Topicalisation structures and constraints on coreference

Lingua

63 (1984) 139-174.

North-Holland

TOPICALISATION COREFERENCE

139

STRUCTURES AND CONSTRAINTS ON

J. GL&RON* UnrversitP de Paris VIII, France

Received

1.

October

1983

Introduction

In this study we propose a general solution for the problem of coreference in structures containing topicalised constituents. We examine such well-known minimal pairs as (lk(3) below : l (la) (lb) (2a) (2b) (3a) (3b)

Near him, John saw a snake. *Near John, he saw a snake. (Lakoff 1968) In John’s picture of Mary, she looks good. *In John’s picture of Mary, she found a scratch. (Jackendoff *John, he thinks Mary likes. The article John just wrote, he thinks Mary likes. (Reinhart

1972) 1976)

We will review some proposals which attempt to account for such contrasts. In section 2, we examine the hypothesis of Reinhart that coreference relations are subject to an s-structure configurational constraint. In section 3, we criticize the proposal in Gueron (1978, 1979a), according to which a topicalised constituent interpretable as the FOCUS of S is reconstructed in LF. Section 4 reviews the suggestion of De Fourier (1980) that topicalised constituents are decomposed into two subconstituents on the level of logical form. In sections 5 and 6, we consider the reconstruction or ‘connectedness’ proposal of Cinque (1982) and the NP-structure hypothesis of Van Riemsdijk * I am grateful to J.-R. Vergnaud, R. Kayne, I. Haik, J. Higginbotham and G. Carden helpful criticism of an earlier version of this paper. - For text of footnotes see p. 169ff.

0024-3841/84/$3.00

0

1984, Elsevier

Science Publishers

B.V. (North-Holland)

for

and Williams (1981). We show that each of these theories falls short of empirical adequacy. In section 7, we offer an alternative analysis which integrates into our earlier system a ‘decomposition’ mechanism in the spirit of De Fourier.

Reinhart : s-structure c-command

2. 2.1.

Reinhart (1976, 1980, 198 1) proposed that relations of linear order are irrelevant for determining coreference relations within the domain of the sentence. This hypothesis is all the more interesting as order is undoubtedly significant for coreference on the discourse level. A rule like (4) can account for the data in (5) and (6), for example. (4) A pronoun in Si may be coindexed with an NP in S,, where S, precedes Si and the NP antecedent is local (where ‘local’ refers, roughly, to the closest potential antecedent). (5a) John, entered. Then hei sat down. (5b) *He, entered. Then Johni sat down. (6) Johni danced with Mary. Billy danced with Sue. (a) Then he, left. (b) *Then hei left. That the order NP-pronoun relations within S is shown corefers with an NP which (7) People

who know

is not the pertinent parameter for coreference by examples such as (7), in which a pronoun follows it.

him like John.

(cf. Langacker

Building on work by Klima, Langacker, Lasnik, proposes (8) as a filter for coreference in S.

and

1969) others,

Reinhart

(8) If A c-commands B and B is not a pronoun, then A # B. DejI A c-commands B if the first branching node which dominates dominates B. (8) accounts

for the contrast

between

(7), which

is grammatical

A

in the

J. Gukon

coreferential below.

1 Topicalisation

interpretation,

structures

141

and c~orrfievtce

and (9), which is not, as shown in (10) and (11)

(9) *He likes people who know John. (10) (= structure of (7))

A

A

V

NP

NP

FL COMP K

pebple

who

e

know _him

like

John

(11) (= structure of (9))

NP I -He

/q i" likes

peoble

who know John

In (1 l), but not in (lo), the pronoun c-commands its antecedent, in violation of (8). Later work supports Reinhart’s hypothesis that (8) filters coreference in S, with no reference to linear order needed. 2.2. In topicalisation structures, an X” phrase in preposed position is coindexed with a trace in S. Reinhart proposes that the X” phrase is Chomsky-

142

J. Giron

/ Topicalisation

structures

and corcfwtwcc

adjoined to S; Chomsky (1977), that it is base-generated in TOPIC position and linked to S’ by a rule of predication. In either case, the question must be raised whether a constituent so preposed is in the c-command domain of the subject of S. In other words, does rule (8) which accounts for the coreference contrast in (12) below, also account for (l)? (12a) John saw a snake near him. (12b) *He saw a snake near John. Reinhart answers this question affirmatively. The pronominal subject of S c-commands its antecedent John, in violation of (8) in both (12b) and (lb), as illustrated in (13) and (14) below. (13) *He saw a snake near John (= (12b))

SAW

near John

a snake

(14) *Near John he saw a snake (= (lb))

S

Near John

tie

-

saw a snake

In order that (8) apply to (14) as well as (13), the definition of c-command (9) is amended to (15).

