np-c omparatives s omparativesusers.uoa.gr/~wlechner/4 np-comp.pdf3 ps-paradoxes iv: np-comparatives...

Blago Summer School 2000 July 31st - August 11th 2000Winfried Lechner, University of Tü[email protected]

NP-COMPARATIVES

STRUCTURE OF NP-COMPARATIVES

! Structure of DegP: AP and than-XP serve as complements of the head of a functional Deg(ree)P:

(Abney 1987; Corver 1994, 1997; Kennedy 1997; Merchant & Kennedy 1999):

(1) a. Mary is younger than Peter is

b. DegP3

Deg’ 3

Deg’ than-XP 3 6

AP Deg° than Peter is -4 !

young -er

I. STRUCTURE OF ANTECEDENT: PRECEDENCE

Evidence from word order indicates that the left-adjunction analysis of prenominal modifiers

misconstrues the relation between DegP and NP.

(2) OBSERVATION: Left-adjunction analysis of DegP predicts wrong word order ((4)) for

NP-comparatives.

(3) Mary met younger men [than Peter met]

(4) a. *Mary met younger [than Peter met] men

b. *NP 3

DegP NP6 5

younger than men Peter met

(5) CONJECTURE: (3) derives from (4) by obligatory extraposition of than-XP.

(6) PROBLEM: DegP is an island for extraposition.

Blago Summer School 2000 2

! In German, prenominal APs may include PP-complements ((7)a). These PPs resist however

extraposition to the right of NP ((7)b). Thus, DegP is an island for extraposition ((8)):

(7) a. Eine [[PP auf ihren Hund] stolze] Frau hat den Hans getroffen.a of her dog proud woman has the H. met

b. *Eine [ti stolze] Frau [PP auf ihren Hund] hat den Hans getroffen. a proud woman of her dog has the H. met

“A woman proud of her dog met John”

(8) *NP 3

NP PPi /than-XPi 3 :

Barrier L DegP NP # 6 !

ti ! z___________-=______________z___________-=______________z___________-=______________z___________-=______________m

(9) CONCLUSION: (3) cannot be derived from (4) by extraposition of than-XP to the right

of NP. than-XP is generated at the right periphery of the DP.

II. STRUCTURE OF CD-SITE: OP-CHAIN

! On the assumptions of the traditional left-adjunction analyses of attributive modifiers, the operator

binds a trace inside an adjunct (i.e. DegP) in NP-comparatives (Corver 1990; Heim 1985; Moltmann 1992):

(10) a. Mary met younger men than Peter metb. than [CP OPk Peter met dk -young men]

c. *CP 3

OPk IP 6:::: Peter met DP

!!!! 3!!!! NP

!!!! 3!!!! Barrier L DegP NP

!!!! 6 5 !!!! ....AP... men

!!!! 6!!!! young dk

z--------------mz--------------mz--------------mz--------------m

3 PS-Paradoxes IV: NP-Comparatives

III. STRUCTURE OF ANTECEDENT: C-COMMAND

(11) CONJECTURE: than-XP is generated right-adjoined to NP (i.e. (8) without mov’t).

(12) PROBLEM: Data from pronominal variable binding demonstrates that than-XP is

c-commanded by categories to its left (1st branching node definition).

! DP-internal QP-modifiers may bind pronouns contained within the than-XP, but not v.v.:

(13) a. She provided a better description of [each law]i [than itsi author had - provided].

b. *She provided a better description of [hisi law] [than each authori had - provided].

(14) a. weil sie eine bessere Beschreibung von [jedem Buch]i [als seini Author - lieferte].since she a better description of each book than its author provided

“since she provided a better description of each book than itsi author provided -”

b. *weil sie eine bessere Beschreibung von [seinemi Buch] [als jeder Authori lieferte].since she a better description of his book than each author provided

! Precedence also translates into c-command in regular NPs (Bianchi 1999a; Haider 1993):

(15) die Zerlegung [jeglicher Substanz]i [in ihrei Bestandteile]“the dissection of each substancei into itsi components”

In both constructions, categories to the right are more deeply embedded. This conflicts with the view

that than-XPs originate in a position right-adjoined to NP (i.e. (8) without movement).

(16) CONJECTURE: Pronominal variable binding in (13) is sponsored by Inverse Linking.

(17) A description of [each law]i failed to characterize iti properly.

(18) PROBLEM: " Quantifiers cannot be inversely linked over a negative determiner

((19); K. Johnson, p.c.).

! Quantifiers embedded within negative NP-comparatives can take

scope over pronouns inside the than-XP ((20)).

(19) a. *She didn’t expect any description of each lawi to characterize iti properly.

b. *No description of each lawi succeeded in characterizing iti properly.

(20) a. She couldn’t come up with any better description of each lawi than itsi author -.(- = (came up with a) d-good description)

b. There can be no better description of each lawi than the one itsi author provided -.(- = (is a) d-good description)

(21) CONCLUSION: than-XP is generated lowest within DP (lower than preceding XPs).


IV. WORD ORDER AND SIZE OF CD-SITE

(22) OBSERVATION: The CD-site of prenominal comparatives comprises of AP and NP,

while it consists of AP in postnominal construction (Bresnan 1973).

! In felicitous postnominal construction (23)a, young is predicated of my mother. In prenominal

comparative (23)b, young man is predicated of my mother, triggering a sortal mismatch.

(23) a. She met a man younger than my mother -(- = is [AP d-young])

b. #She met a younger man than my mother -(- = is [NP a d-young man])

! Bresnan (1973): The CD-site corresponds in size to the sister node of than-XP. The elided category

is an AP in (23)a (vd. (23)a’), and an NP in (23)b (vd. (23)b’):

(23)a’ (23)b’ NP 3 NP AP 5 3 man AP than-XP 5 6666

younger than my mother

NP 3 NP than-XP

2 6666 AP NP than my mother 5 4younger man

(24) PROBLEM: Data from variable binding (V.) demonstrated that than-XP is attached lowest

within the DP. Thus, Bresnan’s account cannot be maintained.

V. MISMATCH ANTECEDENT - CD-SITE

Ano old puzzle: How can comparative (younger) antecede an absolute CD-site (young)? (Moltmann

1992)

(25) Mary is younger [than Peter is d-young]

PARADOX A: ORGANIZATION OF DEGP

On the traditional analysis of prenominal modifiers, APs - or the DegPs that contain them - adjoin

to the left of the NPs they modify. Furthermore, the than-XP is contained within the DegP. This

implies that the DegP is generated to the left of the NP. But the evidence above indicated that the

than-XP is actually located to the right of the NP. Crucially, it was shown that the than-XP cannot

reach its surface position by movement. This is so for two reasons: first, the movement operation

would violate island constraints. Second, since movement is always upward, movement would attach

the than-XP higher up in the tree, too high to be within the scope of other NP-modifiers.


