Danny Fox

Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure

Abstract This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology – in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines the linear ordering of words. We propose that linearization is restricted in two key ways. (1) the relative ordering of words is fixed at the end of each phase, or ‘‘Spell-out domain’’; and (2) ordering established in an earlier phase may not be revised or contradicted in a later phase. As a consequence, overt extraction out of a phase P may apply only if the result leaves unchanged the precedence relations established in P. We argue first that this architecture (‘‘cyclic linearization’’) gives us a means of understanding the reasons for successive-cyclic movement. We then turn our attention to more specific predictions of the proposal: in particular, the effects of Holmberg’s Generalization on Scandinavian Object Shift; and also the Inverse Holmberg Effects found in Scandinavian ‘‘Quantifier Movement’’ constructions (Rögnvaldsson (1987); Jónsson (1996); Svenonius (2000)) and in Korean scrambling configurations (Ko (2003, 2004)). The cyclic linearization proposal makes predictions that cross-cut the details of particular syntactic configurations. For example, whether an apparent case of verb fronting results from V-to-C movement or from ‘‘remnant movement’’ of a VP whose complements have been removed by other processes, the verb should still be required to precede its complements after fronting if it preceded them before fronting according to an ordering established at an earlier phase. We argue that ‘‘cross-construction’’ consistency of this sort is in fact found.

Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains

This article investigates interactions between the scope of QPs and the restrictions imposed by binding theory. It presents new evidence that Condition C applies at (and only at) LF and demonstrates that this condition can serve as a powerful tool for distinguishing among various claims regarding the nature of LF and the inventory of semantic mechanisms. The conclusions reached are these: (1) Scope reconstruction is represented in the syntax (semantic type-shifting operations are very limited). (2) -chains have the following properties: (a) Scope reconstruction results from deleting the head of the chain and interpreting a copy at the tail. (b) Non-scope-reconstruction results from interpreting the head of the chain with a copy of the restrictor at the tail (unless this option is impossible, as in antecedent-contained deletion, in which case the copy is changed to a variable as in standard notations). (c) VP adjunction is an intermediate landing site. (3) A-chains are different in a way that at the moment requires a stipulative distinction.

Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures

This chapter will be concerned with the conjunctive interpretation of a family of disjunctive constructions. The relevant conjunctive interpretation, sometimes referred to as a ‘free choice effect,’ (FC) is attested when a disjunctive sentence is embedded under an existential modal operator. I will provide evidence that the relevant generalization extends (with some caveats) to all constructions in which a disjunctive sentence appears under the scope of an existential quantifier, as well as to seemingly unrelated constructions in which conjunction appears under the scope of negation and a universal quantifier.

Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement

Antecedent-contained deletion poses a problem for theories of ellipsis, a problem that, according to much literature, is solved by Quantifier Raising. The solution, however, conflicts with the copy theory of movement. This article resolves this new conflict with the aid of a theory of extraposition and covert movement proposed by Fox and Nissenbaum (1999), together with certain assumptions about the structure of relative clauses and the way chains are interpreted. The resolution makes various new predictions and accounts for a range of otherwise puzzling facts.

Successive-Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The Difference between Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis

It is well known that in sluicing constructions wh-dependencies can cross certain projections that are otherwise barriers to movement (Ross 1969, Chomsky 1972). This fact would follow under the assumption that the relevant barriers are somehow deactivated when phonologically deleted (island repair). The problem, however, is that another form of phonological deletion (VP-ellipsis; VPE) seems to be impossible in certain contexts where sluicing allows for island repair (Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Merchant 2001). Nevertheless, we argue against the conclusion that island repair is a special property of sluicing. The argument is based on two observations. First, the difference between sluicing and VPE seems too broad to warrant the conclusion that island repair is the distinguishing factor (Lasnik 2001). Second, the conclusion is directly refuted by other VPE environments where island repair is possible (Kennedy and Merchant 2000; Fox, in preparation). The argument leaves us with a puzzle that we attempt to resolve while still maintaining the null hypothesis that VPE and sluicing involve the same operation of deletion, differing only in the size of the deleted constituent. Our proposed resolution capitalizes on a special property of the relevant sluicing contextsnamely, the presence of an indefinite NP in the antecedent clause in a position parallel to that of a trace in the elided clause. We argue that given the parallelism conditions on ellipsis, this fact prevents the wh-phrase in the elided clause from undergoing successive-cyclic movement. The remaining option (one-fell-swoop movement) requires the deletion of all barriers, including those that would otherwise be circumvented via an intermediate landing site. Such deletion occurs in sluicing but not in VPE, which targets a smaller constituent.

