish the cases Kennedy (1997) dealt with from those like that cited by Engdahl. …[T]he key property of the latter involves a subject-internal P-gap whose putative local L(icensing)-gap (critically, also itself a P-gap) is missing inside an elided VP.

The terms used by Postal for the two classes are SMP (“subject-missing parasitic gaps”) vs. NMP (so-called “neutral missing parasitic gaps”). As evidence for the classification, first of all, the application of the island test and the strong-crossover test discriminates between the two types of gaps. (51) Island Test a. *[Which books] 1 did you read t1 after learning that Erik [read pg1 and found them1 interesting]? b. [Which books] 1 did you read t1 after learning that Erik [did__ and found them1 interesting]? c. *[Which author] 1 did they defend t1 despite the fact that friends of pg1 didn’t want to defend pg1? d. *[Which author] 1 did they defend t1 despite the fact that friends of pg1 didn’t want to? (52) Strong Crossover Test a. the guy who1 they convinced t1 that you could get Mary to help pg1 b. *the guy who1 they convinced t1 that he1 could get Mary to help pg1 The contrasting between (51a) and (51b) shows the amelioration expected under Kennedy’s analysis, but the pattern in (51c) vs. (51d) illustrates the lack of amelioration for SMPs. A similar pattern obtains in (52). Postal argues that the main division line lies between the SMP and NMP gaps. What Postal convincingly shows is that Kennedy’s initial observations are correct as such but that they need to be seen in a larger context where other types of parasitic gaps do not obey the schema. He does so both by extending the data-range and the dimensions of the tests. But what is the explanation? Postal proposes that there are two distinct and in principle equally possible representations for parasitic gaps. This accounts for the different reports on the nature of parasitic gaps of Kim and Lyle (1996) and Kennedy (1997). Specifically, for a sentence such as (53), the two representations in (54) would in principle concomitantly be possible.

82

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(53) [Which movie] 1 did you see t1 because Polly was so excited [after she did _]? (54) a. after she did < see it1> (“pronoun analysis”) (“pg-analysis”) b. after she did < see pg1> For NMP gaps, the island tests, which are critical in parasitic-gap environments, rule out the parasitic gaps-proper analysis and only leave the pronoun analysis as an option, i.e. the one also advocated by Kennedy. However, for SMP gaps, this conclusion is not enforced and the more traditional parasitic-gaps analysis could be assumed. For the investigation of parasitic gaps this would bring up the essential question what exactly makes the distinction run precisely along the line of the SMP-vs.-NMP dichotomy. For the representation of VPE, however, if Postal’s line is on the right track, then for either type, an ellipsis site can accommodate complex and syntactically well-defined (proper) sub-structures.

2.4. The identity condition transferred to PF: Tancredi (1992) In this section, we consider the role of the PF component by focusing on the proposal of Tancredi (1992). The main points of interest are: (i) how identity requirements such as the ones discussed so far relate to semantic filtering effects; (ii) what such facts entail for the organization of the grammar with respect to ellipsis. While the present study defends an interface-based view with respect to VPE and critiques some of the specifics of what accounts based solely on PF predict, it should be clear that, no matter how essential identity requirements are, no conceptualization of VPE can obviate the role of PF, and that one needs an account thereof. While ellipsis and deletion are sometimes used interchangeably in relaxed descriptions, it was not before a certain consensus has been reached on the model(s) of grammar that one could grasp what deletion at the level of phonological form could substantially even mean. We assume here with Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) and much related work that PF is the interface of the grammar with the articulatory interface. In the previous sections, we have seen how various descriptive considerations bearing on the representations of silenced VPs had already shaped the idea that the linguistic objects under scrutiny are clearly syntactically and semantically identifiable. Their omission might have taken place somehow at the PF level solely. This alone is, however, an unsatisfying argument for PF, based on an exclusion algorithm: If object O is not ellipsed at LF or within narrow syntax,

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

83

then it must have escaped at PF. Empirically one would like to see positive evidence. Starting from initial observations made in Lasnik (1972) and Sag (1976), both Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) and Tancredi (1992) present some considerably stronger, positive evidence regarding the possibility of the PF component essentially being involved in ellipsis. Chomsky and Lasnik propose within the then surging Minimalist Program, that VPE is but an extreme case of deaccenting and offer two main arguments to this end. Consider (55) and (56). Following common practice in the literature, lower case italics are used for deaccented material. (55) John said that he was looking for a cat and so did Bill. (56) John said that he was looking for a cat and so did Bill [say he was looking for a cat]. We have in fact already seen (cf. 2.2) that ambiguities do not multiply in ellipsis contexts as expected. With respect to (55), potential ambiguity sources would be, for instance, the pronoun and the indefinite nominal. However, not only do ambiguities not multiply as expected in this elliptical sentence; the same restriction obtains in the deaccented variant (56). Deaccenting being a process of the phonological component, this resemblance could be taken to mean that VPE also involves the PF component. Chomsky and Lasnik’s inclusion relation, i.e. of subsuming VPE under deaccenting, would potentially entail two theoretical benefits beyond the arguments they directly mention since it would account for two minimalist objectives: First, in ontological terms, the apparatus for the two phenomena involved is thus reduced from two mechanisms to one; and second, in slightly more technical terms, a government-based theory of VPE dominating up to the early nineties is programmatically traded in for an interface-oriented account of ellipsis, in which the PF articulatory system mainly accounts for deletion. This entails that English has VPE because it has the right PF to license it. However, such a simplified version does not account for the semantic and syntactic requirements to be fulfilled for VPE to occur. Tancredi (1992) endorses Chomsky and Lasnik’s programmatic proposal. As we have seen in the preceding sections, factors such as quantifiers, pronouns, anaphors, and the licensing of parasitic gaps indicate a certain degree of variability between antecedents and ellipses. While such factors represent arguments against direct-copying analyses of ellipsis, let’s note with Tancredi (1992: 19) an interesting converse conclusion. The fact that the identity conditions exist at all requires some explanatory exercise from within deletion-based approaches. The potential hitch is that in copy-

84

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

based theories – despite the inherent drawback of rigidity in the antecedent-ellipsis relationship – the identity of antecedent and ellipsis comes as a free gift with the implementation itself. In contrast, under deletion-based theories, identity conditions may seem to turn out as accidental outcomes. To counter this problem within a deletion account, Tancredi navigates the following course. The first part of the proposal is concerned with relocating identity conditions at PF. The second conceptual move consists in doing away with identity conditions altogether, namely by the reduction of VPE to deaccenting. The first step may cut the aforementioned Gordian knot of accidentality. However, without necessarily solving the problem. Relocating identity requirements may make the model of the grammar in a certain sense more consistent: If VPE is appropriately described as a PF phenomenon, then a model in which the necessary identity conditions are sorted out in the same component would be more plausible than one in which the latter are produced by means of stipulation within LF, which is a non-neighboring grammar component. Nonetheless, such a proposal flies in the face of the evidence that it is precisely semantic and syntactic objects and not PF representations on which the identity conditions are based (Fiengo and May 1994; Sag 1976; Fox 1999). This direct counterevidence does, however, not diminish the role of PF in general, nor does it diminish the second interesting conceptual point, which goes precisely through semantic and pragmatic reasoning. Accordingly, the empirical observations purported to support Tancredi’s system in this domain stem from two areas: (i) the idea that deaccenting is based on a specific kind of presupposition which he labels focus-related topic and defines it as in (57); and (ii) the analysis of cases of sloppy/strict readings (alongside further ambiguities) under deaccenting, which seem to emulate notorious cases of VPE ambiguities. Regarding the first point, let us consider (57). (57) Focus-related Topic (adapted from Tancredi 1992: 43) Given a sentence S and its foci Fi, the focus-related topic of S is retrieved by replacing each Fi in the LF of S by a variable xi. The use of a focus-related topic has its place in context, i.e. it has to be instantiated, as in (58) below (cf. Tancredi 1992: 44). (58) A context C instantiates a focus-related topic α if and only if C contains some expression β such that α is identical to some potential focus-related topic of β (where γ is a potential focus-related topic

Identity (in)equations as conditions for ellipsis

85

of β if there is some expression β´ which differs from β at most in its focus structure such that the focus-related topic of β´ is γ);. Essentially, “VPs can be deleted if and only if they can be deaccented, and VPs can be deaccented only if their LF representations are instantiated in the context” (p. 129). However, as Tancredi notes, adjustments are necessary to account for data beyond the simpler cases. Consider (59). (59) Yesterday, SAM killed Bill. Today, JOHN died. At this point there are (at least) two bifurcations with (at least) four possible outcomes. Since the deaccented structures are not licensed by instantiation as defined so far, one could either opt for widening the output of instantiation or by augmenting the context. Claiming that a loosened definition of instantiation would be too weak to be useful, Tancredi takes recourse to context incrementation. This process, in its turn, can be achieved in various ways. One simple and neat way would be through entailment. However, while logical entailment straightforwardly accounts for sentences as seen in (59), it fails to account for sequences like (60). (60) John called Mary a republican. Then, BILL insulted Mary. What offers a possible extension to such cases is the use of implicatures (Grice 1967/1989) rather than entailment, since, e.g., (60) clearly does not allow truth-value assignment to the deaccented insulted Mary from the antecedent call a republican. With implicature-based context incrementation, on the other hand, the following outline ensues (Tancredi, p. 57): a focus-related topic should be acceptable in two types of contexts – those in which the focus-related topic is already instantiated, and those in which a hearer can augment the context with a specific proposition which he can calculate as an implicature of what the speaker has said in the context given.

With the basics of deaccenting sketched, to drive home Tancredi’s second major point, i.e. the parallelism between deaccenting and VPE, let’s consider the deaccenting examples in (61), constructed after well-known VPE examples from the literature (cf. especially Sag 1976). (61) a. Betsy divulged when Bill promised to call me, and Sandy divulged when Bill promised to call me too.

86

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

b. Betsy divulged when Bill promised to call me before Sandy divulged when Bill promised to call me. c. The chickens were ready to eat when the children were ready to eat. d. John wanted to catch a fish before Bill wanted to catch a fish. While earlier proposals had hypothesized that the reading options of example (61a) might be due to a property of conjunction, examples such as (61b)-(61d) go against the grain of such a correlation for VPE and show that the parallels extend to cases of non-conjoined phrase markers. Recall that contrary to early claims in the literature, VPE can felicitously work with, but does not depend on, conjoined phrase-markers. Similarly to VPE, so far, deaccenting operates indeed into subordinate clauses as well as into coordinated ones and produces ambiguous structures in both cases. Also, quite similarly to VPE, such sentences manifest only two-way, and notably not four-way ambiguities. Interestingly, however, deaccenting also applies in cases in which deletion is impossible. VPE can only ensue when an antecedent is chosen over identical structure and terminal vocabulary modulo vehicle change. For deaccenting, on the other hand, examples such as (62) can be adduced, in which there is no lexical identity of terminal nodes. (62) a. Betsy divulged when Bill promised to telephone me, and Sandy said when Bill promised to get in touch with me too. b. Betsy divulged when Bill promised to telephone me before Sandy said when Bill promised to get in touch with me. c. The chickens are prepared to eat, and the children are ready to consume too. d. The chickens were prepared to eat when the children were ready to consume. e. John wants to spear a marlin, and Bill wants to catch a fish too. f. John wanted to spear a marlin before Bill wanted to catch a fish. Based on the fact that deaccenting structures such as (62) display by and large the same ambiguities as the elliptical sentences in (61), Tancredi (1992: 34) proposes to reduce VPE to deaccenting. It is not possible to implement the reduction vice versa, i.e. by using a theory of VPE to account for deaccenting, since deaccenting is possible when VPE is not. If one agrees with the mechanism of context incrementation via implicatures and with the reduction to deaccenting, then an important question arises. If implicatures are able to generate the presupposition which li-

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

87

censes VPE and deaccenting, how come VPE is more restricted in the reconstruction of an antecedent than deaccenting? Why do speakers of English understand VPE structures precisely with the LF of the antecedent, with the greatest degree of variation limited to vehicle change; or, to put it differently, why does context incrementation not allow us to understand the ellipsis as something lexically entirely different, as deaccenting does? Tancredi (cf. p. 129) intriguingly argues that it actually does, but that the limitation comes in otherwise. Thus while according to Tancredi one may well reconstruct [likes flying aircrafts] for [likes soaring gliders] for VPE, just like for deaccenting, one may also reconstruct many other interpretations (has desires, is not averse to flying, etc) for lack of further clues. But since these interpretations are virtually unlimited, the speaker will not convey them, knowing that the hearer will not be able to find out what was intended. Thus the exact antecedent will be conveyed. To sum up, Tancredi works out a feasible model and demonstrates through specific and engaged empirical argumentation (rather than by means of assumption) that PF does have an interesting role in the derivation of VPE. It is, however, harder to adopt the entire module architecture proposed, first and foremost because it reduces everything to one module and leaves no leeway for the effects, e.g., in morphosyntactic and semantic terms. For the part that takes place at PF, Winkler (2000, 2003) notes problems with this account, including the one-way implication from deletion to deaccenting and the issues it induces for the mapping from syntax to intonation and the information structural concerns.8 Empirically, there are, moreover, also certain issues. For example, Tancredi (1992) points out that deletion is problematic for partly elided multiple wh-questions, as in (63).9 (63) a. I wish I knew who brought what to the party. b. I wish I did too. I have no IDEA (i) *who did _. (ii) who brought what (to the party).

3. On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing 3.1. Introduction In section 2, we dealt with “sameness” conditions at the levels of form and meaning imposed on the relationship that the antecedent bears to the site of omission. In this section, keeping up with the syntactic inquiry of this study, we go more deeply into three crucial questions regarding VPE:

88

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(64) (i) the grammatical regularity of the process and distinctions from some other elliptical or anaphoric strategies; (ii) characteristics of and the role played by the licenser class; (iii) the question of what precisely an ellipsis site is made of. The first issue in (64) makes it imperative to focus on the specific syntactic conditions that allow VPE to be produced. The main reason lies in the following fact. Equation-conditions have more often than not been designed indiscriminate of the various ellipsis types (cf., e.g., Darlymple et al. 1991; Murguia 2004). While insightful in other respects, identity-oriented approaches are thereby usually not concerned with the wide range of morphosyntactic or distributional variation between, say, VPE, gapping, pseudogapping or Right-Node Raising.10 However, it is no news that regardless of the syntactic analysis one assumes for any of these constructions, they will differ both in important distributional and in clear licensing properties. Moreover, considering the discussion from 3.2, we may note that, to the extent they are successful, equational approaches tend to over-generate ellipsis (and VPE in particular). Important as they are, such approaches therefore need to be complemented by the ground work of the mechanics of morphosyntax in any given natural language. No matter how perfect we set the general equational conditions in any of the modules for a sentence S containing an antecedent A and a potential ellipsis site E, plenty of languages will simply be “reluctant” to licensing VPE, an observation long neglected but pointed out more often in recent studies (cf. Johnson 2001; Merchant forth; Winkler 2003). As research on various languages has revealed, the morphosyntactic licensing package responsible for ellipsis must also be considered, as must the syntactic representation of the ellipsis sites themselves; cf. Cyrino and Matos (2002), Doron (1999), Dvořák and Gergel (2004), Laka (1990), López and Winkler (2000), McCloskey (1991), Ngonyany (1996) for recent theoretical implementations of VPE under typologically varied conditions. In this section, we first take a step back to the earlier days of generative grammar navigating along Hankamer and Sag’s (1976) article on anaphoric and elliptical processes and its consequences, and updating it with some empirical points offered by Pullum (2000) directly pertinent to the critical part of Hankamer and Sag (1976). Afterwards we consider the licensing proposal of Lobeck (1995) – which, e.g. with Johnson (2001), we take to be essential in spirit towards an explanatory account of ellipsis in general. The final subsection takes another chronological leap back and looks at anaphora from a different perspective

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

89

than Lobeck’s by discussing in particular Wasow’s (1979) account with its the full-fledged representation of the omission sites.

3.2. Silence but with method: Hankamer and Sag (1976), Pullum (2000) The primary goal of this subsection is to investigate why VPE seems to be controlled by the ‘grammar’ with regard to a number of derivational diagnostics, but at the same time is managed by ‘pragmatic’ factors in some other respects. We consider the essential points originating with the approach of Hankamer and Sag (1976), hereafter H&S, which encompasses some of the main initial tools to handle ellipsis. Additional remarks considering Pullum (2000), Hoji (2003), and others will be discussed with regard to the utility of some of the tests H&S proposed. H&S call the approach in which full-fledged syntactic structure can invariably transform into virtually any type of pronoun the Strict Transformational Position. The upshot of this line of thought has been that it gives syntax the freedom to build up and operate with structure, and then assumes an ad-hoc transformation of pronominalization, mapping into either null or overt pro-forms. This transformation usually works accompanied by inheritance of the built up structure into the anaphoric form. A diametric option has been to assume that anaphoric forms, despite appearances, are invariably indecomposable pronominal units, but, in exchange, have to pay toll for their “standing for” additional structure via interpretive rules instead of the aforementioned direct structure-inheritance. H&S label the latter approach The Strict Interpretive Position. Besides the two monolithic theories, at the time H&S wrote their seminal contribution, the option was beginning to crystallize that mixed theories might offer an alternative. However, once one introduces a mixed theory, the immediate question is what a principled discriminatory basis for the now various types of anaphors can be. The two main candidates preceding H&S have been the Deep Pronoun hypothesis, according to which null-anaphora result via deletion, whereas non-null anaphora may be ascribed to interpretation, and Grinder and Postal’s (1971) Identity of Sense hypothesis, following which identity of sense anaphora fall into the deletion category and identity of reference anaphora are resolved via interpretation.11 Capitalizing on earlier work (Bresnan 1971 i.a.), H&S sharpen the view on the issues and propose a distinction between deep anaphora vs. surface anaphora. The basic division line is that the former type is pragmatically controlled whereas the second involves syntactic processes.

90

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

Among the early arguments against monolithic theories, Bresnan (1970) had already observed first limitations on how far pronominalization could go, e.g., based on definiteness effects (cf. Milsark 1977). If Some studentsi think theyi are running the show is derived from Some studentsi think some studentsi are running the show through a rule of pronominalization, then nothing could stop, e.g., there-insertion as a rule preceding pronominalization, from intermingling with the latter. That is to say, one would get Some students think that there are some students running the show and subsequently the ungrammatical *Some students think that there are they running the show – a clear and lucid argument as far as the timing of transformations was concerned. However, as H&S point out, this is in its essence an argument showing that definiteness cannot be introduced transformationally, and not necessarily support for mixed theories in general since restrictions on co-reference of two indefinites are independently needed. More evidence was gathering against monolitihic theories at the time. An argument similarly working with the order in which rules could apply was presented in Kayne (1971), capitalizing on cliticization in French. Another early objection discussed by H&S was that sentences such as The man who shows he deserves it will get the prize he desires argue against a strict transformationalist position. The putative argument consisted in the outcome of infinite deep structures – an argument H&S do not find compelling and reject given that they consider it in its theoretical context, in which finite structures could not be a priori ruled out. The issue of a mixed theory thus remained unsettled. Moreover, some arguments against mixed theories were also proposed. It had been suggested, for instance, that one could not capture the BAC (backwards-anaphora constraint) but in a unified theory of anaphora based on deletion, or else lose an important generalization (but see Wasow’s 1979 critique to this argument and below). The basis of H&S’s line of reasoning is, however, quite different. Instead of approaching a possible sub-classification of pronominal elements with respect to overtness, they put forth a rather comprehensive overview by considering the involvement of the grammatical diagnostics.12 Thus anaphoric elements, whether overt or not, subdivide into what H&S call surface vs. deep anaphora – or, a correlating distinction according to them: syntactically vs. pragmatically controlled anaphora. For typical personal pronouns the proposed dichotomy seems straightforwardly in accord with traditional classifications of pronouns. It is, however, for propositional entities that the consequence becomes conspicuous for the data discussed by H&S. Representative examples are VPE and, e.g., do it anaphora.

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

91

A first argument discussed by H&S is given by what has come to be known as the missing antecedent phenomenon (cf. also Bresnan 1971, Cyrino 2004; Depiante 2000; Grinder and Postal 1971; Johnson 2001; Winkler 2003). For an illustration, consider (65) and (66) in which the pronoun it retrieves its antecedent from the ellipsis site. (65) I’ve never ridden a camel, but Ivan has _ , and he says it stank horribly. (66) My uncle didn’t buy anything for Christmas, but my aunt did _ , and it was bright red. While in its original form presented by Grinder and Postal (1971) the missing-antecedent test was intended to have a central role, Bresnan (1971) refutes their original arguments observing that some missing antecedents in null-complement contexts can be explained in terms of three factors: lexical semantics, discourse, and intensional, or modal, contexts. When these factors are controlled for, as in Bresnan (1971), one obtains the contrasts between surface vs. deep anaphora. For instance, a camel-sentence with a null-complement-anaphora continuation such as (67) is ungrammatical. (67) *I’ve never managed to ride a camel, but Sue succeeded and it was the two-humped variety. Following up on Bresnan’s observation, in a modal context, such as the one supplied in (68), retrieval from what is not a typical (VPE) site is licit. (68) My uncle would never have ridden a camel in his life, because he would have been mortally afraid of its throwing him off. Modality has thus an interesting impact in that a modal context can induce VPE-like effects. That is, effects in the fashion of surface-anaphora, such as missing antecedents, which can occur even on constructions that behave as null-complement anaphora otherwise. The modal-missing-antecedent correlation, originally observed in Bresnan’s (1971) critique of Grinder and Postal (1971) has caused some confusion in the literature, old and new. Ultimately it is essential to apply further diagnostics to distinguish between inferentially-assigned vs. grammatically-assigned antecedents (see also Sag 1978: 155). The correlation is at the same time noteworthy and constitutes a two-edged observation. Chapter 4, for instance, will argue that modality offers good premises for developing ellipsis licensers in language-change.

92

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

A further test applicable to some of the VPE sites of ModE is agreement with expletives. This argument works with heads which are able to appear in the T-domain and realize agreement morphologically. Besides the classical example from the literature involving be in (69), it can also be verified with have, as in example (70), and with do, as in (71).13 (69) We can’t prove that there are such rules, but there are/*is. (70) "You seem...troubled." She sighed. She had known this was coming. "I am," she said. “Why? There has been no sign." "But there has _. Two men of our homeland came for me." (71) And then of course there needs to be a budget for the rest of the year doesn't there_ ? Yes there does _. If the ellipsis site were deep, i.e. one piece of (unstructured) empty material, it would be hard to explain why its licenser shows agreement with one of its subparts, namely the subject. The facts seem, however, plausible under H&S’s theory of surface anaphora. Similar facts would be expected for languages in which expletives and VPE, whether through verb movement or first merger of the licenser, come together. By contrast, languages which provide comparable expletive strategies in conjunction with deep anaphora are expected to be insensitive to the agreement facts. A good illustration of the the agreement argument is provided by ‘do’ forms of Dutch dialects; cf. Wambeek data from Craenenbroek (2004). (72) A: Dui stonj drou mann inn of. in.the garden there standPL three men B: a. *Dui en doenj/ duut. NEG doPL /does there b. 't en {OKduut/*duun} it NEG does/doPL A: ‘There are three men standing in the garden. B: No, there aren't .’ Craenenbroek (2004: 130) notes that the data differ from the VPE type: Firstly, there-expletives are disallowed in the subject position of an SDR [short ‘do’ reply] and are necessarily replaced by the third person singular neuter pronoun 't 'it'. Secondly, the agreement on the verb duun 'do' is necessarily third person singular, […]. These data thus constitute a second noticeable difference between SDRs and VP-ellipsis.

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

93

Let’s turn to H&S’ main claim, that “It is just those anaphoric processes that involve syntactic deletion at a superficial level of structure that require syntactic control” (p. 406). One of the essential issues becomes the claimed (im)possibility of pragmatic or exophoric meaning retrieval with surface anaphora.14 A classical example from H&S’s paper is provided in (73). (73) a. [Sag produces a cleaver and prepares to hack off his left hand] Hankamer: #Don’t be alarmed ladies and gentlemen, we’ve rehearsed this act several times, and he never actually does. b. [Same context]: Hankamer: … He never actually does it. While (73a), containing a VPE, is infelicitous in the absence of linguistic antecedent, (73b), with just as much context provided, but accommodating a “deep” anaphora, is fine. The non-exophoricity argument, however, has, notoriously been attacked by Schachter (1977, 1978) with examples of exophoric control. Pullum (2000) reconsiders the significance of the objection put forward by Schachter, who, according to Pullum (2000: 2): published a squib (1977) entitled ‘Does she or doesn't she?’, the title being taken from a Miss Clairol hair dye advertisement in which the following words appeared without linguistic context to support the VP ellipsis: Does she or doesn't she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure. The interpretation intended for the first clause (deducible from the nature of the product being advertised) was ‘Does she dye her hair or doesn't she dye her hair? Only her hairdresser knows for sure whether she dyes her hair.’ There is no linguistic antecedent. This, Schachter said, was a counterexample to the claims of Hankamer and Sag. And he cited half a dozen others…

According to Pullum, who claims to have collected VPE examples without grammatical antecedent over the decades, exophoric examples of VPE are bizarre in general, and, moreover, there are only about 15 highly conventionalized phrases recorded in the literature that conform to the exceptional type of pragmatic control for VPE. These examples invariably involve set combinations of auxiliaries with pronouns such as Must you?, Does she or doesn't she?, You wouldn't!. But if this were a productive process, there should be thousands of distinct examples, as Pullum argues. What is the situation then? Various explanations are possible. On the one hand, it might be that there are different subtypes of VPE, some allowing and some barring non-spoken material as antecedent. But if Pullum’s suggestion regarding the limitations on the latter is on the right track, a split into two classes in the grammar seems unnecessary. Considering the

94

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

reduced possibilities of the exophoric antecedents, it is also possible that the exceptional examples are constructions outside core grammar. Finally, the possibilities of exophoric control have also been interpreted as indication of certain similarities between ellipsis and anaphoric processes more generally, an issue which will be addressed at various junctures below. For now, it is sufficient to observe that surface anaphora display properties which delineate them as a systematic phenomenon. Hoji (2003) makes a very similar point, in essence, with regard to the representation of surface anaphora, by considering them from the perspective of sloppy identity preservation, as well as the possible delimitation of this diagnostic from noise caused by factors assumed to be extraneous to the language faculty. The crucial body of evidence is either from Japanese or constructed along the lines of elliptical phenomena from Japanese (see also Hoji 2003: 187, note 23); we will briefly sketch some of the most relevant theoretical issues at stake. To begin with, it has been noticed by various researchers that sloppy identity can also arise with what are standardly taken to be deep anaphora. Though there may be various ways of explaining such attestations, if validated on a systematic basis, the observation still seems to fly in the face of the dichotomy we are discussing. Hoji, however, takes a stand precisely at this juncture and argues that within the formal system he sets up (following to some degree, though not entirely, the Fiengo and May 1994 system we have been discussing above), deep anaphora lack some of the syntactic ingredients of sloppy-identity readings found with surface anaphora and are thus less systematic than the latter in a sense to be specified. Before we see what those ingredients are, let’s note that the situation is slightly more subtle than the previously inspected characteristic; namely, the underlying difference argued for by Hoji has an effect on the output distinct from the one between the distribution of exophoric-vs.-logophoric antecedent retrieval. If Pullum is correct in the account of the restrictions observed above, then the result we witness is that exophoric control stands out through exceptional generation with surface anaphora. By contrast, the issue of what constitute bona fide sloppyidentity readings vs. what one may perceive as such readings, perhaps due to a more general cognitive capacity or sense experience, in Hoji’s terms, is that the general type of sloppy identity is more liberally generated; this is so since it is not regulated by the same system taking care of surface anaphorical VPE, i.e. the language faculty, according to Hoji. This ensues, briefly put, as follows: First, sloppy identity is constrained in its distribution in the same way as bound variable anaphora. Second, for bound variable anaphora to be licit, a notion of formal dependency (FD) is assumed.

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

95

Third, for a FD to obtain between A and B, a triad of necessary conditions needs to be satisfied. These are rendered in (74) (Hoji 2003: 179). (74) The three necessary conditions for FD(A,B), where A and B are in argument positions: a. B is [+β]. b. A c-commands B. c. A is not in the local domain of B. In surface anaphora, it is maintained that if one of these conditions is not satisfied, a sloppy construal is hindered. With deep anaphora, failure in one of the conditions does not necessarily mean failure of sloppy readings. Let’s illustrate this by making the first condition fail. One way to do so is to use names, which are not [+β]; cf. also the discussion of these factors above. The ellipses in (75) and (76) are claimed to make this point. (75) John will [VP vote for John’s father]. I want Bill to [VP _], too. (76) John washed John’s car on that rainy day. Bill did the same thing. The distribution of the readings according to Hoji is then as follows. The surface-anaphorical VPE in (75) is not [+β] and fails to induce a sloppy reading such as *vote for Bill’s father. It only allows the strict reading vote for John’s father. The deep-anaphoric do the same thing in (76), though subject to the same FD conditions, allows both the strict reading washed John’s car on that rainy day and the sloppy washed Bill’s car on that rainy day. Thus in Hoji’s approach the two ways of referring to VPs, that is via deep vs. surface anaphora should be kept as distinct mechanisms. To sum up, in this section some of the fundamental initial discussion on the role of grammatical processes in ellipsis has been reviewed with distinctions between types of anaphora and ellipses. One of the more general goals will be to tackle the possibility of the dual nature of elliptical processes from a motivated theoretical perspective and, concentrating on the MLE-based case studies there, to explore what the grammar and the interfaces contribute in the particular cases. To do so, additional steps are necessary, the most important of which is an outline of the licensing theory.

96

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

3.3. The licensing question: Lobeck (1995) While a comprehensive review of the government-based theory of ellipsis and its particular implementations of ellipsis (Lobeck 1995; cf. also Lobeck 1993, 1999, Zagona 1988, among much related work) goes well beyond the present scope, we will in this section discuss some of the main underlying issues and the key ideas that are of further relevance. Lobeck (1995) is in terms of phrase-structural representations conceptually strongly anchored within advanced versions of Government and Binding Theory (see Chomsky 1981, but also Chomsky 1986 and Rizzi 1990 in particular). At the same time, it partially implements early minimalist ideas (though not with respect to ellipsis) such as feature checking within the overt/covert dichotomy.15 As an initial theoretical approximation it may be fair to say that Lobeck opts for Rizzi’s rather than Chomsky’s version of government, both of which are summarized in (77). (77) The Empty Category Principle a. α[e] must be properly governed. (cf. Lobeck 1995: 8) b. α[e] must be properly head-governed. (cf. Lobeck 1995: 19) The choice between the two similar theories is based essentially on the following observations. On the one hand, the notion of relativized minimality developed in Rizzi (1990) allows the unification of licensing conditions both for traces and pro under head-government and dispensing with a disjunctive ECP.16 On the other hand, with the contemporary emergence of copious research on empty categories and of null arguments (e.g., subjects in Romance), Lobeck capitalizes on the trace and pro-drop theories and develops an account theoretically akin to them for VPE. The application of theoretical diagnostics from other (prima facie unrelated) empty categories to phrasal ellipsis and VPE, the grammaticalized case of verbal omission in English par excellence, as well as the cross-categorial thrust of Lobeck’s work, are what situates it at the forefront of ellipsis research. Historically Lobeck revives some of the early considerations revolving around the idea of ellipses as pronouns – however, on a newly and broadly motivated basis when compared to the earlier generative approaches to the phenomenon. The reasoning for viewing ellipses as pronouns has its roots in various sources, among which her analysis of binding facts, cases of exophoric reference to antecedents, and the aforementioned purported parallelism to null-argument theories feature most prominently.

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

97

Crucially, Lobeck envisages an account in which functional heads ideally come out as “stipulation-free” ellipsis licensers throughout the gamut of syntactic categories (qua proper head-governor status). Licensing and identification come to the fore in this theory via strong agreement. But whereas strong agreement had previously meant overtly manifested morphological marking in terms of phi-features alone (including Lobeck’s earlier work), Lobeck (1993, 1995) notes that such an account cannot explain VPE. Beyond Lobeck’s own theoretical discussion, let’s also note that ModE modals in particular have no morphological person, number or gender marking whatsoever and yet in general work fine as VPE licensers. To accommodate some of the morphology/licensing disparities, Lobeck (1995: 52) tailors the notion of strong agreement to (78). (78) Licensing and Identification of pro An empty, non-arbitrary pronominal must be properly head-govened and governed by an H° specified for strong agreement. What licensing and identification hinge on according to (78) is strong agreement, which is defined as equivalent to the head X° (or the head or phrase with which X° agrees) morphologically realizing agreement in a productive number of cases. Let’s also note that Lobeck rules tense in as a feature, an insight which we will particularly share and modify accordingly. Under these premises, Lobeck (1993: 789) mainly aims at the unification in licensing of VPE, nominal ellipsis and sluicing, as shown in (79). (79) Functional Licensing Account for VPE, NP ellipsis and sluicing a.

IP

SPEC INFL

b. I´

SPEC VP

[e]

c.

DP

DET

D´

CP SPEC

NP

[e]

COMP

C´ IP

[e]

In effect, unification of various types of ellipsis is one of the crucial results of Lobeck’s extensive work. Besides the impressive theoretical accomplishment, we may note that the framework is also interesting for its empirical consequences, which should be tested beyond the best known cases

98

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

of VPE. Baker (2003), for instance, also considers VPE in passing. While he does not dispute that the nature of the ellipsis site may be anaphoric, Baker (2003: 132) questions its categorial status, suggesting that what is elided is not a VP, but rather some different kind of structure. The main empirical support he adduces stems from examples such as (80). (80) a. * I made Chris laugh, and they made (Pat) _ too. b. #I heard Chris scream, and they heard (Pat) _ too. What this shows is that a certain type of VP-construction, which means arguably bare VPs, or VPs with less functional structure, cannot be elided in configurations such as in (80). At the same time, it may be relevant that there is indeed no lack of problems or questions raised by the exact size and shape of the ellipsed material. Let’s note, however, that the facts above do not force the conclusion that since this particular type of VP cannot be elided, what is elided, in general, can never be a VP. A simpler alternative, consistent with what we have seen so far (and with Baker’s assumption that the structures are bare lexical structures) is that the examples in (80) are illicit precisely due to the lack of the relevant syntactic functional node. However, with the advent of the Minimalist Program and specific research consequences revolving around it, as Lobeck (1995, 1999) notes, it is much less clear how to derive the same results. Without dispensing with government, Lobeck (1995) raises the question how to accommodate the VPE licensing theory within the Split-Infl hypothesis of Pollock (1989), in which the properties of the earlier Infl-node are shared between Agr(eement) and T(ense). Lobeck (1995) claims the licensing properties the former. Under the assumption that Agr dominates T, it is claimed that the main results follow under government by Agr in conjunction with headmovement of T to Agr (Lobeck 1995: Chapter 5). From an up-to-date perspective, there are, however, two substantial issues that we modify in Lobeck’s account. First, there is little room left for Agr-like projections under minimalist assumptions since they have no interpretable impact. As a solution to this problem, we can propose that one can still capitalize on Lobeck’s results at least partially for the following reason. While arguing that Agr is the representational licenser position, Lobeck also makes use of licensing features in her account. In particular, T raised to Agr will have the impact of also transmitting features such as [+/- Past]. The present claim will consist in treating exactly these features in a c-commanding position at the first-merge position as licensing VPE. Second, what happens in the be/have cases, i.e. those cases in which the two aspectual auxil-

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

99

iaries license ellipsis? We argue that it is again their temporal [+T] feature which licenses VPE, specifically at the direct merging position and not the higher position that, e.g., a temporal feature ends up in. Moreover, another question arises with respect to this type of licensing. If, say, have raises from a projection dominating core VP (with the label on have being V or something else) what is it that has been deleted?17 With Lobeck one could maintain that it is the lexical VP that is ellipsed. For Lobeck, this means that her purported category [VP have [VP lexical V…]] is not a category base-generated wholesale as empty, but a so-called derived empty category, since, according to her account, for these cases it is only the lower part which involves an empty pronominal, the top portion (have’s projection) becoming empty through verb-raising. This type of mechanics may in principle also be assumed for a deletion account, i.e. deletion may affect the lower VP, with the evacuated position of have being created through a movement trace and not through actual VPE.18 For sequences of multiple auxiliaries such as (81), Lobeck maintains that both have and be adjoin to T and then to Agr. (81) a. Mary might have been writing, and John might have been _ too. b. Mary might have written and John might have _ too. This is problematic in so far as Lobeck assumes the conglomerate of auxiliaries to come together overtly and makes the licensing of VPE dependent on it in such cases (with government then applying from upstairs, i.e., from the structurally highest Agr landing position of the group of auxiliaries). One piece of problematic evidence, however, for this account is that further material such as negation, but also adverbs, can be intercalated between the various licensing auxiliaries, in which case it becomes unlikely that a complex head licenses VPE (or that such a head is involved). (82) It didn't help matters any that Simon said Jennifer oversang the song (and she might well have _, too). Amy should've chosen a better song. (tvrules.net) Summarizing, in this section the basics of the role played by licensing through functional material have been pointed out, an observation the empirical upshot of which will be explored both in diachronic and synchronic terms. To prepare the way for some of the inner-structure issues neglected

100

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

in Lobeck’s account, we will take a brief step back in the history of ellipsis research next and take note of Wasow’s (1979) proposal.

3.4. Syntactically represented anaphora: Wasow (1972, 1979) Wasow’s work (1972, 1979) is concerned with building up a theory of anaphora in which ellipsis plays a central role. Despite its seminal merits with respect to licensing, there were certain critical points with Lobeck’s (1995) account relying on the similarity of ellipsis with pronouns. Therefore, investigating more ideas on anaphoric forms (in the broad sense) we may first need some motivation. The main complication with Lobeck’s account stems from the fact that while it captures the distribution of VPE and interesting generalizations, it falls short of descriptive adequacy somewhere else. Elegant as it may be to relate ellipsis to the distribution of phonetically empty pronouns, empty and monolithic pronouns are not what ellipsis are made of (as we saw earlier, e.g., in in connection with the concept of vehicle change, or following up on related ideas applied to parasitic gaps). Once we disentangle the one-piece representation from an anaphoric theory, there are good reasons to reconsider the anaphoric route, both in light of the previous insights (including Lobeck’s), and given more evidence as will be introduced later. Wasow (1979) argues for anaphora with syntactic representation as far as ellipsis goes, but at the same time distinguishes between various types of anaphora and does not force (in fact argues against) a uniform theory, e.g. contra Postal (1971). In Hankamer and Sag’s (1976) terms, we are dealing with an early case of a mixed theory. The remainder of the section subdivides into three parts. The first discusses Wasow’s approach to the “essential” unity of anaphora (Wasow 1979: Chapter 5); the second is concerned with differences in internal syntax between anaphora of different types (Wasow 1979: Chapter 6); we conclude with additional remarks on the relationship Wasow’s theory bears to other approaches and preparing the ground for the next section. One of Wasow’s objectives is to argue for “the essential unity of anaphora” (cf. Wasow’s 1979 Chapter 5). The idea defended is that anaphora cluster together with respect to certain syntactic effects and are unique in this, i.e. distinct from other linguistic phenomena. Therefore, the logic goes, they should be treated as one class, if a heterogeneous one. One of the strongest arguments for the parallelism between the propositional and the NP-like pro-forms comes from distribution: They obey the Backwards Anaphora Constraint (BAC), to which Wasow refers as “some version of

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

101

the precede-command condition.” This is shown for propositional anaphora in (83) and (84) below (for VPE and do so anaphora), where an anaphor may precede its antecedent, as long as it does not c-command it. (83) John tried LSD after Bill did./ *John did after Bill tried LSD./ After Bill did, John tried LSD. (84) John tried LSD after Bill had done so./ *John did so after Bill tried LSD./ After Bill had done so, John tried LSD. A second argument Wasow offers is a bidirectional application of anaphora rules together with the observation that similar effects do not obtain for other rules under scrutiny at the time. Specifically, as we just saw, anaphora can “bidirectionally” either precede or follow their antecedent (as long as the BAC is respected). However, wh-movement, topicalization, and some other movement types apply only unidirectionally to the left (whereas others again, would only unidirectionally seem to apply to the right). Further, Wasow postulates the Transitivity Condition, stating that “three or more elements may be anaphorically related only if it is possible to establish pairwise anaphoric relations between them,” cf. (85) and (86). (85) *Because Sam didn’t _ until after Mary joined the party, Bill didn’t want to_. (86) *Since John wouldn’t do so unless Bill tried LSD, nobody did so. While the condition on transitivity might at first blush be taken to be syntactically trivial, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that it is not. Note that “subject”, for instance, is not a transitive notion. Consider (87). While x (=John) can be a subject of y (=John’s refusal) and y a subject of z (= full clause), x is not necessarily a subject of z, as seen in (87). (87) John’s refusal to come annoyed Mary. One could, however, propose that while descriptively correct, this observation falls out on independent grounds. The culprit is parallelism. While “subject of x” is in no obvious way parallel to x, this is also a distinguishing factor from antecedent-ellipsis configurations. Let’s see how two more observations considered by Wasow might bear on the unity of anaphora. One is the so-called Novelty Condition stating that “[a]n anaphor may not introduce presuppositions not associated with its antecedent” (p. 84), as is illustrated in (88) for it anaphora and sluicing.