DESIDERATA:

9 Structure of NP-comparative:

" than-XP has to follow head noun (Precedence; I)." CD-site should be transparent for movement (OP-chain; II)." than-XP should be lowest inside DegP (Variable binding; III).

9 Analysis should correlate word order with size of ellipsis (IV).

9 CD should have access to substring of antecedent (Mismatch; V).

PARADOX: than-XP has to be generated to the right of the NP (word order and binding).than-XP has to be generated to the left of the NP (subcategorization).

ANALYSIS

A NEW STRUCTURE FOR NP-COMPARATIVES

! Combining DegP-Hypothesis with a right-branching DP:

(26) a. Mary met younger men than Peter metb. DP

3 D° DegP

3 AP Deg’

2 3 AP NP Deg° than-XP

5 5 [+comp.] 6 younger men than Peter met

ASPECTS OF THE STRUCTURE

! AP is situated in SpecDegP, and serves as the external argument of Deg°.

! Attributive AP are subsective modifiers (Abney 1987).

! Deg° checks comparative morphology on head of AP (Deg°-raising in periphrastic forms).

! Complement position of Deg° is occupied by degree denoting terms (than-XP in matrix DegP

and degree trace in than-XP).


(27) AP-RAISING HYPOTHESIS

Comparative Deletion consists in overt AP-Raising

from the lower SpecDegP of the than-XP to the higher SpecDegP of the matrix clause

(vd. head raising analysis of relative clauses; Bianchi 1999b; Kayne 1994; Vergnaud 1974).

(28) a. Mary met younger men than Peter met

b. DP 3 D° DegP 3a____> AP Deg’

# 6 6 6 6 3# young-er men Deg° than-XP

# [+comp.] 3# than CP

# 3 # OPk 3 # : Peter VP

# ! 3 # ! met DP

# ! 3# ! DegP

# ! 3 z___________________________________________________________ AP Deg’

! 6666 2! young men Deg° dk

z____________________________________________m

" AP-Raising is triggered by the need to eliminate a [comparative] feature of higher Deg°

([+interpretable] and [+EPP]).

! Both copies of the AP are interpreted: ‘Move α without Form Chain’ (see §6).

DIRECT CONSEQUENCES

I. Comparative morphology is encoded on the higher Deg° only, and the CD-site is restored as

a positive - and not as a comparative - AP.

II. Empty operator chain in NP-comparatives observes locality because OP binds a trace inside

a right branch (see tree (28)b).

III. Word order conflict resolved: than-XP is generated in its surface position, to the right of the

head noun:

(29) Mary met [DegP [younger men][Deg’ Deg° [than-XP than Peter met]]]


IV. Right-branching structure, which posits that than-XP is generated lower than NP-modifiers,

explains why NP-internal QPs can bind into than-XP (on detailed position of modifiers in right-branching DPs

see Johnson 1997; Kayne 1994):

(13) She provided a better description of each lawi [than-XP than itsi author had - provided]

V. AP-Raising accounts for effects of word order variation on interpretation (see below).

EVIDENCE FOR MOVEMENT

I. DISJOINT REFERENCE EFFECTS

Comparative diplay reconstruction effects for Principle A and C (via vehicle change).

! Names embedded in the CD-site trigger Principle C effects (improves with focus; Reinhart 1983):

(30) *Mary is prouder of Johni than hei is -. (- = proud of John)

! AP-complement does not c-command than-XP ((31)). This indicates that disjointness requirement

in (30) is not due to surface Principle B effect ((32)b):

(31) *John is prouder of Mary than herself -. (- = (is) proud of Mary)

(32) a. (It is impossible that) John is taller than himself -.b. *Johni is taller than himi -. (- = (is) d-tall)

! Vehicle change obviates Principle C:

(33) Mary is prouder of Johni than hei thinks that his parents are -. (- = proud of John)

! Reconstruction with Principle A. Addition argument for presence of a copy inside than-XP: each

raising needs a source (Heim, Lasnik & May 1991).

(34) a. We are more proud of each other than they are -. (- = proud of each other)b. We are more proud of each other than [eachi [they are proud of ti other]]

II. ELLIPSIS OF AP VS. ELLIPSIS IN COMPARATIVES

! Ellipsis is unable to affect APs (Johnson 1996: 18):

(35) a. *Vivek made Nishi angry at Melissa and Sam made Carry -. (- = angry at Melissa)b. *I consider Betsy pretty and you consider Sam -. (- = pretty)

! But comparative formation in the same contexts leads to well-formed results, indicating that CD


is not an instance of ellipsis:

(36) a. Vivek made Nishi more angry at Melissa than Sam made Carry -.(- = d-angry at Melissa)

b. I consider Betsy more prettier than you consider Sam -.(- = d-pretty)

PARADOX B: DETERMINING THE LABEL

Consider the label of the category made up by AP and NP in the tree (28)b: For reasons of

subcategorization and the external distribution, [AP NP] should be an NP. But in order to trigger AP-

Raising, the category has to be an AP (the higher Deg° attracts a categorial A-feature). That is,

internally to the DegP, the string AP^NP behaves like an AP, while the whole DegP displays

properties of an NP. This leads to the paradox that different tests (external vs. internal distribution)

yield conflicting evidence as to which term (AP and NP) projects its categorial label.

EXCURSUS: FREE RELATIVES

A similar paradox shows up in a subgroup of free relatives (Luigi Burzio, p.c.):

(37) I like [DP how you described the problem]

(38) ‘Ich mag wie du das Problem beschrieben hast’ (German)I like how you the problem described has

The categorial status of the trace and the external distribution of the free relative differ: Categorically,

they are DPs as far as their external distribution is concerned. But the internal trace in (37) cannot

be a DP:

(39) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: NP/that-CPa. You liked [DP the book]b. You liked [CP that he read the book]

(40) INTERNAL TRACE: *NP/ *that-CPa. You described the problem [AP accurately]b. You described the problem [PP on the blackboard]c. You described the problem [CP before Sally arrived]d. *You described the problem [NP/CP ]

(41) FREE RELATIVES COMPARATIVES (Status of [AP NP])

External distribution: NP NPInternal Trace: AP/PP,...Trigger for movement: AP

(42) PROBLEM: Empty expletive satisfies subcategorization requirements of like. Hence, (37)

does not test for the categorial status of free relative.


(43) You liked it [CP that he read the book]

(44) I like it how you described the problem

EVIDENCE FOR NOMINAL STATUS OF FREE RELATIVES

EVIDENCE I: Conjunction of free relative and NP forces NP-interpretation of free relatives (by Law

of Coordination of Like Categories).

(45) He served [DP wine] and [DP what the Italians call prosciutto] Kajita (1977)

(46) [NP How you arrived] and [NP the way you took] interested Bill.

! Potential objection: (46) derives from conjunction reduction (RNR) targeting two underlying

clauses. Thus, free relative might be CP, and internal trace could also be an adverbial CP-trace

(47) [CP How you arrived interested Bill] and [CP the way you took interested Bill].