ECONOMY AND SCOPE

This paper argues in favor of two claims: (a) that Scope Shifting Operations (Quantifier Raising and Quantifier Lowering) are restricted by economy considerations, and (b) that the relevant economy considerations compare syntactic derivations that end up interpretively identical. These ideas are shown to solve several puzzles having to do with the interaction of scope with VP ellipsis, coordination, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Further, the paper suggests a way of dealing with the otherwise puzzling clause-boundedness of Quantifier Raising.

Children's Passive: A View from the By -Phrase

This article argues that childrens difficulty with passive constructions is related to properties of the by-phrase. Specifically, we argue that children are in full control of all aspects of the passive construction except for the ability to transmit the external -role of the predicate to the by-phrase; we thus reject Borer and Wexlers (1987) claim regarding the maturation of A-chains. Our conclusion is dictated by the results of an experiment we conducted, and supported by data already present in the literature.

Two short notes on Schlenker's theory of presupposition projection

The format of Theoretical Linguistics is particularly appropriate when one can identify contributions to linguistic theory that – when put in the limelight – are likely to push the field forward in important ways. With this goal in mind, I can’t think of a better choice than Schlenker’s target article, an article which proposes a completely original outlook on a problem that has troubled researchers for decades and – at least in the eyes of some practitioners – has resisted a satisfactory solution. My goal for this commentary is very modest, namely to explain what I find remarkable about Schlenker’s proposal. I will try to achieve this goal by discussing two of Schlenker’s contributions. The first is the identification of a generalization that relates the presupposition of a sentence to what we might call the anti-presupposition of a closely related conjunctive sentence. Although this generalization is predicted by the competing theories that Schlenker considers – namely various versions of dynamic semantics – it suggests a totally new perspective on the problem. The second contribution that I will discuss pertains to the main tool that Schlenker invokes in order to develop his perspective, namely quantification over possible continuations of a sentence at a particular point of sentence processing. I will point out that this new tool could also be used

Cyclic Linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: a reply

Abstract Our proposal is concerned with the relation between an aspect of phonology (linearization) and syntax. In the picture that we had in mind, the syntax is autonomous – ‘‘it does what it does’’ – but sometimes the result maps to an unusable phonological representation. In this sense, linearization acts logically as a filter on derivations. We know of no evidence that the syntax can predict which syntactic objects will be usable by the phonology, and we know of no clear evidence that the phonology communicates this information to the syntax. In this sense, our proposal fits squarely into the tradition that Svenonius characterizes as the ‘‘mainstream’’. We thus attempted to identify certain deviant configurations that are not plausibly excluded for syntax-internal reasons, but are filtered out in the linearization process.

Ignorance and Inference: Do Problems with Gricean Epistemic Reasoning Explain Children's Difficulty with Scalar Implicature?

Journal of Semantics Advance Access published December 4, 2014 Journal of Semantics, 0, 2014: 1–29 doi:10.1093/jos/ffu015 LARA HOCHSTEIN University of California, San Diego ALAN BALE Concordia University DANNY FOX The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Massachusetts Institute of Technology DAVID BARNER University of California, San Diego Abstract Unlike adults, children as old as 9 years of age often fail to infer that a sentence like, ‘Some of the children slept’ implies the falsity of its stronger alternative, ‘All of the children slept’—an inference referred to as a ‘scalar implicature’. Several explanations have been proposed to account for children’s failures with scalar implicature, including domain-general processing limitations, pragmatic deficits or an inability to access the relevant alternatives in a lexical scale (e.g. all as an alternative to some). Our study focused on the role of Gricean epistemic reasoning in children’s failures by testing their ability to compute ‘ignorance implicatures’, which require reasoning about speaker knowledge and informativeness but which differ from scalar implicature with respect to the alternative statements that are involved. We administered two matched tasks to 4- and 5-year-old children: one that assessed their ability to compute ignorance implicatures, and another that assessed their ability to compute scalar implicatures. Five-year-olds successfully computed ignorance implicatures despite failing to compute scalar implicatures, while 4-year-olds failed at both types of inference. These results suggest that 5-year-olds are able to reason about speaker knowledge and informative- ness, and thus that it is difficult to explain their deficit with scalar implicature via these factors. We speculate about other possible sources of their difficulties, including pro- cessing limits and children’s access to the specific scalar alternatives required by scalar implicature. s The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Downloaded from http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Diego on December 5, 2014 Ignorance and Inference: Do Problems with Gricean Epistemic Reasoning Explain Children’s Difficulty with Scalar Implicature?