102

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(88) a. John realizes that Mary is a junkie, but Bill doesn’t realize/ believe it. b. John realizes that Mary is a junkie, but Bill doesn’t realize/ believe it. c. *John believes that Mary is a junkie, but Bill doesn’t realize it. d. John believes that Mary is a junkie, but Bill doesn’t realize it. e. *John believes that Nixon is dishonest, but Bill doesn’t understand why _ . f. John believes that Nixon is dishonest, but Bill doesn’t understand why _ . Leaving aside here a discussion of the various ways in which presuppositions can be defined, it is noteworthy how the above characterization compares to Tancredi (1992). While Tancredi modifies the standard way presuppositions are understood and rather operates with a concept coming closer to topichood, Wasow sticks to the standard definition, but gives a more narrowly delimited, notably negative, characterization of the relationship between antecedent and ellipsis (or anaphora more generally). Finally, on the syntactic side of the anaphora issue, Wasow claims: “No part of the complement of the specifier of a cyclic node may be anaphorically related to the head of that node,” and gives examples like the following. (89) a. b. c. (90) a. b. c. (91) a. b.

A proof that God exists exists. *A proof that God exists does. *A proof that God does exists. The fact that LSD causes people to freak out causes people to freak out. *The fact that LSD causes people to freak out does it (too). *The fact that LSD does it (too) causes people to freak out. A trainer of horses’ horses are generally healthier than mus tangs. *A trainer of horses’ ones are generally healthier than mus tangs.

Given that the precise definitions of specifier and head of a clause have been modified over the years, for our purposes this observation would translate in updated terms into a ban on the complement of a subject as being anaphorically related to the core VP (VP being the head of the clause in Wasow 1979). This may tie in both with Huang’s (1982) condition on extraction domains but also with the VP-internal subject hypothesis

On the track of VPE characteristics – Syntactic licensing

103

(VPSH) coupled with a further observation. On the VPSH, subjects are introduced by v within the extended Larsonian VP shell. While subject and v have been discussed under various perspectives in the literature, note that for the purposes of ellipsis licensing, the structurally higher area of the VP “shell” still belongs to the deleted part and not to the licensing remnant. In Chapters 4 and 5 it will be argued that the head v cannot be a licenser for VPE in English. Evidence, on the other hand, that the subject is firstmerged within the deleted area comes from reconstruction, and with regard to VPE, from two main domains. First, in English, subjects staying in situ, e.g. in expletive constructions, can delete, as we have seen above (e.g., (69) and (70)). Second, in languages without the EPP feature of the English type on T, the subject in a VPE domain obligatorily deletes, as in (92) below (cf. McCloskey 1991, and elsewhere, for an analysis of Irish VPE). (92) a. Sciob an cat an t-eireaball de-n luch. (Irish, McCloskey 2005) snatched the cat the tail from-the mouse ‘The cat cut the tail off the mouse.’ b. A-r sciob _? c. Creidim gu–r sciob. INTERR-PAST snatched I-believe C-PAST snatched ‘Did it?’ ‘I believe it did.’ Although the main argument of Wasow revolves around capitalizing on the properties of anaphora as an explicit class, it is pointed out in the monograph (cf. in particular Wasow 1979: Chapter 1, Chapter 6) that the class is not a homogeneous one and in particular also that there is no reliable evidence for a “pronoun” or “reflexivation” transformation in English (Lees and Klima 1963). According to Wasow (1979: 121), “there is a crucial difference between null and non-null anaphors. The former have internal structure, but the latter do not.” Ross’s argument on there-insertion (Some people think…but there are/*is) falls into place since Wasow takes this diagnostic over and applies it to the non-null anaphor do so; cf. (93). (93) In the spring there tend to be certain trees blooming, and in the summer there do (*so) too. Both contemporary arguments (cf. Bresnan 1971; Hankamer and Sag 1976; Kayne 1971) and more recent ones (Fiengo and May 1994; Hoji 2003; Postal 2001) having been discussed, we leave aside Wasow’s arguments for the representation of anaphora (to some degree thematically overlapping with the line pursued by the contemporary literature). Some further

104

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

arguments, such as the one pertaining to the passive transformation, also sustaining his point in its essence, i.e. that the “anaphors” we are interested in here have full-fledged structure, will be discussed later.19 Regarding the covered range, Wasow (1979: 4) states that he is “concerned only with antecedents and anaphors which are contained in a single sentence,” and this may inherently bring some limitations to the proposal. Note, however, that “a sentence” seems to be understood in broad terms, and many of the examples given do contain antecedents and ellipses certainly crossing CP boundaries (e.g. through embedding). While this still does not extend to long-distance ellipsis-antecedent relationships (cf. Hardt 1991, Winkler 2003 for discussion), it does nonetheless overcome the limitation of making ellipsis directly hinge on the presence of coordination.

4. Towards the role of the computational system In the previous section, conditions on the nature of the ellipsis site and on the licensing process have been presented. This section takes the two-fold perspective on VPE one step further by considering both more recent proposals and as much as possible the essential descriptive insight of the classical accounts. In order to do so, two major problems need to be solved. The first has to do with licensing and how to account for it in a model of grammar in which government has been dispensed with. The second links up directly to the way the grammar treats ellipsis. In particular, recall that the evidence was going both ways leaving us in a limbo as to whether a pro-form account or an entirely deletion-based one is to be preferred. On the theoretical basis discussed here and with further complementary results, we will then (Chapters 4 and 5), propose a new implementation considering more closely diachronic and synchronic modally licensed ellipses. 4.1. Issues and desiderata in a theory of VPE: Johnson (2001) In this section, we take Johnson (2001) as a starting point and concentrate on the representation of ellipsis and continue the licensing discussion. The section is structured into four main parts. After a brief circumspection of the licensing elements, in particular also of two less orthodox representatives of the English auxiliary domain with respect to VPE (negation and infinitive markers), we elaborate on Johnson’s arguments for a derivational approach. Then, we will get to some problems of a strict deletion approach

Towards the role of the computational system

105

and present some fixes, most of them incipient in Johnson’s work. The solutions for our purposes will be further discussed in 4.3 and Chapter 5. Wasow’s (1979) version of the thesis that ellipsis sites possess syntactic structures has historically been overshadowed in the 1980s by the copious research on null pronouns, on which interesting licensing theories for ellipsis followed suit, culminating in certain respects with Lobeck’s and Zagona’s work (Lobeck 1995; Zagona 1988). Since (null) personal pronouns might be claimed to trivially posess less structure than (null) propositional entities, the focus and interest in full-fledged-structure theories of VPE such as Wasow’s diminished somewhat for the time. On the other hand, for adherents of deletion theories, as proposed from the early generative studies on, the effect of having structure involved might have seemed less spectacular, perhaps as just a restatement of initial positions. However, the subsequent refinement of the understanding of what exactly the syntactic structure of the VP could encompass, specifically that subjects and traces may be located within it, and diagnostics to make that particular structure visible paved the way for tackling issues of this kind of approaches anew (see, e.g., McCloskey 1997 for a recent overview on the position of subjects). The turning point for a certain reorientation of ellipsis research was coming from theoretical insights on minimalism in which traces, another type of silent but underlyingly active syntactic and semantic objects, figured prominently. Johnson (1996, 2001) offers a perspicuous synthesis of the most pertinent issues arising from the early minimalist concerns including his own research and underlines the theoretical importance of traces. Although not explicitly partitioned as such in the text, the investigation of traces is two-fold and thus makes two distinct, if thematically converging, claims: On the one hand, there is the hypothesis that the entire ellipsis site could behave similarly to a trace; on the other, there is the importance of inner traces, which may be diagnosed to reside within the ellipsis sites, and conversely, also of VPE sites within traces. Theoretically, Johnson (2001) starts out from the central questions on ellipsis we have considered so far, as investigated in minute detail by Lobeck (1995), i.e. with licensing playing a major role, to navigate towards two issues of recent interest: the possible syntactic algorithms for finding (A) an antecedent and (B) the appropriate meaning conveyed by an ellipsis site, the latter question heavily depending on the ultimate representation of the ellipsis site. The first approximation if one searches for the elements under which VPE can occur in PDE grammars consists of a set including the modals and auxiliaries, i.e. “just those terms able to occupy the highest of the functional projections which clauses are made up of” (Johnson 2001:

106

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

440). This is by and large the appearance we have previously discussed, well known in principle, although anything but trivial. There are, however, two interesting addendums: negation and infinitival to. With much work conducted in the framework of Government and Binding (cf., e.g., Laka 1990; Lobeck 1995; López and Winkler 2000), and with research undertaken in minimalist approaches (cf. Frampton and Gutman 1999; Holmberg 2001; Lobeck 1999; Potsdam 1997; Winkler 2003) we observe the important role of negation in licensing and co-licensing VPE. When considering negation, it is imperative to note that it can, on the one hand, play a colicensing role when joining further functional material such as auxiliaries. On the other hand, it can license ellipsis even when it is a sole overt licenser, e.g., introducing small clauses, adjectives, or subjunctives, as observed by Johnson (2001), Lobeck (1995), Potsdam (1997); cf. (94)-(95). (94) I consider Bill intelligent and I consider Sally not _. (95) A: Should we wake Dad? B: No! It’s absolutely imperative that you not _. While Lobeck and Potsdam both assume the head status of the licenser, there are also well-known arguments for its non-head status within an assumed negation or polarity phrase. Such arguments come, e.g., from extraction (see Haegeman and Guéron 1999 for some of the main arguments; cf. also Zanuttini 2001 for further cross-linguistic discussion). A third possibility is to assume that not is a VP adjunct. Here let’s assume for concreteness that not is a specifier following the above-mentioned syntactic body of work. Moreover, in ModE it is situated within a functional projection rather than a specifier or adjunct of a lexical projection such as VP. The issue can be approached through typological ramifications (cf. Zeijlstra (2004) for recent discussion), but in our case also directly through evidence from ellipsis, else we would predict any other arbitrary VP internal specifiers or adjuncts to license VPE too, contrary to fact. Clearly, this is also one place with room for cross-linguistic variation open to investigation (cf. Sternefeld 2006 for such distinctions with regard to negation in German). Syntactically, what is in charge of the licensing mechanism in such cases is a polarity head itself (López and Winkler 2000). When the projection is present, but the appropriate head is not appropriately represented at PF, the specifier of this projection can take over the task of licensing (edge-marking) ellipsis if it has a functional representation agreeing with the head.

Towards the role of the computational system

107

Another interesting item with respect to ellipsis licensing is the functional element to. While we are interested in the modals’ behavior in conjunction with ellipsis, it is worth mentioning what the main candidates are among the factors licensing ellipsis in non-finite contexts. Johnson observes, weighing proposals put forward in the literature, that one might in principle either claim that government licenses ellipsis (cf. Lobeck 1995), or that the variability in how felicitous VPE is with non-finites is due to a syntax-phonological condition (cf. Zagona 1988). On the former approach, to must reach a governing position through head movement similarly to the finite cases we have considered; on the second, to must phonologically rebracket with the element preceding it, and it must be in an appropriate position to do so, which is envisaged to happen through head-movement. Johnson points out the problems of judging the relevant stock of data, which may be “hampering a decision between the two approaches.” Martin (2001) is another proposal concerned with VPE in infinitives, and also concerned with dispensing with government. He observes that the raising vs. control difference yields different results if the complement of to is elided. But this is neither news to ellipsis research, nor an explanation, as Martin points out. Martin’s attempt consists, however, in transferring parallels pointed out in Stowell (1982) between tense properties and the raising-control distinction to a minimalist background. Accordingly, it is the control structures in which tense is involved, whereas raising structures lack it. Thus the raising vs. control division for complements of to would turn out but an epiphenomenon of the temporal makeup of the licenser. While we remain agnostic about the role of to (further pertinent comparisons of finite-licensed VPE with VPE licensed by to will be pointed out as we go along though), to the extent that is correct, it could in principle be made compatible with the role played by tense in licensing as proposed here (cf. also in particular Chapter 5).20 There are various arguments for syntactic representation observed by Johnson. First, recall, that there was the possibility of retrieving “missing” antecedents from ellipsis sites (Bresnan 1971; Grinder and Postal 1971; Hankamer and Sag 1976). Second, there is the possibility of islandsensitivity for non-finites. Johnson suggests that, given that ellipsis in infinitives is more acceptable than VPE in adjuncts or complements, and that (again, non-finite) VPE in nominals is degraded, the reason may indeed be island sensitivity; evidence is provided by examples such as (96) below. However, there remains also the non-sensitivity to syntactic islands when the licenser is finite (cf. Johnson 2001: note 9; Sag 1976) – as capitalized on in Lobeck’s (1995) account. The examples in (97) are thus acceptable.

108

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

(96) a. *Mag came to read Fred’s story, and I also came to_. b. *Lulamae Barnes recounted a story to remember because Holly had also recounted a story to_ . (97) a. John didn’t hit a home run, but I know a woman who did _. b. That Betsy won the batting crown is not surprising, but that Peter didn’t know she did _ is indeed surprising. Nonetheless, while ellipsis in finite contexts seems to give rise to syntactic insensitivity with respect to islands, the issue is far from being settled in the sense of a pro-form account with respect to a putative lack of internal representation of ellipsis sites. In fact, there is some strong evidence that ellipsis sites can display internal effects typical of structured material. Besides some of the arguments we have sketched earlier, such as Kennedy’s (1997) and Postal’s (2001) extensive discussion on parasitic gaps, there are two further important pieces of evidence which have been adduced in the literature. First, as Fiengo and May (1994) and Johnson (2001) have argued, extraction is possible from ellipsis, as documented by (98). (98) a. I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar didn’t_. b. This is the book of which Bill approves, and this is the one of which he doesn’t_. Moreover, so called antecedent-contained deletion cases, cf. (99) below, with the notorious issue of infinite recursion, are standardly resolved by assuming that the object has moved out of the VP. In particular, the VPE in (99) must then have the shape [visited t] (and not [visited every town I had to visit every town…]) and be able to accommodate a trace. (99) I visited every town I had to _. The two issues need to be kept apart. Johnson (op. cit., 459) argues persuasively that “an elided VP can have enough of the form of a VP to hold a trace.” The general point is that VPE is made of syntactically structured material, thus reinforcing part of Wasow’s (1979) hypothesis discussed above and Winkler’s (2003) proposal. This line, insofar as we have inspected, does, however, not by itself answer the question of how VPE is achieved. One theoretically atractive approach would be strict derivationality. But Johnson (2001) and Winkler (2003), for instance, elaborate on aspects of a problem pointed out by Hardt (1993) concerning variables in the ellipsis sites. To this end, consider (100), cited from Johnson (2001).

Towards the role of the computational system

109

(100) a. China is a country that Joe wants to visit t, and he will _ too, if he gets enough money. b. This is just the kind of thing that Harris could have suggested t. And in fact, he did _. We have seen that it is appealing from a derivational point of view to take variables and traces to be encapsulated in ellipsis sites, and at first blush one might attempt to apply this insight to the data in (100) as well. As Johnson notes, “If the antecedent VPs recycle their trace into the ellipsis site, the results should be on a par with [(101)],” which we render below. (101) a. *…he will [visit t] too, if he gets the money. b. *And in fact, he (did) [suggested t]. c. *And they will [send t to the Olympics]. In the case at hand, however, this makes the data ungrammatical. Since the reason why these sentences degrade seems to lie in the presence of the unbound traces, one potential way for accounting for the their ungrammaticality would be to assume that an across-the-board (ATB) type of dependency is involved. In fact, there are numerous environments in which VPE and ATB do go together relatively well. Abels (2004) notes the conjunction of the classical type of example of ATB with VPE, as in (102). (102) ?Who did you say that John had visited long ago but that Mary hadn’t until yesterday? However, Johnson (2001) points out that the ATB approach is not broad enough for VPE in general since it cannot account for examples like (103). (103) a. Joe might wish he had visited a country, but this isn’t a country he has visited t. b. While I might want to suggest this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing that Harris has already suggested t. Moreover, while Fiengo and May’s (1994) concept of vehicle change might be broadened to some problematic cases of antecedent-ellipsis mismatches – e.g., passive/active and any/some mismatches – we observe with Johnson that the issue remains not entirely solved, since it is beyond the design of that type of apparatus to account for “trace/no-trace” mismatches between antecedent and ellipsis; after all, recall that vehicle change was

110

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

designed on exact syntactic identity up to indexical value. A lesson for the later implementation of ellipsis is the following: While limitations of strict derivationality in the process of manufacturing VPE have been observed, very little has been said so far about the possible new fate of licensing. We descriptively know the set of licensers (in general), but are also interested in explaining and accommodating it theoretically. Johnson’s suggestion that an elided VP might ultimately have been evacuated and related to a topic-like position offers one possibility of relating ellipsis and antecedent in more than just the most straightforward cases, i.e. coordination. That is, if the ellipsis has moved to, or has properties relating it to, a peripheral position, it might be made accessible to discourse via reiteration of the same procedure (i.e. further evacuation into the next cycle or phase; cf. also below). In the following two sections we turn to sketching a few more aspects of recent minimalism and its possible relationship to ellipsis.

4.2. Remarks on Minimalism and the concept of phases Having seen the way ellipsis relates to ideas which came up in the Minimalist Program (MP) regarding traces, in this subsection, we are going to update the theoretical background in a few points, in order to consider further relevant ellipsis research taking up the issues of recent minimalism in the next subsection. The purpose of this subsection is to consider the relevant basic features of the recent developments within minimalist grammartheory, most of which will be taken up and implemented (or rejected) on general grounds as well as based on evidence pertaining to ellipsis later in this chapter and further on. This subsection discusses, first, some of the essential conditions operating within minimalism; second, the main types of operations and syntactic relationships; and third, it brings up the issue of whether and how VPE might be implemented within this framework. While it is not part of the present project to fully explicate the MP (cf. Chomsky 1995; see Radford 1997, 2004 for introductions) or its critical points in detail, we will introduce the essential conditions which collude with the issues of ellipsis and point out some issues which are problematic. The optimal character of language organization is one of the recurring themes in recent minimalism. The first of the essential conditions within the MP is the principle of Full Interpretation (FI). FI is per se neither new nor intrinsic to minimalism (cf. also Chomsky 1986, 1995 and references), but it starts playing a crucial role in recent theoretical developments, given that computation progresses to satisfy precisely the interpretative require-

Towards the role of the computational system

111

ments of the interfaces to the external systems. A related condition is the Interpretability Condition (Chomsky 2000: 113), cf. (104). (104) The Interpretability Condition LIs [=lexical items] have no features other than those interpreted at the interface, properties of sound and meaning. The Interpretability Condition is interesting in that, though virtually equivalent to the FI, it turns the perspective towards the derivational input. Legibility conditions at the interfaces are all that decides the fate of a derivation, which is said to either converge or crash; i.e. symbols manipulated by the grammar will at some point, standardly called Spell-Out, have to pay toll to the condition of FI, either at the level of logical form or within the interfaces communicating to the phonological component. The symbols of the narrow syntax, with which we are chiefly concerned, are explicitly taken to find a natural continuation within LF. However, due to the Inclusiveness Condition, a second main characteristic of “good language design” (Chomsky 2000: 113, 1995: 227), consists in having only symbols introduced right from the beginning of a derivation further manipulated, i.e. no extraneous objects and features can be introduced during the derivation. For the sake of comparison, we may recall Emonds’ (1970/1976) structure-preserving principle discussed above. Locality is a third core ingredient of minimalism, and preminimalism, now conditioned essentially by the strong derivational character of the framework and by overall economy considerations. The implementation pursued by Chomsky is based on phases, defined as propositionally closed domains. These are vPs and CP according to Chomsky (2000, 2001). Locality means that syntactic operations have to proceed phase-wise. Phases are also the chunks of structure shipped to Spell-Out, whether clausal or otherwise. The only way for a syntactic object from within a phase to be accessible after the derivation has been computed further on is to be evacuated to the edge of the phase (an adjoined, “spec-like” position as a simplifying approximation) from where it can be accessed from higher on. Let’s now review more precisely how this process of accessing syntactic structures is envisaged. In recent minimalist work, syntactic operations are reduced to a minimum of maximally three: Merge, Agree, Pied-Pipe. Move is taken by Chomsky (2001: 10) to be a derivative as it is the combination of the three. While attractively simple, this specific substitution is also less than solved (cf. Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2003; Chomsky 2001; López 2004; Winkler 2003). We will therefore use Merge and Move. Among the syntactically

112

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

structural relationships, the rather complex stipulations on government and the apparatus revolving around it are dispensed with. On the other hand, ccommand is clearly needed, both for reasons of CHL and of LF (and independently, for at least part of the CHL-PF mapping as well; cf. Selkirk 1984; Winkler 1997, 2003). Scope matters and operator sensitivity provide essential evidence for this type of axiomatization. Assuming the existence of matching operations (e.g., Agree) and of c-command, let’s consider how they are usually put to use in phase-based minimalism. In effect, feature matching of a syntactic object (most commonly a head) with an element within its c-command domain yields Agree. The structurally higher element P is the probe, while the lower one G is the goal in phasal jargon. P can in principle probe into its entire c-command domain, but accessibility is limited by the phase-impenetrability condition (PIC), which prohibits probing into a phase except for its edge as mentioned above. Typically the probe is unvalued, the goal is valued, and both have to be active. If Agree takes place, the uninterpretable feature becomes valued. Thus, Chomsky argues, it will become indistinguishable from interpretable features, which standardly come valued. This of course may produce confusion at the interface and uninterpretable features run the risk of being shipped to LF, where no sense can be made of them. The solution Chomsky postulates is to make Spell-Out quick enough, while the interpretable vs. uninterpretable features can be sorted out. Chomsky (2000, 2001) takes this as additional motivation for phase-based Spell-Out, the original motivation being a decrease in computational burden. This approximation leads to an uncomfortable situation for current VPE theory, for which we suggest a solution in Chapter 5. For now, let’s briefly illustrate two possibilities. To speculate upon what the valuation procedure might then entail for a theory of phrasal ellipsis, assume that ellipsis licensing occurs technically via an E-feature, either on the VP to vanish or on the functional licenser (cf. Johnson 2003; Merchant 2001). A first note we need to make is that, although of noteworthy potential utility, E is no primitive of syntactic or semantic theory. It will be based on important semantic and syntactic cues (Sag 1976; Fiengo and May 1994; Johnson 2001, i.a.) and it will help the derivation progress in a particular manner, but it will not yield a different LF. It will therefore be an uninterpretable feature in this respect.21 Consequently it has no place over long distances and it must be eliminated before Spell-Out (cf. Chomsky 2001: 19, a deleted feature is visible up to the next strong phase level). Having [uE] assigned to a VP-to-be-deleted then would mean that by the time we access the antecedent (easily more than one strong phase away) and want to see whether we can value E, E has already

Towards the role of the computational system

113

been deleted due to the forgetful (and economic) character of the derivation. This is a problem so far in the theory of ellipsis. Although we will return to the standard framework, we now briefly sketch an alternative possibility to the paradox mentioned above. This might obtain if one changes, and in particular loosens, the conditions for feature valuation. We first stipulate the E feature just as in the first scenario. Let’s note that satisfaction of the Interpretability Condition can be considered as an alternative. In fact, the original postulation of phases starts out precisely by breaking this assumed law. First of all, the initial definition of phases explicitly sustains such a possibility, too, and rules in the possibility of containing uninterpretable material at the phase level.22 However, an important qualification to the well-known restriction comes in through the assumption of restricting this tolerance to only one-phase away portions of structure. Alternative minimalist frameworks might, however, chose to explore the consequences of what happens if the assumption is removed. To this theoretical possibility could be added cases in which valuation can be postponed, cf. agreement, a classical example of useful, but eventually uninterpretable features. Consider (105) (Sigurðsson 1996). (105) Stelpunum var hjálpað. girls.the.DAT(PL) was(SG) helped ‘The girls were helped.’ One of the arguments presented in López (2004) is that, in Icelandic, sentences such as (105) are grammatical although the head T did not numberagree in the course of the derivation with the quirky subject, but went default as singular instead. This alternative venue might be further explored as a way out for ellipsis research: for instance, if one pursues an implementation via an uninterpretable E-feature, then the interesting alternative might give some leeway for toleration of it longer in a derivation. Whether it would be as free as giving tolerance up to multi-clausal structures would, however, also need to be established. As mentioned, we will return in Chapter 5 to an implementation which capitalizes on interpretability.23 4.3. A derivational model applied to ellipsis: Winkler (2003) Having assessed some pertinent minimalist issues, the question arises what further consequences such ideas may have on the implementation of ellipsis. The purpose of this subsection is to address this question by discussing the theoretical tenets and some of the empirical arguments adduced by

114

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

Winkler (2003) which bear on the questions regarding the representation of elliptical processes from its interaction with information structure (cf. also Winkler 1997, 2000,, 2005; López and Winkler 2000, 2002; Winkler and Schwabe 2003, Molnár and Winkler 2006). The section starts out with the theoretical framework to then evaluate the evidence from ellipsis. Theoretically, the discussion of Winkler (2003) is situated within the Minimalist Program, but it comprises a much broader gamut of linguistic investigation at its basis. In syntactic and in focus-theoretic terms, Winkler’s research program goes beyond the standard MP theory and the way it conceptualizes grammar while it concurs more closely with some of its tenets, e.g., with regard to derivationality. In particular, it adopts concepts of phase theory and the PIC, more specifically in the version rendered in (106) (Chomsky 2000), but at the same time it implements considerations on information structure and the semantics-pragmatics interfaces. (106) Phase-Impenetrability Condition In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operations outside α, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations. Whereas for Chomsky the probing condition in (106) becomes operative based on theory-internal computational motivations, Winkler (2003: 79) connects it to the interpretability concerns of the MP and proposes that: “The Phase-Impenetrability Condition (PIC) requires that constituents like topic and focus constituents that may be subject to further movement operations and which play a role at SSI [=Surface Semantic Interpretation, defined as the subcomponent of LF that is responsible for the interpretation of syntactic displacement, RG] must be moved to the edge of the phase.”

The interaction of interface conditions and computational burden with ellipsis concerns consists in the way two major types of ellipsis can be derived. As a whole, instead of the classical T-model, Winkler (2003: 67) proposes a more intricate grammar model, specified in its details in (107).

Towards the role of the computational system

115

(107) The Intonational D(erivational) Model of Grammar

The first crucial feature of this concept of grammar is the idea that language computation is best processed in parallel on its way through the modules. Departing from strict modularity, the model in (107) accounts for

116

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

the interaction of the conditions imposed on ellipsis coming from distinct areas of grammar, e.g., stretched from semantics/pragmatics to PF requirements (cf. also 3.2 above). While the information-structural and the larger ellipsis motivation ranging over the analysis of various classes of speech omission offered for Winkler’s model go beyond our scope, let’s note the second important set of characteristics. The inner workings of the Parallel Computation Account (PCA) are concomitantly sanctioned by a pragmatics-based module, which encodes various focus-theoretic devices based on cyclical computation at PF and LF. This in turn allows two consequences. On the one hand, a discourse-based function needs to be assumed in any account of VPE (recall in particular that VPE allows particularly long antecedent-ellipsis distances over discourse and, a fortiori, can act over clause-boundaries). Here, this function is encoded in the pragmatics module leading to Discourse Structure. On the other hand, cyclicity is ensured at various locations of the model: (i) within CHL, which foresees lexical subarrays which syntactic operations can draw on, alongside the more traditional (full) lexical array, or numeration; (ii-iii) within PF and LF, respectively, where two parallel cycles are implemented. While cycle 1 locates the anaphorically given material with its possibly differentiated discourse functions (cf. also in particular López and Winkler 2000 and Winkler 2003: Chapter 3), cycle 2 is in charge of locating displaced material and sending it back to CHL, thereby relying more strongly on narrow syntax. Prototypical cases handled by the first cycle are phrasal ellipses, such as VPE, and by the second, e.g., stripping or gapping. The upshot of this type of division of labor consists in a minimalist account of discourse-bound vs. sentence-bound ellipsis. Let’s address the former of the two aforementioned ellipsis cases more closely in accordance with present concerns. Scrutinizing research both in the Principles and Parameters and the minimalist framework, Winkler (2003) proposes a minimalist implementation and observes that both empirically and especially theoretically there are certain arguments apparently in favor of what constitutes a pro-form theory. The main pillars of such a theory are synthesized by Winkler (2003: 151) as in (108); let’s call this the strong pro-form view. (108) a. VPE is a basegenerated predicative empty category pro; b. It does not have internal structure; c. It must be licensed: either by government of the head INFL or by feature checking.

Towards the role of the computational system

117

At the same time, Winkler points out problems with a strong pro-form account. We have already seen in this chapter that relating the theory of VPE to null pronouns is inadequate in its strongest form and that the theoretical reasons based on government can no longer be maintained under minimalist theorizing. Thereby the touchstone for the strong pro-form position seems to become (108b). Let’s note that empirically, there are reasons for a pro-form account based on distribution among which, besides the typically ‘given’ status of the elided phrasal entity, the occurrence in either a coordinate or a subordinate clause, the BAC, and the possibility of cataphorically referring to split antecedents are the most conspicuous ones since they directly parallel pronoun characteristics. Samples of these characteristics are given in (109) (cited here from Winkler 2003: 152). (109) a. [It's a shame their meeting never took place] Mr. Katzenstein certainly would have learned something, and it's even possible that Mr. Morita would have too. (non-coordinated) b. *We think [IP he shouldn't [VP e]], although [Stoiber] i might [win the election]. (BAC violation) c. Susan wanted to write a letter and John wanted to call her, but neither of them did. (split antecedents) What such arguments indicate is a plausible analogy to anaphoric processes through their “external” or distributional behavior. Let’s call this the discourse-anaphora version of the pro-form theory (returning to issues of inner structure momentarily). Such a position can furthermore be endorsed by capitalizing on a parallel to the theory of accessibility (cf. Ariel 1990, and related work) and noting that the properties of the anaphoric site cannot be captured by a one-sided givenness concept, but need to be framed with the necessary variability to allow for the anaphors’ varied discoursefunction. The crucial follow-up question which arises is whether the “internal” syntax of elided VPs also endorses “pronominal” behavior so that (108b). can be verified. If so, not only would the discourse-spread properties of VPE speak for anaphoric status, but the strong version of the pro-form account could be maintained. While Hardt (1991), Lobeck (1995) and other studies had argued for the stronger position, partly for theoretical reasons as we have seen above, Winkler (2003) and further recent research argue against it (to various degrees) following the evidence that the ellipsis site is syntactically represented. In this context, a first issue to be dealt with

118

Towards an account of VP ellipsis

is that at least a subset of the island constraints can be overridden by VPE, most clearly the mentioned complex NP constraint; cf. (110). (110) John didn't hit a home run, but I know a woman who did [VP hit a home run]. However, this argument on its own would appear insufficient support of the strong pro-form version. While Lobeck (1995) takes it as an indicator of lack of structure, Fox and Lasnik (2003) have taken island (in)sensitivity as proof of PF-deletion properties of syntactically available structure. Fox and Lasnik’s claim is that not only sluicing, which is more widely known to obviate island constraints, but also VPE can “repair” island violations. Simplifying their account, the reason why sluicing is more conspicuous in doing so is that it also involves larger chunks of deleted structure.24 The bottom line then is that the PF-deletion camp is likely to counter-argue justification from the strong-pro-form theory based on island obviations and rephrase them as island-repair issues. The argument that VPE does apparently not require parallel syntactic form fares somewhat similarly in that it does not force the strong version of the pro-form hypothesis either. As we have seen above, following Johnson (2001), it could for instance tentatively be explained by taking recourse to Fiengo and May’s (1994) concept of vehicle change, in which case it would be a sign of internal structure (and clearly not lack thereof). Winkler (2003: 171) summarizes the evidence: The most serious problems arise from the observation that a number of syntactic effects occur within the ellipsis site that are directly connected to the presence of syntactic structure in the ellipsis site. These syntactic effects are generally hypothesized to arise from syntactic extraction, such as island effects, antecedent contained deletion (ACD), and pseudogapping, and those that arise from binding and coreference effects (cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998), such as violation of the binding principles and parasitic gaps (Johnson 1997, 2001, Kennedy 2002, Kehler 2000). These effects can be only explained under the assumption that the ellipsis site is made up of syntactic structure.

With Winkler (2003), Johnson (2001) and others one may then conclude that while there may be theoretical and distributional facts favoring anaphoric properties, the strong version of the pro-form theory cannot be maintained. An ellipsis site is then best assumed as structurally represented. Given internal representation, a final question is, however, not only how the VPE to be elided is assembled, but of course also how the process

Towards the role of the computational system

119

of elision should be implemented. Whereas Johnson (2001) suggests movement, Winkler proposes an in situ sanctioning of the VP to be elided. Specifically, phrasal ellipsis is sanctioned by the first, in-situ cycle of the PCA. The functional cycle operates on the lower phase and licenses elision. The proposal opens up some interesting venues. First, it operates within the phase-based system in which it proposes a specific correlation between ellipsis type and licensing mechanism. Winkler’s hybrid hypothesis of focus proposes a bipartite division of elliptical processes: While phrasal (and phase-bound) types of ellipsis including VPE are licensed in situ, ellipses relocating syntactic material such as stripping or gapping are licensed through an interaction of syntactic movement for focusinterpretive reasons. Second, with regard to VPE, this type of approach is economic in that it does not make use of movement. Empirically this also seems motivated. Despite very interesting analogies to topicalization,25 it seems more difficult to locate the ‘hard’ evidence for actual movement in the case of VPE: The chain mechanism of traces could, for instance, not be imported to the extent of viewing the ellipsis as a trace of the antecedent because of directionality issues (cf. the BAC), the potential syntactic distance between an antecedent and ellipsis site, and the considerably more relaxed relationship between the two (see vehicle change) when compared to traces, which are taken to be but perfect copies. A further, more plausible movement argument would be that the elided VP has moved to the CP domain (cf. Johnson 2001 for discussion). Nonetheless, lacking overt evidence, the question arises whether the relationship between CP and the elided VP has to involve movement. Third, in theoretical terms, the proposal does not make VPE dependent on coordination, while leaving open the possibility of realizing the parallelism requirement between antecedent and ellipsis through the involvement of the semantic and the pragmatic modules. Fourth, Winkler’s (2003) proposal has the advantage of tying in the ellipsis research with a motivating basis of information structural research. Summing up, the following factors are crucial for a treatment of VPE: (i) there is syntactic representation within the ellipsis site; (ii) with respect to external behaviour and distribution over discourse there is tantalizing evidence showing anaphoric characteristics; (iii) a VP in an ellipsis site is derivationally merged, possibly phase-based; (iv) under economy conditions, VPE comes about through direct and in-situ licensing of suitably specified material under direct c-command; (v) a licensing mechanism in the wake of the abandoned government theory still remains to be found.

Notes

120

Notes

1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11.

12. 13.

14. 15.

A previous preoccupation with ellipsis and (arguably over-generalized) ellipsis accounts gave rise to a rejection of such accounts by grammarians including Jespersen and Visser in the tradition of English studies. See McGregor (2003), Merchant (2004), Winkler (2003) on the history of ellipsis research. Qualified cross-linguistic generalizations exist (Doron 1999; McCloskey 1991; Ngonyani 1996; Stjepanović 1998), but see, e.g., Dvořák and Gergel (2004), Johnson (2001), Lobeck (1995), Merchant (2001), Winkler (2003), for some caveats on how restrictedly VPE is distributed cross-linguistically. Forms of have/be can, of course, be absent in various languages and under quite different mechanisms. For aspects of such ellipses in African American Vernacular English (AAVE), Hungarian, Scandinavian, or early German, see, e.g., Breitbarth (2004), Julien (2002), Kiss (2002), Pullum (1997). Reading (32c) is marked. F&M approach this introducing a markedness metric, an issue the explicature of which would take the our discussion too far. F&M make clear that they do not envisage copying structure into empty VPs. Cf. also Hoji (2003) for endorsement from an experimental point of view, but see Tancredi (1992) for a context in which the contrary is argued for. Tancredi (1992) also has a context for such a reading; see below. See also Holmberg (2001: 172) for ellipses in Finnish the deaccented counterpart of which is ungrammatical. Cf. Drubig (1994, 2003), Kiss (1998), and Winkler (1997) for further information-structural concerns. Tancredi (1992: 124) proposes “to not allow deletion to break up relations between in-situ [wh-]expressions and the Comp they raise to”. But that would not apply to wh-elements and traces, where this relationship is broken up. Moreover, there are cases in which deletion, but not deaccenting, is possible. Cf. te Velde (2003) for a probe-goal account dependent on conjunction. The same criticism applies as to any conjunction-based approach to VPE. See H&S and references for further discussion on the early literature. See, e.g., Csúri (1995) for a recent implementation of the identity of sense concept to nominal anaphora within a Discourse Representation Theory framework. An essential forerunner is Bresnan (1971: 590) with the distinction between syntactically simplex vs. complex anaphoric forms; cf. also Wasow (1979). Example (69) is cited after H&S, p. 404, and was originally observed by Ross (1969). The data in (70) and (71) are retrieved from fiction and naturallyoccurring speech, located through a web search and searches on the BNC. In what follows, I use the term exophoric control (Pullum 2000) rather than H&S’s original “pragmatic” control to avoid confusion with other factors. The partially minimalist implementation is undertaken by Lobeck in particular with respect to the overt vs. covert checking of tense by verbs in English vs.

Notes

16.

17. 18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

121

French, and not with respect to ellipsis. However, Lobeck draws an interesting conclusion from this distinction concerning verb-movement distinctions (à la Pollock 1989), with a potential ramification for ellipsis. We leave aside a discussion of further details of government. A point to note is that there are various disjunctive conditions behind Chomsky’s “proper government”. It includes antecedent-government and theta-government. Lobeck stresses the disposal of theta-government, which, to make INFL a licenser, had been accompanied by the assumption that INFL theta-marked VP. Cf. the discussion in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 expanding on Emonds (1976) and arguments against it much in line with Emonds (1994, 2000) and others. Under a deletion approach this type of mixed account is, however, not forced, as it is under Lobeck’s empty-category account under scrutiny above; cf., e.g., Drubig (2007) for a suggestion on verb movement followed by deletion of the (entire) projections in which the verbs/auxiliaries are first merged. Theoretically, it becomes interesting to speculate whether it is not just the case that each head which is not spelled out at PF comes about as the result of the same type of ellipsis (say, VPE under deletion). There are, however, empirical obstacles. E.g. in Bob aced all his exams; Hasn’t his brother too? (similarly in tags and perhaps further inversion structures), the position of T itself is also vacated. Nonetheless, the process is still VPE and not a sluice, the phenomenon which would produce empty TPs (via full-scale deletion). Wasow gives examples like the following, in which passives are degraded: (i) *My phone was tapped by the FBI, but the CIA wouldn’t. See, e.g., Johnson (2001: 471) for further discussion. See also the critique in Baltin and Barrett (2002) and Valmala (1996). If E is only PF-based, the argument needs elaboration. Recall, however, that, with Fiengo and May (1994), Holmberg (2001), Murguia (2004), Winkler (2000, 2003), we resisted adopting a theory of VPE based on PF alone. Cf. Chomsky (2000: 107 et seq.). The relevant passage of the article, as well as the previous version of that work, considers the defining phases in terms of propositions or convergence; eventually, it is decided contra the latter variant. Phase-based work might also offer the following advantage of modelling ellipsis: Phases correspond to the “lexical” cores (in Chomsky’s 2001 sense: VP, TP, and perhaps NP), which ties in with the major types of phrasal ellipsis: VPE, Sluicing, and NPE. This scenario is compatible with the interpretability of the licenser, which could be based on Spell-Out domains. Moreover, if one adopts Chung et al.’s (1995) analysis of relating the whremnant in sluicing to the presence of an operator paralleling an indefinite, sluicing allows for more possibilities in terms of reconstruction sites. But cf. the discussion in Chapter 2 for some differences. Moreover, while variability in the size of the affected material is a possibility (cf. multiple licensing), in the case of topicalization, it seems that a more restricted approach yields more appropriate results (cf. Göbbel 2003, 2004; Sternefeld 1995).