Adverbials which force collective interpretation guard against conjunction reduction analysis by

blocking the distributive reading:

(48) ?How you arrived and the way you took interested Bill to the same extent/simultaneously

EVIDENCE II: CPs are prohibited from appearing in SpecIP (Koster 1978). Free relatives are licit in

subject position, hence cannot be NPs:

(49) a. *Did [CP that he arrived] interest you?b. Did [DP how he arrived] interest you?

PARADOX B: PROPOSAL

For reasons of concreteness, assume that AP and NP are embedded in function al projection, which

is responsible for adjectival agreement of prenominal structure. AP is then located in SpecFP:

(50) DP 3

D° DegP 3 FP Deg’

3 3 AP F’ Deg° than-XP 5 2A taller F° NP

4man


Specifiers trigger pied-piping: AP pied-pipes NP along, just as wh-phrases in specifier positions do.

(51) a. Whose picture did she buyb. How tall do you think that he is

But the categorial status of the DPs above is determined by the head and not by the specifier.

Similarly, the categorial status of taller man is determined by the NP.

! This conception matches with the generalization that postnominal wh-phrases as well as

postnominal AP do not trigger pied-piping:

(52) *She asked a picture of who did you buy

! A similar solution might be envisioned for free relatives: empty D°, and head of relative raises to

SpecDP:

(53) DP 3

Howi D’ 3 D° CP

| 6 i you arrived

NEXT: Additional evidence for the AP-Raising solution to Paradox A from

contrasts between prenominal and postnominal comparatives


WORD ORDER VARIATION AND INTERPRETATION

There are at least four paradigms in English NP-comparatives in which word order variation

influences interpretation.

ASYMMETRY I: SORTAL ENTAILMENTS

(54) OBSERVATION: In postnominal construction, CD-site can be small (-CD = AP).

(55) a. She met a man younger than my mother(- = (is) [AP d-young])

b. #She met a younger man than my mother(- = (is a) [NP d-young man])

A. PRENOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

Minimal node containing AP and NP moves from than-XP into matrix clause, resulting in

prenominal word order. Thus, CD-site consists of [AP NP], too. Subject of than-XP (my mother)

accordingly fails to meet sortal restriction of small clause predicate (young man):

(56) a. She met a [DP [DegP [AP younger man] [than my mother [AP young man] ]]]

b. DegP 3 APi Deg’

6666 3 younger man Deg° than-XP

[+comp.] 3 than 3

OPk IP 3

DP DegP 6 2

my mother APi dk 6 6 6 6 young man


B. POSTNOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

DegP combines with the head noun as a reduced relative. Crucially, it is only an AP that raises to

the higher SpecDegP. Thus, the CD-site consists in young, and sortal conflict can be avoided:

(57) a. She met a [DP man [DegP [AP younger] Deg°[+comp.] [than my mother [AP young] ]]]

b. DP 3

a NP 3

NP DegP 5 3 man APi Deg’

5 5 5 5 3 younger Deg° than-XP

[+comp .] 3 than 3

OPk IP 3

DP DegP 6 2

my mother APi dk

5 5 5 5 young

ASYMMETRY II: WIDE ELLIPSIS

! Prenominal comparatives display ambiguity between a narrow, small clause reading ((58)a) and

a wide construal, similar to VP-ellipsis ((58)b; Bresnan 1973: 319):

(58) She met a younger dancer than Mary -a. - = (is) [AP d-young dancer]

“She met a dancer who was younger than Mary was”b. - = [VP met (a) d-young dancer]

“She met a dancer who was younger than the dancer who Mary met”

! Postnominal comparatives only license the narrow interpretation (Bresnan 1973):

(59) She met a dancer younger than Mary -a. - = (is) [AP d-young]b. *- = [VP met (a) d-young dancer]

(60) OBSERVATION: In postnominal construction, CD-site has to be small (AP only).


A. PRENOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

Wide ellipsis interpretation is available with prenominal comparatives because the CD-site (young

dancer) constitutes a licit object for the elided predicate meet:

(61) She met a [AP younger dancer] Deg°[+comp] [than Mary [VP met (a) [DegP [AP d-young dancer]]]]

B. POSTNOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

The postnominal construction does not possess a wide ellipsis construal because only the AP young

raises: The CD-site is an AP and transitive meet accordingly lacks an internal argument:

(62) *She met a man [AP younger] Deg°[+comp] [than Mary [VP met [DegP [AP young]]]]

ASYMMETRY III: SUBSECTIVE READINGS

(63) OBSERVATION: Prenominal comparatives are ambiguous between intersective and

subsective readings, while postnominal ones may receive an

intersective interpretation only (Siegel 1976).

(64) an older friend than Peter a. a friend who is more aged (intersective)b. a better friend (subsective)

(65) a friend older than Peter a. a friend who is more aged (intersective)b. *a better friend (subsective)

(66) ASSUMPTIONS: (Siegel 1976; Hellan 1981)

" Intersective gradable adjectives denote relations between individuals and degrees

(<d,<e,t>>).

! Subsective adjectives denote functions from properties to relations between individuals

and degrees (<<e,t>, <d,<e,t>>>).


A. THE POSTNOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

" If the adjective is assigned an intersective interpretation, the Deg’-denotation can directly apply

to the AP-denotation, resulting in a meaningful interpretation for DegP and DP (see (65)a’ below).

! Choice of a subsective interpretation (type <<e,t>, <d,<e,t>>>) results in type-mismatch, and the

semantic computation crashes at the DegP-level ((65)b’):

(65)a’ a friend older than Peter (intersective)

DP 3 a XP 3 NP<e,t> DegP<e,t> 5 3 friend AP <d,<e,t>> Deg’<<d,<e,t>>,<e,t>> U

g 3 A°<d,<e,t>> Deg° than-XP 5 [+comp.] 6 older than Peter

(65)b’ a friend older than Peter (subsective)

* DP 3 a XP 3 NP<e,t> DegP '''' CRASH .... 5 3 friend AP<<e,t>,<d,<e,t>>> Deg’<<d,<e,t>>,<e,t>> X g 3

<<e,t>,<d,<e,t>>>A° Deg° than-XP 5 [ +comp.] 6

older than Peter

B. THE PRENOMINAL CONSTRUCTION

! Subsective reading: The AP is headed by an adjective of type <et,<d,et>>. Thus, AP applies to the

common noun it modifies first, and the resulting AP node denotes a relation of type <d,et>. AP may

serve then as an argument to Deg’, yielding a semantically well-formed output:

(64)b’ older friend than Peter (subsective)

DP<e,t> 3

D° DegP<e,t>

3 AP <d,et> Deg’<<d,et><et>> UUUU 3 3 AP<et,<d,et>> NP<e,t> Deg° than-XP 5 5

[+comp.] 6 older friend than Peter

" Intersective reading: Intersective adjectives can be shifted from <d,et> to the type of subsective

adjectives (<et,<d,et>>) by type-lifting (e.g. Partee 1987):


