Deletion Versus
Pro-Forms: A False Dichotomy
A common dichotomy in the study of
ellipsis is the dichotomy between null pro-forms, which are assumed to be
generated essentially as base-generated empty pronouns, lacking internal structure, and
null phrases that become null as a result of deletion (see Johnson
(2001) for a discussion of this distinction). In this paper, I will show that the dichotomy is often not pure, but a result of
deletion of a small enough part of a phrase that creates the appearance that
the anaphoric item is a null pro-form. I
shall illustrate this with two anaphoric constructions in English, British English do and so-called NP-ellipsis.
On the face of it, both of these
constructions look like excellent candidates for pro-form status. While British
speakers take (1) and (2) to be synonymous, with (1) involving VP-ellipsis, as
in American English, and (2) being an example of British English do.
However, there
are differences; while VP-ellipsis allows wh-traces
(as in (3)), British English do does
not (4). Furthermore, while VP-ellipsis allows an object
quantifier within the elided VP to take
inverse scope over the subject (5),
British English do only allows
direct scope (6). These differences
might lead one to posit British English do
as a pro-form, and take VP-ellipsis to be deletion of a phrase with internal
syntactic structure. However, British English do has characteristics that require it
too to have internal structure. For example, sloppy readings are considered a
symptom of a need to compose a complex meaning of an element, so
that the sloppy reading in (7) is thought to be represented by a logical
form as in (8). Just as (7) has the sloppy bound-variable
reading, (9), with British English do,
has this reading as well.
Furthermore,
British English do must
allow the interpreted VP to contain a DP
that had undergone A-movement out of it.
For example, (10) requires interpretaton of a VP that
has been extracted from by
subject-to-subject raising, and (11)
requires interpretation of an unaccusative VP
(the VPs contain a resultative
construction, and Levin & Rappaport-Hovav (1995)
have shown that resultatives can only be predicated
of direct objects; this resultative is therefore a diagnostic for unaccusativity).
We have a seeming paradox, therefore,
with respect to British English do,
in that it can’t be looked into for wh-dependencies
and quantifier scope, but can be for A-movement and sloppy identity. The paradox can be resolved if, following a suggestion of Chris Collins (personal communication), we
analyze do as v in a Larsonian shell
(Larson (1988)), and say that all VPs
are introduced as complements to v (Legate (2003), Collins (1997)), and postulate British English do as involving deletion of the VP
complement to this v. Hence, (2) will involve a
structure with the characteristics in (12).
If we assume Chomsky’s (2000),
(2001) theory of phases, in which syntactic operations take place
phase-by-phase, and the phases are vP and
CP (and perhaps DP-more on this below), we can adopt Legate’s analysis of wh-movement to [Spec, CP] as first involving movement of
the wh-phrase
to the edge of the vP phase. Deletion
of the VP, if
it occurs in the syntax and not at PF,
will cause the VP and everything that it dominates to lose all formal
features, including those that drive
movement. Presumably, QR which involves
inverse scope would also require movement to the edge of vP.
This account would allow us to account for
the hybrid nature of British English do,
in that it is analyzable with respect to some processes but not others. We can actually see the same situation in
so-called NP-ellipsis, as in (13). If this is ellipsis, it is very different
from VP-ellipsis. For one thing, NP-ellipsis can’t contain a wh-trace (compare (14) with its non-NP-elided
counterpart (15). For another, a genitive DP can allow inverse scope,
as in (16), but when the NP complement
of the genitive is elided, inverse scope
becomes impossible (17). Therefore, we
have the same situation with respect to NP-ellipsis as with British English do, with the same temptation to analyze
the anaphoric construction as involving a pro-form without internal syntactic
structure. Again, however, we have evidence that there must be internal
structure. Elbourne
(2005) has found a sentence , given as (18), that requires that the interpretation of the
null NP must first involve interpretation of an elided VP, and we know that VP-ellipsis requires
internal syntactic structure. Therefore, NP-ellipsis must as well, and involves the
same mechanisms of deletion of a smaller constituent than a phase edge that we
saw for British English do.
(1) John will read the book, and Fred will ___too.
(2)
John will read
the book, and Fred will do___, too.
(3)
Although I don’t know which book John will read,
I do know which book Fred will___.
(4)
*Although I don’t
know which book John will read, I do know which book Fred will do.
(5)
Some man will read every book, and some woman
will___,too. (Some<every, every<some)
(6)
Some man will read every book, and some woman
will do, too. (Some<every, *every<some).
(7)
John likes himself, and Fred does __too.
(8)
lx (x likes x) John
and ly (y likes y) Fred.
(9)
John might like himself, and Fred might do,
too.
(10) John might seem to enjoy this, and Fred might do,too.
(11) The river might
freeze solid, and the lake might do, too.
(12) [vP [DP Fred ][v’ [v
do][VP read the book]]]
(13) Although I didn’t see John’s
pictures of Sally, I did see Fred’s_____.
(14) Although I don’t know who he saw many pictures of, I do know who he
saw some pictures of__.
(15) * Although I don’t know who he saw many pictures of, I
do know who he
saw some___.
(16) Although I don’t enjoy some linguist’s discussion of
every problem, I
do enjoy some philosopher’s discussion of every problem . (Some<every,
Every<some).
(17) Althouth I don’t enjoy some linguist’s discussion of every
problem, I do
enjoy some philosopher’s___. (Some<every, *Every<some).
(18) When John wanted to cook, he met some people who
didn’t want him to; and when he wanted to clean he met some too.
References:
1.
Chomsky, Noam
(2000). “Minimalist Inquiries; The Framework” , in D. Michaels, R. Martin,
& J. Uriagureka, eds., Step by Step: Essays in
Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 89-155
2.
Chomsky, Noam
(2001). “Derivation by Phase”, in M. Kenstowicz, ed.,
Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT
Press,
3.
Collins, Chris
(1997). Local Economy, MIT Press,
4.
Elbourne, Paul
(2005). “The Semantics of Ellipsis”, unpublished ms.,
5.
Johnson, Kyle (2001). “Why VP-Ellipsis Can Do
What It Can, But Not Why”, in M. Baltin & C. Collins, eds., The Handbook
of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell & Sons, Oxford, U.K., pp.
439-479
6.
Larson, Richard
(1988) “On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 334-391
7.
Legate, Julie
(2003), “Some Interface Properties of the Phase”, Linguistic Inquiry,
Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 506-516
8.