Chapter 4 Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

1. Towards a diachronic proposal In this chapter, we consider the interaction of modals and verbal elliptical processes during the Middle English period through a corpus study based on the Penn Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (Kroch and Taylor 2000).1 After introducing reanalysis theory, we propose an economy-based amendment to it in the syntactic metric. We essentially develop an argument based on grammar-theoretical diagnostics relevant for ellipsis research to establish the status of the modals preceding the reanalysis. We observe quantitative developments on the basis of the extracted corpus data discussing potential consequences, and concentrate on investigating the grammatical status of the ellipsis sites and the modal licensers.

1.1. Brief introduction to reanalysis theory In the reanalysis theory of the English Modals as understood particularly in the wake of Lightfoot (1979), the modals reanalyze rapidly at the beginning of the sixteenth century (cf. Roberts 1993: 310). They are claimed to change grammatical status from full-fledged lexical verbs to holders of the functional position T, as in (1). (1)

Modal reanalysis (‘standard,’ lexical-to-functional version)2 [CP [TP tense/mood affix […[VP1 Premodal [VP2/PP/NP ]]]]] ⇒ [CP [TP Modal […[VP ]]]]

Note that verbal complements such as the embedded VP2 in (1) quite often happen to be c-commanded by bouletic, dynamic, deontic, and other modal selectors. In such configurations, it turns out that cross-linguistically they are prone to restructuring. This is very much in line with the fact that tight-

Towards a diachronic proposal

123

ening of syntactic structure in modal contexts frequently occurs in terms of diachronic and also of synchronic reanalysis.3 As an alternative to the view schematically represented in (1), this chapter argues for the hypothesis of a shorter reanalysis, as in (2), the details and motivation of which will be spelt out as we go along. (2)

Short-distance reanalysis of the English modals (SDR): [CP [TP tense/mood affix [PrP Modal/Do [VP/PP/NP]]]] ⇒ [CP [TP Modal/Do [PrP [VP ]]]]

The notation above indicates in particular that under the SDR hypothesis, elliptical clauses licensed by modals will have a full representation in the LF branch of grammar both before and after the reanalysis. This is in principle compatible with various ways of modeling ellipsis and does not face the impasse of the unexplained change in complementation requirements.4 If, on the other hand, one adheres to some V-to-T reanalysis view as in (1), one has to consider at least the following issues with the pre-reanalysis modals (premodals): (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Both premodals and modals can modalize events * Passivized premodals are unattested Premodals modalize both events expressed through VPs and other complementation patterns (e.g., directional PPs) Premodals modals license VP ellipsis The modals and do are the only finite elements to reanalyze to T

There is consensus in regard to (3). The premodals were also able to express universal and existential modal force in ME. This by itself, however, is insufficient to posit anything beyond V-status: A variety of morphosyntactic elements can be carriers of modality, including verbs. The problem in (4) is a well-known issue for the syntax of modals in the Germanic languages (cf. Wurmbrand 1999). In a short-distance reanalysis the solution to this problem can be found in the structural configuration of the premodals (cf. section 1.2 below). The issue in (5), which is related to the one in (3), motivates the predicational account of this proposal. We may take the point in (6), licensing of VPE, to be one of the most serious problems for the standard reanalysis theory as it stands. Theoretically and empirically, the present proposal focuses precisely on this point. Both recent research on VPE (e.g., Johnson 2001; Lobeck 1995; López and Winkler 2000) and

124

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

specific diachronic studies on English (Warner 1993; Higgins 2000) incorporate the insight that there is no way around taking elliptical and related anaphoric structures as indications of the quasi-functional status of their licensers. Note for instance the following often used first approximation borrowed here from the introduction of Johnson (2001): (8)

“[T]he ellipsis site must be in construction with, or perhaps governed by, a member of ‘Aux,’ […]” (Johnson 2001: 440)

This explains why (9a) is grammatical while (9b) is not, since it does not have the appropriate functional material to license it (see Johnson 2001: 439). (9)

I can’t believe Holly Golightly won’t eat rutabagas. a. I can’t believe Fred won’t _, either. b. *I can’t believe Fred _, either.

For a language with well-behaved VPE, this offers a powerful tool for ascertaining functional positions. Returning to the standard theory of reanalysis there are two issues of interest here: (A) complementation, and (B) ellipsis. These issues are taken as an indication of full-lexical behavior in the former case, but – if analyzed in parallel at all – must be conceded a strong functional property in the latter. Call this the Ellipsis & Arguments (E&A) paradox, an incongruity of the reanalysis theory as it stands that we will seek to solve. Regarding (7), van Kemenade (1994: 143) judiciously notes that the English modals were not intrinsically “doomed by their very nature to grammaticize into auxiliaries.” While certainly true, this negative statement does not yield an answer to the question of why, knowing that the English modals underwent a reanalysis to T, they were the only elements to do so. Why didn’t simply any given verb reanalyze to T in the transition to the modern varieties? One could expect at least further subsets of verb classes, e.g., preterite-presents, to do so. As will be shown, the modals were the class to reanalyze to the higher head position T precisely because they were already quasi-functional in the sense made specific below. Thus they were the elements with the shortest distance to move to T.5 The general aim of this chapter is to come to terms with the key problematic issues of the reanalysis theory without giving up its valuable working principles, which link the traditional insights on grammaticalization to

Towards a diachronic proposal

125

phrase-structure and movement-dependency concerns. The specific amendments proposed originate in the concept of cross-categorial predication, as proposed in Bowers (2001) and discussed in section 1.2. In section 2, the relevant differences between the modals before and after the reanalysis are addressed. Section 3 presents empirical findings from the second version of the Penn Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2), first in quantitative and then in grammar-theoretical terms. A strong correlation between elliptical constructions and modals is revealed by these findings. As a theoretical consequence, a generalization in terms of two coheads responsible for ellipsis-licensing in both Middle English (ME) and Modern English (ModE) is given. Sections 4 and 5 offer detailed syntactic analyses of the evidence from ellipsed VP-predication and directional PPpredication, respectively.

1.2. The short-distance reanalysis hypothesis The diachronic change advocated here is a short-distance reanalysis (SDR), as in (10), repeated from (2), in which before undergoing the reanalysis, the premodals occupied the quasi-functional position Pr situated between the core VP and T. From this position, they underwent the reanalysis to T. (10)

SDR: Short-distance reanalysis of the English modals: [CP [TP tense/mood affix [PrP Modal/Do [VP/PP/NP]]]] ⇒ [PrP [VP ]]]] [CP [TP Modal/Do

As will be shown, the SDR essentially offers a systematic solution to the ellipsis problem. The crucial point is the shortening of the reanalysis in the syntactic metric, where shortening is understood as a term for syntactic distance in relation to the standard reanalysis: Instead of reanalyzing from V to T, we propose that the modals reanalyze from the intermediate projection to T.6 Let’s for now note some advantages of the specifics. First, the various complementation patterns of the premodals – cf. (20)-(23) below for quick exemplification – are derived under the predicative analysis. A different kind of reanalysis, for example, one from a different functional projection to T, would have to take recourse to additional assumptions to account for complementation through categories other than VP.7 Such projections generally only apply to VPs in a compositional manner but not

126

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

stipulation-free to the other complements of the ME modals. Further assumptions or lexical splits would then be needed. Moreover, the colicensing Pr-position accounts for the fact that a modal followed by VPE means that the complement was present both in the LF-representation and in the syntax before the deletion process took place. By contrast, the standard reanalysis account fails in this respect and needs the stipulation of random optionality with respect to complementation; cf. (1), rendered below as (11): (11) ‘Standard’ reanalysis (lexical-to-functional version): [VP2/PP/NP ]]]]] [CP [TP tense/mood affix […[VP1 Premodal ⇒ [CP [TP Modal […[VP ]]]] The labels ‘optional’ vs. ‘obligatory’ in the notation indicate that one would need to stipulate optionally intransitive modals even with prepositional complements for many cases in which ellipsis occurs in ME. As the modals cannot appear without LF-represented VP-complements in postreanalysis grammars, a further explanation would be needed in the standard accounts as to how they changed in this respect from putatively optional to mandatory complement selectors. Turning now to the theoretical scaffolding of the present proposal, let’s first note that alongside the syntactic motivation there is a semantic motivation for various types of predication, both going back to time-honored traditions (not mutually exclusive). Here we concentrate on the syntaxselectional side of the issue, in the sense of Bowers (2001). Syntactic predication can be both primary and secondary and Pr’s proclaimed goal, for one thing, has been to unify these two accounts. For instance, in this tradition the small clause in (12) is treated on a par with the familiar mainclause predication. (12) Mary saw [PrPJohn [VP eat a sandwich]] More basic still, the other dimension along which Pr unifies accounts is the fact that predication can be realized through various lexical categories. This translates into Pr rounding off VPs, but also APs, NPs, PPs in predicational configurations, as in the coordination in (13).8 These two strands of predicational inquiry then yield (14).

Towards a diachronic proposal

127

(13) Fred is [PrP[NP a good fellow]] and [PrP[PP in the know]]/[PrP[AP nice to Mary]] (14) Complementation options for the predicational head Pr: PrP Subj

Pr´

where α ∈ {VP, PP, NP, AP} ⇔

α ∈ (x,y), where x,y ∈ {+N, -N, +V, -V} and x doest contradict y Pr

α

If one follows the recent line of research on transitivity in Bowers (2002), it turns out that relating Pr directly to transitivity is not a necessary condition. Predication and transitivity fulfil distinct functions and might even occupy different syntactic positions. Taking recourse to such a version of Pr-theory derives the unavailability of passive formation for the ME modals. If they occupy the Pr-position, they are expected to be unable to undergo passive formation, which hinges on the presence of the lower head Tr. In (15), transitivity is a feature within the complement of Pr. Whether it projects a head is irrelevant for now. The important point is that transitivity – whether as a head in its own right or only as a feature in a predicative complement – is c-commanded by Pr. (15) Pr and transitivity: The transitivity feature is within the predicational complement ⇒ Pr is immaterial to transitivity and passive formation: [TP [PrP [(TrP) [VP… ]]]] In (13), attention was directed towards Pr-complementation in copular sentences. However, nothing crucial relates the Pr-head one-to-one to the copula. The present concern being the modals, the relevant observation here is that modals in various languages take complements other than VP. Consider Dutch, to take a language typologically close to Middle English (cf. Barbiers 1995). (16) Jan moet tien dollar hebben. Jan must ten dollar have (17) Jan mag Marie (wel). Jan may Marie (affirmative)

128

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

‘Jan likes Marie.’ (18) De fles moet leeg. the bottle must empty

‘The bottle must be emptied.’ (19) Je moet op het toneel. you must onto the stage ‘You must go on stage.’ It is clear that Dutch modals can select VP, NP, AP, and PP complements. In the analysis proposed in Barbiers (1995), the modals dominating these categories cannot be fit into a V- projection but need an additional projection (ModP). However, before we assume a new category, it is worth noting that this complementation pattern very precisely matches the Prselectional requirements. If modals are not full-verbs, then their location is even more likely to be Pr. Higher functional projections, such as for instance T, cannot directly select for APs, NPs, or PPs. They are operators binding event variables. That means, an important issue is to show that the ME modals behave differently from main verbs. This is derived in sections 3 - 5. In current versions of Pr-theory, the Pr head rounds off the lexical predicate. As is well known, modality semantically relates the predicational layer to the background function (Kratzer 1991). The thrust of the present argument is that the ME Pr head has a modal feature and that together they have an impact on the computational system CHL. Consider now the following ME complementation options for modals. (20) We may [VPlikne our fader Seynt Augustyn on-to þe holy patriark

we may liken our father St. Augustin Iacob for many causes] Jacob for many reasons

to the holy patriarch

(CAPSER,145.5) (21) Ha God, waste þe folk, þat wyl [NP batails] INTERJ. God destroy the people that wants battles ‘Oh, God, destroy the people who desire wars.’ (EARLPS, 80.3478)

Towards a diachronic proposal

129

(22) the Duke of Yorke shulde [PP in to Fraunce] the Duke of York should to France ‘The Duke of York had to go/get/etc. to France.’ (GREGOR,178.1166) (23) Now fel J, that my herte moot [PP atwo] now feel I that my heart must in two ‘Now I feel that my heart must break in two.’ (Chaucer, T&C, 3.1475) The immediate question raised by (20)-(23) is whether the ME complementation pattern of the modals is as broad as that of their Dutch counterparts. We argue here that it is not, and that it does not have to be as complete either. In (20)-(22), the premodals take VP, NP, and PP complements respectively. Under the assumption that (23) is also a PP, instead of the complete Pr-paradigm for the ME modals the more down-to-the-data conclusion is that we get a selective one, as in (24) below. Incidentally, note that according to Quirk and Greenbaum (1985: 408), some of the ‘a-words’ like apart, asleep, ablaze etc. are predicative adjectives in Modern English. A similar claim that atwo in (23) was an adjective would fit the Pr-analysis nicely. However, in terms of parsed categories, there was no [modal + adjective] sequence attested in the PPCME2 – the example in point having been found independently in this case.9 (24) Modal + β; For ME, β∈ { VP, PP, NP} ⇔ β∈ {all N-V pairs modulo (+N, +V)} The lack of certain feature-bundles in selection falls within the range of variation to be expected for Pr. First, quite generally, in the Pr-theory the analysis does not depend on complete selectional properties. Most research in this direction reveals that languages make use of a wide range of selective complementation patterns for both their finite and non-finite Prheads.10 Second, the English copula was used as an illustration, but in fact even selection through a copula can be similarly selective as the Pr-head instantiated by the ME modals. Thus Hungarian is sometimes mistakenly classified as copula-less in the third-person-singular present tense.11 The correct generalization, however, is that the relevant slot in the paradigm does have an overt copula, but a selective one, which prohibits the overt instantiation of, e.g., APs, as shown in (25).

130

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

(25) a. Péter a kertbe van. Peter the garden-in is. ‘Peter is in the garden.’ b. *Mary okos van. Mary smart is ‘Mary is smart.’ c. Mary okos ø. Mary smart ø ‘Mary is smart.’ In sum, while the Dutch modals would be compatible with a full Pr-like paradigm, the ME modals instantiate the restricted case in terms of selection.12

2. The change We now turn our attention to what exactly has changed within the class of the modals with the most conspicuous indications in (26). (26) Changes in the modal system of English (16th century) a. argument structure: loss of the ability to select objects (Roberts 1993 stresses its necessity; a facilitating, condition according to van Kemenade 1999). b. morphological make-up: premodals were part of the preteritepresent class, a morphologically distinct (and less inflected) class they originally shared with other verbs. Inflectional poverty was exacerbated with loss of 2nd sg. c. syntactic behavior: most prominent syntactic feature: alongside have and be, the modals remain unique elements encountered in T in ModE. The usual tests with respect to question formation, negation, and adverbs hold. The modals and dummy do are core elements within the class of auxiliaries. They are distinct in the present standard varieties from perfect, progressive, and passive auxiliaries such as have and be due to their linearization properties, which prohibit them from appearing in non-finite terminal nodes. Therefore, for the standard varieties, a structure with the modal in T/Infl along the lines suggested in Roberts (1985) seems to be an accurate representation. Roberts puts great emphasis on the lack of a thematic grid

The change

131

for the modern modals, this being one major criterion used in delimiting the class. A second and equally important criterion is the impossibility of free tense-checking of the ModE modals, as the contrast between (27) and the ME (28) reveals. (27) (28)

*Last week, they might/ must/ should vote a new resolution. Than must þei chese a new pope, and for þei myte not acorde, þei compromitted to þis man … then must they choose a new pope and for they might not accord they compromised on this man ‘Then they had to choose a new pope, and because they could not agree, they compromised on this man.’ (CAPCHR,131.3049)

Thus despite residual past tense morphology, abstracting away from the dynamic reading of could and a subset of sequence of tense contexts, the modals do not inflect for tense in ModE dialects. It is noteworthy that even in strict environments according to traditional grammars, the modals hardly live up to the rules when these require tense inflection. The sequence of tense contexts and the use of suppletive forms being well known from the literature, it is worth mentioning another, less frequently noticed case. Another “rule” of English would require that counterfactuals be inflected with [+past] morphology. Incidentally this semantics-morphology correlation is rather strong and it applies across an entire range of languages as observed in Iatridou (2000). For English, this translates to using forms such as might. However, in actual use the modals in some present varieties do not take even this tense-related constraint seriously, as in (29), taken from Denison (1992). (29)

Swift launch may have saved Penlee lives. Context: All lives have been lost, possibility doesn’t exist any longer. (Guardian, 15 Mar 1983)

Such attested examples with a morphologically present modal where a past would be expected are an interesting counterfoil to the cases where the modal is historically a past form but fails to bear that function in the modern grammar, as, e.g., should or must. What both cases show is that the modals have become increasingly tense-insensitive. They join the syntactic derivation with certain apparently idiosyncratic features from the lexicon

132

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

and are unable to undergo free tense checking as they by and large did in earlier English. Theoretically this is to some extent expected; it be might even directly predicted if checking were uniquely related to movement.13 Even the sharpest criticism of any particular version of the reanalysis theory admits the reanalysis itself as a fact. As the tense-checking properties from the data above show, it is clear where the reanalysis stranded the modals, viz. in the T-domain. In the next three sections, evidence is presented as to where the reanalysis picked them up, specifically in a lower quasi-functional projection able to license ellipsis.

3. Analyzing the PPCME2 data 3.1. Some quantitative aspects As mentioned in section 1, the main data source for this study has been the PPCME2, a syntactically annotated corpus. Chronologically, this corpus is further divided, cf. (30). (30) Subdivision of the Middle English period in the PPCME2: 14 M1: 1150-1250 M2: 1250-1350 M3: 1350-1420 M4: 1420 -1500 The relevance of the data source becomes clear in view of a situation often encountered in diachronic studies. While generative and theory-oriented studies may draw conclusions on limited and often debated pools of data, comprehensive corpus-based studies often draw structurally limited conclusions, particularly when their only available tool is the simple stringsearch. Plainly put, just because a corpus is big does not mean that it will be great in terms of syntactic accuracy. In the case of elliptical structures, which are in the center of interest in the present study, the problem is aggravated. A string-search for adjacent elements alone could not yield more than a partial picture of the data even from one corpus. For instance, in (31), we may have a strong hunch, based on whatever kind of previous evidence found for taking α as the basic licensing element; but say, we overlook a morphological or graphemic alternation and distort the data picture or, worse still, are not aware of a different licensing element β, and therefore again misrepresent the data-profile. (31) …….α [elided element]

Analyzing the PPCME2 data

133

Though no collected piece of data may be entirely problem-free, the above mentioned problem is more controlled for within a search-query in the PPCME2, as compared to, e.g., a search in a corpus without empty categories and without structure for the following reason. Searches in the PPCME2 can generally be conducted independently of licensing environments, by directly targeting empty verbs. That the modals turned out a consistent class also from the numerical viewpoint is thus not part of the input but of the output. Furthermore, the subperiodization in (30) enables the derivation of two types of claims: (A) claims relating to chronological developments across ME; and (B) claims about major grammar characteristics in ME. Type (A) is best tested with subcorpora; for type (B), using the whole PPCME2 is necessary. Specifically, whether a certain trend is discernable or not will hinge on its visibility from comparing the subcorpora M1 through M4, while any claim that a certain construction is productive or dispreferred (up to nonexistence) in ME should be made on the basis of the entire pool of available parsed data.15 Given suffixation of each text with, e.g., m1, m2, etc., the choice of four subcorpora for each of the periods is straightforward for the most part.16 The search-pattern consisted in identifying verbal elliptical constructions (henceforth VECs) in the entire corpus and the subcorpora.17 Figure 1 shows subcorpora findings and average ratios for ME as a whole. Interval M1

M2

M3

M4

Average subcorpora

Average total

VEC/ Tokens 143/12099 63/13868 170/26945 181/19425 557/72337 704/83513 %

1.18

0.45

0.63

0.93

0.77

0.84

Figure 1. Absolute and relative frequencies of VEC

Before discussing the significance of the data, let’s note two clear developments from this data-profile. First, there is an obvious collapse in the VEC frequencies between M1 and M2. Intriguing as it might be, this development is beyond the immediate objective of the present paper since we are tracking the reanalysis from ME towards ModE – and not the dramatic change(s) from OE to ME.18 The second, and for present purposes the relevant development is the continuous increase of the VEC frequencies from

134

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

M2 to the final stages of ME.19 Elliptical constructions are generally a lowfrequency phenomenon in most written registers. However, within the data in which they occur, some clear trends can be observed, the actual relative increase being roughly 50% per period. The two trends are visually summarized on the time scale in Figure 2.

1,20

0,00 VEC in %

M1

M2

M3

M4

1,18

0,45

0,63

0,93

Figure 2. Relative Frequency of verbal elliptical constructions (hits/tokens)

The abovementioned trends are best reflected in the proportion of the increase. The absolute figures may, however, also be interesting. In this context, let’s note that: (A) there is a fair amount of elliptical constructions; and (B) inspection of developments (even within generally low-frequency data) reaffirms a grammar-competition theory (Kroch 1989, 2002) rather than a theory of grammar driven by frequency increase. That is to say, while it is well known that ellipsis is revealing within the grammar in regard to the status of the modals, it would seem unsupported to state that the frequencies of ellipsis shaped the grammar of the modals, ellipsis being in general a low frequency phenomenon, especially in written registers, as aforementioned, and the modals, by contrast, a high-frequency class. What seems to rather be the case is that causality works the other way round. The grammar of the modals is changing and by way of inspection we can see that the modals’ ellipsis-licensing properties reflect this fact. To sum up, the increasing frequencies towards late ME are at best a reflex of the underlying grammatical development of their licensers and not the makers of the change. While there is room left for further statistical exploration, we have observed an interesting increase tendency not only in the absolute numbers, but also in the relative frequencies of elliptical constructions towards the end of ME. In the remainder of this chapter, two more important numerical correlations will be pointed out, but we will essentially concentrate on investigating the grammatical component of the change.

Analyzing the PPCME2 data

135

3.2. Licensers and configurations for the VECs The great majority of the VECs (approximately 99 %) are licensed by modals. The four examples, in which a found VEC is not licensed by a modal (but by to, laten, let, and do, respectively), are, however, consistent with the SDR as well.20 As is well known, to has shared properties, and appears in complementary distribution, with the modals in the wake of the reanalysis (Roberts 1993). The two verbs let and do are verbs that can be related to light-verb causative projections in ME (Denison 1985), thus configurationally close to the intermediate projection argued for here.21 Let us now turn to our more central object of investigation, i.e. the modals and their interaction with ellipsis. On closer inspection, the VECs are a heterogeneous group, as is visible from (32). (32) a. whan I come a-geyn, chastyse me ryth as þu wilte [VP chastyse me] when I come again chastise me just as you wish (KEMPE,110.2532) b. “Ser,” sche seyd, “for to gon to preson I am not aferd for my Lordys lofe, Sir she said because to go to prison I am not afraid for my Lord’s love þe whech meche mor suffyrd for my lofe þan I may _ for hys.” who much more suffered for my love than I may for his (KEMPE,113.2606) c. he schuld [PP oute of his office] he should out of his office ‘He would have to leave office.’ (CAPCHR,122.2769) d. He sent owte eke men of armes be dyuers weyes, whech apposed hem þat cam rennyng in hast [ whedir] þei schuld he sent out also men of arms by diverse ways which questioned those who came running in haste where they should (CAPCHR,241.3986) ‘He also sent out armed men by various ways who questioned those who came running hastily as to where they had to go.’ While the first two examples in (32) are elided events, the c. and d. examples above are directionals, the latter with an additional wh-feature.

136

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

3.3. A licensing generalization for Middle and Modern English In ModE, the auxiliary position is known to license verb-phrase ellipsis (Lobeck 1995). As is well known from traditional grammars, ellipsis is one of the four cornerstone ingredients of auxiliaryhood in English.22 In many cases, modals are the last remnant: (33) a. If the bombing stops, there is a chance the killing may too. b. Bob could bring sandwiches along but Melissa couldn’t. c. Bill has written his part and Mary has too. However, as the examples in (33) foreshadow, VPE is not generally as clear-cut as to be relatable one-to-one to T, the auxiliary-position par excellence, and thus to modals only. As mentioned in section 2, ModE have and be are distribution-wise clearly distinct from the modals in that they allow non-finite forms, agreement, and tense-checking for +/- past. On the other hand, they can license VPE, and cannot be retrieved from antecedent sites or topicalized positions under the same conditions as main verbs can. The examples in (34) illustrate this fact with respect to ellipsis (from Emonds 2000). (34) a. *Since in the past you have represented us well, I’m sure you must_ yesterday. b. Since in the past you have represented us well, I’m sure you must have_ yesterday. c. *I make Mary be examined often even though her brother refuses to_. d. I make Mary be examined often even though her brother refuses to be_. ModE have and be thus clearly pattern partly with main verbs and partly with the modals. A natural option to account for this fact is to analyze the intermediate Pr as the first-merge (‘base-generating’) position for each of these two auxiliaries. The specific intermediate position leaves room for the modals’ half-way functional status and predicts their raising to tense. In contrast to ModE, non-identical be-deletion was available in ME: (35) So much sorwe hadde nevere creature/ That is, or shal whil the world may dure.

Analyzing the PPCME2 data

137

so much sorrow had never creature/ that is or will (be) as long as the world may last (Chaucer, Knight’s Tale, 1360) Moreover, the PPCME2 data show that ME be and have do not have the same ellipsis-licensing properties in the dominant grammar(s) of the considered manuscripts as the modals. That is, they pattern not with the modals, but with main verbs when it comes to licensing ellipsis. In ME, have, be, and the modals still check tense (recall, e.g., the contrast between (27) and (28) above). That leaves two positions for auxiliaries. This becomes possible under Pr-recursion (cf. Bowers 2001). (36) Dominant ME grammar preceding the reanalysis (relevant projections): TP T´

T -ed

Pr

Subj

Pr Modal

Pr´

VP

TARGET OF VP ELLIPSIS ELIDE provided LF and feature- configuration al low it. Modals are lower licensing co-head.

have/be/& lexical verbs

138

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

(37) Dominant ModE grammar after the reanalysis (relevant projections): TP T´

T Modal/ -ed

Pr

Subj

The modal SDR

Pr´

Pr

TARGET OF VP ELLIPSIS ELIDE provided LF and feature-configuration al low it.

VP

Modals shifted to higher co-licenser position.

have/be/ø (A later SDR?23)

From the data seen so far, the following observations result: Ellipsis has a multiple licensing mechanism both in Middle and in Modern English which is roughly that of T and Pr in conjunction.24 – In ME, only the tense/mood affix is merged directly to T whereas the modal root to Pr. – In ModE we have the modal root merged in T and the aspectual auxiliaries in Pr. 25 – Whenever the functional burden involved in retrieving the information of the PF-deleted phrase is too high for the modal stem alone, overt and nonincorporated Pr-elements become obligatory, as for instance in (34).

–

These observations may be schematically summarized as in (38) below: (38)

Multiple-VPE-licensers approximation – ME and ModE: [TP Subji T° [PrP ti Pr° [VP V° […] ]]]

Analyzing the PPCME2 data

139

The present concern with the ME modals under ellipsis raises the question of whether by the time preceding the reanalysis the higher-than-V position of the modals exhibited effects in further contexts. For instance, consider the modal+have construction as numerically represented in Figure 3. There, it seems that the modal+have frequencies increase closely following the VEC-trends for the critical periods leading towards M4. 2,50

0,00 M+HV in %

M1

M2

M3

M4

1,03

1,05

1,83

2,27

Figure 3. Relative Frequency of the modal+have construction (hits/tokens)

Even more than in the case of the VECs, caveats are in order for modal+have’s. “Construction” again covers a heterogeneous group of grammatical relationships involving different uses of modals and, in this case, of have’s, which would need further scrutiny. After filtering out the data noise caused by have followed by a direct object, the development still shows a continuous increase towards the end of ME as in Figure 4. In regard to the data involving modal+have, it is noteworthy that these specific constructions often also allow counterfactual and epistemic readings. 1,50

0,00 M+HV \ OBJ in %

M1

M2

M3

M4

0,45

0,38

0,77

1,13

Figure 4. Relative frequency of modal+have without objects (hits/tokens)

140

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

(39) a. for yfe þou wer so wyse a man, þou myght have warnyd þe juis of her harme for if you were such wise a man you might have warned the Jew of her harm ‘Because if you were such a wise man, you could have warned the Jew of her harm.’ (SIEGE, 88.569) b. a man shold wel haue ryden a myle er he aroos a man should wel have ridden a mile before he arose ‘Someone could have ridden a mile before he would get up again.’ (REYNAR, 59.616) When non-possessive have is inserted, both tense and mood features are rather predictable and increasingly frozen as [+past] and [+irrealis]. Here have itself is essential. It has been observed (cf. Rydén and Brorström 1987) that have has a counterfactual impact well into early ModE, which is especially sizable when compared to its (nowadays defunct) competitor, the perfect auxiliary be. In addition, in line with two independent recent takes on the syntax of epistemic modality (Drubig 2001; von Fintel and Iatridou 2003) the rise in the construction is not unexpected. Given that epistemic modals tend to c-command other scope-bearing elements, the climbing up of the syntactic tree undergone by the modals allows this construction in particular to also appear more frequently. Again, a grammatical change acts on the frequency output. In fact, underlying grammatical change is expected to show similar rates of change in different contexts (Kroch 1989). For instance, for the time when the grammar of do-support evolves, both negatives and interrogatives are expected to develop in parallel with respect to this construction (cf. Ellegård 1953). The issues involve some complexity, but there are similarities in the present case which may indicate a parallel due to the reanalysis process of the modals. As we have just seen, sequencing have after a modal makes the modal prone to an epistemic reading. Epistemicity, somewhat similarly to the other mentioned factor of counterfactuality,26 may be a corroborating attractor “pulling up” the modals in their diachronic development. The numerical developments sketched above may lend some credence to this hypothesis with the model of language change in mind assumed here. There are, however, reasons to refrain from equating this tendency of epistemic readings with a strong condition for phrase-structural change in our case study. It cannot be a necessary condition in terms of the reanalysis because modals in a number

Analyzing the PPCME2 data

141

of languages where the same sequencing occurs have not developed into the characteristic class they constitute in today’s English (cf. the comprehensive discussion on the status of German modals in Reis 2001). Moreover, it cannot be a sufficient condition because even when the sequence occurs, on closer inspection, the reading is not invariably epistemic. First, in English there are alternations of epistemicity in ambiguous cases noted in the literature in sentences of the type John might have won in which only one reading is a bona-fide epistemic (Condoravdi 2002; von Stechow 2003). Second, under appropriate contexts, counterfactual, alethic, but also even more clearly nonepistemic (root) readings, such as teleological and deontic ones, are available in examples involving modally embedded have, as (40) illustrates. (40) a. John could have prevented the confrontation, but he came too late. b. Two (nonconjoined) expressions cannot both antecede OC PRO because they cannot have both moved from the same position. (Hornstein 1999: 80) c. You must have acquired all the credits to get your diploma. d. The plaintiff must have filled in a complaint form. The more general issue with epistemicity, as a reviewer seems to suggest, may run even deeper. Though we have seen that epistemicity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the reanalysis, one may still entertain the hypothesis that it was a corroborating factor, as suggested above. From this premise, the fundamental question would be as follows. Does then epistemic modality influence the reanalysis (A) due to its semantic impact – apparently structurally high-up because it scopes out a number of other elements such as tense, negation, and quantifiers (Condoravdi 2001, von Fintel and Iatridou 2003); or (B) does it not only influence interpretative relations, but also the morpho-syntactic make up of the clause (Cinque 1999, Drubig 2001). There is in fact a valid point to both lines of thought. With Reis (2001), Wurmbrand (2001), and others, we may assume, first, that for the modals the null-hypothesis is that many of the interpretive effects we see are regulated by semantics (e.g. specifically by the LewisKratzer mechanisms of modal interpretation) and, second, that phrasestructural discrimination, say, between epistemic vs. root modals needs additional evidence for a departure from the null-hypothesis towards a coencoding of modal nuances (modal base and modal force in particular) into

142

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

the syntax. It seems that such explorations of syntactic form depending on modal nuances are best undertaken with an accessible language in synchronic terms.27 In the next two sections we return to, and focus more closely on, our object of investigation in this chapter, viz. the diachronic issues concerning modals and ellipsis.

4. More on the nature of VPE in ME 4.1. On the status of the ellipsis Before getting into the formal discussion and its empirical substantiation, let’s first consider a corpus-related fact. The ME examples collected for this study and statistically summarized in Figure 2 all contain the label for a missing verb. This fact represents a first positive indication of the existence of elliptical structures from the corpus-annotational perspective. Thus the constructions analyzed here pass this first test. Second and turning to the grammar, as is well known, VPE operates on phrasal categories; and third, it can be phrase-final (i.e. need not be flanked like other elliptical phenomena such as, gapping). These two generalizations about VPE are supported by the ME examples: (41) and made þam sa febel þat þai may noght lufe God as þai sulde _ and made them so weak that they could not love God as they should (ROLLEP,96.560) Fourth, ellipsis (again, vs., e.g., gapping) is not restricted to coordinate structures, but can also appear in subordinate ones. This syntactic characteristic is attested in ME. Example (42) illustrates it for embedding within a subject and within a comparative, respectively. (42) telle who þat wil _ what it myghte mene. tell whoever wishes to what it might mean (POLYCH,VIII,89.3584) Fifth, as (42) suggests, and similarly (43), it is very probable that the Backwards Anaphora Constraint (stating that as long as it does not ccommand, an ellipsis may precede its antecedent), which holds for ModE VPE, also held in ME:

More on the nature of VPE in ME

143

(43) And whils þou may _, do pryve penance. and as long as you may do private penance (ROLLEP,101.614) Sixth, the ME ellipses fulfil the diagnostic proposed in Williams (1977) in that they also can appear across sentence boundaries, as in the pair (44), (45). (44) “My doghtyr , why wol þou not schew me þy hert?” my daughter why will you not show me your heart (45) “Lord , “ quod scho , “ I may not _ , for schame.” Lord said she I may not for shame (MIRK,90.2421) Seventh, VPE in ME just like its ModE kin and unlike gapping (cf. Williams 1977), can evade the so-called complex NP constraint as, for example, in (46). (46) Bie war se ðe wile _! be cautious who that will Be cautious whoever will (VICES1,139.1725) Eighth, one of the most-studied features of VP ellipsis is that it allows sloppy identity readings for the elided material as in (47), taken from Lobeck (1995: 33). (47) John visits his children on Sunday and Bill does _ too. Possession as above is one often encountered possible environment where sloppy readings can arise. Consequently, the question comes to mind whether we find such examples in ME. Here it should be noted that the size of the pool of data (when compared to, say, Modern English corpora, let alone the introspective “pool”) is limited. Starting from statistical inferences alone, one might wonder whether data as (47) could have made it into the ME corpus at all, and their lack would not necessarily mean nonexistence. But consider for instance the comparatives in (48) and (49). (48) for he stode a-pon an hylle with hys tabour and hys pype, for he stood upon a hill with his drum and his pipe,

144

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

taberyng and pyping as merely as any man might _ drumming and piping as merrily as any man might (GREGOR,221.2148) (49) But for he couþe not selle and undo his clooþ as a womman schulde_ […] but for he could not sell and undo his clothes as a woman should (POLYCH,VIII,105.3677) In (48), on a reading that would include with hys tabyr and hys pype in the deleted string, the sloppy identity case would come to the fore. However, it seems uncertain whether such a reading might have been available. An example such as (49) does away with this kind of uncertainty on the available readings. Here the sloppy reading is clearly available, endorsed by the context of the embedding passage. Ninth, a further characteristic displayed by VPE is that it generally refers to material from a linguistic antecedent, as opposed to pragmatic or nonverbal antecedents.28 (50) he ordeyned a statute þat euery pope myte resigne if he wold _ he ordained a statute that every pope might resign if he wanted to (CAPCHR,131.3046) In (50), the exact matrix of the antecedent could syntactically be inserted at the deleted site. Most commonly, this exact identity between antecedent and ellipsis is, however, not what we find in ellipsis examples – neither in ME nor in ModE. That is, identification of the linguistic antecedent means identity modulo morphological variance, as in (51). (51) for þei reuled þe kyng as þei wold _ , for they ruled the king as they wished to (CAPCHR,145.3384) Oku (2001) has recently discussed the hypothesis that the features of the elided element constitute a subset of the features of the antecedent. The relevant question for present purposes is, however, not whether a subsetlike principle works; it is usually accepted that in some version it does. What would be more interesting is whether the mechanism is paralleled by the ME data. Checking the ellipses for the crucial M4 period it turns out that taking into consideration the morphological correction predicted by the subset principle, in virtually all cases we can find a linguistic antece-

More on the nature of VPE in ME

145

dent and thus get the typical ellipsis behavior for these examples according to this criterion. Even though the previous discussion indicates close affinities between ME and ModE VP ellipsis, suppose a hypothetical critic were still to argue as follows. Are whatever we take to be ME cases of ellipses not simply cases of null complement anaphora as in the ModE example (52) (cf. Hankamer and Sag 1976; Chao1988)? (52) Mary asked John to repair the car, but he refused_. Here, a straightforward test is the availability of extraction such as whextraction. The relevant contrast is exemplified in (53) vs. (54). (53) *The students knew which book the teacher refused to discuss, but they didn’t know which journal article he refused _. (54) They knew which paper he discussed and which book he didn’t _. Needless to say, just like in the case of sloppy identity, we cannot expect to find the generative linguist’s favorite extraction patterns in the ME corpus data – one might even suspect that we wouldn’t find any. But consider (55), and (56) below. (55) Late hir sey what sche wyl_ let her say what she wants (KEMPE,28.612-4) (56) þei sent hir fro þe kyngis coferes what þei wold_ they sent her from the king’s coffers what they wanted to (CAPCHR,150.3516) Playing the critic’s position further, the argument might be raised as to whether the extraction is sufficient to demonstrate elision of the antecedent. For instance, in (55), knowing the history, the cognates, and ModE relict volitional descendant uses of wyl, one might speculate whether it isn’t just a volitional full verb and nothing else, i.e., with no additional licensing properties. The two interpretations correspond to the paraphrases in (57a) and (57b) respectively. Only the interpretation corresponding to (57b) shows extraction from an elided verb. (57) a. = let her say what she wants (e.g., wants to have)_.

b. = let her say what she wants to say_.

146

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

Both interpretations are at least theoretically possible. If the reading in (57a) should in such examples be invariably the only actually occurring one, then it would be harder to maintain the case for ellipsis in ME with respect to this type of extraction argument. But that is not the case. There are clear cases in which it can be demonstrated that we have to assume the antecedent verb under the ellipsis site. In the following, consider two interface tools for such cases. One involves checking the pragmatics of the construction, the other the denotation of the items involved. First, let’s see what discourse-based disambiguation can do for clarifying the syntax. Checking the context of (55), it is evident that the preferred reading is the one in which “this creature” wants to say something (viz. “a tale”), not to claim or have something. This part of the discourse is rendered in (58). What the example (58) suggests is precisely the type of extraction which supports the VP ellipsis analysis (even more strongly), i.e., the one with the wh-element extracted from the deleted phrase. (58) a. seyd þis creatur “I pray 3ow, ser, 3eue me leue to tellyn 3ow a tale” b. þan þe pepyl seyd to þe monke, “Late hir sey what sche wyl [VP sey ti]” c. And þan sche seyd, “þer was onys a man …” For a pertinent result from the syntax-semantics interaction, consider the following paraphrases for (56), one in line with, the other one against, the argument of this paper. (59) a. #þei sent hir fro þe kyngis coferes what þei wold (have) _. b. þei sent hir fro þe kyngis coferes [CP what þei wold [VP sende

]]

Note that the extension of a verb such as ‘send’ makes it considerably more probable that the intended reading was (59b) and not (59a). Otherwise the sentence would be marked at LF, for the same reason a sentence such as (60) would be marked in ModE. (60)

#

Johnny gave away all the money that he wanted to possess/win.

In both cases, a plain semantic paradox arises from denotation pairs such as {give, possess/win}or {send, wyl (=want)}. One would need an explicit context to repair the marked status of such sentences as (60), a context

More on the nature of VPE in ME

147

which for the case in (59) and its original rendering in (56) is not available in the source.