(67) ƒ8„ =Def λP<d,<e,t>>λQ<e,t>λdλx[P(d)(x) & Q(x)]

! 8 shifts AP to subsective type, and ƒ8AP„ applies to NP-denotation. (The further computation

proceeds as in (64)b’):

(68) ƒ8„(ƒold„)(ƒfriend„) = λPλQλdλx[P(d)(x) & Q(x)](λdλx[old(d)(x)]) (λx[friend(x)]) =

= λdλx[old(d)(x) & friend(x)]

ASYMMETRY IV: RECONSTRUCTION

! Reconstruction for Principle C is limited to contexts in which the name is contained inside an

argument (Chomsky 1992; Lebeaux 1990):

Status of XP

(69) a. *Which claim [XP that Johni likes Mary] did hei later deny Argumentb. Which claim [XP that Johni made] did hei later deny Adjunct

(70) a. ?*Which pictures [XP of Johni] does hei like Argumentb. Which pictures [XP near Johni] does hei like Adjunctc. Which pictures [XP that Johni took] does hei like Adjunct

(71) OBSERVATION: Names embedded inside prenominal comparatives reconstruct for

Principle C. Names embedded inside postnominal construction do not

reconstruct (Tom Roeper, p.c.).

(72) a. *Which older friend than Billi does hei like best b. Which friend older than Billi does hei like best

(73) a. *Near a taller man than Johni hei put the basketb. Near a man taller than Johni hei put the basket (Tom Roeper, p.c.)

(74) ANALYSIS: XP is an argument in the prenominal construction ((72)a/(73)a), but an

adjunct in postnominal comparatives ((72)b/(73)b):

Status of XP (73) a’. *Which older friend [XP than Billi] does hei like best Argument

b’. Which friend [XP older than Billi] does hei like best Adjunct

(73) a’. *Near a taller man [XP than Johni] hei put the basket Argument b’. Near a man [XP taller than Johni] hei put the basket Adjunct

This corroborates the syntax for NP-comparatives adopted here: In the prenominal construction, XP

represents the than-XP, which serves as the argument of the extended projection of Deg°. In the


postnominal structure, XP represents a DegP which right-adjoins to NP.

(75) CONCLUSION: Reconstruction asymmetries support the view that the syntactic relation

between the AP and the head noun in prenominal comparatives differs from

the one found in postnominal constructions. Such a contrast is not expected

on the assumptions of the left-adjunction analysis of prenominal modifiers.

NEXT: Extensions: A theoretical consequence of AP-raising analysis.

AN ARGUMENT FOR DERIVATIONS

(76) PUZZLE: Why does empty operator in SpecCP of than-XP not interfere with AP-

movement (Relativized Minimality)?

(77) a. Mary met younger men than Peter met

b. Mary met [young-er men]i [CP OPj than Peter met [DegP [AP young men]i Deg° tj ]]z_____________________________________________m

(78) OBSERVATION: The solution to Puzzle (76) relates to an argument in favor of a

derivational model of the grammar.

RM & CYCLICITY

! Analysis of RM violation such as (79) is based on the assumption that derivations proceed

cyclically ((80)), and that counter-cyclic derivations, which harmonize with RM ((81)), can be

excluded on independent grounds (Chomsky 1993: 23; 1995: 190; Kitahara 1993):

(79) *How do you wonder what John bought?

(80) CYCLIC:

a. you wonder [CP whatj John bought tj how] ' what intervenes

b. *Howi do you wonder [CP whatj John bought tj ti ]

(81) COUNTER-CYCLIC:

a. Howi do you wonder [CP John bought what ti ] ' No intervention effect.

b. Howi do you wonder [CP whatj John bought tj ti ]


! Chomsky (1995: 295): Counter-cyclic derivations are excluded by Minimal Link Condition

(‘MLC’; Kitahara 1993; Zwart 1993).

(82) MINIMAL LINK CONDITION (informal):A derivation α is preferred over a derivation β if, at a given stage, α leads to the formation ofa shorter chain than β.

MOVEMENT & CHAIN FORMATION

Movement consists of Move α and Form Chain (Chomsky 1995). Move α creates copies (EPP plus

Agree; Chomsky 1998) in designated syntactic positions, while Form Chain leads to the unification of

the features of all copies, ensuring recoverability: Chain formation leads to the appearance of the

deletion of all but one copy in a movement chain.

COUNTER-CYCLIC AP-RAISING

In comparatives, both the higher and the lower copy of the AP are interpreted, since deletion would

lead to a non-converging semantic representation (than-XP or matrix clause would lack argument or

predicate):

(83) OBSERVATION: Form Chain does not apply to the output of AP-Raising.

Since Form Chain does not apply in comparatives, the length of the AP-movement chain is not

accessible to the MLC algorithm. Thus, a counter cyclic derivation becomes available, in which AP-

Raising does not cross over the empty operator in SpecCP, avoiding a RM-violation:

(84) Mary met younger men than Peter meta. than Peter met [DegP [AP young men] OP]

b. [DegP [young men t] L [CP than Peter met [DegP [AP young men] t]

c. [DegP [young men t] [CP OP than Peter met [DegP [AP young men] t]

(85) CONCLUSION:

! AP-Raising constitutes an instance of ‘Move α without Form Chain’ (Poole 1996; see also

Pesetsky 1995 for causative experiencer object predicates).

" Conditions on derivations which involve AP-Raising cannot be reformulated in terms

of conditions on representational chains.

' AP-Raising is compatible with a derivational model of the grammar only.


RESUME:

: CD is restored in syntax.

: Right-branching shell structure for NP-comparatives:

" Left-branch violations of OP-chain

" Word-order" C-command

: AP-RAISING HYPOTHESIS:

" Mismatch antecedent - CD-site" Reconstruction for Principle C and reciprocals

" CSC

: Word order variation and interpretation in NP-comparatives:

" Sortal conflict

" Wide vs. narrow ellipsis" Subsective vs. intersective interpretation of adjectives" Argument-adjunct asymmetry w.r.t. Principle C

NNNNEXT: Further arguments for the AP-Raising analysis and extension:

" WCO/SCO data from amount and attributive comparatives.

" Scopal properties of CD site w.r.t. intensional operators.

' A Paradox for Reconstruction and its solution.

WCO & SCO

AMOUNT COMPARATIVES

! Bresnan (1975) observes that comparatives display sensitivity to SCO and WCO. If a pronoun is

to be construed as referentially dependent on the CD-site, the CD-site has to c-command the pronoun,

as in (86)a (vd. also Chomsky 1977). Reversing the command relations between the CD-site and the

pronoun as in (86)b, or between the CD-site and an NP embedding the pronoun as in (87)b bleeds

the bound reading:

(86) a. More students flunked than OP - thought they would flunk

b. *More students flunked than OP they thought - would flunk

(- = d-many students) (Bresnan 1975: 29, (16))


(87) a. More students re-registered than - were given C’s by their teachers

b. *More students re-registered than their teachers gave C’s to -

(- = d-many students) (Bresnan 1975: 32, (25))

A PROBLEM FOR THE ANALYSIS?

