Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Conditions on Sprout<strong>in</strong>g Bradley Larson University of MarylandAim: I argue that sprout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stances of sluic<strong>in</strong>g are crucially conditioned by <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>in</strong>nerantecedents be<strong>in</strong>g Given (Schwarzschild 1999). This contrasts with current analyses of sprout<strong>in</strong>gwhich hold that it is conditioned by ei<strong>the</strong>r syntactic or phonological absence of an antecedent.Fur<strong>the</strong>r, this condition on sprout<strong>in</strong>g spurs local movement <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> form of extraposition orscrambl<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> sluiced element and constra<strong>in</strong>ts on <strong>the</strong>se movements constra<strong>in</strong> sprout<strong>in</strong>g.Background: The importance of sluic<strong>in</strong>g constructions like <strong>in</strong> (1) has been well establisheddat<strong>in</strong>g back to Ross 1969 and sprout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stances of sluic<strong>in</strong>g like <strong>in</strong> (2) have been pivotal <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>analysis of <strong>the</strong>m (see Chung et al. 1995, 2010). The superficial difference between <strong>the</strong>se twobe<strong>in</strong>g that regular sluic<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>volves an overt ‘<strong>in</strong>ner antecedent’ someth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> antecedentclause whereas sprout<strong>in</strong>g does not.(1) Amy was eat<strong>in</strong>g someth<strong>in</strong>g, but I don’t know what.(2) Amy was eat<strong>in</strong>g, but I don’t know what.Chung et al. and Barker 2012 claim that <strong>the</strong> sluiced what <strong>in</strong> (2) has no syntactic <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent.Chung et al. crucially rely on <strong>the</strong>re be<strong>in</strong>g no syntactic <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent. They argue for a copy<strong>in</strong>goperation that substitutes <strong>the</strong> antecedent IP <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> lower clause <strong>in</strong> covert syntax (3-4). This isfollowed by covert downward movement of <strong>the</strong> wh-word (trace here) <strong>in</strong>to an empty position (5):(3) [[ IP He was s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g]] but I don’t know [ CP {why/what} [ IP e ]](4) [[ IP He was s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g] j ] but I don’t know [ CP {why/what} [ IP He was s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g] j ](5) [[ IP He was s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g]] but I don’t know [ CP {why/what i } [ IP He was s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g t i ]]Larson 2012 argues aga<strong>in</strong>st this analysis by show<strong>in</strong>g that sprout<strong>in</strong>g also occurs when <strong>the</strong>re is asyntactically existent yet phonologically non-existent <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent. That is, <strong>the</strong> wh-sluic<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> (6) is shown to have <strong>the</strong> same profile as sprout<strong>in</strong>g. Larson argues that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent issyntactically <strong>the</strong>re <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> elided portion of <strong>the</strong> fragment answer (<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> sense of Merchant 2004)(7). He concludes that that <strong>the</strong> relevant condition for sprout<strong>in</strong>g is phonological non-existence of<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent.(6) Q: Who ate someth<strong>in</strong>g? A: Bill, but I don’t know what.(7) Bill [ IP ate someth<strong>in</strong>g], but I don’t know what.Problems: The phonological non-existence account is however <strong>in</strong>sufficient to capture <strong>the</strong> rangeof data. For example, given current <strong>the</strong>ory syntactic movement results <strong>in</strong> an unpronouncedversion of <strong>the</strong> moved element ei<strong>the</strong>r as a copy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> copy <strong>the</strong>ory of movement or as anoccurrence <strong>in</strong> re-merge <strong>the</strong>ories of movement. If mere lack of pronunciation of <strong>the</strong> syntacticallyextant <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent were sufficient to license sprout<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se cases, we would expect <strong>the</strong>follow<strong>in</strong>g discourse to be an <strong>in</strong>stance of sprout<strong>in</strong>g. The VP-front<strong>in</strong>g leaves beh<strong>in</strong>d a copy oroccurrence of unpronounced syntactic material much like <strong>in</strong> (6).(8) Amy said that she wanted to sell someth<strong>in</strong>g. And sell someth<strong>in</strong>g she did [sell someth<strong>in</strong>g], Ijust can’t remember what.There are a few diagnostics for sprout<strong>in</strong>g; here I use swip<strong>in</strong>g (follow<strong>in</strong>g Rosen 1976 andMerchant 2002) for simplicity’s sake. In <strong>the</strong> examples <strong>in</strong> (9,10) <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>ner antecedent could befound <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> un-pronounced base-position of <strong>the</strong> moved elements on analogy with <strong>the</strong> elidedcontent <strong>in</strong> (6). The fact that swip<strong>in</strong>g is not licit <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>se cases shows that sprout<strong>in</strong>g is not possiblehere. Also, Chung et al. (2010) show that it is impossible to sprout <strong>the</strong> object of a preposition,which fur<strong>the</strong>r militates aga<strong>in</strong>st a sprout<strong>in</strong>g analysis of this construction.(9) Amy said that she wanted to talk to someone. And talk to someone she did [talk tosomeone], I just can’t remember who (*to).(10) (It was) A book about someth<strong>in</strong>g Amy read, but I don’t know what (*about).