4.2. On the categorial status of the licenser Having looked at the nature of the ME ellipsis sites, let’s now turn to the licenser. Consider first the diagnostic of the corpus findings, somewhat paralleling 5.1, but this time from the perspective of the licenser. For the premodals, the annotation schema foresees two different tags, theoretically both possible, i.e., a modal label (MD) and a label used for items with verbal properties (VB). The VEC examples involve MD modals, i.e., they pass the “corpus test” once more, this time with respect to the licensers, which seem to have more than the regular verbal properties. The licensing question can of course be approached from the perspective of the necessary functional material, following Lobeck (1995). In the case of VP ellipsis, the usual suspect is T. The role generally played by the functional head T as an attractor for the verb can be seen in (61). (61) “Knew ye nat that mayde?” seyde the good man. knew you not that maid said the good man (MALORY,670.4983) As is well known, in sentences such as (61), the verb moves over negation, to check the inflectional properties in T, and subsequently crosses the subject to check the question affix in C. Given the close connection between T and ellipsis licensing, the question arises of whether it is not simply the Tposition that licenses ellipsis in ME. However, such a scenario cannot account for the ME data. True, the premodals may end up in T, and one might speculate whether it is not their landing position rather than their modal feature which licenses the ellipsis. Such considerations, however, come to an end in light of the facts presented in section 3, i.e., that the licensers of VP ellipsis were not just any verbs that landed in T, but only a closed class of elements (mainly consisting of the premodals). If any given verb should have been able to license PF-deletion of its pre-movement projection after having raised to T, then this fact would remain conspicuously unexplained.29 Summarizing the licenser issue so far, the assumption which directly equates the premodals’ landing site with the licenser is too simple to account for the ME data, just as it was for the ModE data of the type in (34).

148

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

A concern relating the licenser question to the complementation with null-anaphora discussed in section 4.1 is the phenomenon of object drop. Might the licenser not be a lexical verb dropping its object in some cases? There are a few cases of object drop in ME, as in (62). (62) for his prophecye his owne puple killid him with stones in a town þei clepe Tafnes, and byried _ in þe same place for his prophecy his own people killed him with stones in a town they called Tafnes and buried him in the same place (CAPCHR,38.224) While there are interesting connections between object drop and VPE both being elliptical phenomena in a general sense, from the present preliminary vantage point, it is, however, unclear whether positing the ME modals on a par with full verbs losing their objects represents an adequate solution. VPE is not only phrasal, by definition, but can elide significantly more than single pronouns. As is well known, VPE can, and often must, delete considerably wide propositional material. Moreover, the modal rounds off the prepositional VP-denotation both semantically (it modalizes it through its operator) and syntactically (e.g., through Pr as argued here). There is, however, no such relationship between the verb byried and him in (62). On the contrary, one could say that it is the omitted part, viz. the direct object, which syntactically rounds off the proposition – as is well known from research on aspect and the role played by the thematic role theme. Clearly, more investigation needs to be conducted for ME on these matters and the issue poses one further complication as we have learnt from the crosslinguistic view. Even if the two ellipsis types were elegantly proven to be more uniform with regard to their characteristics in ME, they display distinct reflexes in languages with morphological means to mark such differences. This in a further step would then raise the question of whether their putative falling together on the surface in ME is not a terminal-strings idiosyncrasy, or some fact that has an independent explanation. For instance, (63) illustrates the distinct make-up of the two phenomena holding in Bantu languages: While object drop still requires the agreement morpheme, VPE does not allow it (cf. Ngonyani 1996). (63) a. object drop: Kamau a- li – *(m)- beba [m-toto] Kamau 1SA-PST-OA- carry [1-child] Kamau carried the child.

More on the nature of VPE in ME

b. VPE:

…na Kamau a- liø -beba …and Kamau 1SA-PST- ø -carry …and Kamau did too

149

[VP ]pia too

A final test we suggest for teasing apart the structural position between the VPE licensers in the PPCME2 data, viz. the modals, and regular lexical verbs is adverb placement. Since all finite verbs move to T in ME, in order to detect anything at all, it is useful to use this diagnostic with the verb to be tested in-situ. Consider (64) and (65). (64) And whan this creatur was [þus] [gracyowsly] comen a-geyn to hir mende and when this creature had thus graciously come back to her mind (KEMPE, 9, 139) (65) he muste ofte and many tymes rede in thys boke and [ernestly and diligently] he had to often and many times read in this book and earnestly and diligently marke [wel] that he redeth mark well what he read (REYNAR,6.7) The intermediate position Pr has an effect in these cases by providing an intermediate adjunction site for a second adverb between T and in-situ V. Thus both configurations with two adverbs, (66) and (67), are available for verbs, as illustrated by (64) and (65). (66) T [Adv] [Adv] [V], (67) T [Adv] [V] [Adv]

where V is an in-situ verb

For modals, however, the comparable configurations are not available in the entire PPCME2, independently of adverb classes; cf. (68), and (69). Given that ME is the flourishing period of nonfinite modals when compared to the other stages of English, the failure of this test cannot be blamed on a lack of in-situ modals. The phenomenon would be accounted for in the reanalysis version in which the modals reanalyze from an intermediate projection. With ME modals, a further in-between position cannot be made visible due to the fact that it arguably does not exist and the ME modals occupy precisely the intermediate projection between T and V.30

150

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

(68) * T [Adv] [Adv] [M], where M is an in-situ modal, and * is used for (69) * T [Adv] [M] [Adv] configurations which were not found.

5. Directionals as evidence for the Pr Projection 5.1. A feature of ME Modals The bulk of the VEC data retrieved from the PPCME2 consists of the type of VP ellipsis discussed above. There is, however, a further case of an apparent elliptical construction, as illustrated in (70). (70) ffor which Criseyde moste out of the town for which C. must (go) out of the town ‘For which C. must leave town.’ (Chaucer, T&C 5, 5) Such examples consist of a modal followed by what has traditionally been called directionals, paths, or, as more recently in Emonds (2000), [+loc, +path] PPs. Since paths can also be licensed by modals, this phenomenon calls for an analysis in the present treatment of the ME modals. Incidentally, the pattern is wide-spread across the Germanic languages, as observed by van Riemsdijk (2002) in recent discussion. In the following, we adopt one of van Riemsdijk’s main insights and test it against the background of the ME data. In intuitive terms, van Riemsdijk expresses the main idea through the existence of a so-called ‘super-light’ element of motion which appears with the modal in order to license the path. Then this intuition is materialized by assuming an empty verb, generically called GO, with interesting evidence coming from verbdoubling facts from Swiss German. The present account concurs with the core idea about light grammatical elements, but differs in the implementation. Specifically, we propose that a super-light element is crucial, but that it does not necessarily imply positing empty lexical verbs in ME. We argue that implementing the light element as a feature rather than assuming bonafide ellipsis for gives a better account for ME directionals. Consider the directional in (71), its proposed derivation being (72). (71) and whan he wist he schuld [PP oute of his office], he dylyueryd to þe Frenschmen thre good castelles and when he knew he should out of his office he delivered to the

Directionals as evidence for the Pr Projection

151

French three good castles ‘When he knew he would have to leave office, he delivered to the French three good castles.’ (CAPCHR,122.2769) Schuld comes with a tense feature [+past] which is checked and interpreted in T. There are two additional features of interest: a modal one (deontic), and an aspect feature roughly translatable as come to be at. Thus the derivation under the Pr-analysis is in fact straightforwardly predicted along the lines of (72b). In minimalist terms, the modal probe matches the directional goal. In fact, this picture can be simplified, and we need not even use the aspectual feature. The pertinent observation is that indeed only the deontic modal can agree with a directional, and thus we get (72c). (72) Phase-derivations (preceding Pr-to-T movement and subject raising) PrP a. Subj he …

b. [+ASP, +deontic] Pr probe is matched by [+ LOC, + PATH] PP goal

Pr´ Pr

schuld MOD (deontic) ASP (come to be at)

PP

+path

c. [+deontic] Pr probe is matched by [+ LOC, + PATH] PP goal

Cross-linguistic links among aspectual, modal, and directional features are not uncommon. For instance, Rizzi’s (1978: 116-17) clitic test for restructuring applies exactly to these three categories. For another more specific case of this type of joint bundling of modal and aspectual features – this time not only within the same class but virtually on the same lexical item – consider Finnish. This language has a grammaticalized modal verb derived from a motion verb (roughly meaning ‘get to’, and according to Rostila more closely translatable by German geraten, but see his English glosses below) with which it co-exists in the modern usage as in (73), and (74) (cf. Rostila’s 2001 examples 16 a,c). (73) Joudin kiertämään järven. pro V-past-1.S. V(3rd infinitive)-Illative lake ‘I had to go round a/the lake.

152

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

(74) Joudin Kiertämään. ‘I got to Kiertämä [an imaginary village etc.] without wanting to.’ Example (73) illustrates that when used as a modal, this verb attaches to an infinitive form, while (74) shows that it can also attach to nouns (even imaginary ones). Crucially, however, in order to express epistemic modality, this verb cannot be used and unrelated means have to be put to work. Similarly, and closer still to the ME case of directionals, in Germanic only the deontic reading is available with directionals. Especially this latter fact strongly corroborates the nonelliptical representation of directionals. It is hard to see why both a deontic and an epistemic modal can introduce an overt variant of go, but only the deontic modal can introduce what would be assumed as the silent counterpart of the same verb. To this and a few related issues we turn in the next section.

5.2. ME directionals: Why a feature-based implementation Section 5.1 argued for an analysis of directionals based on direct selection through the Pr-head. An alternative view would be to assume some kind of verb ellipsis. This alternative can then be further subdivided into two options: ellipsis understood as PF-deletion of GO, or as lexical insertion of an elliptical form. While the first option is refuted with a range of arguments in Barbiers (1995), van Riemsdijk (2002) gives a solution couched in terms of the second option.31 For ME, let’s consider what might be the main problem concerning modals and motion: Starting with traditional works it is sometimes assumed that the pattern modal+GO+PP is the correct alternant of modal+PP. It seems that this assumption stems from a naïve notion of the semantics of the construction. Thus chances are that for the modal+path sequences one will find paraphrases which include a variant of some verb of motion. The fallacy lies, however, in equating such paraphrases with the actual semantico-syntactic make-up of the structure. First, intercalation of go does not reflect the semantics of the M+PP string more accurately than the Pranalysis. Following Bowers (2001) and Chierchia (1985), we assume here that Pr correlates with the semantic function of turning a property expression into a propositional function. The latter is then saturated by the subject. Thus the semantics of the modal followed by a directional is complete and does not hinge on the presence of an additional verb. Interestingly, for

Directionals as evidence for the Pr Projection

153

earlier English this result is also the one advocated by Visser (1973, § 178) who states “To call this idiom elliptical, as OED does, is misleading.” Second, consider adverbial insertions between modal and PP. These are not attested in the entire PPCME2 database. The alleged verb should, however, easily allow manner adverbs/particles in a specifier-like or an adjoined position under any syntactic assumptions: (75) a. but with the grace of God I schal wel go owte. but with the grace of God I shall well go out ‘But with God’s grace I shall readily go out.’ (CAPCHR, 103.2213) b. *but with the grace of God I schal wel __owte (configuration not found) Data such as (77) show that, whether deleted or directly empty-inserted, a stipulated verb GO does not show an expected effect with V or V´/VP adjoined adverbs, whereas any of its overt counterparts, e.g., overt go above, does. Third, there is a striking lack of epistemic readings with an assumed silent GO. Although the modals in the Germanic varieties are subject to language-particular restrictions (cf. Thráinsson and Vikner 1995; Reis 2001; van Riemsdijk 2002), they surprisingly show the same behavior in that paths after modals without GO do not display any probability/epistemicity/prediction interpretation or ambiguity between such readings and deontic ones. This seems to hold for ME as well. (76) Type 1: (“Thou shalt out”): deontic only (77) Type 2: (“Thou shalt go/ have gone out”): ambiguous Fourth, an important diachronic question is why should the modal+(GO)+path construction have died out in English. Following the prediction of a silent verb analysis, it should have lived on, with silent GO being selected by the modals reanalyzed as T, and still selecting the path in its turn. On the prediction of the Pr-account, the modal+path pattern disappears because the modal Pr-licenser of the PP moves away from the position in charge and moves to T in the course of the reanalysis. Thus the directional no longer has the modally occupied Pr-head in a direct ccommand relation (as in 0) to be licensed by it. Fifth, there is a semantic-field paradox. Many more verbs than go/gon could be understood (ben, fare, invade, brake to name but a few), but none

154

Modals and ellipsis in diachronic change

of them (including go) is generic enough to capture the meaning of the element of motion licensed by the modal. Sixth, and in the same vein, a contradiction arises when attempting to capture the deixis of the element licensing the path (cf. also note 17). Seventh, an increase in the inventory of silent lexical nuclei goes against the grain of all minimalist assumptions. There is a sharp and principled asymmetry with respect to the burden of proof when lexical vs. functional empty categories need to be introduced into the framework. Thus while articulate functional hierarchies have been common since the early 1990s based on systematic data from various languages, for silent inventories of lexical predicates the syntactic evidence is less clear and has not been found since the attempts of the Generative Semantics tradition. Eighth, a predicate head is predicted to be choosy with regard to lexical selection as discussed is section 1.1. A silent verb GO, by contrast, would, however, not be restricted to paths, but would most naturally be predicted to take the same range of complements as its overt counterpart. But this is exactly not the case, as has been illustrated in this section. To some extent, there may be an analogy to the theory of overt and silent pronouns: While formal and noninterpretable features (such as, e.g., standardly Case) may differ between, say, PRO (null-case) and its coreferential counterpart, i.e. controller, lexical features may not. That is, PRO is not restricted to, say, [+/-human] or [+/-masculine], just like its controller is not subject to such restrictions. If a silent PRO-like motion verb existed, then a similar freedom of selection as in the pronoun domain would be expected. However, since this is not the case, given that the motion element of the modal is only to be found with [+path] PPs, the conclusion is that the analogy does not go through and that a verbal PRO of motion for ME is untenable. The evidence from directional PPs in this section consolidates a quasifunctional Pr-theory. In particular, a light-elements account, to borrow van Riemsdijk’s (2002) metaphor, has been proposed. This was based directly on agreeing features on the modal and on the directional. While the evidence based on VP ellipsis from the previous sections is an indicator of functional properties of the premodals, the licensing of PPs has led to retaining certain predicational properties situated lower than the T domain.

6. Conclusion We have learnt over the years that the changes and most conspicuous effects that made the English modals into today’s interesting objects may

Conclusion

155

have become visible in an arguably dramatic fashion in a process of diachronic reanalysis (Roberts 1993). At the same time, various studies have illustrated change effects spreading over time. Since ellipsis constitutes a major puzzle with regard to some core aspects of the standard reanalysis theory, in this chapter we have considered the reanalysis of the English modals with particular focus on elliptical structures. Having investigated the status of elliptical phenomena in some detail for the crucial late Middle English period feeding the reanalysis, a new approximation has been proposed. We have argued that a short-distance reanalysis from an intermediate projection provides explanatory potential for the licensing properties of ellipsis without forcing us to give up the basic mechanism of the reanalysis. This approximation also gives an account of further synchronic licensing conditions and, moreover, of diachronic developments such as the licensing and loss of modally introduced directionals in English.

APPENDIX: The Choice of the Subcorpora from the PPCME2 A possible problem for testing quantitative and qualitative developments: composition and manuscript date sometimes diverge. Solution opted for: use the principles in (i). (i) Guidelines used for assembling the subcorpora M1-M4: CONVERGENCE: Convergent texts (i.e. those affixed simply m1, m2, m3, m4 and not, say, m23, mx1 etc.) map 1-to-1 into subcorpora SELECTIVITY (e.g. no X4 text for M4, where X, the composition date, is unknown) SUFFICIENCY: (in particular for M2, where there were only 3 “pure” M2 texts) (ii) Composition of the subcorpora (labels as in standard PPCME2 notation): M1: ancriw.m1, hali.m1, julia.m1, kathe.m1, kentho.m1, lamb1.m1, marga.m1, orm.po.m1, peterb.m1, sawles.m1, vices1.m1 M2: ayenbi.m2, earlps.m2, kentse.m2, aelr3.m23, rollep.m24, rolltr.m24 M3: astro.m3, benrul.m3, boeth.m3, brut3.m3, cloud.m3, ctmeli.m3, ctpars.m3, edvern.m3, equato.m3, horses.m3, mandev.m3, ntest.m3, otest.m3, polych.m3, purvey.m3, wycser.m3 M4: aelr4.m4, capchr.m4, capser.m4, edmund.m4, fitzja.m4, gregor.m4, innoce.m4, kempe.m4, malory.m4, reynar.m4, reynes.m4, siege.m4

Notes

156

Notes

1. 2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

This chapter is a slightly modified version of Gergel (2004). The labels ‘obligatory’ and ‘optional’ indicate that on a standard view instances of modals without overt complements would have to be taken as sheer variation, say, in the argument structure of putative full verbs, before the reanalysis, but as a principled process (VPE) after the reanalysis occurred. We return to these issues in section 1.2 below. For synchronic studies, see, e.g., Rizzi (1978) on Romance restructuring, with modals as one major candidate group for the process; cf. Reis (2001) for detailed discussion on the German modals and the coherence phenomenon. As Platzack (p.c.) and a reviewer of Gergel (2004) point out, the shorter version of the reanalysis may be compatible with other versions of clausal architecture. We will discuss the relationship to aspect in particular in connection with section 5. Using v instead of Pr also seems an appealing solution. Nonetheless, further research on the status of v may be necessary. In particular, if one makes the standard assumption that lexical verbs in English raise to v, then licensing of VPE through v would produce problematic sentences: Thereby lexical verbs would appear as ellipsis licensers across the board in this language (see also note 7). We use the Pr label throughout this chapter for the reasons exposed below (cf. in particular section 1.2). There are at the very least terminological connections between the presently adopted Pr-theory and typological and other accounts (e.g., couched in Functional Grammar) which posit predicational intermediate stages for the diachronic change of auxiliaries. For instance, the transitions in (i) and (ii) both share the predicative stage in their development. (i) Full verbs > Predicative Constructions > Periphrastic Forms (cf. Ramat 1987) (ii) Full Predicates > Predicate Formation > Predicate Operators (cf. Goosens 1987) However, Ramat’s schema seems to be too general (driving toward agglutination in a final stage not included above) to be applicable to English. Moreover, neither his account nor Goosens’, the one more relevant to the English developments, offer a definition of the term ‘predicative’. I have not yet investigated potential reanalyses preceding the one from ME to ModE, say, one from V to Pr first. If such additional previous reanalyses were the case, then an even smoother mapping of the standard account might result. On the other hand, a suggestion on a later SDR than the modal reanalysis is made in (37) and note 23 below. Cf. IJbema (2002) for an interesting analysis of Dutch modals along these lines. The evidence, however, is rather inconclusive from the present angle.

Notes

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

157

For ME clear-cut lines between projections are even harder to establish. As is well known, epistemic readings do indeed start appearing in ME (cf. van Gelderen 2003). Most research, however, also reveals that certainty on particular readings is usually impossible to gain. For the issues treated in this paper, distinctions between readings are seen as a matter of interpretation (Barbiers 1995) combined with a grammar competition framework (cf., e.g., Kroch 1989; Pintzuk 1995). Roberts and Roussou (2003) also contemplate a richly articulated functional hierarchy along which the modals would, in theory, ideally climb from one projection to the next. Ultimately they return, however, to a more conservative version of grammaticalization mainly consisting of three projections in the verbal domain we are concerned with. In principle, we follow here this rather conservative approach to phrase structure. In view of the ellipsis facts, it is, however, unclear whether all their conclusions are tenable. For instance, if dynamic modals reanalyzed to v, then, while adequate for the licensing of ellipsis through dynamic modals, this result would be at odds with the fact that v yields ungrammatical results with ellipsis licensing in English. (i) *Mary washed her car and John [vP washed [VP __]] too. (ii) *Jack gave in because John [vP gave [VP __]]. An alternative view is to posit a, n, and p, alongside the familiar v. Note, however, the expanded syntactic inventory. For alternative accounts of predication without any kind of Pr-projection, see the references in Bowers (2001). Moreover, (23) is an exceptional case in that it lacks both the semantics and the morphology of an adjective. For instance, although atwo itself is attested in the corpus, comparative /superlative forms such as *moore/ *moost a-two (*er/-est) are not. Cf. Bowers 2001 and cross-linguistic research cited there. Cf., e.g., Pullum (1999: 47): “In Hungarian the copula must [emphasis in original] be omitted in the affirmative third-person-singular present tense (i.e. there is no such thing as an affirmative third-person present-tense copula form).” The issue of the Hungarian copula shows further complexity with respect to the status of the postpositional morphology. See Kiss (2002) for a review of some positions in the literature. This discussion is, however, not relevant to the claim made here on variance as to whether the copula has to be overtly represented or not. Selection here means syntactic category. It goes without saying that there are requirements on semantic features which might impose an additional LF-layer of restrictions. For instance, for the Dutch modals, Barbiers (1995: 146f) postulates a polarity transition feature. In a similar vein, for ME, a [+directional] feature is the first thing that comes to mind for the PP selection through the modals. For ME, the relevant restriction will moreover be derived from the feature matrix of the selecting modal, i.e. [+deontic], in section 5. As Platzack (p.c.) points out, a clear-cut prediction may not follow if Move is nothing but precisely re-merge – theoretically a simple and hence elegant solu-

158

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

Notes tion. At the same time, from the perspective of grammaticalized auxiliaries, the premise of the conditional may need further investigation for the following reason. Auxiliaries seem to display more restricted checking options than lexical verbs in English and other languages having for instance various gaps in the paradigms; see, e.g., Barbiers and Sybesma (2004) and references therein for recent discussion of the issues. The PPCME2 text samples comprise 55 texts and are based on the ME portion of the Helsinki Corpus. Besides the detailed syntactic annotation schema of the PPCME2, there are two further points of interest when comparing the two sources: the PPCME2 has been conceived as a genre-balanced corpus, and it contains text samples of a considerably larger size than the Helsinki version (cf. Kroch and Taylor 2000 for further details). The usual provisos for historical studies hold, of course. See Harris and Campbell (1995) for the conditions on when non-appearance can reasonably be taken as more than sheer accident, whose reasoning is adopted here as an approximation. However, the argument does not depend on claims about the nonexistence vs. existence of a certain construction given a grammar competition framework in the sense of Kroch (1989) as assumed here. For some additional precautions called for by diverging manuscript vs. composition dates, see the appendix of this chapter. A note on the PPCME2 annotation: Although we will claim, following Warner (1993) and Barbiers (1995), that there is no need to assume a coherent silent motion-verb when a path follows the modal, note that the parsing schema includes such a generic verb. However, the posited verb cannot be consistently subsumed by one generic verb given that it semantically diverges. For instance, it would have to include (at least) both come and go, as explicitly pointed out in the corpus documentation, two verbs with contradicting deictic force. For example, the status of the ellipsis sites in the transition from OE to ME may be of relevance in this connection – in particular, issues as those of deep vs. surface anaphora (non-trivial also for ModE; cf., among many others, Hankamer and Sag 1976; Hoji 2003 as well as the discussion in Chapter 2). One possibility is that the system of deep anaphora, including both overt and silent anphors, might have changed. Notice that the claim is not that systematic appearance of surface VPE types started after the first subperiod of ME (which incidentally shared a series of syntactic features with OE; cf., e.g., Kroch et al. 2000) from a tabula rasa. A possibility that might be addressed in future research is, however, onto what types of ellipsis and how exactly certain classes of ellipsis are mapped at the major transition periods in the grammar. We consider some pertinent questions for the periods leading to the reanalysis, which is under investigation here, but at the same time have to leave aside the further-going (standing) actuation problem of language change in general (cf. Kroch 2001; Weinreich et al. 1968 among others).

Notes

159

19. This increasing trend is equally validated under a less strict composition of the subcorpora than opted for here, i.e., if more diverging and therefore problematic texts were included than the ones subsumed under the appendix. 20. By employing several additional search patterns it was possible to extract 7 additional examples resembling the VEC constructions licensed by have and be. I am neglecting these examples here. Corpus-theoretically there is the numerical disproportion of this handful to the over 700 examples licensed by the modal class. In a grammar-competition framework as assumed here, numerical developments are indicative of grammatical factors, so the disproportion would also motivate a focus on the modals. Moreover, there are qualitative differences (e.g., none of the paths is a full PP, but rather a sole item such as forth, one of the be cases is existential and shows inconsistency in other respects). 21. The history of do being rather well known, note that even let in ModE also appears paralleling modal positions in some instances. Cf. examples such as Let’s go, shall we. 22. Ellipsis is sometimes said to belong to the so-called NICE contexts, which distinguish main verbs from auxiliaries in English. The acronym stands for negation, interogatives, code (which usually in its turn means ellipsis), and emphasis; cf. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 93). 23. One possibility would be that have and be reanalyzed from a more regular behavior to more ‘idiosyncratic’ and auxiliary-like formal properties after the modal reanalysis. A piece of evidence from the perspective of ellipsis is that have and be are not retrievable for ellipsis in all the cases in which fullfledged verbs are. For discussion of the changing morphosyntactic properties of have and be, see Warner (1995). 24. Cf. Lobeck (1995) and Llombart-Huesca (2002) for related ideas for NPellipsis following, however, different theoretical assumptions (government) and positing a stricter division of labor between the participating heads D and Num than the one proposed here between T and Pr. 25. For cases of more than one aspectual following a modal, multiple syntactic projections headed by the intermediate projecting head are assumed (i.e. Pr recursion, if that head is a Pr charged with various other features, e.g., modal ones in ME, or aspectual ones in ModE, as argued). A richly articulated architecture would of course have a host of intermediate projections to insert items here and would not need multiple merger of X. However, for the case in point, the situation is less problematic than it seems since the essential difference is between the finite position and the quasi-functional one(s) lower down. Note also that merge comes for free in the standard strands of minimalism and there are further issues with regard to implementing rich functional structures, especially in the case of diachronic developments (cf. the main text and note 27). 26. But see below, plus especially Condoravdi (2002), Drubig (2001), and Stowell (2004a) for some critical distinctions between epistemics and counterfactuals.

160

Notes

27. For recent proposals more narrowly correlating the semantics of the modals with structural relations also in synchronic terms, see Drubig (2001), Butler (2003), Cinque (1999), Gergel (2003), among others. We address the issue in Chapter 5. Despite the appeal of implementing richly articulated hierarchies in diachronic studies (cf. IJbema 2002), there are certain problems, which become exacerbated with modal nuances. As is well known, certainty on having extracted the exact modal meanings from diachronic data can hardly be gained. Loopholes often obtain in the argumentation (cf., e.g., Eide 2002 for some critical discussion). Naturally, these loopholes are roughly proportional with the increasing number of projections one is trying to show that a particular item has diachronically gone through. Roberts and Roussou (2003: 2.1) for instance maintain the idea of a fine-grained reanalysis at a suggestive level, but decide for “a more conservative structure” (Roberts and Roussou 2003: 47) when it comes to precisely spelling out the reanalysis. We concur here with this more restrictive move on phrase-structure for diachrony and explore the possibilities of structural differences in synchronic terms in Chapter 5. 28. See Johnson (2001) and Merchant (2004) for recent discussion of the consequences and of some of the limitations of this approach. 29. As Platzack (p.c) observes, if V could raise to T and license ellipsis, the elided VP would contain a trace of the licenser, which is not the case when an auxiliary-like element is the licenser. While the former, call it the movement type of ellipsis is within the range of possible grammars for UG, note that the type functioning with an auxiliary or quasi-functional licenser may be more economical. It instantiates licensing via merge (rather than move), and it does not require the superfluous job of eliding a trace a second time (among further material) traces being by their nature already non-overt at PF. 30. This argument is made for ME; I remain agnostic about the potential further richness of ModE phrase-structure in the low Infl area (cf. Butler 2003) which may show interfering effects. Needless to say, it awaits further research on adverbs. One of the working assumptions would be that adverbs do not display unrestricted adjunction. But note that the opposite of this assumption, which would be that two and more adverbs can unrestrictedly and directly adjoin to a single projection, e.g, VP, would leave structures such as (68) even more in need of an explanation. (Note also, that if, on the other hand, such configurations existed, intermediate projections would still be possible, and possibly more numerous than I assume them here). For present purposes, the exposed discriminatory behavior between configurations such as, e.g., (66) vs. (68) is used as an upper limit boundary for richness of intermediate structure when we consider the PPCME2 data profile of modals and lexical verbs, respectively. 31. Given the different focus the present argument and the one in van Riemsdijk (2002) might seem orthogonal. They might turn out to be compatible given that light verbal elements and features can be seen on a par (Roberts 1998).

Chapter 5 Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

1. Setting the stage The chapter has two related investigative aims: (i) the syntactic properties of the modals; (ii) the licensing properties of VPE. We expand on the morphosyntax of the modals, provide evidence for their interface-motivated grammaticalized status in terms of modal base and modal force, and offer an account which we spell out in terms of merge and move syntactically. Regarding VPE, we offer an account of ellipsis licensing that hinges on the interpretability of a syntactic feature. In Chapter 2 we noted issues with previous analyses of the modals and introduced the ingredients for a further exploration of complex status. In Chapter 3, we discussed the fully represented-structure approach to ellipsis and introduced its licensing mechanism, which we will apply more closely to MLE (modally licensed ellipsis). We expand on the licensing issues opened up in Chapter 4, however, this time from the grammaticalized rather than the grammaticalizing perspective. In particular, also through evidence we were not able to obtain or fully judge from the historical evidence. We concentrate primarily on how the semantic properties of the modals effect their ultimate representation in post-reanalysis grammars and what precisely makes out a good anchor for omission in an MLE site and why. Let us assume that while reanalysis is at least descriptively reinterpretation of extant configurations (see Chapter 4 and Roberts and Roussou 2003 for further discussion), grammaticalization is the emergence of linguistic formatives, functional categories, and possible principles of grammar. We argue that certain mapping mechanisms between syntax and semantics can be found in the morphosyntactic behavior of the post-reanalysis modals and in their interaction with VPE. What the observations will be argued to add up to are intimate connections between modal syntax and semantic interpretation. As Butler (2003) puts it, there seems to be a marriage of classical concerns about modality with phrase structure. We will refine and additionally motivate this hypothesis. At the same time, we will pursue an account which is consonant in particular with VPE. With respect to the modals, the main point that we pursue extending the line of recent research (e.g., Butler 2003; Drubig 2001; von Fintel and Iatridou 2003; Gergel 2003) is that there are linguistically significant parallels between the mechanics of modal semantics and their syn-

162

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

tactic representation in English.1 The present proposal for the representation of the modals is based on distinguishable, projecting feature-matrices. It will be supported through evidence from ellipsis, temporal properties, morphological development, cross-linguistic analysis, and grammaticalization theory. Its main characteristics are subsumed by the Complex-Functional-Status Hypothesis (CFSH), rendered as a preview in (1) below. (1)

The Complex-Functional-Status Hypothesis (CFSH) i. The ModE modals are forms grammaticalized to the clausal domain; ii. The dichotomies between strong/weak and epistemic/root modality are morphosyntactically active; iii. The ModE modals retain feature-based temporal distinctions.

We have initially discussed (1i) in Chapters 2 and 4 under a preliminary synchronic and diachronic perspective. In this chapter, we will concentrate on motivating (1ii). In order to analyze the temporal properties to which (1iii) makes reference, we start out from the premises of the foregoing discussion and complement them with the ellipsis-relevant issues. For ellipsis, we thus propose the Generalized Licensing Hypothesis (GLH), given in (2). (2)

The Generalized Licensing Hypothesis (GLH) i. A grammaticalized licenser is defined (a) within CHL; and (b) in terms of interface-legibility conditions; ii. The set of potential licensers for (phrasal) VP ellipsis is a subset of the formal and interpretable projecting features in the clause; iii. VPE in English is licensed through formal [T].

The first part of the GLH, (2i), provides a hypothesis for the licensing of elliptical processes, viz. through anchoring to interpretation. While in correspondence with the interface-output (2ib), the role of the licenser becomes relevant in the syntactic derivation (2ia). In investigating (2ii) and (2iii), we will argue that the most relevant interpretable feature involved in English VPE is a projecting tempo-aspectual [T], an argument which we empirically sustain based on MLE and on further VPEs. Combining (1) and (2), we propose the structure for MLE licensing in (3) below. Note that in (3) there are only two types of modal projections proposed for English. T and Mod2 coincide. The notation [iT] indicates that the formal feature [T] is understood as interpretable.2

Raising vs. basic aspects of the modals in English

(3)

163

... Mod1 P Mod1/Agr…

….. Mod2 P Mod2/T, etc. [+i(T)]

possible intercalating licensing-P

Asp/Pr/etc.. [+i(T)]

vP../VP

Formal and interpretable temporal features bring about the syntactic ellipsislicensing effect. Thus Mod2 and Asp can license VPE while Mod1 cannot since it does not have formal T. Slightly more technically, we will say that the grammaticalized [T] feature can probe the ellipsis site. The plan of action is to motivate the structure in 0 from various perspectives, concentrating on the modals, and finally also to put forth a proposal as to why VPE, once grammaticalized, should fall in with a [T] licenser in English (and also in some other cases). In brief, the three main areas this chapter will cover are subsumed under (4). (4)

i. Modal predicates: A cartographic approach involving merge, move, and the interfaces; syntactic derivation as a function of modal base, force and tense; ii. Consequences in theoretical terms for VPE and the interface interaction. Ways in which ellipsis offers corroborative evidence to elucidate the issues in (i) – specifically, both in motivating and simplifying the syntactic proposal; iii. The representation of MLE in terms of full-fledged syntactic representation as a syntax-semantically relevant entity that is anchored at the interfaces.

2. Raising vs. basic aspects of the modals in English Much theoretical research has been recently devoted to the reduction of computational complexity in grammar (see, e.g., Chomsky 2001; Frampton and Gutmann 1999; Hegarty 2005; López 2004; and Winkler 2003 for varied approaches to the topic). Chomsky (2001) also makes direct reference to raising in a discussion cen-

164

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

tered on the role of teleological devices in theoretical work, which should ideally be dispensed with (that being the more general point argued for there). He takes up an interesting situation posed by raising when apparently interacting with anaphora binding, cf. (5). (5)

The men seem to each other to be intelligent.

Here, one might conceive of raising as (i) a syntactic operation taking place in the standard fashion, or (ii) alternatively ask whether it does not occur in order to bind the anaphor, say through some checking mechanism. Chomsky (2001) argues that out of the two possibilities which can be pursued the first one is more plausible since it does not presuppose a further syntactic triggering mechanism, and since the latter, moreover, technically involves look-ahead. Raising is therefore assumed not to fulfill further requirements of the derivation. For this particular case, this is a feasible solution empirically: Subjects can raise over a verb like seem in any event, independently of anaphor binding (provided there is no expletive merged in the higher position to render raising superfluous). A raising approach appears as one interesting way of accounting for syntactic properties which have to do with subject movement.3 While we agree with this approach as a useful device and with the more general point on teleological devices, given that we have a distinguishable object of inquiry, we will argue that the English modals in particular cannot be sufficiently characterized by this process and that a number of further diagnostics becomes essential. In the remainder of this section, we contrapose some of the well-known syntactic hallmarks of the modals with the behavior of raising verbs. The relevant morphosyntactic properties will be discussed in conjunction with the motivating interface issues in sections 3 and 4. From the perspective of English, it is worth using the classical toolbox of the socalled NICE properties to distinguish between modals and raising verbs (Chomsky 1957; Huddleston 1976; Huddleston and Pullum 2002; see also Chapter 2). The main NICE contexts from ModE involve negation, inversion, ellipsis (code), and emphasis in clausal polarity contexts. They all show a clearly distinctive clustering of syntactic properties for the modals as opposed to main-verbs with raising properties. Witness, for instance, the differences between the raising verbs seem, appear, and happen, as in (6),4 as contrasted to the modals in (7). (6)

(7)

a. b. c. a. b.

*Jerry seems not/seemsn’t (to be) funny, seems he? *But anyway, appears he to be around at least? *No, but Sue happens. Abby cannot/can’t really forget her mother’s birthday, can she? Should we really check?

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

165

c. We must not _, but eventually we might_. The examples in (6) show that under sentential negation, tags, question-formation and ellipsis, raising verbs cannot be generally claimed to share the properties of the modals. The syntactic possibilities of the modals are contrastively illustrated in (7). The phenomenon of VPE then matches the set of basic auxiliary properties in that there is no comparable grammaticalized and systematic type of licensing of elliptical phenomena with raising verbs. Although potentially “licensed” by the same raising verb and a contrasting subject, which should facilitate VPE, the attempts to obtain VPE as in (8), yield ungrammatical results with typical raising verbs. Such is the case even in comparative, adversative, and coordinative contexts with identical licensers, that is, in environments which typically endorse the parallelism requirements of VPE. This is illustrated in (8)-(10).5 (8) *Abigail appears to go to the doctor more often than her sister appears. (9) *Joan does not like math but Mary seems. (10) *Abigail appears to go to the doctor often these days and her sister appears, too. Similarly, verbs like begin, which are well known since Perlmutter (1970) to have a raising construal, alongside a control interpretation and structure, also resist VPE licensing (cf. Bresnan 1976; Sag 1976: 19; Lobeck 1995). (11) *First people began pouring out of the building, and then smoke began _. Although antecedent and ellipsis site could be isomorphically related, VPE fails. The verb begin in (11) does not license VPE. Raising is then not a sufficient condition for characterizing the modal predicates, nor one tying in with VPE behavior in particular. There is further cross-linguistic evidence that shows raising and modals to be distinct.6 For current purposes, the examples in (6)-(11) show that English modals and raising should not be related in a one-to-one fashion.

3. Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction In this section, we propose that the semantic differences of the modals are reflected in their syntactic behavior. We thus defend an essential part of the CFSH. Much of the reasoning from the foregoing discussion, including the one from Chapter 2, is assumed; the present section has a complementary part in section 4 (where we discuss modal force), and a close follow up in section 5 (where we elaborate on the

166

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

interaction of both modal parameters with ellipsis and the role of tense). Here, we next consider the main scope possibilities of the modals: first, their interaction with functional material such as negation and tense; second, their interaction with quantifiers; third, finiteness, and eventually, certain related morphosyntactic aspects. It will be argued that there are distinguishable characteristics indicating a correspondingly peculiar syntactic behavior of the modals as a function of the modal-base relation, viz. essentially the epistemic/root distinctions.

3.1. Scope asymmetries relative to functional material 3.1.1. Negation With respect to the modal-base dichotomy between root and epistemic modals, it has been pointed out in a number of studies (Butler 2003; Cinque 1999; Drubig 2001, among others) that fully grammaticalized epistemic modals tend to scope out negation, whereas modals on root readings can well have LFs in which they are semantically situated in a scope position below negation.7 This asymmetry is illustrated in (12) and (13). (12) John may not have finished dinner. (13) John may not leave this room before 6.

