No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C

Abstract

The syntax literature has overwhelmingly adopted the view that Condition C reconstruction takes place in wh-chains for R-expressions contained within arguments, but not within adjuncts of fronted wh-phrases. At the same time, this empirical picture has been questioned by various authors. We undertake a series of grammaticality surveys using Amazon Mechanical Turk in an attempt to clarify the empirical picture regarding reconstruction for Binding Condition C. We find absolutely no evidence of an argument–adjunct distinction in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Neither arguments nor adjuncts reconstruct for Condition C. We suggest that those speakers who report such a contrast (linguists, primarily) are following a pragmatic bias, and not Condition C. While we do not find reconstruction of dependents of fronted NPs for Binding Condition C, we do find reconstruction of fronted PPs. That is, the NP complement of a fronted P must reconstruct for Binding Condition C. The literature also finds reconstruction of NP complements of verbs and adjectives. This means that fronted Ns are special in not requiring reconstruction of their arguments and adjuncts. We suggest that, syntactically, arguments of Ns are treated as adjuncts: semantic arguments simply adjoin in the same manner as true adjuncts. Syntactic adjuncts can be left out of lower copies in chains, something that we suggest follows from a left-to-right syntactic derivation plus an economy condition on copying.

On reconstruction effects in English <i>wh</i>-slifting: Theoretical and experimental considerations

“…The results obtained by an accumulating body of grammaticality surveys, two of which are of particular interest for our discussion, are consistent with voices that have seriously challenged the conventional wisdom about reconstruction for Principle C. In particular, the typical assumption about reconstruction for Principle C has been that, in wh-chains, R-expressions contained within arguments and predicates (usually) reconstruct, while R-expressions contained within adjuncts do not (or, at least, do not have to). This is shown by the ungrammaticality of (10a) and (10b), which contain a wh-argument and a wh-predicate, respectively, and contrast with the licit (10c), which features a wh-adjunct (for the original sources of all the examples cited below, and the way we rest the argument we presently formulate on these examples, see Adger et al 2017;and Bruening & Al Khalaf 2019).…”

“…Two online acceptability judgments tasks, one by Adger et al (2017), and the other by Bruening & Al Khalaf (2019), shed light on this empirical discrepancy by offering experi-mental support to the latter view: Predicates reconstruct for Principle C, but the argument-adjunct asymmetry is a non-starter. Of the more general discussion that figures in these surveys about the distribution of Principle C reconstruction, the generalization in (12) is particularly relevant for our discussion about the corresponding distribution in instances of wh-slifting.…”

“…We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing us to this potentially confusing part of our discussion ofBruening & Al Khalaf's (2019) generalization. 7 Beyond the descriptive generalization ofBruening & Al Khalaf (2019),Adger et al (2017) offer a formal analysis of the relevant facts in the text, which combines the Trace Conversion ofFox (1999) with the Distributed Deletion ofTakahashi & Hulsey (2009). Extending this approach to wh-slifting seems plausible but is not void of challenges.…”

Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis

“…Also, recent literature reveals that countercyclic late merger should not be allowed (see Sportiche 2019 for arguments. See also Bruening & Al Khalaf 2018 for an alternative analysis to countercyclic later merger in terms of left-to-right syntax). What is important for the purposes of the current paper is that Bošković's generalization does not capture the Arabic facts: FQs do appear in theta positions (note that this is also true of Japanese floating numerals, as shown by Miyagawa 1989; thus, it is not a distributional fact specific to Arabic).…”

A last Resort Approach to (Number) Feature Inheritance1

“… In addition to the suppression of WCO and the feeding of Binding Principle A, van Urk shows that A′‐movement in Dinka lacks reconstruction for Principle C, as in (i). However, Bruening & Al‐Khalaf (2018) find that Condition C does not reconstruct in any instances of NP‐movement (A/A′ distinction irrelevant), but there is some evidence it does reconstruct in AP‐movement (see also Adger et al. 2017). (i)A′‐movement in Dinka lacks reconstruction for Principle C (van Urk 2015: 114)[ DP Mánhè̤Máyènkṳ̀Àyén i ]cì̤ikè̤ i ______tî̤iŋ.brother.…”