! Operator binds degree argument of a gradable adjective, both syntactically and semantically. Index

of operator chain is distinct from the referential index on the pronoun.

' (86)b and (87)b do not estalblish cross-over configurations:

(88) a. *More students flunked than OPk theyi thought [many students tk] would flunkb. *More students re-registered

than OPk [theiri teachers] gave C’s to [many students tk]

! Higher and the lower AP-copies do not form a chain, they are referentially independent.

' No movement chain which the cross-over condition could refer to

AP-RAISING & SCO/WCO

(89) ASSUMPTIONS:

" more is comparative many (Bresnan 1973)

" more is the comparative of weak, cardinal many (Partee 1988; Westerstal 1985)

" Absence of WCO can only be accounted by

" SCO reduces to violation of Novelty Condition (Heim 1982)

CARDINAL MORE

Evidence that the CD-site is construed as a weak indefinite comes from the observation that many

in amount comparatives can only be assigned a cardinal interpretation. To see this more clearly,

consider the example under (90)a and its putative proportional reading in (90)b, which can be

paraphrased as in (90)c (based on proportional many of Partee 1988 and Westerståhl 1985):

(90) a. More first year students were given an A this year than last year

b. ›d,x[first year student(x) & |first year students| 1 |were given an A this year| = d @ |firstyear students| & d >max{d’|›d’,y[first year student(y) & |first year students| 1 |weregiven an A last year| = d’ @ |first year students|}]

c. The proportion of first year students that received an A this year is greater than theproportion of first year students that received an A last year


! If (90)a could be interpreted proportionally, as in (90)b, it should be able to serve as a faithful

description of the scenario depicted under (91):

(91) This year Last year

Number of 1st year students: 500 1,000Number of students with A: 75 100Proportion of students with A: 0.15 0.1

EVALUATION: " (90)a is true in proportional reading: 0.15 is greater than 0.1" (90)a false in its cardinal interpretation: 75 is not greater than 100

INTUITION: (90)a cannot be used in order to truthfully describe scenario (91).

QUESTION: Why only weak reading? Strong DPs are barriers for subextraction, and therefore for

OP-movement (Fiengo’s 1974 ‘Name Constraint’).

NOVELTY CONDITION

Heim (1982): Coindexing between an indefinite and a pronoun is possible only if the

antecedent precedes the pronoun (Principle C).

(92) a. *He likes iti and she hates a cati (Heim 1982: 152)b. He likes a cati and she hates iti

(93) *As Mary mentioned hisi name, we saw a magiciani (Heim 1982: 216)

! Novelty Condition also holds for NPs headed by cardinal many:

(94) a. There are many studentsi who thought theyi would flunk

b. *Theyi thought that there were many studentsi who flunked

(95) a. There are many studentsi who were given C’s by theiri teachers

b. *Theiri teachers thought that there were many studentsi who were given C’sJ

(96) PROPOSAL: Novelty Condition accounts for WCO/SCO sensitivity of amount

comparatives: I.e., comparatives (86)a and (87)a allow for coreference - not binding -

between CD-site and pronoun for the same reason that (94)a and (95)a do. (86)b and (87)b

are deviant because (94)b and (95)b are.

! This account is directly supported by the AP-Raising hypothesis, according to which the CD-site

is syntactically projected:

(97) a. More students flunked than OP [many students t] thought they would flunk

b. *More students flunked than OP they thought [many students t] would flunk

(98) a. More students re-registered than [many students t] were given C’s by their teachers

b. *More students re-registered than their teachers gave C’s to [many students t]


1Thanks to Chris Kennedy for helping me constructing and judging these examples.

ATTRIBUTIVE COMPARATIVES

(99) OBSERVATION: Unlike amount comparatives, attributive NP-comparatives are

immune to WCO

(100) a. The committee received a longer abstract than OP - was actually sent by itsi author

b. The committee received a longer abstract than OP itsi author wanted to send -

(- = d-long abstracti)

! Attributive NP-comparatives are sensitive to SCO (i.e. Principle C), though:

(101) a. (?)Better students flunked than OP Mary thought - would flunk

b. *Better studentsi flunked than OP theyi thought - would flunk

! Attributively modified NPs display the same behavior in positive environments. Unlike weak

indefinites headed by many (vd. (102)a), bare plurals license coreference with an embedded pronoun

to their left, as in (102)b. And bare plurals trigger Principle C violations, as in (102)c:

(102) a. *Theiri fans believe that many basketball playersi are overpaid

b. Theiri fans believe that basketball playersi are overpaid1

c. *Theyi believe that basketball playersi are overpaid

(103) Sensitive to WCO SCO

Attributive Comparatives: no yes

Amount Comparatives: yes yes

CONCLUSION: WCO/SCO data support the AP-Raising Hypothesis, which correctly predicts

that CD-site behaves like other lexical NPs in its option to license referential

dependencies.

SEMANTIC CD-RESOLUTION & WCO/SCO

In Lerner and Pinkal (1995), the CD-site is translated as an individual variable, which is existentially

bound by the translation of the comparative. This accounts for Bresnan’s SCO and WCO-examples:

(104) a. More students flunked than OPk tk thought theyk would flunk

b. *More students flunked than OPk theyk thought tk would flunk

(105) a. More students re-registered than OPk tk were given C’s by theirk teachers

b. *More students re-registered than OPk their teachers gave C’s to tk


! Problems with attributive comparatives: Semantic theory incorrectly predicts WCO:

(106) a. The committee received a longer abstract than OPk tk was actually sent by itsk author

b. The committee received a longer abstract than OPk itsk author had intended

to send tk

(NB: Kenndey (1997) does not deal with NP-comparatives, but a natural extension of his account

is subject to same point of criticism)

NEXT: ! de dicto readings of CD-site.

! Resolving a paradox for semantic analysis of CD by AP-Raising

DE DICTO READINGS

(107) OBSERVATION: CD-site behaves like a bare plural or weak indefinite as far as scope

w.r.t. intensional operators goes: CD-site cannot be construed de re.

(108) Sally needs more books than she wants to buy

(109) a. de dicto: The number of books that Sally needs is greater than the maximalnumber d, such that she wants to buy d-many books

b. de re: The number of books that Sally needs is greater than the maximalnumber d, such that there are d-many books and she wants to buythem.

(110) SCENARIO: Mary needs 10 specific books (de re) for some course in linguistics,but only wants to spend $100 on the entire purchase. Furthermore, sheknows a discount book store in which books are sold for the flat rateof $20 each, and decides to go there in order to buy any 5 books.

INTUITION: (108) comes out as true in this scenario.