(EPI > NEG) (NEG > ROOT)

In (12) the modal scopes above negation on an epistemic reading, that is, ‘It may be the case that John has not finished dinner.’ Sentence (13), interpreted on a root reading, allows wide-scope negation, i.e. ‘John is not allowed to leave this room before 6.’ On the assumption that negation may be syntactically represented in a functional syntactic head (Pollock 1989; Laka 1990), the scope facts suggest that epistemic modality is located higher. From such observations, a possible generalization lends itself to consideration. The existential and universal core modals might/may and must take scope over negation when they are merged with an epistemic feature.8 This ensures that epistemi modals take wide scope. With the contrastive behavior of root-epistemics illustrated for may in (12)-(13) above, examples of might and must are supplied below, in (14) and (15), respectively. (14) a. It was starting to look as though, whether I liked it or not, I simply might not survive. (BNC: Part of the Furniture. Falk, M., Bellew Publ., London 1991)

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

167

b. A: is that the handout?/ B: yeah this was that co- this was conjugacy so, it might not have anything to do with Moebius. (MICASE, conversation of study group, March 27, 1999) c. and then school one would really be better than school two in two ways. it both would be more effective … and it would be more equitable. so everyone might not agree that those are good qualities of schools but, you better keep your uh lack of agreement to yourselves because i think they're really important. (MICASE, lecture transcript, June 7, 2001) (15) a. With a smile like that, you must not be from here. (GGL note) b. A: well that's, well Dan must not be happy. / B: um, uh yeah well well Dan is uh, he looks increasingly stressed everyday when i go by there (MICASE, meeting transcript, May 6, 1998) c. what you don't want is to give somebody an I-Q test one week and they get a hundred and forty and then you come back six months later and their IQ has dropped down to a hundred. […] we don't think I-Q shifts around like that, so we think that test must not be so good, if that's what's happening. (MICASE, lecture transcript, June 29, 2000) In the naturally occurring examples in (14) and (15), the source of evidence is partially verbalized in the given contexts: look as though; a smile; etc. The examples in (14) can be paraphrased with the possibility operator scoping out negation. Similarly, the modals in (15), which favor epistemic readings, have LFs in which the necessity operator scopes out negation; e.g., in (15a), in which the evidence is overtly expressed through the topicalized with-absolutive: ‘In view of your smile, it must be the case that you are not from here.’ Traditional accounts (cf. Duffley 1997 and references) positing that on wide-scope readings, more generally, what is negated are not the modals but rather the infinitival complements, go descriptively exactly into the same direction. Informally put, such accounts conversely place negation back into the domain of the lexical VP. The bottom line is that both mechanisms are designed to account for the same relative order; that is, they make way for the epistemic modal to outscope negation. However, there are reasons to favor upgrading. First, as mentioned, we assume negation to be an independent functional head in English (see, e.g., also Haegeman 1995; Haegeman and Guéron 1999; López and Winkler 2000; Zeijlstra 2004). Consequently, it is theoretically undesirable if sentential negation is in the lexical domain. Second, there are empirical arguments against the downgrading move. Downgrading means negating the VP. But VP negation in ModE is constituent negation. The sentences containing the epistemic modals are syntactically negative (Klima 1964; Quirk et al. 1985; Huddleston and Pullum 2002). One well-known test are neither continuations, cf. (16).9

168

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

(16) There may be one problem. CBS may not have the originals and neither may their source. (web-based) In (16), the tag introduces a negative elliptical clause. Thus, while the modal outscopes negation in both conjuncts (‘It may be the case that CBS does not have the originals & It may be the case that the source does not have the originals’), it does so not because negation is located in the VP, but rather because, on the epistemic reading, the modal takes wide scope (or else there would be a too continuation). A wrinkle to the scope issue relative to negation is the following: the necessity modal must takes wide scope on a root reading as well. This does not change the fact that epistemic core modals like those above scope over negation. The modal must obeys this generalization as well. But the fact suggests that alongside the feature of epistemicity, the distinction between strong and weak modality also plays a part, introducing a dichotomy in the typology of English modal predicates which cross-classifies with the modal base. For the moment, let’s note that Duffley (1997) – discussing must in general rather then root vs. epistemic terms – proposes to coalesce negation with this modal’s non-real character positing an alleged slightly different modality output in a non-compositional type of semantics. Thus negated and non-negated must would not only differ with respect to polarity value, but also in the modal nuance. Although this step may prima facie seem but another interesting stipulation on the English modals, Duffley has a point in observing the special configuration under which this modal grammaticalized in ModE and particularly in cautioning against approaches which reduce the wide-scope properties of must to what is claimed to be a general impossibility of this modal to be negated. Specifically, sentences containing must can be negated via sentence-level negation, but must scopes higher. At the same time, the issues with the epistemic readings of the modals need to be further addressed. We will therefore return to must in sections 5.4 and 5.5. We next turn to additional facets of the parameter of modal base.

3.1.2. Epistemic modals and tense Epistemics also conspicuously stand out when compared to temporal operators. We have seen in Chapter 2 that while root modals can give rise to interpretations in which they are taken by tenses in their scope, epistemic modals do not obey this generalization. Moreover, if attention is restricted to genuine epistemic modals (Cinque 1999; Condoravdi 2002; Drubig 2001, i.a.), the modals in question generally scope out tense. Let’s briefly recall from Chapter 2 the pertinent paradigm with respect to scope inversion in counterfactuals, as in (17) and (18) (cf. Stowell 2004a).

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

169

(17) a. The Dodgers might have won the game – we should check the newspaper to find out. b. Ancients Could Have Used Stonehenge to Predict Lunar Eclipses (Space.com, January 19, 2000) (18) a. At that point, the Dodgers might still have won the game. b. I could have danced all night. (My Fair Lady, Alan Jay Lerner, lyricist) c. If gas emissions are the main source of childhood cancers, then tougher emission standards should have led to a reduction in such cancers. [Relevant context: “Rates of childhood cancers remained steady or even increased for specific malignancies.”] (CBS news, February 4, 2005) In (17), the modals might and could take scope over the temporal morpheme have: ‘It might be the case that the Dodgers won the game,’ etc. In (18), by contrast, the possibility and necessity operators occur under the scope of past: ‘At that point, it was still possible for the Dodgers to win the game.’ The sentences in (18), however, are counterfactual and show alethic, i.e. logical (and not epistemic) modality. A syntax-semantics mapping in which genuine epistemic modals scope above the tense feature, but alethic modality may scope lower will predict the contrasts above. Next, we notice that the syntax of adverbs also sheds light on the scopal interaction with tense. We noted in Chapter 2 the use of temporal adjuncts defining a time in the past and reviewed Condoravdi’s (2002) and Stowell’s (2004) interpretations of already. We can compare another diagnostic from research on tense syntax and adverbial modification with the recent observations on scope-reversal rendered above.10 It has been noted – see, e.g., Hornstein (1990), Thompson (1996) and references there – that some compound-tense combinations in English, such as the past perfect, are ambiguous between a construal in which the adverbial modifies the event time and one in which it classically applies to a reference time. Consider (19) first. (19) The secretary had eaten at 3 p.m. a. The time that the secretary actually ate was 3 p.m. b. The secretary had already eaten by 3 p.m. At stake in (19) is the observation that in some cases which involve a more complex temporal structure (e.g., past perfect) temporal adverbials are ambiguous between an interpretation relating them to the structurally higher inflectional domain, and one in which they can be interpreted low with respect to the main predicate, the latter being in essence the event time.11 Notice, however, that there is a tendency for the time adverbial to scope out the event domain when it is fronted, thus yielding

170

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

unambiguous readings, as in (20), which can only be interpreted with the event of leaving preceding the time interval of the adverbial (Thompson 1996: 52). (20) At 3.00, John had left the store. However, with modals, the readings are more complex in various respects. On the one hand, this may be due to the fact that we are dealing with more then a linear sequence of temporal intervals – possible-worlds and broomstick scenarios, in which the possibilities divide, typical of some of the modal literature (see Werner 2003 and references), are imaginable. However, more importantly, with epistemic modals, even when the temporal adverbial is fronted, the correlation that would follow for some tense operators (such as the past perfect above) does not obtain. Thus, with must and might on epistemic readings, adjuncts containing past tense adverbials, topicalized either on their own, or with further material (cf. (21)), do not usually modify the modal time but rather still the (lower) event time. (21) a. In 1965 that must have sounded pretty far out. (www.carroll.org) b. I think last night they may have fired over a dozen surface-to-air missiles, not counting hand-held. (GGL; transcript 1999) c. We have the same number of people on our design team today that we did in 1993. That year, we might have created 10 new designs. Last year, we created 200. (GGL; statement of the director of a Canadian company, 2003) d. [With the new regime in 1660], there must have been those who had old scores to settle. (BNC; Purseglove, J., Taming the flood. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)) In (21a), for instance, the must-inference holds for the utterance time (e.g., in the sense of Stowell 1996) and only the VP [that sounded pretty far out] is relocated to the event time in 1965 via the auxiliary of temporal support have, which scopes below the modal. Example (21b) has a scopally similar preferred paraphrase along the lines of ‘it is possible that last night they fired.’ Sentence (21c) is, as predicted, grammatically ambiguous due to the morphology of might (residual tense). However, on the epistemic interpretation, it only allows the modal to scope over the past tense. Finally, (21d) is unambiguous in that it allows an epistemic but bars a counterfactual construal and, again, the fronted past-time specification (which is in this example embedded within an absolutive adjunct), is outscoped by the epistemic modal. Let’s turn to non-epistemic readings. In contrast to genuine epistemic readings, metaphysical or alethic readings allow the adverbials to modify the modal time.

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

171

Again, the issue seems to be independent of adverbial fronting; let’s consider should and might in (22), which in principle could morphologically allow both counterfactual (alethic) and epistemic readings. (22) a. In 1952 Walter Luff should have retired, but was twice persuaded to stay on for another year by the Transport Committee. (BNC; sample of Palmer, Steve, Blackpool's century of trams. Blackpool Borough Council, Blackpool (1985); domain: world affairs) b. On another day we might have had four or five tries in the second half, but it just wasn't to be, said London coach Tony Jorden. (BNC; Today, News Group Newspapers Ltd, London (1992-12)) However, the examples in (22) are counterfactual due to the adversative butcontinuations. On these readings, we obtain the necessity/possibility operators applying below the scope of past have, i.e. to the event time in 1952, and to on another day, respectively. The observation generalizes to further root readings, beyond counterfactual and alethic contexts and, as it seems, also beyond past tensereplacement contexts. (23) On Tuesday, some residents may have their garbage picked up at an earlier or later time than normal. (New York City, Sanitation Press Release) Sentence (23) lacks the morphosyntactic parameter for a past-tense-replacement context since the verb have is lexical and not the temporal support auxiliary. It grammatically allows for an ambiguity with respect to the modal base, which could be, in principle, four-fold. Besides logical and epistemic interpretations, it could also be circumstantial or deontic. If taken on a root reading, the temporal adjunct on Tuesday can modify the event time or the modal possibility. If epistemic, the most straightforward interpretation is that the possibility is given at utterance time and that the modalized event takes place on Tuesday. In Chapter 2 and in this chapter, we have discussed factors interacting with the temporal properties of the modals (as we will see more through further diagnostics). Given that modal structures have recently been argued to involve two temporal frames, we investigated how such a hypothesis compares to the actual tenses of English which involve two temporal points (or intervals) and have rather clear syntactic effects in doing so, notably the past perfect. It seems that the correlations which has been observed, e.g., for the ambiguities of the English past perfect are not transferable as they stand to modals in that they do not correlate one-to-one with the epistemic-root distinctions, e.g., when the adverbial is syntactically displaced. Nonetheless, they offer an indirect venue for ascertaining some of the underlying

172

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

properties of epistemic modals from a different perspective. In particular, what data as the ones above indicate is the strong tendency of genuine epistemic modals to anchor to the utterance time rather than falling under the scope of specified temporal operators. In sum, the temporal properties in interaction with the modals inspected so far sustain the view of epistemic modals as being structurally higher situated than tense and root modals.

3.2. Quantifiers Generally, there are various options of reaching appropriate LFs for quantifier interpretation.12 Prototypical cases in which various quantifying scope positions can be observed are those instances in which two quantifiers, i.e., palpably if they are of different type each, say existential some and universal every are merged to a derivation.13 In English, this results in distinct interpretative possibilities: (24) illustrates a classical scope ambiguity between surface scope and the so-called inverse-scope (cited from Hornstein 1995; cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998 and May 1985 for semantic discussion). (24) Someone tried every dish. a. [Every dishi [someonej tried [tj tried ti]]] b. [Someonej [every dishi [tj tried ti]]] The relative scope of quantifiers had also been noted with respect to head predicates, from early on, cf., e.g., someone with respect to likely in (25). (25) Someone from New York is likely to win the lottery. Sentence (25) can mean either that there is a specific person from New York who is likely to win the lottery or that it is likely that one person (or another) will win the lottery. Although the predicate likely comes close to a modal in terms of its meaning and of its raising syntax,14 modals have not received any special treatment in this respect in the early literature.15 Ernst (1991) approaches the syntax of quantifiers as well, much in the spirit of Aoun and Li (1989), but in addition proposes to reconsider, and widen, Aoun and Li’s syntactic theory of quantification, namely to the effect of extending it to modals and semantic operators more generally. The main theoretical change proposed obtains in the extension from (26) to (27).

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

173

(26) Aoun and Li’s (1989) Scope Principle A quantifier A has scope over a quantifier B in case A c-commands a member of the chain containing B. (27) Ernst’s (1991) Scope Principle An operator A has scope over an operator B in case A c-commands a member of the chain containing B. Ernst’s particular motivations for, and consequences of, the theoretical change are not more relevant at this juncture than Aoun and Li’s original version (both are important in their research contexts). What is important to note for present purposes though is that Ernst specifically proposes the reformulation as an operator-based generalization explicitly including modality. Moreover, combining it with a version of the VP-internal subject hypothesis and with the assumption that modals move from V to Infl, Ernst opens up a potential venue for comparing the relative scope of quantifiers and modal heads in particular. According to Ernst (1991: 754), two scope possibilities in such situations exist, as in (28) and (29). (28) All boxes obviously must be cleaned before we can start. (It is obviously necessary that all boxes be cleared …) (29) Everyone might carelessly leave something at the camp. (For each person, possibly he or she will carelessly leave…) The potential advantage of this line consists in allowing to combine the insights obtained from quantifiers in the cases in which their scope positions are compared with one another to the exploration of further operators. There are, however, also two main sets of questions. On the one hand, moving modals from V to Infl is neither an option favored by economy considerations (vacuous movement) nor one necessitated by the data, e.g. in view of the VPE licensing asymmetries between main verbs and modals. Based on the previous discussion, we claim that English modals are not first-merged in V. This saves the movement to Infl. But some kind of movement operations seem necessary if the grammar reshuffles scope positions along some scopal principle. This brings us to the second issue. What, if any, is then the line along which such movement should be regulated? We turn to two syntax-semantics options next. On the first option, we consider an account previously offered for quantificational expressions and modals based on the directed/nondirected modal distinction. On the second approach, we consider the role of the epistemic/root distinction in conjunction with quantifiers and argue that while not problem-free, it offers some interesting evidence for the present course.

174

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

We next address the question, what exactly might regulate the relative scope of quantifiers and modals. Wurmbrand (1998), for instance, distinguishes between directed vs. non-directed modals, as in (30a) and (30b), respectively. (30) a. Students must submit their application forms by next week. (directed) b. The application forms must arrive by next week. (non-directed) Both modals in (30) have root construals. Restricting ourselves to root modals for the moment is useful since we can thus assume that the main modal position is fixed, i.e., roughly Infl (while we already saw preliminary evidence that epistemics do not necessarily confirm this), and that only the subjects move. According to Wurmbrand, the subjects to be found with directed root modals scope high (i.e. in the typical Infl domain), while subjects surfacing with non-directed root modals scope low (i.e., in the first-merging VP domain). However, it is possible to argue against the subject-position generalization for root modals, on the basis of data such as in (31), which represent counterexamples to the scope-directedness correlation (cf. Hall 2002). (31) a. [Most of the students] must pass the exam because their parents are major donors to the university, but there are a few whom the instructor may safely flunk. b. On the journey from Radom to Bialystok, [three rivers] must be crossed, namely the Vistula, the Bug, and the Narew. c. [One squib in this issue] can exceed the length limit because its author has special permission. d. [.] the judge has no choice, [A singer] must die for the lie in his voice. (Audio recording, L. Cohen 1974) For example, in (31a) above the subject has a strong tendency to scope wide, although the modal is non-directed (since the obligation is not necessarily imposed on the subject). Similar arguments could be adduced for b, c., and even d. in (31). What can be concluded then? First, we may note that factoring out the contexts of non-animate subjects (e.g., in b. and c.), which rather naturally cannot be imposed obligations upon in any event, or given permissions to, (and thus support the argument against Wurmbrand’s generalization perhaps for independent reasons), for the other sentences ambiguous readings are possible, so that they do not seem to overthrow Wurmbrand’s approach entirely, as Hall (2002) would seem to suggest.16 However, if Hall’s observation is correct, then a subject is at least freer to scope with respect to a root modal then on the correlative approach to subject-positions (i.e. in VP vs. IP respectively).

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

175

However, neither Wurmbrand nor Hall fully address the relationship which quantification bears to modal structures from the perspective which also takes into account their semantic parameters. Butler (2003), Drubig (2001) and von Fintel and Iatridou (2003, vF&I) approach the scope of quantified expressions (and subjects in particular) from the perspective of the modal base. One common claim is that while epistemic modals scope over quantified subject positions, root modals scope below. Butler, moreover, makes the proviso of distinguishing what he takes to be canonical vs. non-canonical subjects with respect to scope. The latter show a distinct behavior relative to non-epistemic modality in that root modals scope below or over bare plural and weakly quantified subjects depending on whether they have a presuppositional/quantificational, or a non-presuppositional/existential reading. The difference with respect to scope depending on modal base is illustrated in (32) (cf. Butler 2003). (32) a. All languages might ultimately originate from a single mother tongue. ‘it is a possible assumption that all languages originate from a single mother tongue’ (epistemic > subject) b. All users can post messages. ‘all users are permitted to post messages’ (subject > root) While Butler (2003), Drubig (2001), Gergel (2003) and others attribute the distinction to configurational syntactic properties, there is also a different possibility for the scope relationship between quantifiers and modals. Instead of necessarily arguing for a high position of epistemic modals in cartographic terms, vF&I consider an alternative venue and formulate it along the lines of an intervention effect (cf. Beck 1996 for intervenion effects in other domains) by investigating the interaction between quantificational expressions and epistemic modals. According to vF&I, a quantifier seems not to be able to take scope over an epistemic modal, an observation dubbed the epistemic containment principle (ECP). A first version of the containing behavior is rendered in (33). Sentence (34) is a first illustration. (33) The Epistemic Containment Principle (1st version, vF&I 2003) A quantifier cannot have scope over an epistemic modal. (34) Most of our students must be home by now. (*most > epi must) Suppose the modal in (34) is epistemic. Then it also must scope over the quantifier. At the same time, let’s notice with vF&I (2003: 179) that the principle at work cannot be formulated as a radical version of an intervention effect. There are configurations in which a quantifier does have scope over an epistemic modal, as for instance in (35).

176

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

(35) We know of every student (in this dorm) that he must be home if his light is on. In particular, a quantifier can then bind pronouns across epistemic modals. However, the solution to this type of counterevidence could be that in (35) the quantifier was first-merged in a position above the modal. A proviso on the ECP then ensues in which this differentiation is taken into account; in vF&I’s formulation, have scope in the initial formulation is substituted by a condition which can be understood as takes scope, which yields (36). (36) The Epistemic Containment Principle (cf. vF&I 2003: 181) At LF, a quantifier cannot bind its trace across an epistemic modal. * Qi… [Epistemic Modal (…ti…) As a counterfoil to the ECP, notice moreover that deontic modals and tenses do not necessarily obey it. For instance, on a deontic reading, (34) allows in fact both scope arrangements modal > quantifier (‘it is necessary that most students get outside funding’) on the reading facilitated by the first continuation, and quantifier > modal (roughly ‘for most students it is the case that they necessitate outside funding’) on the second reading. (37) Most of our students must get outside funding — a. for the department budget to work out. (must > most …) b. the others have already been given university fellowships. (most… > must) In quite the same vein, the tense in (38) displays both options with respect to relative scope with the quantifiers, patterning with the variability of deontic modality and in contrast to the scope options of epistemic modality. (38) a. Most of our students will be professors in a few years. (most….> will) b. Most of our students will be foreigners in a few years. (will > most…) As the contrast between (34), on the one hand, and (37)-(38), on the other, illustrates, quantification constitutes a vivid domain for certain effects of epistemic modals. A further question concerns the issue whether these data have consequences for the structural representation of the modals. Let’s note that this result, as an interesting by-product, may shed light on the relationship between tense and epis-

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

177

temic modality, which we have discussed from other perspectives so far. There remain some empirical issues pointed out by the authors themselves; cf. also the glitch with the interpretive possibility allowed for, e.g., by Ernst (1991) (with the scopal order quantifier > modal, as in (29) above; cf. also Kroch 1974). Nonetheless, the specific experiments seem well-designed and the data coherent, so (for immediate purposes) it will be assumed as a useful approximation since we are not concerned with quantificational issues per se. We propose that epistemic modals scope out much of the functional material of the clause including tense and quantifiers, with strong additional evidence coming from VPE licensing to be presented below. For the moment, it is interesting to note that both the previous case of negation as functional material and quantifiers can be observed at work at the same time, with the epistemic operator scoping over them. This is illustrated in (39), (cf. (14)). (39) and then school one would really be better than school two in two ways. it both would be more effective … and it would be more equitable. so everyone might not agree that those are good qualities of schools but […](MICASE, recorded lecture transcript, June 7, 2001) In (39), it is unlikely that everyone dismisses qualities like effective and equitable and that this possibility would then be raised by the lecturer as yielding for all the students the possibility of not agreeing (quantifier > modal). Rather, the scopal ordering is along the lines of ‘it is possible that not everyone agrees’ (modal > neg > quantifier). To sum up: For present purposes the insight brought by the quantificational approach is of particular interest in two respects: (A) with regard to the relationship between tenses and epistemic modality (through the comparison via the third term of quantification we could establish that epistemic modals scope higher than tense operators); and (B) theoretically, with regard to the idea of relative ordering – relative ordering is an interesting option to rigid base-generation phrase-structure. The present syntactic proposal is given in (40) schematically for illustration. (40)

Mod1 P

Mod1/Agr…

Mod2/T, etc. [+iTense]

Mod2 P

… possible further (co-)licensing (head)P Asp/Pr/etc..

vP../VP

178

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

Specifically, based inter alia on the indirect evidence from quantification, we propose to have epistemic modals take scope over a node carrying a [T]-feature such as Mod2 in (40). The typical, if not unique, locus of [T] is the head T, which is a projecting functional category at least in English; that is, Mod2=T. The notation “iT” indicates that the formal feature [T] is interpretable.17 Further interpretable material can be merged to the phrase marker in the area between Mod2 and VP thus accounting for example for the co-licensing cases discussed in Chapter 4. On minimal assumptions this is just fine; that is, the structure is not a fixed phrase-marker, but we merge elements drawing from a numeration on the basis of their features, where merge comes for free. The scope position of an epistemic modal is Mod1. Since we have seen strong distinctions between epistemics and counterfactuals, we implement the difference by assuming that true epistemics are beyond the scope of a formal [T] feature.18 This allows various options, which become interesting with multiple and single VPE extensional licensers, both in the diachronic scenario we have investigated in Chapter 4, and in the synchronic data in sections 4 and 5 of this chapter, discussing the factor of modal force. We return to the mechanism of how the core modals are merged (but also moved) in the structure in (40).

3.3. Finiteness and non-assertive factors 3.3.1. The finiteness requirement on epistemics According to some of the modal literature, epistemics can only appear in finite contexts, a restriction called the finiteness requirement. There are two main ways of testing the finiteness requirement on epistemic modals: essentially, either by considering sequences of multiple modals and the individual interpretations of each of the modals in a given sequence (is only the finite modal epistemic?), or by teasing apart sequences of the type Aux + Modal vs. Modal + Aux, if available, and again, testing the available interpretations. Such arguments are generally well known from the literature on, e.g., the Germanic languages and to some extent Gaelic and Romance varieties (cf. Abraham 2001; Butler 2003; Drubig 2003; Eide 2002; Marrano 1997; Plank 1984; Reis 2001; Thráinsson and Vikner 1995). Butler, for instance, implements this observation by calling the (epistemic) possibility position FinP. The label stems from the Split-CP research (Rizzi 1997), but Butler, while not giving direct arguments in Rizzi’s focus-theoretic terms (which include indeed the labels TopP, FocP, FinP), adopts the label through an assumption hinging on the finiteness requirement on epistemics, more specifically observing that while “It is highly unlikely that modality should be in any way related to topicalization. There is evidence, though, that finiteness is relevant to epistemic interpreted modals” (p.

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

179

986). This much justifies why FinP and not another label. The conclusion, however, that epistemic possibility and root possibility (and say, why not epistemic possibility and epistemic necessity) should, in virtue of the finiteness constraint on epistemics, occupy the FinP head position remains somewhat less clear to my mind. Further, stated cross-linguistically, the restriction may also face problematic cases. Thráinsson and Vikner (1995: 76) note cases of “epistemic under epistemic” modality and Eide (2002) claims problematic examples in Norwegian dialects.19 For (Standard) ModE the utility of the requirement is not directly transparent given that all modals share a finiteness requirement; therefore it is naturally harder to test the restriction.20 There are, however, situations in which the semantic nuances of the modals may be teased apart under multiple sequencing. Periphrastic modals, such as have to, share the ambiguity between epistemic and root construals with the core modals. When under the scope of a core modal, however, they only allow a root reading and the epistemic reading is only possible for the structurally higher grammaticalized modal. The attested examples in (41), from the BNC and the FROWN corpus illustrate this.21 (41) a. Presumably they must have to pay for all the preparation leading up to an operation of this sort, and pay the staff who are waiting around. (BNC: The East Anglian. East Anglian Daily Times Company, Ipswich (1993-03)) b. If you are sailing with higher-rated boats, you may have to abandon this safety margin, sail on to get clear air, and go to windward of the parade of faster boats to the layline. (FROWN: E06 89) Somewhat similarly and generally under heavier distributional restrictions, need under the scope of a core modal tends to only have a root construal.22 (42) a. Given the forecast, onset of winter and the state of the weather which washed out more than half yesterday's play, he may not need to stir himself further in this game. (BNC; Daily Telegraph, electronic edition of 1992-04-15: Leisure pages.) b. I don't think we'll always need paid carers quite often simply a good coordination of what's possible might solve some of the problems and we might not need to employ anyone (BNC; Dementia and home care. Askham, J. and Thompson, C., Age Concern England, Mitcham 1990) To sum up, the finiteness requirement being “too” pervasive in Standard English, it does not yield knock-out arguments on the status of epistemic modals on its own. However, in the marginal instances in which it can be observed, and quite similarly

180

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

in the dialectal or diachronic variants in which modals can iterate (see section 5 of this chapter) or follow auxiliaries, the observation do not contradict the structural possibility of epistemics being located higher up in clausal architecture.

3.3.2. Arguments from non-assertive contexts As was mentioned in Chapter 2, modals may be divided with respect to their felicity in so-called non-assertive contexts. A large subset of questions is such a context, in which epistemic interpretations tend to be infelicitous; (Cinque 1999; Drubig 2001; Jackendoff 1972; McDowell 1987; a.o.). (43) Could the tsunami disaster be a turning point for the world? (The Independent, on-line edition, January 4, 2005) (43) is well formed, with an alethic reading. Drubig (1998) argues that some of the examples cited in the literature cannot be epistemic; cf. (44). (44) *Must anyone who registered be a sophomore? The observation that can be applied to (44) is that it contains the free-choice quantifier any. However, Carlson (1981) argues that epistemic necessity (unlike possibility) cannot license free-choice any, cf. (45). (45) *Anyone must be in that room. Furthermore, somewhat similarly to polar questions, it has been pointed out that wh-questions tend to bar an epistemic interpretation. Consider (46), from Drubig (2001), and (47), both of which exclude epistemic readings. (46) a. Why must/may John leave early tonight? (*epistemic/deontic) b. Who must/may leave early tonight? (*epistemic/deontic) (47) Why Can't the Democrats Get Tough? (Washington Monthly, March 2002) A straightforward account might posit competition for the derivation-final scope position of the epistemic modals, stipulating that it is C, the same position in which question operators are standardly taken to reside. McDowell posits for instance a co-indexation mechanism with C. The issue shows, however, further intricacies. Drubig (2001) discusses how also clause-initial so-anaphora (cf. sectin 5.2) and exclamatives, which would equally show the modal to be in the C-domain in cases

Exploring the epistemic vs. root distinction

181

of subject-auxiliary inversion, are fine on epistemic interpretation, and moreover deliberative self-addressed questions are also at least marginally acceptable (see also Brennan 1993; Cinque 1999; Papafragou 1998).23 (48) ?Must Alfred have cancer? Further examples support a more restrictive view on the claimed bar of epistemic readings in questions. Consider, e.g., (49). One reading is questioning whether the draft will come back, say, in view of the latest rumors surrounding the war situation, i.e. it arguably has an epistemic reading. (49) Could the Draft Come Back?

(Newsweek, June 6, 2004)

To conclude, we continue to assume epistemic modals in a position c-commanding tense, but not generally as high as the C-domain. We take the marginality of the epistemic interpretation in questions, rather than being a syntactic consequence of competition for the landing position in interrogatives, as an effect of the extrapropositional status of epistemic modals.24

3.3.3. Further morphosyntactic evidence In this subsection, we ask whether the asymmetries in modal features can be corroborated by phenomena in languages which show overt morphosyntactic properties. The claim is not that modals should be treated under a universal syntax, but rather simply observe that feature bundling involving the modals can give rise to certain asymmetric syntactic, morphological, semantic, and grammaticalization phenomena in various subsets. Some scope issues revolving around epistemic modals have been argued to be morphosyntactically solvable. While counterfactuals can be ambiguous in English, they additionally can overtly be resolved in a language like German. Thus, while (50) is ambiguous, morphological disambiguation ensues in (51); cf. Condoravdi (2002), von Stechow (2003). (50) John might have won. (51) a. John könnte gewonnen haben. (e.g., epistemic) ‘It is possible that John won’ b. John hätte gewinnen können. (alethic counterfactual) ‘There was the possibility for John to win.’

182

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

German morphologically disambiguates the readings in that the counterfactual reading is only allowed when the modal is selected by hätte ‘had’. By contrast, the modal that favors an epistemic reading selects the auxiliary.25 Second, a consideration of diachronic change also proves interesting to the epistemic-root distinction. Assuming that – as far as the relevant structural approximation is concerned (cf. also Chapters 2 and 4) – diachronic reanalysis applies from a lower to a higher syntactic position (Roberts 1993; Roberts and Roussou 2003; but see Beths 1999), there is a development of the core modals from root meanings to epistemic ones. Although there remain variables in the historical account, e.g. with respect the exact type of “epistemicity,” there is consensus on one issue, i.e. that the development in (52) took place as in (52a), rather than as in (52b) (cf., e.g., van Gelderen 2003; Sweetser 1990; Traugott 1989; Warner 1993). (52) Main syntax-semantic development of the core English modals26 a. ROOT > EPI b. *EPI > ROOT Third, notice that there is an interesting agreement asymmetry arising in Modern Greek, according to Palmer (1986) pertinent to the epistemic-root dichotomy. Thus while the epistemic construal in (53) lacks subject-agreement properties, the root reading in (54) displays agreement. (53) ta peðjá borí na fíγun ávrio the children BORO.3sg.imp that leave.3pl.pf tomorrow AGREE

‘The children may leave tomorrow.’

(epistemic)

(54) ta peðjá borún na fíγun ávrio the children BORO.3pl.imp that leave.3pl.pf tomorrow AGREE

‘The children can leave tomorrow.’

(root: deontic/dynamic)

Fourth, another cross-linguistic observation can be adduced from Romanian with respect to the type of grammaticalized embedding under modals. Romanian modals have been discussed in the literature concerned both with issues of Romance linguistics and of the languages spoken on the Balkan peninsula (Alboiu 2000; Avram 1994; Monachesi 1999; Motapanyane and Avram 2001; Rivero 1994). Indeed their syntax shows a mixed typology of embedding, which can descriptively roughly be approximated by a restructuring type (of notably limited use) and a finite-

Effects of modal force

183

embedding type.27 A further preliminary is that generally modals in Romanian (on one and the same lexical root) can display the epistemic/root distinction, thus confirming the ambiguity-related generalization of modals in various, especially European, languages. The distinction interacts, however, with the type of embedding. Consider the restructuring type, instantiated by putea ‘can/may’; cf. (55). (55) Adriana vă poate ajuta. Adriana cl.2.pl can help.inf. ‘Adriana can help you.’ The possibility modal takes an infinitive complement and is accompanied by (interestingly obligatory) clitic-climbing (cf., e.g., Rizzi’s 1978 clitic-climbing criterion for restructuring). The crucial part for our purposes in this structure, however, is the interpretation, which can only be non-epistemic. When topping out a richer structure, i.e. appearing in a Balkan-Sprachbund configuration, putea (‘can, may’) can be epistemic as in (56). (56) Ursul panda poate [să dispară] Bear.the panda can SĂ.SUBJ disappear ‘The panda bear may become extinct.’ While the various types of modal and temporal structures available in Romanian go beyond the present scope, it is clear that in terms of their relative syntax, the epistemic interpretations scope out root ones, on this type of embedding argument instantiated by the Romanian modals as well. In this section, we have illustrated the possibility of epistemic modals to show distinguishable semantic, historical, agreement-morphologic and syntacticembedding properties from a cross-linguistic perspective. Next, we investigate a more neglected domain within the modal parameters.

4. Effects of modal force Though less discussed and less wide-spread than the epistemic/deontic distinctions, various cases of morphosyntactic necessity/possibility asymmetries are attested and will be discussed shortly. Moreover, though less common, arguably for rather obvious communicative reasons, even ambiguities between obligation and permission (one facet of the necessity/possibility or strong/weak difference) can arise. Such ambiguities can also give rise to diachronic shifts (see below).28 In the following, we will consider scope, diachronic and possible structural arguments concerning the

184

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

necessity modal must and how it differs from possibility modals. We also present some morphosyntactic cross-linguistic asymmetries pertaining to the distinction between necessity and possibility.

4.1. Additional scope asymmetries The property of the English necessity modal must to take wide scope with respect to negation, unlike, e.g., German müssen is a striking fact, obviously not explainable on a universal LF requirement. Consider the difference between must and can, in (57) vs. (58) (cf. Butler 2003). (57) The children mustn’t do that in here. (58) The children can’t do that in here.

(NEC > NEG) (NEG > POSS)

On root readings, a scope difference obtains: While in (57) negation takes narrow scope, in (58) the reversed order ensues. Recent studies (Butler 2003; Cormack and Smith 2002; Hollander 1999) have capitalized on this type of distinctions and claimed that necessity may occupy a structurally higher position than possibility. Cinque’s (1999) syntactic investigation also assumes a split between modal projections for necessity and possibility for some cases of root modality though not for epistemic modality. Butler claims that the distinction transfers to both root and epistemic modality.

4.2. Further evidence for necessity Given that in English none of the core modals can appear either under the scope of another auxiliary or modal or overtly agree with the subject, we have a similar impasse as with the distinctions in the modal base: co-occurrence and agreement tests are inapplicable. We first point out a cross-linguistic distinction from the literature and propose that certain developments and distinctions arising from the grammaticalized lexical items in English sheds initial light on the dichotomy. Picallo (1990) notes in an important study on the syntax of modality that Catalan epistemic modals may be merged higher than root modals. But the data she adduces are interesting even beyond this point; cf. (59) vs. (60). (59) En Joan ha pogut anar a Banyoles. Joan has can/may.prt go to Banyoles ‘Joan has been allowed to go to Banyoles.’

Effects of modal force

185

(60) *En Pere havia degut venir. Pere had must.prt come. The distinction reveals the aforementioned higher-scope status of epistemicity, in that only the root construal is allowed under the auxiliary. Furthermore, the arguably higher modal in (60), that is, the one that does not appear under the scope of another auxiliary – viz. in most dialects (cf. Solà et al. 2002) – is not only an epistemic marker, as was observed above, but it also semantically represents a modal of universal force. Dichotomies between universals and existentials can thus also appear grammaticalized in a manner which parallels the celebrated examples from the modal-base dichotomy in Germanic or Romance. Turning to English, let’s note that the speech situations can render possibility and ability modals such as can, could, may, might into strong suggestions or even obligations e.g. in the second person; cf. Palmer (1986). (61) You may leave now, Sergeant Jones. This is clearly a pragmatic factor to begin with. If we had a purely logical system, the only entailment might be expected to go precisely otherwise, if at all; i.e. by using necessity modals for possibility since universal truths would entail existential truths. In a simplified account, if something is true in all relevant possible worlds, then it is trivially true in at least one such world. But what often obtains are changes from possibility to necessity. Although there is hardly a reason to change the semantic-lexical entries of such verbs due to their pragmatic environments alone, the effects often have further repercussions. Thus while, the pragmatic relationship in general might be counterargued by a critic to be too unstable to reveal anything with regard to the development from one type of modality to another (out of which we might be tempted to search for structural relationships), notice that cases in which the semantic entry for may is that of a necessity modal are attested, for instance in Irish or Asian English (OED). Therefore, third, it may be worth considering two diachronic facts with respect to the necessity vs. possibility distinction over the history of English (see especially the entries in the OED and Visser 1973). First, today’s necessity modal must has not even a close morphological cognate counterpart in the paradigm (cf. may-might; even if might is not the past tense of may). This is due to the fact that must itself was a preterite and mot came into disuse. Second, and more importantly at this point, must originally (and still in OE and rather marginally in ME) was a modal expressing notions of ability and permission coming closer to PDE can, if anything, than to typical necessity modals. Thus we come to the representation (62), in which the tendency of this particular modal change is represented.

186

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

(62) OE mot (be allowed to) POSS > NEC in ModE must If one assumes that diachronic reanalysis is derivable from a structural reinterpretation thtat goes from a lower to a higher position (Roberts and Roussou 2003), then the development may correlate with a structural distinction in the modals reflecting the modal force distinction.29 Some similar cases are known from other Germanic languages also with cognates of mot. But the question arises whether similar developments are attested in other cases. For instance, could something like magan ‘may’, i.e. the other OE existential modal have developed into a universal modal? Pragmatically may can indeed rapidly be interpreted as such provided the appropriate context, as seen, and it appears to have done so more systematically, i.e. in the lexical entries, in some dialects. Bostjan Dvořák (p.c.) points out that the Slovenian modal mórati (‘must’), originally a modal of possibility is in modern usage a universal, i.e. a necessity modal.30 There are, however, some more issues that should be pointed out with regard to must. Traugott (1999) has investigated the history of must from the perspective of invited inferencing along the lines of a Gricean maxim of quantity. She mentions the possibility of past form most- with non-past meanings in particular, e.g., in the Wycliffite sermons. She points out the importance of the modal-have-en construction in late ME, which she takes to “unambiguously demonstrate that most- was no longer understood as marked for past tense.” As we have seen, have can instead be a marker of substitute past tense. An even stronger correlation obtains (not noted in Traugott’s judicious article): While we agree with the importance of the construction mentioned by Traugott (see also the observations in the previous chapters), the reversed order, i.e. have+moot, is not attested (e.g., in the OED or in the PPCME 2). (63) have moot.PRT (not found) By contrast, participial forms of cognates of may are relatively frequently attested in ME, for instance in the works of Thomas More, a notorious user of non-finite forms of the modals, as exemplified in (64) (cf. OED). (64) Yf we had mought conuenyently come togyther. (1528, Th. MORE) Many of the syntactic parameters are different, but the contrast between possibility and necessity is in essence still reminiscent of the distinction from Catalan seen above, in that possibility and necessity took different paths with respect to grammaticalization under the scope of auxiliaries.

Effects of modal force

187

4.3. Morphosyntax and agreement The question arises whether similar asymmetries to the epistemic/root distinction (cf. 3.4) ever obtain along the lines of modal force. In this section, we show that such cases are possible. To the extent that Palmer’s (1986) diagnostic of agreement – and lack thereof – is indicative of grammatical properties, there are languages which also display a morphological possibility/necessity distinction, just as Palmer observes for the epistemic/root dichotomy in Greek above. Consider the Romanian data in (65) and (66). (65) a. Maria nu poate veni/ să vină la cinema. M. neg can.3sg come.inf/ SĂ.SUBJ come.3sg to cinema Maria can’t come to the cinema. b. Noi nu putem veni la cinema. we neg can.1pl. come to cinema (Possibility, Permission/ Existential) AGREE (66) a. Ion nu trebuie să se obosească. Ion neg must.3 sg SĂ.SUBJ refl.1pl get-tired.3sg Ion needn’t get tired. b. Noi nu trebuie să ne obosim. we neg must.3sg SĂ.SUBJ refl.1pl get-tired.1pl (Necessity/ Universal) AGREE

Besides the trivial distinction of being lexicalized on different roots, the two modals show different agreement properties. While the possibility modal shows subject agreement, the necessity modal in (66) does not establish morphological agreement. Given that this phenomenon is less well known, we illustrate some of its aspects and exclude some interfering possibilities. First, it is necessary to distinguish between trebui ‘need/must’ as a full verb vs. modal. The two differ in morphological and case-assigning properties. The existence of the non-modal ‘need’ variant offers a counterfoil; on this meaning, agreement with the nominative (i.e. theme in this case) is possible, as in (67), while with the modal, cf. (66), it was not. (67) Noi nu trebuim nimănui. we.nom neg need.1pl nobody.dat Nobody needs us.

188

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

What needs to be ruled out is an “impersonal-verb” syntax, say along the lines of the French il faut type. In such cases lack of agreement might have another source. Variability in case licensing is in fact not uncommon. For instance, Icelandic is well known for its “Dative Sickness,” a prescriptively combated happenstance, due to which dative arguments are increasingly used in argument places originally occupied by other cases. Though somewhat less well-known, “Nominative Sickness”, in which nominatives are used instead of obliques, also exists, e.g., in Catalan, and elsewhere, but it is hardly in effect with modals (Rigau 1999). Let’s notice here more generally that impersonal modals in Romance, though quite frequent and of etymologically various origins do not generally license nominatives, as shown in (68). In Romanian, while the ‘need’ variant does not take a nominative subject either, the ‘must’ modal only allows a nominative, as shown in (69). (68) a. *Jean faut partir. (French) b. *Gianni bisogna partire. (Italian) c. *Jordi cal partir. (Catalan) ‘Jean/… (nom) must leave.’ (69) *Ion/*El/Lui îi trebuie o carte. (Romanian: ‘need’) Ion/he/him.dat cl.3sg.m.dat needs a book ‘Ion/He needs a book.’ (70) Ion/ El/*Lui trebuie să plece. (Romanian: ‘must’) Ion/he/him.dat must SĂ.SUBJ leave ‘Ion/he must/needs to leave.’ The modal in point has grammaticalized differently from the more common impersonal constructions. Another earmark of the regular type of nominative caseassignment can be given through an expletive test. The modal trebui ‘must’ can also appear in a type of expletive construction characteristic with a nominative subject clitic. Though not considered for modals, the construction is analyzed in detail by Cornilescu (2000); cf. (71). (71) a. Vine el tata mâine. comes he father tomorrow

b. *Vine mâine el tata. comes tomorrow he father

Subject clitics in Romanian are distributionally distinct from the better known cases of pronominal subjects in French or Northern Italian dialects. They also have distinct syntactic and prosodic properties from reduplicative processes. According to Cornilescu (2000), they are expletive constructions. We can transfer the diagnostic in two steps: first by noting that the expletives are case-sensitive.31 Note that an oblique case is illicit, as in (72). Second, the same nominative case of the expletive

VPE licensing as interpretability

189

is visible in conjunction with the universal modal trebui ‘must’ and is licensed under similar conditions, as illustrated in (73). We conclude that the necessity modal trebui ‘must’ has well-behaved subject and case properties but, unlike the possibility modal putea ‘can/may’, it has defective agreement. (72) *Vine lui tata mâine. comes him.dat father tomorrow (73) a. Trebuie el (/*lui) tata să vină. must he /him father SĂ.SUBJ come b. *Trebuie mâine el tata să vină. must tomorrow he father SĂ.SUBJ come ‘Father must come tomorrow.’ Returning to English, a final point is that modal derivational morphology presents a further asymmetry. English derivational morphology only provides a possibility operator, -able, and no similar necessity operator. Thus an enjoyable book, a doable task, every conceivable colonist and in recent usage even the derivation of get-atable or come-at-able are possible (OED), but no similar derivations with a necessity operator are attested.32 We have seen effects of modal force starting out from scope issues and ranging over various morphosyntactic diagnostics. In English, much of the evidence crossclassifies (e.g. with the modal base). The last case can illustrate this. Although we have used it to show an asymmetry in modal force, it has independently been observed by Di Sciullo (1996) from the perspective of the modal base. The suffix able is not only an existential operator in its core meaning, it is also root (rather than epistemic), more specifically dynamic. Epistemicity does not seem to appear in the derivational morphology of English. Conversely, dynamic modality as an inflectional element is not attested in English (and is uncommon cross-linguistically as well; cf. Bybee 1985). Syntactic and morphological evidence leads us to propose that both modal base and modal force should be taken into account.

5. VPE licensing as interpretability In this section, we continue the investigation of the dichotomy determined by modal force and modal base by inspecting ellipsis licensing. At the same time, the section more fully develops the ellipsis-licensing account itself.

190

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

5.1. On the epistemic-ellipsis restriction It has been noted in the literature (Depiante 2000; Drubig 1998, 2001; López and Winkler 2000; McDowell 1987; Gergel 2003) that epistemic readings of modals which would be fully acceptable in spelled out contexts become considerably degraded when the same modals are placed in directly-licensing ellipsis contexts. Let’s call this the epistemic restriction. Consider (74)-(76) as an initial set of data (cited here from Drubig 2001). (74) a. John must wash his car every day. (epi & root) b. J. must wash his car every day and Peter must _ too. (*epi) (75) John will often sit there and do nothing and Bill will _ too. (*epi) (76) John may not obey his mother, but he must _ his father. (??epi) Sentence (74a) shows the often invoked ambiguity of the modals (e.g., Butler 2003; Drubig 2007; Stowell 2004: 623). It displays a root and an epistemic reading. However, the ambiguity is not naturally preserved once a continuation enclosing a VPE site is added, as in (74b). Only the root reading is available for the antecedent and conjunct of the sentence. Similarly, the epistemic readings of will and must are excluded in (75) and (76). We will account for such licensing properties through an anchoring condition, motivated by proper interface legibility of a formal feature, which we discuss in section 5.4 in some detail (cf. Merchant 2001; López 2001, as well as Chapters 2 and 3 on the role of interpretation in ellipsis from other perspectives). Let’s note right away that the role of temporality as a typical formal licensing element can be illustrated with VPE sites co-licensed with auxiliary have. The distinction between direct licensing and co-licensed ellipsis sites plays an important syntactic role. Winkler (2003), for instance, qualifies the potential restriction on epistemics, pointing out that it does not directly carry over to examples such as (77). (77) a. Ben could have answered the question, but Jan couldn’t have. b. John shouldn't have been being blackmailed, but George should have (been). While examples such as (77) allow epistemic construals, they also display colicensed rather than directly licensed VPE sites. If the licensing property resides within a suitable [T] feature grammaticalized to directly anchor (c-command) the site of speech omission, as we propose, then such cases involving have and be are explained since it is precisely the additional auxiliary in charge of elision rather then the modal on its own. The cases which primarily and immediately fall under

VPE licensing as interpretability

191

the co-licensing observation are Hoffmann’s (1976) disguised past tenses (past tense replacement; cf. Chapter 2). By adopting an analysis of aspect in which aspectual heads accomplish a similar syntactic task as temporal elements (e.g., Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria’s 2000), we can generalize this observation to aspectual auxiliaries. In a simplified account, aspect orders time intervals relative to one another (cf. also Comrie 1976; Klein 1994; a.o.). Thus we assume the same type of feature for the feature-matrices of various aspectual heads. For instance, this may explain why both should have and should have been are valid licensers in (77b) above. Returning to the epistemic restriction, the goal is to derive it through the feature make up of the licensing material. As (77) shows, there is no general occurrence prohibition of epistemic readings with VPE in a single clause. In fact, it would be puzzling to find one, given that a VPE site inherits the properties of the elided VP at the syntax-semantics interface, provided it is licensed at all. What rather is the case is that licensing fails. The epistemic restriction is a result of the structural position non-licensing epistemics have grammaticalized to in English, conjoined by the local anchoring conditions on VPE (i.e. under sisterhood with an interpretable formal feature such as [T]). Once a supporting (e.g., past-tense replacement) or further meaningful (e.g., aspectual) head carrying [T] is merged to the phrase marker epistemic readings are accounted for. While we will present further refinements and their applications in Standard English momentarily, the present proposal also accounts for some VPE data from African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Green (2002) discusses VPE in AAVE, and argues that the general VPE mechanism is similar to Standard English, even though the auxiliary system itself is not, unveiling differences, as in (78). (78) Bruce Ø dancing, and Dee Ø dancing, too. (79) Bruce dancing, and Dee is, too. Green’s (2002) data, moreover, show the interaction of zero auxiliaries with extensionally licensed VPE contexts. The syntax of AAVE sanctions the absence of an overt copula, as in (78). But in VPE structures, the auxiliary is overtly present, cf. (79). Moody (2004) mentions cases of modally licensed ellipsis in AAVE; cf. the contrast in (80) vs. (81). (80) Larry must can play, and Stacy must can _, too. (81) *Larry must can play, and Stacy must, too. In the double-modal sequence in (80), must has an epistemic construal, while can conveys root meaning, which according to Moody can be either physical ability (i.e. dynamic) or permissive (i.e. deontic). Moody shows that the exact reading of can in

192

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

such constructions can be disambiguated, by considering the position of the negation marker. It is distinct not only regarding its modal force but also regarding the modal base from must, which has an epistemic reading in (80). Assume that a root modal also has a [T] feature allowing it to directly license VPE since root modals induce a specific (re-)orientation of the event time to the future. Then we can expect it to co-anchor VPE in multiple-modal AAVE, somewhat similarly to auxiliaries carrying a [T] feature in their feature matrices in Standard English, so that the higher epistemic modal will no longer play a hindering role in the derivational process of VPE. This is matched in (80) and further illustrated in (82) below. Root can is merged and its T feature licenses VPE. (82)

Mod1 P

Mod1/Agr… must

Mod2 P [+iTense]

Mod2/T can

VP play

5.2. Further arguments for semantically motivated licensing in CHL In this subsection, we argue that while crucially semantics-sensitive, the epistemic restriction we have discussed above and its licensing mechanics are due to morphosyntactic properties of the modals and VPE.

5.2.1. The counterfoil evidence of pro-forms Pro-forms such as do so or so anaphora often become competitors of ellipsis in modal contexts. Searching for the source of the degraded sentences inspected in the previous section, we raise the question whether the epistemic restriction on ellipsis in directly licensed MLE transfers to comparable proforms. While there are interesting parallels, we will argue that proforms do not obey the same syntactic licensing conditions VPE does. With co-merged tense morphology packaged for instance in past tensereplacement have, epistemic readings are supported.

VPE licensing as interpretability

193

(83) a. We assume that because modern shows are done "off book", the Elizabethans must have done so too. (adapted from www.savageshakespeare.com) b. Because he spoke out so strongly in both cases, I suppose he might have done so "several" other times. (National Review, August 12, 2002) c. Ben could have answered the question, but Jan couldn’t have done so. d. *John shouldn't have been being blackmailed, but George should have (been) done so. Even though the retrieval of the passive VP in (83d) is not licensed, the other examples in (83) show that it is possible co-license do so under the scope of an epistemic modal and have. (The agentivity of do so may conflict with the necessary absorption of this factor in passives.) However, we want to know whether directly licensed cases occur. Searching in the MICASE corpus, examples such as (84) could be found: (84) a. usually, sovereign states individual states you know we noted resort to, to three forms of influence, techniques. and they may do so in sequuence (MICASE, Political Science Lecture, July 1999) b. in fact Law says, if God is to act on what is fit for a being with his quote, divinely perfect and incomprehensible nature quote, then he must necessarily act by a rule above all human comprehension. he must do so precisely because he is not arbitrary. (MICASE, Philosophy Colloquium, February 2000) However, in (84) both may and must are alethic and not epistemic. It seems then that epistemically licensed do so is at least not a widely attested phenomenon, a consideration which might encourage a generalization of proforms and VPE according to which both would tend to avoid epistemic contexts. The putative failure may (only partly) be blamed on the eventive character of this anaphora, arguably due to residual properties of its component do, which is clearly not the auxiliary do involved in VPE.33 Although the anaphora is generally disfavored in stative contexts, as in (85) (cf. Huddleston and Pullum 2002), it is not impossible to retrieve stative predicate per se with do so, as in (86), arguably under aspectual coercion. (85) He liked it. *At least he said he did so. (86) They must [be physically present] and they must [do so] with poise. (GGL: www.ksg.harvard.edu)

194

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

Moreover, while the first conjunct of (86) would allow an ambiguity between a root and an epistemic reading (pace pragmatic preference for the deontic reading even though we have a stative predicate), with both conjuncts merged, a root interpretation is preferable. So is the epistemic restriction to be confirmed for proforms in general, after all? Let’s consider (87). (87) a. Just as the United States and the European Union have chosen different paths on GM food, they might do so on biotechnology in general. (Issues in Science and Technology, Fall 2004) b. But individual Scouts, troops and councils may still choose to cease this destructive course. And we are confident that the National Council must eventually do so too if the honor of Scouting is to be upheld. (GGL: www.scoutingforall.org) The modals might and must in (87) allow epistemic readings and do so. Speaker judgments also indicate compatibility, as shown in (88). (88) a. Peter must go to the gym every day and Jane must do so, too. b. ?John will sit there and do nothing and Sue will often do so, too. The pro-form so is another case in point which could contradict the purported generalization. Following Drubig (2001), we argue that for English a proform generalization cannot be upheld, cf. (89). (89) John must/may a. wash his car every day b. have arrived late c. be a successful student

and so must/may Mary.

The combinations contain the proform in the second conjunct and are felicitous for epistemic must and may. Proforms for abstract entities cannot be taken as generally incompatible with epistemicity. It also follows that we cannot derive the epistemic restriction from a postulate barring epistemic readings in connection with proforms for propositional entities in English. A final byproduct of this investigation is the result that a parallelism between proforms and VPE would have one additional piece which cannot fit.

VPE licensing as interpretability

195

5.2.2. The one-LF issue in MLE derivations Returning to VPE, assume that the observed restriction were solely LF-determined. This would also need an explanation since it is not obvious what could go awry with meaning retrieval to block epistemic interpretations. After all, in a standard logical form epistemic modality is a legitimate object and there are plenty of epistemically modalized VPs of course. However, in VPEs the issue arises. A generalization along universal semantic restrictions would equally (and especially) be precluded on the simplest PF-deletion theory of VPE. On usual ellipsis accounts, and even more so on many of the PF-deletion accounts, the LF of a VPE structure is not different from its spelled out counterpart pace pragmatic felicitousness. (90) John must be at the concert hall ??and Mary must be at the concert hall too. (epi) and Mary must be at the concert hall too. Since the two outputs in VPE and non-elided sentences are identical at LF, following the standard MP model we hypothesize that the distinction is due to a licensing condition on VPE on the basis of a syntactic feature.

5.2.3. Aspects of theta-theory Depiante (2000) observes the epistemic restriction for Spanish, and proposes an explanation in terms of thematic roles. Depiante’s (2000: 45) claim is that since epistemics are not assigners of external theta roles, the restriction follows. There are, however, two issues: First, if all modals are raising-like verbs (plus, say, further language-particular syntactic properties; cf. also this chapter above and Chapter 2), one could not distinguish epistemics from roots from the perspective of theta-roles any longer, because arguably there may be no theta-roles in modals. Second, various extensional licensers do not theta-mark their external A-positions, but do not hinder ellipsis for that reason either. Empirical support for this observation comes from the ‘be/have/do’-type of licensers.34 VPE data as in (91)-(92) are relevant since such auxiliaries are standardly assumed to lack external (or often virtually any) theta-role assignment, but they are licensers in languages with the grammaticalized predicate-ellipsis systems.35 (91) a. She was talking to my grandmother, and she told her that for so long as she lived she would never ever again work for a white man. And she never again did _. (FROWN: G74 /161)

196

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

b. Of course, I've heard all the rumours, so I suppose you have _ too. (BNC: Hearts in hiding. Grey, Alice, Mills Boon, Richmond, Surrey 1993) c. PRESSED for the pros and cons of being the son of one of the famous, Rock replies: I think I'm among the most blessed of people who ever lived and I think Liza is _ too. (BNC: The Guardian, electronic edition of 198911-11) d. If this is not grossly indecent, he asked, you may be led to wonder what is_. (BNC: Liberty and Legislation. Hoggart, Richard. Frank Cass: London 1989) (92) Portuguese (Cyrino and Matos 2002) a. A Ana já tinha lido o livro à irmã mas a Paula não tinha. the A. already had read the book to-the sister but the P. not had ‘Ana had already read the book to her sister but Paula had not.’ b. O João é simpático para todas as pessoas e a Ana também é. the João is nice for all the people and the Ana too is ‘João is nice to everybody and Ana is, too.’ Summarizing, the epistemic restriction, semantically motivated, can on closer inspection not be directly blamed on lexical or on universal LF conditions. We propose that the paradox can be solved if one assumes an interface-motivated but CHLimplemented licensing mechanism. The point reinforced is a direct licensing through the semantically and structurally suitable licenser for VPE, given that other pro-forms and spelled out counterparts do not face the restriction in the same way.

5.3. Modal force with ellipsis While some part of the specialized literature concerned with ellipsis and modals notes the problematic examples as to the constraint on epistemicity introduced in the previous section, let’s note that it is also possible to find examples which run counter to it as it stands. In fact, they sometimes also stem from some of the linguistic literature, though not from the same works concerned with the effects of modally licensed ellipsis. Consider (93)-(95). (93) John will fly to London and Mary may_ too. (Boškovic, 1994: 280) (94) She might have been watching more often television than he might (have (been _ )). (Radford 1997: 110) (95) ?Wallace might have eaten bagels, and Gromit might _ cheese. (Phillips 2003: 73)

VPE licensing as interpretability

197

At this point it becomes interesting to notice that the degraded examples inspected above involved the universal quantifiers must (and will).36 However, in light of examples such as (93), with existential modals like might, could, or may, ellipsis licensing becomes possible with both readings. Specifically, the epistemic reading will not be excluded for many speakers. The distinction can be further illustrated through examples such as (96)-(98). (96) Jane may wash her car and Mary may/might/could _ too. (97) Mary will talk to her boss and John might _ to his. (98) “You have to be a real masochist to want to direct,” he says with a smile. But Fearheiley does, and Smith might_ , too. (Gazette.Net, Maryland, 08/29/2002) Quite commonly strong contrasts obtain in the acceptability of epistemic MLE structures licensed by a possibility operator vs. a strong necessity operator such as pointed out for must by informants of American English. Consider (99). (99) a. She might have been watching television more often than he might. b. *She might have been watching television more often than he must. In the pair given in (99), a. is a grammatical sentence from the literature (and found entirely fine by some speakers even without the auxiliaries have and be). However, with the modal force changed to necessity, as in b., native speakers of American English rejected the sentences on the relevant reading (e.g., in licensing VPE of have been watching television).37 Further contrasts from solicited judgments, as in (100)-(102), make a similar point.38 *Mary must be a successful student, and they say Frances must too. ?Mary may be a successful student, and they say Frances may too. *Mary must have fallen from the old ladder and Peter must too. ?Mary may have fallen from the old ladder and Peter may too. *Jim doesn’t seem to know his generative syntax, but he must his morphology. b. ?Jim doesn’t seem to know his generative syntax, but he might his morphology.

(100) a. b. (101) a. b. (102) a.

While the judgments offered by consultants should be taken as relative to another rather than absolute, they converged in the distinguished acceptability of the two types of modal force on epistemic readings. What emerges is that some epistemics

198

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

may be first-merged lower down and license ellipsis. A feasible approximation correlates this division with modal force since existential quantifiers have improved licensing qualities over universal ones. Notice though that their scope position in any event is still above the tense operator. Later on we will investigate the VPE licensing property in connection with the tense features of the modals. Moreover, examples co-involving be and have, which pattern syntactically with stativity in many respects (cf. Stowell 2004 for recent discussion), show a further grammaticalized property. Ellen Prince (p.c.) points out that these examples are the most appropriate for the delineation of the restriction. In them, have and be, carrying the [T] feature, are good as licensers, but the examples behave poorly as elided under the direct c-command of an epistemic operator unless there is further colicensing overt material, e.g. in multiple sequences (as in ...and Jane must have been being blackmailed too). This is compatible with the fact that the aspectual feature in those cases has a clear syntactic operator; that is, be/have, which is grammaticalized with regard to ellipsis licensing in Standard English. Finally, there are cross-linguistic asymmetries of modal force with respect to elliptical phenomena. For Romanian, there are certain distinctions between a modal of universal and one of existential force as illustrated in (103) and (104). The type of ellipsis is different from English VPE, but note for now that, for instance, sloppy morphology construals are possible, as in (104).39 (103) a. Maria scrie intr-o lună mai mult decât putea înainte într-un an. M. writes in a month more than can.imp before in a year ‘M. writes in a month more than she previously was able to in a year.’ b. *Scriu acum într-un an mai puŃin decât trebuia într-o lună. write.1sg now in a year DEG little than must.imp in a month ‘I write now in a year less than I had to in a month.’ (104) Dacă Diana îşi creste copiii singură, şi Petru poate/*trebuie if D. dat.cl grow children.det alone too P. can/must crească copiii singur. să-şi SĂ.SUBJ-dat.cl grow children.det alone.m. ‘If Diana can raise her children alone, Petru can/must too.’ The conclusions thus far are the following: (i) there is morphosyntactic evidence supporting structural modal dichotomies partly consonant with, but not restricted to, the scope issues; (ii) these dichotomies cut across both semantic dimensions of modality, i.e. the epistemic/root cleavage and the necessity/possibility distinction; (iii) the ellipsis data under modal licensing show effects of both configurations.

VPE licensing as interpretability

199

5.4. Simplification: An interpretation-based account of licensing 5.4.1. Towards interpretation in licensing In this subsection, we develop a syntactic account for MLE by concentrating on the role played by the temporal features of the modals and by proposing to apply results from the research on tense (cf. Stowell 1996, 2004, among others, and Chapter 2) to the mechanism of MLE licensing. We propose that VPE is a grammaticalized mechanism as indicated by the Generalized Licensing Hypothesis in (105), repeated from above. (105) The Generalized Licensing Hypothesis (GLH) i. A grammaticalized licenser is defined (a) within CHL; and (b) in terms of interface-legibility conditions; ii. The set of potential licensers for VPE is a subset of the formal and interpretable projecting features within the clause; iii. VPE in English is licensed through formal [T]. The goal of the GLH in (105) is to explicate the role of the licenser from a general perspective and at the same time to offer a specific suggestion in phrase-structural terms. While we have toyed with different aspects of the idea of interpretability so far, a temporally based theory accounts for a series of theoretical and empirical issues of MLE and VPE more generally.

5.4.2. Modal phrase structure: An approximation Let’s begin by addressing the question with regard to which properties of VPE are responsible for the success or failure of licensing under the scope of the various modal configurations. A first relevant issue is that the properties are local in nature. Assume we have a system with several stacked functional projections in which the licensing property resides in a projection situated structurally relatively high up (and working its way down through the phrase marker, e.g. via government). Such a system is not able to capture the fact that it is the lower part only (VP, or vP) which is sensitive to licensing and, moreover, essentially only as a function of the projection which directly c-commands it. This can be seen clearly from examples of modal ellipsis co-licensed with tempo-aspectual have/be. Assuming that have is merged into an intermediate projection with a [T] feature (e.g. either T itself or an Asp/Pr-like projection, as argued in Chapter 4), we have seen that the epistemic

200

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

nature of the modal does not play a role any longer, as in (106), repeated from above and Winkler (2003). (106) a. Ben could have answered the question, but Jan couldn’t have. b. John shouldn't have been being blackmailed, but George should have (been). Such cases also show that stress is not a necessary condition for the immediately licensing remnant. For example, have is deaccented and licenses VPE. All the grammaticalized licensing element needs to do is fulfill the locality condition and ccommand the ellipsis site. While we will return to the issue of deaccenting with an additional point, what we need to concentrate on from the modal perspective are cases of MLE in which no further co-licensing functional material intervenes, as the ones discussed in sections 3-5.3, since such cases are best suited to tease apart the properties of the modals. For directly licensed MLE, we had two sets of observations for the investigated licensers: First, based on discriminating interaction with functional material and further syntactic diagnostics, we drew two relative representational generalizations for the syntax of the modals: (1.) Epistemic modals scope higher than root modals (section 3); (2.) Necessity modals are structurally higher than possibility modals (section 4). In sections 5.1- 5.3, we adduced strong corroborating evidence from ellipsis licensing, from which two sister generalizations were obtained: (1VPE.) Root modals tend to elide VPs better than epistemic ones; and (2VPE.) Epistemic-necessity licensed VPE is degraded when compared to epistemicpossibility licensed VPE. Thus, defending (for the moment) the discussion of Butler (2003) and Gergel (2003), the suggestion could be put forth to relate the ellipsislicensing behavior of the English modals with the phrase structure diagrammed in (107) (cf. Butler 2003: 988; Gergel 2003).

VPE licensing as interpretability

201

(107) Modal-hosting projections in a multi-headed modal system Force P [nec]

FocP [neg] [poss]

FinP TP [subj]

T´ T

Force P [nec]

FocP [neg]

FinP [poss]

vP

Let’s consider some of the possible theoretical implications. First, rather complex at first glance, the phrase marker in (107) is overall less articulate and hence perhaps more learning adequate than Cinque (1999)’s influential cartography of the functional domain. The comparison holds even if the latter were truncated to the modality-relevant projections, for more appropriate contrast. At the same time, the structure is symmetrical in interesting ways. Note that necessity c-commands possibility twice, once in the higher domain of epistemicity, and once again in the lower one in charge of root modality. Thus the system has an interesting property of recursion even though at the cost of a rich structure for singular elements such as the English modals. Having epistemic modals take scope over T is a desirable consequence of the proposal (see Cinque 1999; Drubig 2001; McDowell 1987) which we can directly relate to the past tense replacement strategy, in which a modal syntactically scopes over temporal have. However, the system may wrongly predict that modal+have+modal sequences and have+modal ones should also be encountered in English, counter to fact. The four-fold proposal advocated in Butler (2003) and endorsed in Gergel (2003) captures most of the data discussed there and takes apart epistemic and root modals, as well as possibility and necessity operators. While Butler (2003) does not

202

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

discuss substantial evidence for the distinction in the epistemic domain, Gergel (2003) does not have much to contribute to the distinction of nec and poss in the root domain. However, combining the evidence, the structure might seem plausible. There is, however, one crucial obstacle, to which we wish to turn next.

5.4.3. Locality and reduction There is one important question which the structure in (107) above does not answer: The locality condition makes it in fact less suitable for the ellipsis issues at hand. While ellipsis diagnostics support the epistemic/root and in part the nec/poss dichotomies, they do not necessitate a four-fold structure. Notice that a four-fold modal structure would necessitate at least some sort of amendment and further specification of the proximity metric. For instance, while we discussed various pieces of evidence for necessity structurally dominating possibility and especially for epistemic modality scoping out the position of root modality, it would be difficult to tell, based on the above structure, why epistemic possibility should be a better licenser than epistemic necessity (as we have shown in sectin 5.3). There would be intervening heads between the VPE site and each of them in any event. The morale seems to be that while evidence from VPE licensing was able to substantially complement the problematic evidence from scope in showing more clearly the syntactic distinctions between the modals, it at the same time slows us down in drawing too complex trees. In short, it helps decide, specifically in that it offers reason to refrain from implementing the same evidence into a phrase marker containing (over) four functional modal heads. We propose an overall simpler account: The next approximation is an elision mechanism based on an E-feature (cf., especially Merchant 2001), which we will ultimately link closely (in a specific sense explained below) to the c-commanding licenser. The point right now is the configuration: We propose a two-fold structure. Consider (108), two instantiations of a system reduced from (107) above.40

VPE licensing as interpretability

203

(108) a.

b.

Mod1

Mod1 Mod2

Mod2 vP

[*E ]

vP [E]

The examples in (108) instantiate two things: First, in (108a), the modal merged in the higher Mod1 fails to license ellipsis, whereas a modal merged to Mod2 licenses elision of the verbal complement phrase. A system which is based only on two relevant modal projections, which for the time being we will call Mod1 and Mod2, is by itself already simpler than one running on four. The point of learning-adequacy and triggering input also comes to mind in this context, though richly articulate structures should not a priori be discarded. Notice, for instance, that the previous structure in (107) is symmetric, so a recursion scenario might be invoked (see above and Gergel 2003). In effect, the reduction goes one step further, since Mod2 is T, whereas T was a separate projection in (107). Besides the intrinsic reductionism involved, the binary system solves in a simple way the issue of the closeness metric necessary for ellipsis licensing, which remained unsolved in Gergel (2003). It also avoids the problem of downgrading some of the English modals into the vP domain, as in some other accounts (cf. Butler 2003), which would predict that v is a licensing position and a sentence such as *Sue met her friends and Bob met too should be grammatical. We follow the logic that lexical verbs also standardly raise to shell projections of the VP in English, i.e. v (cf. Johnson 1991; Chomsky 1995), but presumably not higher (cf. Roberts 1998 and Chapter 4). However, a crucial empirical question arises as to how to account for the four-fold distinction above in a twoprojection system. We propose that a combination of merge and move achieves that. To recapitulate, the main modal facts for illustration of the solution, take epistemic may and must, on the one hand, and root may and must, on the other. Root modals in a Mod1/Mod2 system will be merged in the lower projection (i.e. Mod2=T, on the properties and motivation of which, see more below), but notice that root must scopes into the higher projection due to the quantificational and especially the negation data. We implement this latter scope possibility via movement. This is fully in line both with the VPE licensing properties of root modals

204

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

(via their first-merge, i.e. the locally licensing position) and at the same time with root must’s otherwise wide scope properties (via the landing position). Epistemic modals, on the other hand, will generally scope high. The first hypothesis would be to then directly merge them high, i.e. into Mod1. But the surprisingly good properties of the possibility modals such as might or could with regard to ellipsis shown in section 3 lead us to assume that they at least (as opposed to the universal epistemic must) are first-merged to the lower projection, i.e. Mod2, from where they can derivationally license VPE. On epistemic readings, however, possibility modals will, via movement, scope from Mod1. This distinguishes root from epistemic possibility. The next question is whether we will still be able to distinguish between root vs. epistemic necessity since they both scope high, e.g. over negation and a range of quantifiers, as we have seen above. The answer lies in the first-merge position of epistemic must into Mod1 (whereas root must was only licensed to take scope from that position but was generated lower, in Mod2, alias T). This also explains the difference in the acceptability of VPE licensing for the two construals. To summarize, there is indication that we can account for both the facts of modal syntax and the ellipsis licensing properties with an essentially two-headed modal system. The option is binary in that a head either licenses VPE if it is local and has the interpretable feature or fails to do so if it does not. The question we will address next is whether we need, and can afford to, keep an E type of feature posited so far to achieve the syntactic licensing job, or whether we can find a more explanatory feature implementation.

5.4.4. Interpretation takes over In this section, we propose that the crucial feature in charge of ellipsis is indeed formal (like the feature E discussed above), but that it is also interpretable. In brief, we make VPE licensing parasitic on T. Let’s first take a step back and reconsider the somewhat broader view on licensing. In phrase-structural terms, it is of course anything but unusual to assume the licensing culprit for VPE to be located in the functional Aux or Infl domain. In the literature, this more often than not is simply posited, and follows the so-called AUX-requirement of VPE (observationally established in Bresnan’s and Sag’s work in the 1970s discussed in Chapter 3) or the more intricate government theory developed by Zagona, Lobeck, and others. However, from a minimalist perspective, we ran into problems both with the construction-specific rules and with government (while we would like to keep the empirical observations and coverage of those theories). Recall, moreover, that in Chapter 4 we have explored the historical dimension of the modals by investigating the consequences of their diachronic re-

VPE licensing as interpretability

205

analysis from the perspective of ellipsis. Subsequently (in this chapter), we have investigated further details in the licensing of MLE and in particular the question to what extent modal nuances and evidence on modal syntax from various domains may tie in with refinements on licensing. One major problem was precisely that a uniform and semantically careless Infl did not seem to fare well with a series of properties as those of epistemic modals in particular. The antidote we propose is to derive the semantics-sensitivity and further results from the temporal grammaticalizing properties of the modals. From here on, since we will mostly be talking about T heads and [T] features, let’s note that the more general point remains interpretability – T being one essential interpretable and formal projecting feature in the English phrase-marker. For instance, while aspect is already included (recall that we follow a similar syntax and semantics for aspect, i.e. based on an embedded T operator in the sense of Demirdache and UribeEtxebarria 2000), negation also fits in.41 It is imaginable that other interpretable and formal features might grammaticalize into well-behaved licensers as well. The grammaticalization point revolving around the T domain opens up the way for some additional alleys. Grammaticalization by itself may seem an arcane phenomenon if one expects the data to be deterministically imposed. However, tracking it down through the “language lottery” (Lightfoot 1982; cf. van Kemenade 1994 and Chapter 4) or for that matter through typological/panchronic investigations designed to reveal the appropriate lexical-feature restrictions (e.g., Bybee 2003; cf. also Plank 1984), i.e. in our case in terms of licensing properties, offers at least a suggestion as to why only a subset of the languages which have (in principle) the syntactic licensing potential do also actually license VPE. Thus, one can tentatively explain the difference between languages like English and German with respect to VPE licensing due to presence/absence of a T node.42 In the remainder of this section, we address these questions and discuss additional evidence that formal [T] is a crucial factor in the anchoring of ellipsed events by adducing empirical and theoretical arguments. As a first additional argument, a T licenser gives at least a chance to longdistance antecedent-ellipsis dependencies, such as in (109), noted in the literature (Klein and Stainton-Elis 1989; Hardt 1993; Lobeck 1995; Winkler 2003), since the licensed object could be preserved at LF and would not be forgotten with the cyclic or phase-based syntax. The example (109) displays both a long-distance ellipsis (i.e. not under coordination of two same-level conjuncts) and the phenomenon of multiple antecedents. (109) A: You never go swimming. B: That’s because I don’t look good in a swimming costume. I might if I did.

206

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

Second, recall the situation of the theoretical implementation of VPE from Chapter 3, where we were left at a partial impasse. Government was an interesting complex notion, but also one recently both empirically and theoretically dispensed with, and we had no alternative theoretical account of licensing. We propose that interpretability is an alternative. An Agr-like projection could not properly anchor a VP in phrase structure on minimalist assumptions for additional reasons as well (which we will explain momentarily). Third, we had problems with the picture offered by the identity conditions in that they were not sufficient and we had the interface(timing) problem. That is, we would have a licensing account in the first-place. Fourth, beside the antecedent-ellipsis distance, there is the issue with the licenser-ellipsis distance from a minimalist point of view. Assume we had say three hierarchically ordered potential licensers L1, L2, and L3 and an ellipsis site ccommanded by all of them. An argument for T has been that such situations do not arise. In the cases we have inspected, the evidence showed that the local licenser, via its interpretable and formal T feature could anchor (‘license’) the ellipsis. Fifth, note that E, although of noteworthy descriptive utility, is no primitive of syntactic or semantic theory, i.e. it is an uninterpretable feature per se (cf. Chapter 3), and it violates the Inclusiveness Condition. As such, it may at most help a derivation advance, even though it will not be tolerated over long distances; but it is not an interpretable symbol in itself. Therefore it would have to be eliminated before Spell-Out. Moreover, for Chomsky (2001: 19) a deleted feature is visible up to the next strong phase level. Assume we have [uE] assigned to a VP to be deleted later on. By the time we get to the antecedent (easily more than one strong phase away; see above) and want to see whether we can value E, E has already been deleted due to the forgetful (and economic) character of the derivation. By contrast, T is interpretable and need not be stipulated. We propose that T probes a VP site and elision occurs under the standard parallelism conditions once this licensing procedure is satisfied. Sixth, the module-problem is a heavy burden on any account of ellipsis given that one cannot for instance interpret semantic concepts at PF (even if “moduleeconomy” would make this appealing; cf. Asudeh and Crouch 2002; Tancredi 1992: Chapter 3); it would, however, undermine grammar models, old and new. Even assuming for the sake of argument that one could transfer the necessary requirements to PF, another theoretical problem arises which becomes more acute within recent minimalist research: While in Chomsky (1995) the possibility of deletion is part of the PF component via assumption, the program outlined, e.g., in Chomsky (2001), though not specifically discussing ellipsis, makes an essential point of the grammar as being not only some sort of economical organon but also one based on restricted on-line memory; that is, forgetful of earlier stages of the syntactic derivation. Relevant stages of derivation in the technical sense mean phases, i.e. bottom-

VPE licensing as interpretability

207

up built structure up to vP, subsequently from vP to CP, then to the superordinate vP (if there is one), and so on. On such an account it is even less likely to imagine the phonological component storing extraneous information such as the necessary syntax-semantics conditions to be established between antecedent and ellipsis. Let’s again point out that the PF component is certainly needed for an account of VPE (cf. Johnson 2003; Tancredi 1992; Winkler 2000, 2003) and obviously anything but redundant. However, it needs to receive clear commands from syntactically grammaticalized appropriate licensers and under appropriate semantics-pragmatics conditions without which it cannot work. This is where implementing ellipsis through interpretability in licensing becomes interesting (to my knowledge, up to now interpretability with regard to isomorphism conditions has been mainly considered in the literature). The anchoring occurs to T itself instead of a diacritic E feature in a language which has developed this grammaticalized ability. To see how T becomes relevant in English, let’s briefly review a bit more of its grammaticalizing history in conjunction with the modals and their temporal properties. Seventh, the modals cannot generally be claimed to be c-commanded by T in ModE the way other verbs are (Roberts 1985). Diachronically, the modals in English grammaticalized to the inflectional domain (alias Lightfoot’s 1979 Aux, Roberts’ 1985 Infl, etc). It has also long been noticed among grammarians of English that in many respects the English modals have become tense-insensitive, e.g., in the sense that they hardly morphologically inflect for tense and when they do, they do not simply denote the past of a present modality; cf. also Chapter 4. The modal might, for instance, which does certainly not behave as a regular past tense of may (though morphologically it is one on a historical line), but has to a great extent developed an apparent independent entry, and is not compatible (by itself) with past adverbials with a specific interval denotation such as yesterday, in 1997, etc. any longer. The move away from a straightforward tense semantics can best be observed for must, historically also a preterite of a (now extinct) necessity modal moot (cf. section 4.2), in present-day grammars left virtually without past tense denotations through inflection.43 The observation on tense insensitivity applies to dynamic modality only to a lesser degree. Could more transparently applies to a compositional tense semantics and can mean an ability available in the past. Even here though, the former paradigm of the semantic possibilities has in fact been narrowed down.44 It seems that the English modals changed not just as functional projections resulting from the historical reanalysis, but also as specialized feature-bundles with specialized functions on T. Eighth, a distinct if related point on temporal properties and historical developments concerns the futures of, and through, modals. Notice that a morphosyntactically signaled future of the type I shall may come on a modalized VP is attested for the Middle English dialects preceding the modal reanalysis (cf. Denison 1993;

208

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

Plank 1984; Visser 1972, among others), but it is not standardly possible in PDE. The matter is not trivial, especially since quasi modals start being used (Lightfoot 1979; Roberts 1993; Traugott 1989, among others). Plank (1984) draws attention to the fact that after the reanalysis of the modals there was no such thing as a perhaps expected general continuation of the constructions through periphrastic means, such as I shall be able/have to come/etc. What happens instead is that the feature matrices of the modals themselves acquire the possibility of giving direct future orientation to the event, though the future is not directly expressed, as in I must/can come, where no further future marker is needed (or standardly allowed). This relocation of the event then applies straightforwardly to deontic and to a large extent to dynamic modals, but it fails to apply to most genuine epistemic readings (in the sense of Condoravdi 2002, Drubig 2001, Stowell 2004a). Ninth, the paradox of the reanalysis to T and tense-insensitivity has been given one possible solution within checking theory in the previous chapter. Merging late in the derivation, the modals are not subject to the checking process of lexical verbs and thus may/might escapes at least the relationship extant between, say, regularparadigm verb alternations such as sprint/sprinted. However, epistemic modals are the ones that generally stand out, e.g., in that they do not relocate the event of their complement. In fact they have hardly any selectional properties with respect to tense at all. This does not mean that epistemics are atemporal, nor that epistemic modality should be disentangled from the time concept. What we technically propose instead (in syntactic terms) is that there is a [T] feature in the matrix of deontic modals as well as on the modals showing the residual morphological distinctions, and that this type of formal feature is usually excluded from epistemic contexts. Additional evidence that epistemic modals do not impose the same restrictions with regard to tense and aspect as deontic modals can be adduced from a comparison with the simple present, another marked form of English, as in (110) (cf. Drubig 1998). (110) a. He knows her. b. He leaves early.

a´. He may/must know her. (stative) b´. He may/must leave early. (non-stative)

As is well known, the simple present is a form under strong distributional restrictions in Modern English. While we will not go into the entire list of its uses here, let’s note in particular that (110) shows that both simple present and epistemic modals are compatible with stative predicates, but also that they tend to enforce a habitual interpretation when complementing non-stative predicates (which would contrast, e.g., with the progressive). Finally, we can note that there is a difference among epistemic modals in that those modals which we found to be more felicitous

VPE licensing as interpretability

209

with ellipsis (e.g., may and especially might) can also induce a future orientation, somewhat paralleling the deontic modals in this respect. We assume that the formal feature [T] probes the event time. This accords with the ellipsis data inspected. Moreover, recall that it has been observed in recent years that tense features of the English modals become apparent in certain more intricate environments, such as embedding and scope reversal, discussed in Chapter 2 (cf. especially Stowell, 2004a, 2004b). However, it also was the case that genuine epistemic modals could not be scoped out by tense operators (which we saw corroborated from different angles). We then have reason to surmise that the differences between epistemic readings and root construals have a place in the grammaticalization of the English modals, but also that the various pieces of evidence indicating a more flexible behavior of the core possibility modals may/might vs. the necessity modal must are more systematic than we previously assumed. The classical cases of modals co-licensed by further auxiliaries, in which the epistemic restriction plays no overt role are then also explained in that a direct licenser [+T] is first-merged low in the functional domain to support the VPE site. The major points are that interpretability of the licenser once grammaticalized (A) anchors the fully articulate VPE site in the derivation, but also (B) that it can smuggle it through discourse to contrast it to an antecedent. Licensing in the derivation, passed on to further computation if an antecedent is found. Non-matched T results in a run-of-the mill structure, a T matched with a structure parallel to the one in its domain of c-command may yield an elliptical structure. The widely-discussed identity and parallelism conditions need to hold in the latter case. Agreement (the typical uninterpretable type of feature) alone, on the other hand, does not license ellipsis. In a nutshell, we propose that the present suggestion be tied to the interpretability effect of the tense feature on the modals which do license acceptable ellipses. Virtually all cases falling under the epistemic constraint in which have and be fall under the ellipsis site improve radically if these two verbs change sides and become licensers instead of “deletees” (in line with Sag 1976/1980; Emonds 2000). We therefore relate the lower and actually licensing position for VPE to temporal properties based on the following further pieces of evidence: − − −

−

the “protected” licensing cases of English supported by have (Hoffman 1966). some tense properties do reside in modals after all (Stowell 2004, 2004a). recall the diachronic evidence: modals in Pr/Asp in conjunction with what we have said about the aspectual system (cf. Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 2000, 2004). corroborative evidence from a type of VPE found in Slovenian for the role of tense, to be presented below.