! Comparatives in existential: CD-Site necessarily receives a weak interpretation:

(111) a. There are more people in Sweden than there are - in the Vaticanb. There are more people in Sweden than there seem to be - in the Vatican

(112) a. The real estate agent offered a larger house/larger houses than Sam is looking forb. This is a larger house than Bill is looking for


AP-RAISING & DE DICTO READINGS

! CD-site is an open predicate, and can be existentially bound off in same way as bare plurals/weak

indefinites in other contexts. CD-site in (108) can be given the same treatment as many books in the

de dicto interpretation of (113):

(113) Sally wants to buy many books

SEMANTIC CD-RESOLUTION & DE DICTO READINGS

(114) ›-CL-Hypothesis: Existential Closure applies before semantics (at least by LF).

(115) COROLLARY: Semantic analyses of CD fail to account for requirement that CD-site

is interpreted de dicto.

NEXT: ! Evidence for ›-CL Hypothesis

" Show that corollary holds

AGAINST ››››-CLOSURE IN SEMANTICS

! Diesing/Kratzer type data: scrambling bleeds weak readings:

(116) a. weil dort öfters ein Fehler unterlaufen ist : weak/unspecific,...since there often a mistake happened has“since a mistake has often occurred”

b. weil dort [ein Fehler]i öfters ti unterlaufen ist : strong/specific,...

! Assume scrambling has the option of leaving predicate type trace:

(117) WPt

3 NP<e,t> ZP<<e,t>,t>

6 3 ein Fehler λi YPt

3öfters XPt

3 › VP2<e,t>

3L T<e,t> VP1<e,t>

6 unterlaufen ist<et>

(118)


(119) 1. ƒT„ = λx[T(x)]2. ƒVP2„ = λx[T(x) & happened(x)]3. ƒXP„ = ›x[T(x) & happened(x)]4. ƒZP„ = λT[often(›x[T(x) & happened(x)])]

5. ƒWP„ = λT[often(›x[T(x) & happened(x)])] (λy[mistake(y)]) =

[often(›x[λy[mistake(y)](x) & happened(x)])] == [often(›x[mistake(x) & happened(x)])]

(120) OBSERVATION: SemR illicitly feeds weak readings of scrambled NPs.

(121) CONCLUSION: Either I. or II. must hold: I. Scrambled NPs may not undergo SemR (i.e. may not

leave higher type traces) ' II.. ›-Closure takes place at a level prior to semantics (LF)

AGAINST OPTION I: HIGHER TYPE TRACES IN SCRAMBLING CHAINS

(122) OBSERVATION: Inversion leads to scope ambiguity, but bleeds at the same time c-

command sensitive relations such as pronominal variable binding:

(123) a. unambiguous: weil sie jedem Kandidateni [ein Bild von seinemi Auftritt] zeigte]]since she every candidate a picture of his appearance showed

“since she showed every candidate a picture of his appearance [in the show]”

b. ambiguous: weil sie [ein Bild von seinemk/*i Auftritt]j jedem Kandidateni [AgrOP tj/Tj zeigte]]]since she a picture of his appearance every candidate showed

“since she showed every candidate a picture of his appearance [in the show]”

PARADOX: Scope reconstruction applies, but no reconstruction for variable binding.

(124) ASSUMPTIONS:

! Pronominal variable binding has to be structurally licensed (in scope-rigid languages:

Leftness at LF).

! Semantic reconstruction by higher type traces (Rullmann 1995 for wh-phrases).

! Short scrambling does not reconstruct in syntax (Frey 1989; Saito 1989).

The NP ein Bild von seinem Auftritt (optionally) undergoes semantic reconstruction, leading to

narrow scope reading in semantics. However, the direct object may not undergo syntactic

reconstructions, blocking the bound variable reading (Lechner 1995/1998):

(125) [α [QP-1 ...XPj ... ]i ... [QP-2k ... [β Ti .... (where QP-2 >> QP-1 and ~[j…k])“QP-1 is interpreted within the semantic, but not within the syntactic scope of QP-2”

(126) CONCLUSION: ›-Closure takes place at a level prior to semantics (LF).


PROBLEMS FOR SEMANTIC THEORIES OF CD

Next, I will consider three possible scenarios for analyzing de-dicto readings on a semantic account

of CD-resolution, concluding that none of them can be correct:

I: CD-site consists in e-type variable (Lerner and Pinkal 1995)

II: CD-site consists in <e,t>-type variable (extension of Kennedy 1997)

III CD-site consists in <<e,t>t>-type variable (extension of Lerner and Pinkal 1995)

I INDIVIDUAL TYPE TRACES (LERNER AND PINKAL 1995)

For Lerner and Pinkal, the CD-site is translated as an individual variable, which is existentially bound

by the translation of the comparative operator defined as below:

(127) ƒOP„ = λQλDœd[›y[Po (d)(y) & Q(y)] ÿ D(d)]

Details aside the operator ensures that the scope of the CD-site is fixed as the sister node of the

operator:

(108) a. Sally needs more books than she wants to buy b. CPi

3 OP L C’<e,t>

3λi IPt

3she VP

6wants to buy tj

Thus, a lower scope reading (de dicto w.r.t. want) cannot be derived.

II. PREDICATE TYPE TRACES (A LA KENNEDY 1997)

Kennedy doesn’t look at NP-comparatives, but his theory can be straightly extended to cover them

Crucially, the operator binds a DegP-variable of type <e,t>. can be preserved:

(128) ƒOP„ = λP<et,t>λG<ed> (max(λd[P(λx[ABS(G(x))(d)])])) Kennedy (1997: 159f)

! Unlike in predicative comparatives, the DegP-trace may not be interpreted in-sity. Assume

therefore that the DegP leaves an intermediate predicate trace as below:


(129) a. More students passed than OP flunkedb. than-XP

3 than CP<<e,d>,d>

3OPi C’<<e,t>,t>

3

λi IP2t 3

› IP1<e,t> 3

Ti, <e,t> VP <e,t>

5 flunked

(130) a. ƒT„ = λy[T(y)]ƒIP1„ = λy[T(y) & flunked(y)] ƒIP2„ = ›y[T(y) & flunked(y)] ƒC’„ = λT›y[T(y) & flunked(y)]

ƒCP„ = λPλG(max(λd[P(λx[ABS(G(x))(d)])]))(λT››››y[T(y) & flunked(y)])

= λG(max(λd[λT›y[T(y) & flunked(y)](λx[ABS(G(x))(d)])])) =

= λG(max(λd[›y[λx[ABS(G(x))(d)](y) & flunked(y)]])) = = λG(max(λd[›y[ABS(G(y))(d) & flunked(y)]]))

b. ƒmore students than flunked„ == λx[MORE(many(students)(x))

(max(λd[›y[ABS(many(students)(y))(d) & flunked(y)]]))]

Intersecting the result with pass yields the correct interpretation. Thus, in principle a theory enriched

with <et>-type traces could be made to work.