210 −

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

arguably the parallelism in licensing with the D-system; i.e. between NP and VP ellipsis (cf. Lobeck 1995, Johnson 2001, Winkler 2003). On the assumptions that pronouns and tenses behave alike, (cf. Partee 1973) and drawing on syntactic parallelisms between pronouns and the D-system observed by Postal 1966).

We conclude that the formal [T] feature grammaticalized on modal, temporal and aspectual licensers in English is essentially active in the syntax and is based on interface motivation being interpretable.

5.4.5. Observations on anchoring the VP in MLE We have argued that the cases of VPE considered involved direct licensing through interpretable material which can be transmitted further into the derivation and matched against an antecedent in a model motivated by the interfaces. We now address an additional issue with respect to which it becomes interesting to refer to the VP as a syntactic object building on Chapter 3. We saw that the VPE sites show various indications of internal structure actualized in full-fledged syntactic units. A strong line of ellipsis research had opened the way for the possibility of this conclusion (Bresnan 1971; Hankamer and Sag 1976; Johnson 2001; Kennedy 1997; Merchant 2001; Postal 2001; Wasow 1979; Winkler 2003). There is also no compelling reason to assume that MLE is a syntactic object in its own right that should be represented in a substantially different way from other cases of VPE. In fact the licensing mechanism through [T] is itself a strong unifying characteristic with extensional licensers. The evidence for the possibility of syntactic representation, such as the antecedent-contained-deletion configurations, the ability to host variables, or the parasitic-gap properties, holds so it is neither feasible nor theoretically desirable to assume that there is no structure of any sort in a VPE site. What we propose though, following the line of research outlined in Winkler (2003) is that there is at the same time indication for assuming the full-fledged elided object as an entity, which is further connected to the phrase marker. For instance, the insensitivity to the complex NP constraint discussed by Lobeck (1995) and Winkler (2003), among others, is also present in MLE, as in (111). (111) He doesn't want to have to fight a war, but he's resigned to the fact that he just might _ and understands the reality of it. (The Daily Mississippian, February, 19, 2003)

VPE licensing as interpretability

211

The characteristics linked to distance and discourse properties are further central indications which apply to MLE; cf. (112)-(114) for illustration. (112) We had to make as many shapes as we could _. (H. Hamilton, The Speckled People, Fourth Estate: London/NY, 2003: 124) (113) But, as my mother pointed out as we walked home, if we did not require their assistance at present, there was no saying but that we eventually might _. (Frederick Marryat, 1840, Poor Jack, online) (114) After my husband retired, this woman came to our home and told me that although she could _, she would never take a man from his family. (Twincities.com, July, 19, 2003) A further strong argument discussed in the ellipsis research that may indicate the need of storing the VP as a whole is given by the possibility of split-antecedents (Hardt 1993, Johnson 2001, Webber 1978, Winkler 2003). This argument also transfers to modals, as shown in (115) (Webber 1978, cf. Winkler 2003: 154) and (116) (Nathan Hill, p.c.). (115) Wendy is eager to sail around the world and Bruce is eager to climb Kilimanjaro, but neither of them can _ because money is too tight. (116) Sally should take out the dog for a walk and Bob should do the dishes, but neither of them must _. Furthermore, there are aspects of VPE which provide corroborating support for the view, even though they have been beyond the immediate scope of this work. We touched on the role of PF in Chapter 3 and this chapter. Focus and information structure may strongly endorse the present view as well, on a different level, e.g. within Winkler’s (2003) model, in which phrasal ellipsis is marked in situ, essentially as a whole entity, by the functional cycle. By contrast, Winkler claims with information-structural arguments that non-phrasal ellipses are derived by a (displacement-based) grammatical cycle, hence their apparent subcategorial remnants (cf. also Johnson 2003; Lasnik 1995; Gergel, Gengel and Winkler 2007). Computational efficiency arguments can also be adduced to show that VP retrieval in elliptical configurations can be, and economically is, achieved through a pointer retrieving the antecedent rather than computing it anew: cf. especially Murguia (2004) for a recent illustration. Finally, processing research also indicates that VPE, differently from gapping, makes reference to larger portions of syntactic structure – e.g., it does not show complexity effects of the omitted structure (whereas gapping does; Clifton and Frazier 2001).

212

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

MLE-relevant evidence for the concomitant anchoring of the represented but entire ellipsed object endorses the view. For one thing, with Johnson (2001) we notice that MLE shares a property with further finitely licensed ellipses in that it does not observe the VPE island constraints (Haik 1987), which apply to non-finites. Incidentally, this argument also shows that a theory of VPE should at least have sufficient leeway to accommodate differences in various environments. Finally, closing in even more on MLE, object extractions from the ellipsis site seem to degrade when the direct licenser is a modal. Let’s consider some examples of extensionally-licensed ellipsis as illustrated in (117)-(120), which allow object extractions. (See, e.g., Fiengo and May (1994), Johnson (2001), Winkler (2003) for discussion on extractions and extensional VPE.) A strong case for extraction and internal representation with extensional licensers can also be illustrated by sub-extraction. Example (121), for instance, involves NP ellipsis sub-extracted from VPE. (117) I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar didn't _. (118) I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar thinks that Sally did _. (119) Jane failed a few of her students. And which students do you think Pedro did _? (120) Bill read every book that you did _. (121) They have, here in the treasury of the Church of Holy Wisdom a reliquary, one of many hundreds. This, gold and crystal, jewelled with pearls, amethysts and garnets, houses a withered head. And whose do you think they say it is? (J. Rathborne The Last English King St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1999:20) Turning to modal licensing, a first observation is that under it wh-extraction in ellipsis contexts is not generally precluded; cf. (122).45 (122) I like the Golden Ass […]. How can you tcan _ ? (The Last English King, by J. Rathborne, St. Martin’s Press, NY, 1999) It seems, however, that actual object extractions from directly licensed MLE sites are considerably degraded in many cases. Consider (123)-(125). (123) *I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar thinks that Sally must. (124) *I have read everything that you must. (125) Jane failed a few of her students. *And which students do you think Pedro must _ ?

VPE licensing as interpretability

213

The issue is appeased if the grammatical mechanisms in charge of ellipsis are envisaged as being able not only to access substructures of an elided VP, but, rather naturally, also the entire VP as such for the purposes of semantic operations. The theoretical argument is that if merge in a simple syntax is conceived as a settheoretic type of operation and we can syntactically access the derivationally constructed subsets, we should be able to access the subset with the largest cardinality, i.e. the entire set, or the VP, and to ship it to LF. Some of the examples, while marked and in need of a special intonation, improve for some speakers of American English following the dichotomy of might and must previously discussed, as illustrated in (126)-(128). (126) ??I know which book Max read, and which book Oscar thinks that Sally might. (127) ?? Bill has read every book that you might. (128) Jane failed a few of her students. ?And which students do you think Pedro might _ ? While the latter issues need further investigation, an account based on licensing motivated through interpretation derives most of the well-known arguments of proform theories and some of the extraction facts in MLEs.46 We conclude that MLE sites are full-fledged structures and anchored to the phrase-marker through a syntactically grammaticalized appropriate form which determines the PF output under suitable parallelism conditions.

5.5. Independent evidence for VPE licensing anchored to interpretability: The case of Slovenian “clitic”-based ellipsis In this subsection, we present independent evidence on the possible role of T in grammaticalizing VPE properties, this time not from modals, but from another classical field of grammaticalization theory: “clitics.” Here we mostly follow the data and analysis proposed in Dvořák and Gergel (2004) and flesh out the relevant issues insofar as they relate to present concerns and necessary for illustration. Slovenian has various types of VP ellipsis. First, it has what is arguably the verb-raising variety, familiar from research on Hebrew, Irish, Swahili etc (Adger 2005; Doron 1999; Ngonyani 1996; McCloskey 1991). Second, it shows auxiliarylicensing, as in related Serbo-Croatian, English, or Portuguese (cf. Cyrino and Matos 2002; Johnson 2001; Stjepanović 1998). However, in addition to the more common two options of VPE, Slovenian has a third type of elliptical structure, which is used, e.g., in the Ljubljana dialect, and

214

Modals and ellipsis in synchrony

actively or passively confirmed in other varieties. The licensing of this construction occurs through lexical items which under unmarked circumstances are atonic pronouns in object positions. We refer to this type of ellipsis as ga-ga ellipsis (GGE). It is exemplified in (129). (129) A: A ga vídiš? Q-compl cl3.acc.sg.m see.2.sg ‘Do you see him?’

B: Ga _ . / *Jò. cl3.acc.sg.m / cl.3.acc.sg.F ‘I do see him./ I do see her.’

In (129), the question asked by A contains a pronoun clitic. B’s answer displays ellipsis. In such structures, the term clitic is used for expository purposes, the pronominal not attaching to any overt material. In terms of reference identification, ellipses such as (129) have full semantic and syntactic representations. Due to the overt presence of the object pronoun, the thematic participants in the answer are one-to-one retrievable. Moreover, they are fixed. Antecedent and ellipsis licenser must morpho-syntactically agree with regard to case, gender, number, and person. Deviance from this strong identity condition is usually ungrammatical even in contexts in which the construction could be motivated, e.g., through contrastiveness – such elliptical constructions are not generally impossible in natural language. Specifically, the equivalent to an English pseudogapping structure (Levin 1978) meaning ‘I see HER’ is not licensable in the configuration – as shown by the ungrammatical jò ‘her’ in (129) above. What seems to happen at a certain point in the derivation of a GGE structure is that the clitic behaves as if obtaining verbal or propredicative characteristics (cf. Dvořák 2003) – with the possibility of being followed or preceded by particles (e.g., interrogative, negative) and also of being reduplicated for affirmative purposes. There are further syntactic, phonological, and semantic features characterizing the construction, among which we only mention a few essential ones referring to Dvořák and Gergel (2004) for details. First if the construction is to pattern syntactically with VPE, it is crucial that it occur in embeddings. Example (130) briefly shows this. (130) A: A ga poznáš? Q-compl cl.3.acc. m.sg know.2.sg ‘Do you know him?’

B: Ne vém, če gà. neg know if cl.3.acc.m.sg ‘I don’t know if I do_.’

Second, the licensing element bears stress, a characteristic which, even if not required in general on the surface, can nonetheless be indicative of a licensing remnant, especially if the licenser stems from what would otherwise be atonic pronouns.

Summary

215

Third, the most important point of the ellipsis process from the present perspective lies in its temporal properties. In particular, it is only licensed in the present. Other types of ellipsis are not restricted to this condition. Notice the temporal contrast in (131) vs. (132), in which only the GGE ((132)) makes a temporal restriction on the semantics, whereas the elliptical phenomenon in (131) simply takes over the tense of its antecedent. (131) Včeraj

nisem

rib

lovil,

danes PA.

Yesterday neg.aux.1.sg fish Gen Pl caught today adv.part. ‘Yesterday, I didn’t catch any fish, but today, I did.’ (132) Včeraj

nisem

rib

lovil,

danes pa

JIH.

Yesterday neg.aux1sg fish.Gen caught, today adv.part cl.3.gen ‘Yesterday, I didn’t catch any fish, but today, I do (will).’ In brief, we claim with Dvořák and Gergel (2004) that GGE is VPE licensed via T and corroborate the evidence for an interpretable feature.

6. Summary In this chapter we have defended the Complex Functional Status Hypothesis, which states that the grammaticalized properties of the modals are determined by interface legibility of modal and temporal features computed through the syntax and handed over to the interfaces. We concentrated on the grammaticalized effects of the semantic output. The modal analysis simplifies the suggestions in Butler (2003) and Gergel (2003) while it has been designed to capture more precisely the ellipsisrelevant data. For ellipsis, we defended the Generalized Licensing Hypothesis, which identifies interpretability as a core ingredient in the process of VPE licensing.

Notes

216

Notes

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

Since the focus of this chapter lies on the investigation of syntactic effects of semantic distinctions, a caveat needs to be stated. Its purpose does not consist in generalizing from the grammatical behavior of the ModE modals to any deterministic or universal theories of language change, and much less to claims about modality being a, say, syntax-does-it-all phenomenon. It is more than anything the semantics of the modals that determines interpretation; that is, factors such as deontic vs. epistemic modality or necessity vs. possibility with respect to a modal base will eventually be computed semantically. The center of interest from the perspective of grammaticalization is the question whether any of the features of relevance at the semantic interface have also been grammaticalized to be signalled through morphosyntactic mechanisms. We leave open the possibility of uninterpretable T here (see Pesetsky and Torrego 2004 for some suggestions in relation to case). Cf. Hornstein (1999) and Polinsky and Potsdam (2002); see also Chapter 2. The raising readings of these verbs can easily be checked for their phrasestructural properties with the standard tests; cf., e.g., Radford (2004). Informants judge such examples as unacceptable. A raising verb joined by an overt infinitival to is syntactically a different structure, which can allow VPE (under the usual appropriate isomorphism conditions) precisely due to the presence of to and arguably a tense feature therein; cf. Martin (2001), but also Vilmala (1996). Moreover, raising to is of course not excluded from VPE. See Baltin and Barrett (2002) for related discussion on ellipsis in non-finite contexts and problematic issues with the often assumed raising/control dichotomy with infinitival to. We remain concerned in the following with MLE cases, but nonetheless note some of the differences to non-finites when relevant; see Johnson (2001) on how some of the properties with respect to which finite and non-finite VPEs go apart in more relevant respects. See, e.g., Picallo (1990), who observes distinctions between modals and raising verbs in Catalan, as exemplified through the test in (i) and (ii). (i) La Joana es deu considerar eixerida. Joana herself must consider smart ‘Joana must consider herself smart.’ (ii) *En Joan es sembla fidel. ‘Joan seems loyal to himself.’ According to Picallo, a derived subject cannot appear in a non-theta position with a raising predicate, as in (ii), while that can happen with a modal, (i). “Tend to” because there are further qualifications, the most important of which is discussed in section 4. Root modals can also be found in a scope position above negation, e.g., with a pause following them (e.g., McDowell 1987). The

Notes

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

217

necessity root modal must must scope above negation. Cf. also Butler (2003), Cormack and Smith (2002) for the importance of modal force. The modal can does not generally express epistemic meaning. However, on its negated form, it can arguably have an epistemically flavored reading; cf. Drubig (2007) and references cited there for some suggestions on how to deal with its exceptional character (e.g., as a suppletive, or as a NPI). This could also be checked through polarity tag continuations, positive tags standardly indicating negative clause polarity (Klima 1964; Quirk et al. 1985; Huddleston and Pullum 2002). Note that there is large variability in the acceptability of tags in epistemic contexts with numerous interfering and partially dialect-specific factors (cf. Brown 1991; Drubig 2001; Moody 2004). Condoravdi (2002) and Stowell (2004) discuss adverb tests, even though they do not mention the Thompson/Hornstein conditions discussed below. Both Hornstein and Thompson relate the structural ambiguity to the Reichenbachian framework (Reichenbach 1947). In particular, the speech time, since being deictic, is taken not to be modifiable by adverbs, but the event time and, via the correspondence, Reichenbach’s reference time yield the ambiguity. This directly transfers to more recent views on tense in which temporal (and aspectual) predicates order an outer time-argument relative to an internal one; cf. Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (2004); Stowell (1996); Zagona (1990). All is not settled with the syntactic issues related to quantifiers. Some of the main contentious points revolve around (i) the type of dependency (A vs. A´) – cf. Hornstein (1995) for discussion and an overview; and (ii) whether they check designated functional projections – see Surányi (2004) for a critique. Movement of quantifiers of the same modal force is vacuous. The laws of Quantifier Independence predict this lack of movement (Partee et al. 1993: 148). They may tie in with interesting considerations on economy (Fox 1995). Modulo what we have noted on (in)sufficiency with respect to raising. In fact, a further difference between raising predicates such as likely and modals will emerge precisely from the view on quantifiers to be discussed momentarily. The view seems to be somewhat different in the philosophical literature (see, e.g., Quine 1953 and elsewhere; and Føllesdal 1968 for a critique). The issue on the utility of a directedness parameter in general is not at stake here. Hall also only takes issue with its correlation with DP quantification in subject positions. Cf. Barbiers (1995), Bech (1949), Drubig (2001), Ehrich (2001), Palmer (2001), Reis (2001), and Gergel and Hartmann (2006), for further discussions of how related “directedness” concepts may induce certain modal effects. Sigrid Beck (p.c.) points out an additional important issue with examples such as (31) given that they involve generic and referential subjects. The additional indicator [i] on T will sometimes be left out in the notation. For a preliminary cartographic approximation, Mod1 can be thought of in terms of a node situated in the AgrS-area of the clause (cf. Drubig 2001), where Agr c-commands T. But we do not assume that Mod1 checks agree-

218

19.

20.

21.

22.

Notes ment. The essential point is that it gives a projection which, when merged, outscopes T. Epistemic modality may participate in case-licensing mechanism in other languages (cf. Aygen 2002 on epistemicity in Turkish). Cf. Öhlschläger (1989) and Reis (2001) for discussion of the German modals. We largely leave out German modals due to their rather problematic status with respect to the possibility of VPE (Reis 2001; Winkler 2003). But cf. Drubig (2001), Ross (1969), López and Winkler (2000), and Winkler (2003) for VPE’s possible next of kin in German and some of their shared properties. Of course, so-called multiple-modal varieties such as Scottish English and AAVE are well known to be more permissive in this respect (Batistella 1991; Brown 1991; Cinque 1999; Drubig 2001; Moody 2004). Scottish English is interesting since some modal entries have different meanings in some varieties (cf. Brown 1991; Miller 1993). The modal might, for instance, has an alethic rather than epistemic meaning when under the scope of will; must on the other hand, can largely only have an epistemic meaning, and does not appear under the scope of will. Moreover, see Abraham (2001) for a suggestion relating epistemicity and the standard English finiteness restriction. It may be more difficult to categorize the types of modality involved in (i). (i) You must have to be pretty sick to see a shrink. (Extracted via BNC from Being a teacher. Claxton, Guy. Cassell, London: 1989) The difficulty stems in part from the fact that the second modal is not the clear-cut deontic periphrastic modal we have in (41) above. There are at least two explanations, depending on the ultimate interpretation of the sentence. On the one hand, the first (genuine) modal may be epistemic and the second might be an alethic periphrastic, somewhat similarly to what happens in double modal varieties. On the other, it may be that the problem is not to be blamed on the appearance of two semantic modal units after one another at all, but rather on the difficulties with classifying modality per se. These clearly also arise with clauses which are modalized only once through a modal (see also Huddleston and Pullum 2002). Note also cases of need that take a bare infinitive and are under the syntactic scope of a core modal, which are relatively rare, but can nonetheless be found, in particular in such instantiations in which need is selected by may, (i)-(iv): (i) Drive A: is the default choice. However, if you want to use diskettes for each student you may need not change the security on the network folder. (www.ecoo.org/sigciel/temp/ …. ) (ii) The stand or wall may need not be perfectly vertical, but the two tubes may be assumed to be parallel. (www.parktool.com/repair_help/…) (iii) If you are actually happy with this software itself then you may need not even go for the SW-PE 3.0 edition which costs USD 39.95. (www.smartworks.us/htm/order.htm) (iv) A: Did John have to talk to the boss? B: He may need not have talked to the boss. (Nathan Hill, p.c.)

Notes

23.

24.

25.

26. 27.

28.

219

First, the examples are judged as acceptable by native speakers of American English. Second, the examples involve negation. This comes as no surprise since bare-infinitive-taking need is an NPI. Most importantly, the examples accord with the finiteness requirement on epistemics. But it seems that Standard ModE does not show a strong correlation even in the few instances in which arguably two modals appear since may often has a deontic construal in such sentences (and need often indicates logical necessity). The restriction is then not contradicted, since only the first modal allows a genuinely epistemic interpretation – cf. (iv), but the finiteness restriction seems once more to be a rather prominent restriction on core modals in general in English, rather than on epistemics alone. I thank Nathan Hill for help with need. That statives more readily induce epistemic readings is well known (Drubig 2001; von Fintel and Iatridou 2003; van Gelderen 2003; Katz 1997). The connections do, however, not add up to a wholesale bar on certain interpretations with certain predicates unless aspectual coercion processes are assumed. For instance, the examples in (46) above, even though apparently eventive, could have epistemic readings in the declarative counterpart (where it gets a scheduled-future, if not a more general future reading, cf., e.g., Drubig 2001). One (as far as I can see not exclusive) alternative would be that the restriction is entirely “hardwired” into PDE syntax, but that its limitations and counterexamples are due to the pragmatic and rhetoric effect of the questions, or to analogical use. Modal use and meaning are even in non-problematic syntactic environments not always easy to fully determine. It is also very likely that the factor of modal force colludes with the modal-base effect. We return to this factor for ellipsis licensing concerns below. With regard to questions, notice that van Acker (1981: 46), based on a corpus of 20 modern British plays (selected for their “reporting quasi-spoken diction”) reports one instance of must in an interrogative which is epistemic (among hundreds of instances) and the one instance found is in a rhetorical question. The epistemic paraphrase is unavailable under negation (A. Konietzko, p.c.): (i) *?? John könnte nicht gewonnen haben. (epi) The indicative kann can be used instead of the Konjuktiv könnte. Negation does not interfere with the counterfactual paraphrase, nor with a further altethic reading, which also becomes possible even for (i): ‘Against all expectations, it is possible that John did not win’ (J. Hartmann, p.c.). Where “>” means the usual historical “from to”; i.e. not scope in this case. The names are descriptive approximations for the brief excursus below. There is no implication that the modal types under scrutiny exactly match the modals of other Romance languages or the modals of the other languages spoken on the Balkan in all respects. The pertinent differences are highlighted below. Synchronically, cf. also German sein+zu (‘be+to’), which has both universal and existential modal force; and, much more restrictedly, English modal is to.

220

Notes

29. It would not be realistic to assume that such a change takes place independently. Besides the pragmatic connection of modality, there is the clear semantic factor. Possibility and necessity are interchangeable via negation. 30. Historically moving from possibility to obligation, the potentialis in Old Tibetan became the imperative marker in some Tibetan dialects (Zeisler 2004). 31. There are historically attested dialects in which agreement, e.g., of the phifeatures, can be entirely overridden in expletive constructinos (Cornilescu 2000). In a non-agreeing dialect, 3rd.sg-masc. clitics are default expletives. 32. Variation in other respect exists; e.g., in earlier usage non-passive patterns were productive, as in comfortable, suitable, meaning “able to comfort, suit” (OED). Incidentally, the same affix shows certain switches to necessity, as for instance in some uses of payable (H.B. Drubig, p.c.), thus paralleling both some dialectal uses of may and the historical development of ModE must. 33. The basic syntactic difference is easily demonstrated by applying the NICE contexts (Huddleston and Pullum 2002); cf. Kehler and Ward (1999). See Fu et al. (2001) on agentive properties of do so. Cf. also López (1995). 34. Cf. Broekhuis and van Dijk (1997) and references therein for some interesting discussion of differences between ‘have’ and ‘be.’ 35. A converse case for the related proform es in German might be instantiated through the modal wollen ‘want’/ ‘be supposed to, claim to’ (in quotatives). If Gergel and Hartmann (2004) are right, this modal allows volitionally thetamarked obliques (among other readings) but still hinders the es proform in pertinent configurations with raised obliques from experiencer predicates. (i) (Der) Maria will die Suppe nicht schmecken. Maria-dat wants the soup not taste. ‘Maria doesn’t want to like the soup.’ (ii) *(Dem) Peter will die Suppe nicht schmecken und (der) Maria will Peter-dat wants the soup not taste and Maria-dat wants es auch nicht. ES too not ‘Peter doesn’t want to like the soup and Mary doesn’t _ either.’ 36. We are not concerned with should here, which following Huddleston and Pullum (2002) classifies as medium modality. Cf. also de Haan (1997) for cross-linguistic observations. The modal will is a former dynamic volition marker, with volition vestiges only marginally extant in present dialects and restricted to certain constructions. Epistemic will is ungrammatical as an ellipsis licenser, which confirms that universal epistemics make bad licensers. 37. All the informants of American English had firm distinctions in acceptability judgments between possibility modals such as might and necessity modals such as must on epistemic interpretations. I have not been able to investigate the possibilities in any detail in other varieties of English. Some speakers of British English tended to independently insert the dialectal proform do discussed in Chapter 2 in the elliptical contexts. Speakers of American English,

Notes

38.

39. 40. 41.

42. 43.

44.

45.

221

not having the same proform at their disposal sometimes inserted do so proforms pointing out that the examples were not acceptable without them but would improve with them. The improved acceptability in the substituted cases may be indicative of the difference between VPE and pro-forms (cf. also 5.2). The study of these phenomena merits more investigation than possible within the present scope. The projections hosting these features do not have the same grammaticalized format or the same configurational or projective properties as those in English; nor do they bundle as in English in terms of clausal architecture. The only claim is that by substituting the relevant modal feature with regard to modal force certain grammatical distinctions can obtain. The binary phrase-marker comes closest to Cormack and Smith’s (2002) proposal, but both the empirical coverage and its functioning are different. Temporal features are the most relevant factor for current purposes. Negation fits in, somewhat similarly, as interpretable and formal. E.g., if work in the spirit of Haider (1997), Heycock and Kroch (1993), Reis (2001), Sternefeld (2006), and others is on the right track with respect to projective economy, then we might argue that German perhaps does not license VPE (cf. especially Winkler 2003 for argumentation on this controversial point) due to its claimed projective deficiency in the T domain. Of course, additionally merging have to a derivation under the scope of must can yield a past interpretation of the event time, though not of the modal time. Affirmative could does not usually co-occur with a specific past-tense adverbial making reference to the past, whether the temporal information is introduced, e.g., as a temporal adverb, as in (i), or as temporal orientation via coordination, as in (ii) (both from Huddleston and Pullum 2002). (i) *Last night, I could hear the clock strike two. (ii) * I left early and I could get a good seat. Huddleston and Pullum (2002) attribute the restriction to the situation being viewed perfectively. Notice also the difference between sentences such as (iii), which native speakers rejected first entirely, and an accomplishment interpretation enforced through finally in (iv), which improved acceptability. (iii) *Yesterday, Jane could fix her car. (iv) Yesterday, Jane could finally fix her car. Sentence (122) could also be extraction from a higher site, e.g. one adjoined to the lower modal can, rather then from below the elided V (what seems to be questioned by how is can, and not like). Why modal operators should make extraction more difficult is not entirely clear, since they do not generally do so. Their behavior may be due, in part, to the fact that they are propositional operators and therefore tend to access (as a default option) the entire proposition rather than sub-extracted parts of it.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

1. Main results The present work has investigated the morphosyntactic reflexes of welldefined modal categories and their interaction with ellipsis in English. It has developed a proposal which accounts for (1) the main characteristics of the core modals; (2) the phenomenon of VP ellipsis; (3) the grammatical aspects of their interaction focusing on syntactic licensing. Instead of reproducing the individual conclusions on a chapter-by-chapter basis, we review the concluding points for the three main domains of inquiry in thematical order next.

2. Modals It has been shown that in the case of the English modals the semantic differences play a significant role within morphosyntax. Specifically, one central hypothesis proposed is that the epistemic/root and the necessity/possibility dichotomies are phrase-structurally both active. It has been argued in some detail how they are read off from their grammaticalized characteristics: In a nutshell, and as far as the syntax is concerned, via a straightforward combination of the operations merge and move. The proposal makes use of two relevant merging positions for the modals. It is schematically illustrated in (1a) and explicated in (1b) for deontic and epistemic must and may, respectively. (1)

a. Mod1 Mod2 [licenser] VP

b. Deont. must Deont. may Epist. must Epist. may

Firstmerge Mod2 Mod2 Mod1 Mod2

Scope in Mod1 Mod2 Mod1 Mod1

[+T]marked + + * +

Modals

223

It is no news that deontic modals typically induce event relocation on the temporal axis due to their relative future-orientation. Their grammaticalized [+T] feature makes them appropriate VPE licensers; more specifically, from the vantage point of the lower, Mod2 position. Deontic must scopes though high in English, notably with respect to negation. This is predicted if, in the course of the derivation, it moves/remerges from Mod2 to Mod1. The condition (still) fits the licensing property since licensing has been argued to be a derivational process resulting from the first-merge position involved – and not, e.g., the highest one moved to.1 Deontic must scopes high, but merges low. Turning to epistemic modals, we have shown that they scope into the higher projection Mod1 following up on the insight of Drubig (2001) and others. This behavior was argued to be the natural consequence – again, on the syntactic dimension – of a range of apparent extra-propositionality effects discussed. Moreover, the proposal accounts for the generally wide-scope LF-behavior of epistemics with respect to negation and quantifiers. Furthermore, however, we have proposed that epistemic modals, show a more subtle difference with respect to first-merge. While both existential and universal genuine epistemics scope high, the existential quantifiers, e.g., epistemic may (similarly could and also especially might) get there by being first-merged low, in Mod2, and have thus formal [+T] in their feature matrices. This accounts for considerably improved VPE licensing properties which have been illustrated in a series of contexts, for a distinct behavior in counterfactuals (including non-standard usage), and for distinct morphological possibilities (cf. existence of the form might, albeit the irregularities discussed). The modal must lacks all these characteristics due to its distinct grammaticalization history. On an epistemic reading, it becomes a poor VPE licenser. The proposal for the representation of the modals thus hinges on distinguishable, projecting feature-matrices. It has been put forth in conjunction with evidence from ellipsis licensing, temporal properties, morphological development, crosslinguistic analysis, and grammaticalization theory. Its major characteristics are subsumed in the Complex-Functional-Status Hypothesis (CFSH) in (2). (2)

ModE Modals: The Complex-Functional- Status Hypothesis i. The ModE modals are grammaticalized forms to the clausal domain; ii. The dichotomies between strong/weak and epistemic/root modality are morphosyntactically active; iii. The ModE modals retain feature-based temporal distinctions.

224

Conclusion

The CFSH offers a suggestion as to how the major lexical items which carry the core modal notions in English have grammaticalized specific morphosyntactic properties. The initial statement (2i) has been reached by theoretically motivating and empirically giving substance to classical insights on the ModE modals. It synchronically sustains some previous results, but widens the diagnostics, makes the details (in the present framework) more precise, and dispenses with assumptions on government. It is also the part of the CFSH which became instrumental in comparing the ModE modals’ behavior to the syntactic representation of the ME modals (see below). As we considered additional evidence on the modals, including both time-honored if neglected arguments and new evidence on the modal-tense interaction as a function of modal base, a further strand of investigation became imperative. Thus, (2ii) started out from initial suggestions and possibilities opened up by recent research on modality at the syntax-semantics interface.2 The proposal in (2ii) and its implementation have offered an account of all the pertinent issues precisely in this respect: It has been shown that English has grammaticalized telling morphosyntactic effects for the semantic notions. Crucial evidence was obtained from an analysis of interface properties of ellipsis. Finally, part (2iii) became crucial in accounting for temporal properties of the modals themselves and some of the subtler temporal effects which they induce (cf. also (1) above). Moreover, it has realized a further connection to ellipsis theory as we will see momentarily. While numerous other studies no doubt have observed the importance of some of the semantic distinctions of the modals and some of their distributional effects, the present one (1) adopts a rather comprehensive view on the relevant interface properties of both modals and ellipsis; (2) qualifies previous analyzes in non-trivial respects discussing diachronic and synchronic aspects; (3) offers a novel perspective of the issues by raising (and answering) new theoretical questions; and (4) develops an account able to combine and to further specify the results in a straightforward featurebased syntax – first and foremost, by capitalizing on the grammaticalized interface properties of ellipsis and ellipsis licensing in particular.

3. Ellipsis With respect to VPE, the discussion has been informed by the pursuit of three major theoretical goals, which have been necessarily interspersed with one another and with the empirical evidence. A first concern have

Ellipsis

225

been the issues related to the representation of the ellipsis sites themselves. The second has been revolving around licensing environments and conditions extraneous to the sites of speech omission but inherent to their licensing properties over discourse. The third issue has materialized in the investigation of the super-ordinate role of the modules of grammar and their interfaces. Set in the general context of the cross-module conceptualization of ellipsis (cf. Winkler 2003, 2005), the present account in particular offered evidence for the role of the syntactic component due to grammaticalization properties. Regarding the first concern, a full-fledged-structure account for the ellipsis sites has explicitly been endorsed through the theoretical analysis as well as the evidence discussed. The relatively wide-ranging possibilities of trace-hosting within the ellipsis sites, the necessary (if, as noted, not sufficient) structural isomorphism requirements, the evidence of vehicle change and parasitic gaps, as well as a series of other tests, indicate clear internal properties of the silenced material. But certain qualifications have been stated. More specifically, we have argued that there is structure involved in the omission types under consideration and that their representation is distinct from that of deep anaphora. But it has presented arguments which necessitate reference to the entire (if structured) VP-object during the ellipsis process in order to arrive at a licensable modalized derivation.3 In particular, a solution to some of the problems of VPE research such as licensing or long-distance antecedents has been put forth. A novel generalization has been proposed in which the elided event is anchored to functional material, which must crucially be interpretable. Thus an elided VP, whose antecedent can be notoriously distant (Hardt 1993, Winkler 2003, among others) can be retrieved even within an extremely forgetful (e.g., phasebased; Chomsky 2001) syntactic derivation which has limited on-line access to previous structure. Access is mediated here via grammaticalized licensing. Interpretable material is stored at LF ready for retrieval when it is derivationally matched with the antecedent. The generalization proposed is given in (3). (3)

Generalized Licensing Hypothesis (GLH) i. A grammaticalized licenser is defined (a) within CHL; (b) in terms of interface-legibility conditions; ii. The set of potential licensers for (phrasal) VP ellipsis is a subset of the formal and interpretable projecting features within the clause; iii. VPE in English is licensed through formal [T].

226

Conclusion

For English and for some further VPE cases investigated, the most relevant feature is tempo-aspectual [+T]. This feature obviously is interpretable and, for the present case studies, formal in the syntactic sense. A series of applications have been discussed and further applications following GLH seem possible. The generalization is able to derive licensing properties from interface interpretability for all the data at hand and without recourse to further assumptions.

4. Modals and ellipsis Capitalizing on ellipsis properties, the present work has implemented closeness into the syntactic metric in diachronic terms and revised the traditional syntactic modal-reanalysis account. To this end, we have followed original suggestions by Warner (1992) and investigated the interaction of modals and ellipsis predating the modern grammars in some detail, under a series of language-change diagnostics. We concentrated on the relevant Middle English (ME) period on the empirical basis of the PPCME2 corpus (Kroch and Taylor 2000) and compared the results to the properties of ModE grammar. The proposal states that a layered structural approach to the modal licensers of ellipsis offers a more adequate way of modeling the relevant grammar change than the syntactic analysis in which the modals “long-distance” reanalyze from lexical to functional elements. The ensuing short-distance reanalysis is schematically shown in (4). (4)

Short-distance Reanalysis of the English Modals (SDR): [CP [TP tense/mood affix [PrP Modal/Do [VP/PP/NP]]]] ⇒ [PrP [VP ]]]] [CP [TP Modal/Do

The generalization in (4) offers an explanation for the systematic interaction of elliptical processes and modal licensing before and after the reanalysis. It argues for a specific implementation of indications that the Middle English modals already had a subset of the auxiliary properties of the modern modals. Corpus-based and theoretical venues of ellipsis research have been explored to this end. It has been proposed that modals in ME had distinct licensing properties. ME modals could co-license ellipsis with the support of the higher T node, the properties of which they could check. This comes down in certain configurations to the reversed situation

Modals and ellipsis

227

of ModE, in which a modal is first-merged higher up in T and an aspectual licenser, equally marked [T], co-licenses VPE. Moreover, the interpretable Pr-projection proposed in (4) gave an account of the surprisingly broader patterns of complementation selected by the ME modals as compared to ModE. Empirically, this version of the reanalysis was put into perspective with the disappearance of directional constructions in the reanalyzed grammar(s) of English. The diachronic case study illustrated the interaction between modals and VPE in earlier stages of English. Having established the utility and significance of grammaticalization with respect to the English modals and ellipsis, we considered a different type of case study, namely more fine-grained questions of the modalsellipsis link. Synchronic data and differentiation of modal nuances became imperative for the issues posed by grammaticalized grammars. Focusing on the core modals, we have distinguished both between types of modal base and of modal force (Kratzer 1991) and analyzed a range of naturally occurring effects. It has been showen that (1) all the relevant effects are morphosyntactically instantiated; (2) the results of VPE-licensing confirm the dichotomies; and (3) that the modal properties are closely intertwined with complex (rather than simply checking) temporal properties of the modals, as defined by the CFSH in (2) above. The major ensuing possibilities for VPE licensing are structurally summarized in (5). (5) …. Mod1 P Mod1/Agr…

….. Mod2 P Mod2/T, etc. (head) [+i (T)]

possible further licensing P

Asp/Pr/etc.. [+i (T)]

vP../VP

Diagram (5) is a direct application of the CFSH and the generalizedlicensing proposal. Formal and interpretable temporal features achieve the syntactic ellipsis-licensing effect. Evidence from English and crosslinguistic observations in subdomains have consolidated the proposal.

228

Conclusion

To sum up, we have shown morphosyntactic grammaticalized properties of well-defined categories in the domain of modality in English. Ellipsis has been instrumental in the modal investigation given some otherwise strong restrictions of the modals in modern grammars. Besides standard cooccurrence restrictions, the modals also escape a morphological analysis based on Agr-projections (possessing no agreement). They are, however, merged in positions with clear temporal properties. For ellipsis, fully articulate structure and interpretation have been defended. At the same time, a new licensing approach has been developed. Based on evidence including the modal, i.e. intensional, but also some extensional case studies, the present claim is that interpretability is in charge of an essential, so far neglected aspect of the VPE mechanism. Thus not only is the silenced site constrained by isomorphism and wide-ranging LF and PF legibility requirements, as we have learnt over the years.4 The feature matrix of the licensing (e.g., “auxiliary”) head is also defined through interpretability. It needs to contain the grammaticalized formal reflex of a specified interpretable feature, a substantial instantiation of which has been argued to be formal [T] in English. Notes 1. 2. 3.

4.

Cf., e.g., Lobeck (1995) for a different view. Cf. Butler (2003), Cormack and Smith (2002), Drubig (2001), Gergel (2003), among many others for discussion. Reference to the entire object is motivated for various reasons. (Even) if syntactic operations are narrowed down to set-theoretic merge, it will be puzzling not to be able to retrieve the subset with the largest cardinality. This is the set itself, the VP merged together. The extractions discussed, which degrade under the grammaticalized modal operators, support the view for modal VPE. Generally so do antecedent-matching conditions which hold over several clauses and phases. Cf. also the independent insights from computational efficiency research (Murguia 2004) and results from the processing literature on VPE (Clifton and Frazier 2001). Cf. also Johnson (2003), Sag (1976), Winkler (2005), among others, for germane discussion and overviews.

References

Abraham, Werner 2001 Modals: toward explaining the 'epistemic non-finiteness gap'. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 7-36. Hamburg: Buske. 2002 Modal verbs. Epistemics in German and English. Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 19-50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Abusch, Dorit 1997 Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:1-50. 1998 Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 13-33. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Acker, Marianne van 1981 ‘Must’ and ‘have to’. A dynamic perspective. Ph.D. diss., University of Antwerp (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 22). Adger, David 2005 Pronouns postpose at PF. Available at: ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000162. Agbayani, Brian, and Ed Zoerner 2004 Gapping, pseudogapping and sideward movement. Studia Linguistica 58: 185-211. Akmajian, Adrian, and Thomas Wasow 1975 The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the verb 'be'. Linguistic Analysis 1: 205-45. Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele, and Thomas Wasow 1979 The category AUX in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 164. Alboiu, Gabriela 2003 The features of movement in Romanian, University of Bucharest, Available at: www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/alboiu/main_set.htm. Alboiu, Gabriela, and Virginia Motapanyane 2000 The Generative Approach to Romanian grammar. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Motapanyane (eds.), 1-48. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ariel, Mira 1990 Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents: London: Routledge.

230

References

Asudeh, Ash, and Crouch, Richard 2002 Derivational parallelism and ellipsis parallelism. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 21: 1-14. Avram, Larisa 1994 A contrastive analysis of modals in English and Romanian. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 39: 267-284. Awad, Maher 1995 Complementizers and modality. Chicago Linguistic Society 31: 1627. Aygen, Gülsat 2002 Epistemic modality/mood as finiteness and clausal dependency marked with subject-case agreement. Chicago Linguistic Society 38: 47-61. Baker, Carl L. 1991 The syntax of English 'not': The limits of core grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 387-429. Baker, Mark 1988 Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003 Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baltin, Mark and Leslie Barrett 2002 The null content of null case. Ms. New York University. Barbiers, Sjef 1995 The Syntax of Interpretation.vol. 14: HIL dissertations. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Barbiers, Sjef, and Rint Sysbema 2004 On the different verbal behavior of auxiliaries. Lingua 114: 389-98. Barnes, Janet 1984 Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. IJAL 50: 255-71. Bartos, Huba 2000 VP-Ellipsis and verbal inflection in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47: 3-23. Battistella, Edwin L. 1991 The treatment of negation in double modal constructions. Linguistic Analysis 21: 49-65. Bech, Gunar 1949 Das semantische System der deutschen Modalverba. Traveaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 3-46. Beck, Sigrid 1996 Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen. 2003 Eine semantische Erklärung für Interventionseffekte. Paper presented at the University of Tübingen, July 2003.

References

231

Beghelli, Filippo, and Tim Stowell 1997 Distributivity and negation: the syntax of 'each' and 'every'. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 71-107. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Belletti, Adriana 2001 Aspects of the low IP area. Ms. University of Siena. Beths, Frank 1999 The history of 'dare' and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37: 1069-1110. Beukema, Frits, and Wim van der Wurff 2002 Modals, objects and negation in late Middle English. In Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema, and Wim van der Wurff (ed.), 75-102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1999 Adverbs: the hierarchy paradox. Glot International 4: 27–28. Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Höskuldur Thráinsson 1998 Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1: 37-71. Boškovic, Željko 1994 D-Structure, Theta-Criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-86. 2001 On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface, Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bosque, Ignacio, and Violeta Demonte (eds.) 1999 Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa. Bowers, John 2001 Predication. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 299-333. Oxford: Blackwell. 2002 Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183-224. Breitbarth, Anne 2004 Early Modern German Auxiliary Ellipsis and the role of the T/Csystem. Paper presented at the University of Utrecht. Brennan, Virginia M. 1993 Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts. Bresnan, Joan 1970 An argument against pronominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 122123. 1971 A note on the notion “identity of sense anaphora”. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 589-597. 1976 The form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 340.

232

References

Broekhuis, Hans, and Kees van Dijk 1997 The syntactic function of the auxiliaries of time. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995, Marcel den Dikken and Kees Hengeveld (eds.), 37-48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Brown, Keith 1991 Double modals in Hawick Scots. Dialects of English. Studies in Grammatical Variation, Peter Trudgill and J.K. Chambers (eds.), 74103. London: Longman. Butler, Jonny 2003 A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua 113: 867-996. Bybee, Joan L 1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 145-67. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca 1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carden, Guy, and David Pesetsky 1977 Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 13: 82-92. Chao, Wynne 1988 On Ellipsis. New York: Garland. Chierchia, Gennaro 1985 Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 417-43. Chomsky, Noam 1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co. 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 1971 Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. Semantics, Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits (eds.), 183-216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: Ma.: MIT Press. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step, Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89-156. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

References

233

Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik 1993 The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann (eds.), 506-569. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey 1995 Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239-282. Church, Alonzo 1941 The Calculi of Lambda Abstraction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2001 'Restructuring' and the order of aspectual and root modal heads. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), 137-55. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Comrie, Bernard 1985 Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Condoravdi, Cleo 2002 Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The Construction of Meaning, D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark and L. Casillas (eds.), 59-88. Standford: CSLI Publications. Coppock, Elizabeth 2001 Gapping: In defense of deletion. Chicago Linguistic Society 37: 133147. Cormack, Annabel, and Neil Smith 2002 Modals and negation in English. In Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, Sjef Barbiers, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 133-63. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cornilescu, Alexandra 2000 The double subject construction in Romanian. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Gabriela Alboiu and Virginia Motapanyane (eds.), 83-133. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van 2004 Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Ph.D. diss., Leiden University. Csúri, Piroska 1995 'One'-anaphora and residual DRS's. Berkeley Linguistic Society 21: 60-71. Culicover, Peter W. 2001 Parasitic gaps: a brief history. In Parasitic Gaps, Peter W. Culicover and Paul M. Postal (eds.), 3-68. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Culicover, Peter W., and Paul M. Postal 2001 Parasitic Gaps. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

234

References

Cyrino, Sonia M.L. 2004 Null complement anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese. Ms. University of Londrines UEL/CNPq. Cyrino, Sonia M.L., and Gabriela M. Matos 2002 VP-ellipsis in European and Brazilian Portuguese - a comparative analysis. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1: 177-95. Darlrymple, Mary, Stuart M. Shieber, and Fernando C.N. Pereira 1991 Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399-452. Decklerck, Renaat 1991 Tense in English. Its structure and use in discourse. London/New York: Routledge. Demirdache, Hamida, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria 2000 The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 157-85. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 2004 The syntax of time adverbs. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), 143-80. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Denison, David 1985 The origins of periphrastic ‘do’, Ellegard and Visser reconsidered. In Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem F. Koopman and Frederike van der Leek (eds.), 45-60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1992 Counterfactual 'may have'. In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, Marinel Gerristen and Dieter Stein (eds)., 229-56. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000 Combining English auxiliaries. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer (ed.), 114-47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Depiante, Marcela A. 2000 The Syntax of Deep and Surface Anaphora: A Study of Null Complement Anaphora and Stripping/ Bare Argument ellipsis, Ph.D. diss., University of Connecticut. Depiante, Marcela A., and Pascual Masullo 2004 Gender is in the lexicon, number is in the syntax: Evidence from nominal ellipsis in Spanish. Paper given at GLOW 27, Thessaloniki. Di Sciulo, Anna-Maria 1996 Modularity and X°/XP Asymmetries. Linguistic Analysis 26: 3-28. Doron, Edit 1999 V-Movement and VP ellipsis. Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, ed. by Elabbas Benmamoun and Shalom Lappin, 124-140. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

235

Drubig H. Bernhard 1992 On topicalization and inversion. In Who Climbs the Grammar Tree, Rosemary Tracy (ed.), 375-422. Tübingen: Max-Niemeyer. 1994 Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. In Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 51, University of Tübingen/ University of Stuttgart. 1998 Modalität und Polarität. Eine Skizze. Ms., University of Tübingen. 2001 On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Ms. Sonderforschungsbereich 441 Linguistische Datenstrukturen. University of Tübingen. 2003 Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41: 1-50. 2007 Towards a phase-based theory of information structure. On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds.), 33-66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Bejamins. Duffley, Patrick J. 1997 Problems concerning the negation of the modal auxliary 'must' in English. In The 23rd LACUS Forum, Alan K. Melby (ed.), Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. Dvořák, Boštjan 2003 Elliptische Prädikatisierung enklitischer Personalpronomina im Slowenischen. Philologie im Netz: 4: 37-61. Dvořák, Boštjan, and Remus Gergel 2004 Slovenian clitics: VP ellipsis in yes/no questions and beyond. ESSLLI 16, Proceedings: Workshop on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions, Ileana Comorovski and Manfred Krifka (eds.), 8591. Ehrich, Veronika 2001 Was ‚nicht müssen’ und ‚nicht können’ (nicht) bedeuten können: Zum Skopus der Negation bei den Modalverben des Deutschen. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 287-318. Hamburg: Buske. Eide, Kristin M. 2002 Norwegian modals, Ph.D. diss., Linguistics Department, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Ellegård, Alvar 1953 The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer 2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555-595. Emonds, Joseph E. 1970/6 Root and structure preserving transformations. Indiana University Linguistics Club: Bloomington. 1978 The verbal complex V-V´in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151-175.

236

References

1994

Two principles of economy. In Paths towards Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard Kayne, Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 2000 Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Engdahl, Elizabeth 1985 Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns and subject extractions. Linguistics 23: 3-44. Epstein, Samuel D., Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima and Hisatsugu Kitahara 1998 A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ernst, Thomas 1991 On the scope principle. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 750-756. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May 1994 Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1995 Response to Edwin William's Review of Indices and Identity. Language 71: 794-801. Fintel, Kai von 1995 The Formal Semantics of Grammaticalization. North-Eastern Linguistic Society 25: 175-189. Fintel, Kai von, and Sabine Iatridou 2003 Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 173-198. Føllesdal, Dagfinn 1974 Reprint. Quine on Modality. In Readings in Semantics, Farhang Zabeeh, E.D. Klemke, and Arthur Jacobson (eds.), 817-27. Urbana/Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press. Original, Synthese 147-157. Fox, Danny 1995 Economy, Scope and Semantic Interpretation - Evidence from VP Ellipsis. North-Eastern Linguistic Society 25: 143-157. 1999 Focus, parallelism and accommodation. SALT 9, 70-90. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 2003 On Logical Form. Minimalist Syntax, Randall Hendrick (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Fox, Danny, and Howard, Lasnik 2003 Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143-54. Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum 2003 VP ellipsis and the position of adverbs. Snippets 7: 7-8. Frampton, John and Sam Gutman 1999 Morphological well-formedness as a derivational constraint on syntax: verbal infection in English. Ms. Northeastern University.

References

237

Frank, Robert 2002 Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Frazier, Lyn, and Charles Clifton Jr. 2001 Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax 4: 1-22. Fu, Jingqi, Thomas Roeper, and Hagit Borer 2001 The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor ‘do so’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549582. Gamut, L.T.F. 1991 Logic, Language and Meaning, vol.2. Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Geilfuß, Jochen 1992 Ist 'wollen' ein Kontrollverb oder nicht? Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. University of Tübingen/ University of Stuttgart, 29-51. Gelderen, Elly van 2003 ASP(ect) in English Modal Complements. Studia Linguistica 57: 2743. Gergel, Remus 2003 Modal syntax: Detecting its parameters with VP ellipsis. SKY Journal of Linguistics 16: 27-56. 2004 Short-distance reanalysis of Middle English Modals: Evidence from Ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 58: 53-87. Gergel, Remus, Kirsten Gengel, and Susanne Winkler 2007 Ellipsis and inversion: A feature-based focus account. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds.), 301-322. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gergel, Remus, and Jutta Hartmann 2004 Role modal 'wollen': Volitional modality, theta-assignment and raising. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Modal Verbs and Modality, University of Tübingen./ Ms. University of Tübingen and Tilburg University. Giorgi, Allesandra, and Fabio Pianesi 1996 Verb movement in Italian and syncretic categories. Probus 8: 137160. Göbbel, Edward 2003 Syntactic and Focus-Structural Aspects of Triadic Constructions. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 2004 Focus and marked positions for VP adverbs. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds.), 275-300. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Goosens, Louis 1987 The auxiliarization of the English modals. A functional grammar view. In Historical development of auxiliaries, Martin Harris, and Paolo Ramat (eds.), 111-144. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Green, Lisa J. 2002 African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grice, Herbert P. 1989 Reprint. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press. Original edition, Logic and Conversation, 1967. Grinder, John, and Paul M. Postal 1971 Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 269-312. Haan, Ferdinand de 1997 The Interaction of Modality and Negation. A Typological Study. New York & London: Garland. Haegeman, Liliane 1982 The use of ‘will’ and the expression of futurity in present-day British English. Ph.D. diss., Brussels University. 1995 The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, Liliane, and Jacqueline Guéron 1999 English Grammar. A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Haider, Hubert 1997 Projective economy: on the minimal functional structure of the German clause. In Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: 'Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik' University of Tübingen/ University of Stuttgart, 31-54. Haik, Isabelle 1987 Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 503-30. Hall, Daniel C. 2002 A subject must scope. Snippets 6: 8-9. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag 1976 Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391-428. Hardt, Daniel F. 1993 Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning and Processing, Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania. Harley, Heidi B. 1995 Subjects, events and licensing. Ph. D. diss., MIT. Harris, Alice C., and Lyle Campbell 1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

239

Hartmann, Jutta 2003 Levels of Representation in Syntactic Theory: Investigating Dstructure from a Derivational and a Representational Perspective. Tübingen-Linguistik-Report, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, 4. Hegarty, Michael 1992 Adjunct extraction and chain configurations, Ph.D. diss., MIT. 2005 Feature-Based Functional Categories: The Structure, Acquisition, and Specific Impairment of Functional Systems. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hegarty, Michael, Jeanette Gundel, and Kaja Borthen 2001 Information structure and the accessibility of clausally introduced referents. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 163-86. Heim, Irene 1997 Predicates or formulas? Evidence from ellipsis. SALT 7: 197-221. Henry, Alison 1995 Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch 1993 Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review 11: 257-283. Higgins, F. R. 2000 Vicarious ‘do’ and the auxiliary. Ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Hirschbühler, Paul 1982 VP-deletion and across-the-board quantifier scope. North-Eastern Linguistic Society 12: 132-139. Hofmann, T. Ronald 1976 Past tense replacement and the modal system. In Syntax and Semantics 7. Notes from the Linguistic Underground, James McCawley (ed.), 85-100. New York: Academic Press. Hoji, Hajime 2003 Surface and deep anaphora, sloppy identity, and experiments in syntax. Anaphora: A Reference Guide, Andrew Barss and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), . Malden, Ma.: Blackwell. Hollander, Robert M. 1999. Might: evidence and argument from negation and conjunction for anepistemic modality and its logical structure, Ph.D. diss., CUNY. Holmberg, Anders 2001 The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 140-74. Hornstein, Norbert 1990 As Time Goes by: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.

240

References

Howard, Harry 1994 Focal Movement and Mood in English. Ms. Tulane University. Huddleston, Rodney 1976 Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua 40: 331-83. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.) 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iatridou, Sabine 1990 About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21: 551-77. 2000 The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231 270. Ijbema, Aniek 2002 Grammaticalization and Infinitival Complements in Dutch. Ph.D. diss., Utrecht University. Jackendoff, Ray 1971 Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 12-35. 1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Jespersen, Otto 1978 Reprint Growth and Structure of the English Language, 9. ed., Oxford: Blackwell; [original Leipzig: Teubner, 1905.] Kyle, Johnson 1991 Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577636. 1996 In search of the English middle field: Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2001 What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 439-79. Oxford: Blackwell. 2003 Phonological projections. Paper presented at the University of Tübingen. Julien, Marit 2002 Optional 'ha' in Swedish and Norwegian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 67-95. Karttunen, Lauri 1974 Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181193. Katz, Graham 1997 Modality and stativity. Ms. University of Tübingen. Katz, Jerold J., and Paul M. Postal 1964 An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

References

241

Kayne, Richard 1971 A pronominalization paradox in French. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 237241. 1993 Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3-41. Kearns, Kate 2000 Semantics. Basingstoke/New York: Macmillan Press. Kehler, Andrew 2000 Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 533–575. Kehler, Andrew, and Ward, Gregory 1999 On the semantics and pragmatics of ‘identifier so’. In The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, Ken Turner (ed.), 233-256. Amsterdam: Elsevier. van Kemenade, Ans 1994 The history of the English modals; a reanalysis. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII: 143-166. 1999 Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammaticalization. Linguistics 37: 999-1010. Kenesei, István 2001 Criteria for auxiliaries in Hungarian. Argument Structure in Hungarian, István Kenesei (ed.), 79-111. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kennedy, Christopher 1997 VP-deletion and 'nonparasitic' gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 697-707. Kim, Soowon, and James Lyle 1996 Parasitic gaps, multiple questions, and VP ellipsis. WCCFL 14: 287301. Kimball, John 1973 Get. Syntax and Semantics 2, John Kimball (ed.), 205-215. New York: Academic Press. É. Kiss, Katalin 2002 The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiss, Tibor 1995 Infinitive Komplementation. Neue Studien zum deutschen verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Klein, Ewan, and Kate Stainton-Ellis 1989 A note on multiple VP ellipsis. Linguistics 27: 1119–1124. Klein, Wolfgang 1993 Ellipse. In Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow and Theo Vennemann (eds.), 978-987. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1994 Time in Language. London: Routledge.

242

References

Klima, Edward S. 1964 Negation in English. In The Structure of Language, Jerry A. Fodor, and Jerold J. Katz (eds.), 246-323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Kratzer, Angelika 1981 The notional category of modality. In Words, Worlds, and Contexts, Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer, and Hannes Rieser (eds.), 38-74. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991 Modality. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 639-50. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link 1995 Introduction. In The Generic Book, Gregory N. Carlson, and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), 1-124. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kroch, Anthony S. 1974 The semantics of scope in English. Ph.D. diss., MIT. 1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change 1: 199-244. 2001 Syntactic Change. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds), 699-730. Oxford: Blackwell. 2002 Modeling language change. Paper presented at the 7th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Girona. Kroch, Anthony S., and Ann Taylor 2000 The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. Kroch, Anthony S., Ann Taylor, and Donald Ringe 2000 The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Textual Parameters in Old Language, Susan Herring, Pieter van Reenen, and Lene Schoesler (eds.), 353-391. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kuno, Susumo 1974 Lexical and contextual meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 469-477. Laenzlinger, Christopher 1996 Adverb syntax and phrase structure. Configurations. In Essays on Structure and Interpretation, Anna M. Di Sciullo (ed.), 99-127. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Laka, Itziar M. 1990 Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Langedoen, Terence D. 1970 The 'can't seem to' construction. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 25-35. Larson, Richard 1988 On the double-object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.

References

243

Lasnik, Howard 1972 Analyses of Negation in English. Ph.D. diss., MIT. 1995 Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, Héctor Campos and Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), 251-275. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 1997 A Gap in an ellipsis paradigm: some theoretical implications. Linguistic Analysis 27: 166-185. 1999 Pseudogapping puzzles. In Fragments. Shalom Lappin and Elabbas Benmamoun (eds), 141-175. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lasnik, Howard, Juan Uriagereka, and Cedric Boeckx 2005 A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Lees, Robert 1960 The grammar of English nominalization. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Lees, Robert B., and Edward S. Klima 1963 Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39: 17-28. Levin, Nancy S. 1978 Some identity-of-sense deletions puzzle me. Chicago Linguistic Society 14: 229-240. Lewis, David K. 1973 Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell. Lightfoot, David 1974 The diachronic analysis of English modals. In Historical Linguistics I. Syntax, Morphology, Internal and Comparative Reconstruction, John M. Anderson and Charles Jones (eds.), 219-49. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982 The Language Lottery: Toward a Biology of Grammars. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Lobeck, Anne C. 1993 Strong agreement and identification: Evidence from ellipsis in English. Linguistics 31: 777-811. 1995 Ellipsis. Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1999 VP Ellipsis and the Minimalist Program: Some speculations and proposals. In Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Elabbas Benmamoun and Shalom Lappin (eds.), 98-123. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Llombart-Huesca, Amália 2002 Anaphoric ‘one’ and NP-Ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 56: 59-89. López, Luis F. 1995 Polarity and predicate anaphora. Ph.D. diss., Cornell University.

244

References

2001 2003

Verb phrase ellipsis and Discourse-Linking. Lingua 110: 183-213. Complex dependencies and the person-number restriction in Icelandic. Working Papers in Scandinavia Syntax 18: 55-90. 2004 A-Dependencies and the Architecture of CHL. Ms., University of Illinois at Chicago. López, Luis F., and Susanne Winkler 2000 Focus and Topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics 38: 623664. 2003 Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from Gapping. The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, ed. by Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 227-248. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Marrano, Ann M. 1998 The Syntax of modality: A comparative study of epistemic and root modal verbs in Spanish and English. Ph. D. diss., Georgetown University. Martin, Roger 2001 Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141-66. May, Robert 1985 Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. McCawley, James 1971 Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles Fillmore and Terence D. Langendoen (eds.), 96-113. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1974 English as a VSO language. In Semantic Syntax, Pieter A. M. Seuren (ed.), 75-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCloskey, James 1991 Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259-301. 1997 Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 197-235. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 2005 A Note on predicates and heads in Irish clausal syntax. Verb First: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley 155–174. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. McDowell, Joyce P. 1987 Assertion and Modality. Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California. McGregor, William 2003 The nothing that is, the zero that isn't. Studia Linguistica, 57: 75-119.

References

245

Merchant, Jason 2001 The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003 Subject-auxiliary inversion in comparatives and PF output constraints. The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, ed. by Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 55-77. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Ms. University of Chicago. forth. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in Ellipsis, Kyle Johnson (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, James 1993 The Grammar of Scottish English. In Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles, James Milroy and Leslie Milroy (eds.), 99-138. London: Longman. Milsark, Gary 1977 Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1-30. Molnár, Valeria, and Susanne Winkler (eds.) 2006 The Architecture of Focus. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Monachesi, Paola 1999 The syntactic structure of Romanian auxiliary (and modal) verbs. In Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, Gosse Bouma, Erhard Hinrichs, Geert-Jan M. Kruijff, and Richard Oehrle (eds.), 99-115. Stanford: CSLI publications. Mondadori, Fabrizio 1978 Remarks on tense and mood: The perfect future. In Studies in Formal Semantics: Intensionality, Temporality, Negation, Franz Guenthner and Christian Rohrer (eds.), 223-48. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Moody, Simanique 2004 Negation in double modal constructions. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington D.C. Motapanyane Virginia, and Larisa Avram 2001 The syntax of 'putea' and its mixed typology. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14: 149-65. Murguia, Elixabete 2004 Syntactic identity and locality restrictions on verbal ellipsis. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Neidle, Carol 2000 The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.

246

References

Ngonyani, Deo 1996 VP ellipsis in Ndendeule and Swahili applicatives. UCLA Working Papers in Syntax and Semantics 1: 109-28. Nunes, Jairo 1998 The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Glot International 3: 16-20. Öhlschläger, Günther 1989 Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Oehrle, Richard T. 1987 Boolean properties in the analisis of gapping. Syntax and Semantics 20, Geoffrey Huck, and Almerindo Ojeda (eds.), 201-240. SanDiego: Academic Press Oku, Satoshi 2001 A minimalist theory of LF copy. The Minimalist Parameter, Galina M. Alexandrova and Olga Arnaudova (eds.), 281-94. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon 2003 Semiauxiliary verbs, Modal particles. In A Grammar of Basque, José Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Palmer, Frank R. 1986 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997 Negation and modality in the Germanic languages. In Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan and Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), 133-149. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Papafragou, Anna 1998 Inference and Word Meaning: The Case of Modal Auxiliaries. Lingua 105: 1-47. Partee, Barbara H. 1973 Some Structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601-609. Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall 1993 Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Penka, Doris, and Arnim von Stechow 2001 Negative Indefinita unter Modalverben. Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, ed. by Reimar Müller and Marga Reis, 263-86. Hamburg: Buske. Perlmutter, David 1970 The two verbs 'begin'. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 107119. Boston: Ginn.

References

247

Pesetsky, David 1998 Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the Best Good Enough? ed. by P. Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, M. McGinnis, and David Pesetsky, 337-83. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego 2001 T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: a life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (eds.), 355-426. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), 495-537. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Petronio, Karen M. 1993 Clause structure in American Sign Language. Ph.D. diss., University of Washington. Phillips, Collin 2003 Linear Order and Constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37-90. Picallo, Carme 1990 Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 285 -312. Pintzuk, Susan 1995 Variation and change in Old English clause structure. Language Variation and Change 7: 229-260. Plank, Frans 1984 The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8: 305-364. Polinski, Maria, and Eric Potsdam 2002 Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry, 33: 245-282. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, UG, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. 1997 Notes on clause structure. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 237-279. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Postal, Paul M. 1966 On the so-called pronouns in English. In An Introduction to General Linguistics, ed. by Francis P. Dinneen. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston 2001 Missing parasitic gaps. Parasitic Gaps, Peter W. Culicover, and Paul M. Postal (eds.), 403-417. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1999 African American Vernacular English is not Standard English with mistakes. The Working of Language: From Prescription to Perspectives, Rebecca S. Wheeler (ed.), 39-58. Westport: Praeger.

248

References

2000

Hankamer was! Webschrift for Jorge Hankamer. Web-accessible at: ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/pullum.html. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Deirdre Wilson 1977 Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53: 741-788. Quine, Willard V. 1974 Reprint. Reference and modality. In Readings in Semantics, Farhang Zabeeh, E.D. Klemke, and Arthur Jacobson (eds.), 777-799. Urbana/Chicago/London: University of Illinois Press. [Original in From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.] Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman. Radford, Andrew 1997 Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004 English Syntax: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramat, Paolo 1987 Introduction. Historical development of auxiliaries, Martin B. Harris and Paolo Ramat (eds.), 3-19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press. Reis, Marga 2001 Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, Reimar Müller and Marga Reis (eds.), 287-318. Hamburg: Buske. 2003 On the form and interpretation of German wh-infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 155-201. Riemsdijk, Henk van 2002 The unbearable lightness of GOing. The projection parameter as a pure parameter governing the distribution of elliptic motion verbs in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 143196. Rigau, Gemma 1999 Relativized impersonality: Deontic sentences in Catalan. In Semantic Issues in Romance Syntax, Esthela Treviño and José Lema (eds.), 193-229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rivero, Maria Luisa 1994 Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63-120.

References

249

Rizzi, Luigi 1978 A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, Samuel J. Keyser (ed.), 113-158. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Roberts, Ian G. 1985 Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21-58. 1993 Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1998 Have/Be Raising, Move F, and Procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113-125. Roberts, Ian G., and Anna Roussou 2003 Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rooth, Mats E. 1992 Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprach-theoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik. No. 29, Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik (eds.). University of Stuttgart/ University of Tübingen. Ross, John R. 1969 Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in Philosophical Linguistics 1: 77102, ed. by J. Todd. Evanston, Ill.: Great Expectations. Rostila, Jouni 2001 In search of invisible prepositions. Connections between Funktionsverbgefüge and aspectual periphrastics. Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 8: 125-65. Rydén, Mats, and Sverker Brorström 1987 The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sag, Ivan 1976 Deletion and Logical Form. MIT, Ph.D. Dissertation. [Published 1980. New York: Garland.] 1979. The nonunity of anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 152-64. Schachter, Paul 1977 Does she or doesn´t she? Linguistic Inquiry 8: 763-67. 1978 English propredicates. Linguistic Analysis 4: 187-224. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984 Phonology and Syntax: the Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press. Siegel, Muffy E.A. 1987 Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 53-76.

250

References

Sigurðsson, Halldór Á. 1996 Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1-46. Solà, Joan, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Joan Mascaró, and Manuel Pérez Saldanya (eds.) 2002 Gramàtica del català contemporani. Barcelona: Empúries. Stalnaker, Robert T. 1973 Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 77-96. Stechow, Arnim von 1995 The proper treatment of tense. SALT 5: 362-386. 2003 Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. North-Eastern Linguistic Society 33: 397403. Stechow, Arnim von, and Wolfgang Sternefeld 1988 Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Steele, Susan, Adrian Akmajian, Richard Demers, Eloise Jelinek, Chisato Kitagawa, Richard Oehrle, and Thomas Wasow 1981 An Encyclopaedia of AUX: A Study in Cross-Linguistic Equivalence. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Sternefeld, Wolfgang 1995 Voice Phrases and their specifiers. Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft. SfS-Report-05-95. University of Tübingen. 2006 Syntax. Eine merkmalbasierte generative Analyse des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Stejapanovic, Sandra 1998 On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: Evidence from VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 527-537. Stowell, Tim 1982 The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561-570. 1996 The phrase structure of tense. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), 277-291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 2004a Tense and modals. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), 621-35. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 2004b Tense/modal scope reversals and sequence of tense: The case of the English perfect modal. Paper presented at the Workshop on Modal Verbs and Modality University of Tübingen. Sundén, Karl 1904 Contributions to the Study of Elliptical Words in Modern English. Upsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Surányi, Balázs 2004 Differential quantifier scope: Q-raising versus Q-feature checking. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 5. Proceedings of CSSP 2003, Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), 215-40.

References

251

Svenonius, Peter 2002 Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Subject, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonius (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. Sweetser, Eve 1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Tancredi, Christopher 1992 Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition, Ph.D. diss., MIT. Thomason, Richmond H., and Robert T. Stalnaker 1973 A semantic analysis of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 195-220. Thompson, Ellen 1996 The syntax of tense. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, and Sten Vikner 1995 Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 55: 51-88. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55. 1999 Why ‘must’ is not ‘moot.’ Paper presented at the Fourteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Ekkehard König 1991 The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), 189-218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Travis, Lisa 1984 Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Uriagerkeka, Juan 1999 Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), . Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Valmala Elguea, Vidal 1996 VP Anaphor, the SIH, and the ISH: The Case of Infinitives. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 10: 123-137. Vikner, Sten 1988 Modals in Danish and event expressions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 39: 1-33. Visser, Frederikus Th. 1963-73 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Warner, Anthony R. 1992 Elliptical and impersonal constructions: Evidence for auxiliaries in Old English. In Evidence from Old English: Material and Theoretical Bases for Reconstruction, ed. by F. Colman, 178-210. Edinburgh: John Donald.

252

References

1993

English Auxiliaries: Structure and History: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995 Predicting the progressive passive: parametric variation within a lexicalist framework. Language 71: 533-557. Wasow, Thomas 1972 Anaphoric Relations in English. Ph.D. diss, MIT. 1979 Anaphora in Generative Grammar. Ghent: Story-Scientia. Webber, Bonnie L. 1978 A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Ph.D. diss., Harvard. Werner, Tom 2003 Deducing the future. North-Eastern Linguistic Society 33: 445-461. Westmoreland, Robert R. 1998 Information and intonation in natural language modality. Ph.D. diss., Indiana University. Westney, Paul 1995 Modals and Periphrastics in English: An Investigation into the Semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their Periphrastic Equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Williams, Edwin 1977 Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 103-39. 1994 A reinterpretation of evidence for verb movement in French. Verb Movement, David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), 189-205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winkler, Susanne 1997 Focus and Secondary Predication. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000 Silent copy and polarity focus in VP ellipsis. Ellipsis in Coordination, ed. by Kerstin Schwabe and Niing Zhang, 221-47. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2003 Ellipsis at the Interfaces: An Information Structural Investigation of Sentence-Bound and Discourse-Bound Ellipsis in English, University of Tübingen: Habilitationsschrift. 2005 Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2006 Ellipsis. In The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Keith Brown (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Winkler, Susanne, and Kerstin Schwabe 2003 Exploring the interfaces from the perspective of omitted structures. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (eds.), 1-26. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wright, Georg H. von 1951 An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

References

253

Wurmbrand, Susanne 1998 Infinitives. Ph.D. diss., MIT. 1999 Modal verbs must be raising verbs. WCCFL, 18: 599-612. 2001 Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zagona, Karen 1988 Proper Government of antecedentless VP in English and Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 95-128. Zanuttini, Raffaella 2001 Sentential negation. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), 511-535. Oxford: Blackwell. Zeijlstra, Hedde 2004 Sentential negation and negative concord. Ph.D. diss., University of Amsterdam. Zeisler, Bettina. 2004 Relative Tense and Aspectual Values in Tibetan Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa 1982 On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Zwicky, Arnold, and Geoffrey K. Pullum 1983 Cliticization versus inflection: English n't. Language 59: 502-513.

Index

Across-the-Board (ATB) movement 63, 109 adjunction 50, 149, 160 adverbs 50–53, 57, 65, 99, 149, 153 African American Vernacular English (AAVE) 120, 191 Antecent Contained Deletion (ACD) 69, 108, 118, 210 Alboiu, Gabriela 182 Asian English 191 aspect 70, 98, 151, 191, 208–210 auxiliary 18–39, 42–46, 69–70, 99, 104–106, 137–138, 165, 191, 193 Avram, Larisa 182 Backwards Anaphora Constraint (BAC) 90, 100, 142 Baker, Carl L. 28–32 Baker, Mark 63, 98, Beck, Sigrid 175, 217 Binding Theory 23, 73, 79, 96, 164 Bobaljik, Johnathan D. 53, 69, 117 bouletic see volitional Brennan, Virginia 7, 181 Bresnan, Joan 11, 67–68, 89–91, 107, 165, 210 Brown, Keith 52, 217 Butler, Jonny 175, 184, 200–201 can 17, 31, 40, 52, 56, 60, 208, 211, 212, 217 Catalan 184, 186, 188, 216 Chomsky, Noam 19, 43, 56, 67, 96, 110-114, 164, 206, 225

Cinque, Guglielmo 25, 50–54, 166, 168, 180 comparatives 165 conjunction 68, 86, 120 control structure 17, 63, 107, 165 coordination 77, 86, 205 Cornilescu, Alexandra 188, 220 could 60-61, 109, 131, 136, 140, 169, 180–181, 207, 221, 223 counterfactual(ity) 7, 131, 140, 168– 171, 181 Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van 92 Culicover, Peter W. 78 cycle, cyclicity 47, 102, 116, 205, 211 Cyrino, Sonia M.L. 88, 91, 213 Demirdache, Hamida 68, 191, 205, 215 deontic 3, 6, 16, 21, 50, 141, 151– 153, 176, 180, 182, 208 Depiante, Marcela A. 69, 91, 190, 195 Drubig, Hans Bernhard 8, 49, 53–58, 166, 180, 190, 194, 208 Dutch 92, 127–130, 156 Dvořák, Boštjan 186, 213–215 dynamic modality 7, 16, 17, 50, 60, 122, 131, 157, 182, 189, 191, 207, 208, 220 economy 5, 13, 40–42, 111, 119, 173, 206, 217, 221 Ehrich, Veronika 217

Index Emonds, Joseph E. 27–29, 31, 33–36, 39–43, 111, 136, 150, 209 epistemic modality 6–8, 17, 21, 25, 46, 49–62, 140, 152, 153, 165– 183, 190–205, 208, 222–223 events 123, 135, 205 evidential modality 8, 54–55 exophoric antecedent 93–94, 96 extraction 10, 52, 78, 102, 106, 108, 145, 212, 221 Fiengo, Robert 10, 69, 72–77, 79, 108, 118 Fintel, Kai von 39, 140, 161, 175 Fox, Danny 24, 72, 84, 118 French 36, 41, 66, 90, 188 Full interpretation (FI) 19, 58, 110 gapping 22, 32, 88, 116, 118, 142, 211 Gelderen, Elly van 157, 182, 219 German 17, 21, 25, 106, 141, 151, 181, 205, 218 Government 11, 13, 37–39, 83, 96– 99, 116, 206 Green, Lisa J. 191 Hankamer, Jorge 13, 88–93, 145 Hartmann, Jutta 63, 217, 219 Hegarty, Michael 14, 20–21, 32, 55, 163 Hungarian 120, 129, 157 Iatridou, Sabine 39, 63, 131, 140, 161, 175 Irish 30, 103, 213 Irish English 185 islands 24, 78, 81, 118 Italian 51, 188 Jackendoff, Ray 25, 46–50, 180

255

Johnson, Kyle 10, 23, 104–110, 112, 119, 203, 207, 210 Kayne, Richard 43, 90, 103 Kemenade, Ans van 124, 130, 205 Kennedy, Christopher 77–82, 210 Klein, Wolfgang 22, 65, 191 Konietzko, Andreas 219 Kratzer, Angelika 6, 16, 71, 128, 172, 227 Kroch, Anthony S. 122, 134, 140, 177 label 22, 51, 55 Lasnik, Howard 16, 24, 27, 36, 44, 83, 118, 211 licensing 3, 11, 77, 87–107, 162, 177, 189–192, 199, 203–215 Lightfoot, David 37, 122, 208 Lobeck, Anne 1, 24, 96–100, 210 López, Luis F. 106, 111, 167, 190 Matos, Gabriela M. 88, 196, 213 may 7, 17, 19, 26, 49, 57, 60, 166, 185, 194, 208, 209 May, Robert 10, 69, 72–77, 79, 108, 118 McDowell, Joyce 56–57, 180, 190, 201 Merchant, Jason 63, 88, 112, 190 might 6, 7, 52, 56, 59–62, 99, 166, 170, 171, 196, 197, 204, 209, 210, 211, 213 modally licensed ellipsis (MLE) 95, 161–163, 192, 195–200, 210–213 must 50, 55–57, 69, 167, 168, 174, 175, 180, 184, 185, 190, 194, 197, 208, 211, 212, 218 need 22, 92, 179, 218–219 negation 19, 29, 30, 35, 51, 56, 106, 164, 166-168, 177, 184, 192, 204, 205

256

Index

Norwegian 179 NP ellipsis 97, 121, 159, 212 Palmer, Frank R. 15, 52, 182, 186 Papagragou, Anna 65, 181 parasitic gaps 78–83, 198, 210 phases 54, 56, 110–113, 121, 206, 208 Phonetic Form (PF) 5, 10, 24, 31, 45, 67, 82–87, 112, 195, 206, 207 Picallo, Carme 56, 184, 216 Pied-piping 43 Plank, Frans 64, 178, 205, 208 Portuguese 88, 196, 213 Postal, Paul M. 49, 77–82, 103 prepositional 126, 148 Prince, Ellen 198 pseudogapping 65, 88, 118, 214 Pullum, Geoffrey K. 19, 22, 31, 64, 88–94, 157 quantifiers 19, 35, 69, 72, 141, 172– 177, 197 Quirk, C. Randolph 26, 64, 129, 167, 217 Radford, Andrew 18, 69, 196 raising 17, 34, 35, 39, 107, 163–165, 195, 213, 216 reconstruction 75, 80, 103 Reis, Marga 9, 22, 141, 178, 217 restructuring 122, 151, 156, 182 Riemsdijk, Henk van 17, 150–154 Roberts, Ian G. 19, 36–40, 43–46, 52, 63, 122, 135, 157, 160, 182, 186, 203, 207, 208 Romanian 182, 183, 187, 188, 198 Ross, John R. 17–22, 46, 64, 103 Rostila, Jouni 151 Roussou, Anna 37, 63, 157, 160, 182, 186

Sag, Ivan 11, 13, 68–72, 75, 85, 91, 88–93, 145 scope 7, 23, 29, 51, 52, 55, 59, 166– 186, 198, 203 Scottish English 52, 218 shall 159, 207–208 sloppy identity 74–76, 143–145 should 21, 27, 44, 49, 60, 61, 131, 171, 220 Slovenian 186, 209, 213 sluicing 24, 97, 118 Spanish 63, 195 Spec-head configuration 26, 50 Stechow, Arnim von 15, 17, 58, 141, 181 Sternefeld, Wolfgang 17, 22, 221 Stowell, Timothy 58–62, 65, 102, 168–170, 199 stripping 77, 116, 119 subordination 86, 117, 142 tense 57–62, 168–172, 177–192, 207–210 Traugott, Elizabeth 38, 182, 186 Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam 68, 191, 205, 215 Visser, Frederikus 153, 185, 208 volitional modality 7, 15, 220 Warner, Anthony 27, 64, 124, 158, 226 Wasow, Thomas 100–104, 210 Winkler, Susanne 11, 21, 57, 113– 119, 190, 207, 210, 211 Wurmbrand, Susanne 17, 123, 141, 174 Zagona, Karen 24, 59, 105