THE PROBLEM: DE-DICTO READINGS

(108) Sally needs more books than she wants to buy

(131) OBSERVATION: Deriving de dicto readings by ›-losing <et>-trace leads to conflicts

for Mapping Hypothesis discussed above)

III <<E,T>,T>-TYPE TRACE (A LA LERNER & PINKAL)

(132) ASSUMPTION: De dicto readings does not come about by ›-closure, but by

Semantic Reconstruction (Cresti 1995; Rullmann 1995)


! Redefining Lerner and Pinkal’s comparative operator:

(133) ƒOP„ = λV<<et,t>t> λDœd[V(λQ›x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)]) ÿ D(d)](134) (cf. ƒOP„ = λQλDœd[›x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)] ÿ D(d)] (Lerner and Pinkal 1995))

! The CD-site is λ-converted back into the scope of the intensional predicate via Semantic

Reconstruction:

(135) a. Sally needs more books than she wants to buy b. CP23

OP C2’<<<e,t>t>t>

3λj IPt

3she VP

3wants IP

3PROk VPt

3L Tj <<e,t>,t> VP<e,t>

3λi VPt

6tk buy<e,<e,t>> ti, e

Crucially, the whole GQ embedded in the definition of the operator (λQ››››x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)])is λ-

converted into the scope of want (L Tj), deriving the de dicto reading:

(136) ƒC2’„ = λT[want(T(λt[buy(t)(PRO)])(she)]

(137) ƒCP2„ =. λV λDœd[VVVV(λQ›x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)]) ÿ D(d)]

(λT[want(T(λt[buy(t)(PRO)])(she)]) =

2. = λDœd[λT[want(T(λt[buy(t)(PRO)])(she)] (λQ››››x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)]) ÿ D(d)]=

3. = λDœd[want(λQ›x[Po (d)(x) & Q(x)](λt[buy(t)(PRO)])(she)] ÿ D(d)] =

4. = λDœd[want(›x[Po (d)(x) & λt[buy(t)(PRO)])(x)](she)] ÿ D(d)] =5. = λDœd[want(›x[Po (d)(x) & buy(x)(PRO)])](she)] ÿ D(d)] =

6. = λDœd[want(›x[many (books)(d)(x) & buy(x)(PRO)])](she)] ÿ D(d)]

THE PROBLEM: WEAK ISLANDS

! SemR into weak islands is - for some reason - blocked (Cresti 1995; Rullmann 1995):

(138) Inner Islands: only de re

a. How many books do you want to buy : de re/de dicto

b. How many books do you not want to buy : de re/*de dicto


(139) Extraposition Islands: only de re

How many books is it possible to read in an hour : de re/*de dicto

! Another instance of same restriction shows up in NPI brauchen (‘need’) constructions. Since

brauchen requires negation and negation establishes a weak island, only de dicto reading survives:

(140) a. *Wie viele Probleme brauchst du zu lösenhow many problems need you to solve

b. Wie viele Probleme brauchst du nicht zu lösen : de re/*de dicto

how many problems need you not to solve

(141) ASSUMPTION: GQ-type traces may not be stranded within the scope of negation or

other weak islands

(142) QUESTION: Do weak islands also bleed the de dicto readings of the CD-site in

comparatives?

(143) ANSWER: No ' de dicto readings in comparatives cannot be due to SemR.

! EXTRAPOSITION ISLANDS: de dicto available (degraded acceptability due to Subjacency)

(144) de dicto/*de re

a. ?Superman read more books in an hour than it should be possible to read - in a dayb. ?Superman hat mehr Bücher in einer Stunde gelesen als es möglich sein sollte an

einem Tag - zu lesen

If the <<e,t>,t>-type trace account were correct, the structures under (143) should be simply

ungrammatical.(given the assumption that comparatives lack de re readings)

! Systematic exceptions to II’S: PARALLE INNER ISLANDS

(145) Non-paralle Inner Islands: *a. Mary read more books than Bill read b. *Mary read more books than Bill didn’t read

(146) Parallel Inner Island: Ta. Mary read more books than Bill read b. Mary read more books than she didn’t read

! PARALLEL INNER ISLANDS license de dicto readings:

(147) a. Nobody needs to solve more problems than he doesn’t need to solveb. Kein Student braucht mehr Probleme zu lösen als er nicht zu lösen braucht

(Intended reading: No student is required to solve more than half of the problems.(


CONCLUSION: " There is no consistent set of assumptions that derives de dicto readings by

letting OP bind an e-type, <e,t>-type or <<e,t>t>-trace.

" De dicto readings of CD-site cannot be accounted for under the assumption

that CD-resolution takes place in semantics.

REFERENCES

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral Dissertation: MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.

Bianchi, Valentina. 1999a. Antisymmetry and the Leftness Condition. Talk presented at IX Colloquium on

Generative Grammar, April 7-9, 1999, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.Bianchi, Valentina. 1999b. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4.3: 275-

343.Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1.1.Cele-Murcia, Marianne. 1972. A Syntactic and Psycholinguistic Study of Comparison in English. Doctoral

Dissertation, Los Angeles: UCLA.Chao, Wynn. 1987. On Ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In: Culicover, Wasow and Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax. New

York: Academic Press Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT-Press.Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15.

Corver, Norbert. 1990. The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions. Dissertation, University of Tilburg.Corver, Norbert. 1993. Functional Categories, Phrase Structure and Word Order within the Adjectival

System. Ms., University of Tilburg.Corver, Norbert. 1997. The Internal Syntax of the Dutch Extended Adjectival Projection. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 289-368.Culicover, Peter W., & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic Subordination despite Syntactic Coordination.

Linguistic Inquiry 28.2: 195-217.Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax - Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Hankamer, Jorge, & Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and Surface Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7.3: 391-428.Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation: University


of Massachusetts, Amherst.Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on Comparatives and Related Matters. Ms., Austin: Univeristy of Texas.Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik and Robert May. 1991. Reciprocity and Plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22.1: 63-

102.Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer. 1997. Semantics in Generative Grammar. London: Basil Blackwell.Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP Deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20.1-2: 64-81.Johnson, Kyle. 1996. In Search of the English Middle Field. Ms., University of Massachusetts/Amherst.Johnson, Kyle. 1997. When Verb Phrases go Missing. Ms, University of Massachusetts/Amherst.

Kajita, Masaru. 1977. Towards a Dynamic Model of Syntax. Studies in English Linguistics 5. 44-66.Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT-Press.Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and

Comparison. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California/Santa Cruz.Kennedy, Christopher and Jason Merchant. 1997. Attributive Comparatives and Bound Ellipsis. Santa Cruz:

University of California, Santa Cruz.Kitahara, Yatsuhiro. 1993. Target α. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.Koster, Jan. 1978. Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist. In S. J. Keyser (Ed.), Recent Transformational Studies

in European Languages. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Lasnik, Howard. 1995. A Note on Pseudogapping. In R. Pensalfini and H. Ura (Eds.), Papers on Minimalist

Syntax, pp. 143-164. Cambridge: MITWPL.Lebeaux, David. 1990. Relative Clauses, Licensing, and the Nature of the Derivation. In NELS, University

of Massachusetts, Amherst. J. Carter, D. Rose-Marie, B. Philip, & T. Sherer (Eds.), GraduateLinguistic Student Association, pp. 318-332.

Lechner, Winfried. 1999. Comparatives and DP-Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts/Amherst.

Lerner, Jan and Manfred Pinkal. 1995. Comparative Ellipsis and Variable Binding. Proceedings of SALT V,222-236.

McCawley, James D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and Comparatives. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative Ellipsis: A Phrase Structure Account. Linguistic Inquiry 14.4: 675-694.Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles. In: Groenendijk, de Jongh

& Stockhoff (eds.), Studies in DRT and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers. Dordrecht: ForisPesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge: MIT-Press.Pinkham, Jessie E. 1982. The Formation of Comparative Clauses in English and French, Bloomington,

Indiana.Poole, Geoffrey. 1996. Optional Movement in the Minimalist Program. In: Abraham, Epstein, Thrainsson &

Zwart (eds), Minimal Ideas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Postal, Paul. 1999. Three Studies on Extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University

of Massachusetts/Amherst.Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On Denoting. Mind 14. 479-493.Sag, Ivan, & Jorge Hankamer. 1984. Toward a Theory of Anaphoric Processing. Linguistics and Philosophy

7. 325-345.Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Interpretations of Chains, Doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Siegel, Muffy. 1976. Capturing the Adjective. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts/Amherst.Smith, Carlota S. 1961. A Class of Complex Modifiers in English. Language 37. 342-365.

von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1-77.Vergnaud, Jean-Roger.1974. French Relative Clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101-139.Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral Dissertation: University of

Groningen.


APPENDIX: COMPOSITIONAL SEMANTICS FOR AP-RAISING

INTERPRETING THE than-XP

(148) than OPj Peter met [[young men] tj]

! Gradable adjectives denote functions from common noun denotations to relations between degreesand individuals (<<e,t>,<d,<e,t>>>; Hellan 1981):

(149) ƒ[AP young]„ (ƒ[NP men]„) = λPλdλx[young(P)(d)(x)] (men) == λdλx[young(men)(d)(x)]

! Operator binds a degree trace in complement position of a semantically vacuous Deg°. AP-denotation applies to this trace, yielding an individual property as the DegP-denotation:

(150) [DP young men di] DP<e,t>

3 D° DegP <e,t> , λx[young(men)(ti)(x)]

3 λdλx[young(men)(d)(x)] ¶ AP <d,<e,t>> Deg’d

6 2 young men Deg° ti, d

! Since the object DP is a predicate of type <e,t> it cannot serve as the argument of transitive meet

directly (type <e,<e,t>>). The object therefore undergoes type-driven QR to avoid type mismatch,and adjoins to the IP-node where it can be intersected with the IP-denotation. The resulting predicateis existentially closed:

(151) IPt , ›x[young(men)(ti)(x) & meet(x)(Peter)] 3

› IP<e,t> , λx[young(men)(ti)(x) & meet(x)(Peter)] 3

DPk. <e,t> IPt , meet(tk)(Peter)6 3

[young men ti] Petere VP<e,t> , λy[meet(tk)(y)] , λx[young(men)(ti)(x)] 3

V° ti, e |meet , λxλy[meet(x)(y)]

(152) ƒ[IP Peter met d-young men]„ == ƒ[IP [young men t]k [IP Peter met tk ]]„ == λx[young(men)(ti)(x)] λx[meet(x)(Peter)] = (Predicate Modification)= λx[young(men)(ti)(x) & meet(x)(Peter)]

(153) ƒ [IP ›x [IP [young men t]j [IP Peter met tj]]]„ == ›x[young(men)(ti)(x) & meet(x)(Peter)] (Existential Closure)

! Next, the comparative operator in SpecCP, which binds the degree variable in syntax, forms apredicate abstract over that variable:


(154) [CP OPi Peter met di-young men] CP

2OPi C’<d,<e,t>> , λd›x[meet(x)(Peter) & young(men)(d)(x)]

2

λi IP <e,t>

6 Peter met young men ti

! Finally, the maximality operator than locates the maximal element of this set of degrees, resultingin (155)/3 as the denotation for the than-XP (vonStechow 1984; Rullmann 1995):

(155) ƒthan„ =Def λP<d,t> [max(λd[P(d)])]

(156) ƒthan Peter met young men„ =

= λP[max(λd[P(d)]) (λd’[››››x[ƒƒƒƒmeet„„„„(x) & ƒƒƒƒyoung„„„„ (ƒƒƒƒmen„„„„)(x)(d’)]]) =

= max(λd[λd’[›x[ƒmeet„(x) & ƒyoung„ (ƒmen„)(x)(d’)]])(d)]) == max(λd[›x[met(x)(Peter) & young(men)(d)(x)]])

INTEGRATING than-XP INTO MATRIX CLAUSE

(157) Mary met younger men than Peter met

! Deg°[+comparative] denotes a function from degrees to a function from AP-denotations to individualproperties (along the lines of von Stechow 1984; Rullmann 1995):

(158) ƒDeg°[+comp]„ =Def λdλP<d,<e,t>> λy›d’[P(d’)(y) & d’>d]

! Deg° applies to the than-XP first ((159)), and then to the AP-denotation ((160)). DegP denotes anindividual property, which is passed on to the DP-level.

(159) [DP younger men than Peter met] DP<e,t>

3 D° DegP<e,t> , (160)

e i AP<d,<e,t>> Deg’<<d,<e,t>>,<e,t>> , (159)

2 ep AP NP Deg°[+comp] than-XP <d>

5 4 <d,<<d,<e,t>>,<e,t>>> 6 younger men than Peter met

(160) ƒDeg°„(ƒthan Peter met young men„) =

= λdλPλy›d’[P(d’)(y) & d’>d](max(λd[›x[young(men)(d)(x) & met(x)(Peter)]]) == λPλy›d’[P(d’)(y) & d’> max(λd[›x[young(men)(d)(x) & met(x)(Peter)]])]


(161) ƒ[Deg° [than Peter met young men]]„(ƒyoung men„) == λPλy›d’[P(d’)(y) & d’> max(λd[›x[young(men)(d)(x) & met(x)(Peter)]])]

(λdλx[young(men)(d)(x)]) == λy›d’[young(men)(d’)(y) & d’>max(λd[›x[young(men)(d)(x) &

met(x)(Peter)]])]

! Finally, the predicate is existentially closed off:

(162) ƒMary met younger men than OPi Peter met di-young men„ == ›y›d’[young(men)(d’)(y) & met(y)(Mary) &

d’> max(λd[›x[young(men)(x)(d) & met(x)(Peter)]])]

“There is a degree d, Mary met d-young men and d is greater than the maximal degree d’,such that Peter met d’-young men”

np-c omparatives s omparativesusers.uoa.gr/~wlechner/4 np-comp.pdf3 ps-paradoxes iv: np-comparatives...

Documents