J. Guhon

/ Topicalisation

structures

143

and cor~f&w~ce

(15) Node A c-commands node B iff the branching node a, most immediately dominating A either dominates B or is immediately dominated by a node a2 which dominates B, and a2 is of the same category type as a,. Definition (15) also permits a structural explanation for the contrast in (2) above. Reinhart argues that the adjunction site of a preposed S adverbial, as in (2a), is distinct from that of a preposed VP complement, as in (2b). While the former is dominated by S”, the latter is dominated by S’, as shown in (16) and (17). (16) (= (2a))

In John's

picture

of Mary L

de

looks

good

(17) (= (2b))

In

John's

picture

of Mary +P i' -she

A found

a scratch'

In (17), the subject of S c-commands Mary, by definition (15) (but not by definition (8)), so coreference is ruled out by rule (8). In (16), however, the

preposed

material

is adjoined

‘too high’ to be c-commanded

by the subject,

so coreference between Mary and shr is allowed. Definition (15) may seem ad hoc. However, if we assume that S’ is the maximal projection of INFL, and if we accept Reinhart’s proposal that preposed VP complements are dominated by S’, whereas S adverbials are of c-command in (18) provides a dominated by S”, then the definition natural basis for distinguishing between (16) and (17). (18) A c-commands B if the minimal maximal A dominates B. (Aoun and Sportiche

projection 1981)

which dominates

The problem with Reinhart’s hypothesis is not theoretical, but empirical. The coreference contrasts in (1) and (2) cannot be due to c-command of preposed material by a subject. For such contrasts are not eliminated when the pronominal subject is in an embedded S, where it does not c-command a preposed phrase by either (8) or (15). (The following examples are from Gueron 1979b.) (19a) (19b) (20a) (20b)

Near him, I think John saw *Near John, I think he saw In John’s picture of Mary, *In John’s picture of Mary,

a snake. (cf. (la)) (cf. (1 b)) a snake. (cf. (2a)) I think she looks good. (cf. (2b)) I think she found a scratch.

Moreover, a grammar containing (8) and (15) predicts an asymmetry between the subject of S, which c-commands preposed material, and the object of S, which does not. For the first branching node which dominates the object is VP, not S or S’. Examples like (21) suggest, however, that there is no such asymmetry.‘,’ (21a) *To John’s house (21b) *To John’s house

he will go this evening. I will send him this evening.

Nor can the hypothesis that VP complements and S adverbials are adjoined to different nodes account for the contrast in (22) (from Gueron 1978, due to Higginbotham, p.c.). (22a) In whose picture of Mary does she look good? (22b) *In whose picture of Mary did she find a scratch?

Other counterexamples to the claim that rule (8) filters coreference in topicalisation structures have been pointed out in the literature. For example, as Reinhart notes, Lakoff (1968) shows that ‘depth of embedding’ of the antecedent affects the possibility of coreference, as illustrated in (23) and (24). (23a) (23b) (24a) (24b)

*In John’s apartment, he spends a lot of time. In the apartment John just rented, he spends a lot of time. *How many pictures of Mary did she buy? Which of the pictures Mary bought did she prefer?

Reinhart suggests that non-coreference may be blocked in such cases by the subjacency constraint. That this cannot be correct is shown by the examples of (25) in which coreference is unacceptable although the antecedent is just as deeply embedded as in the acceptable (23b) and (24b). (25a) *John’s brother’s ties he saw in the closet. (25b) *An article about a book by John he read in the Times. Finally, scope phenomena argue against Reinhart’s theory. Reinhart proposes that logical scope is a direct function of s-structure c-command. If so, and if the subject c-commands the topicalized constituent, then topicalisation of a constituent c-commanded by the subject in d-structure should not affect scope relations between the two NPs. The following examples show that this prediction is false, however. (26a) No one saw anyone. (26b) *Anyone no one saw. A polarity item must be in the c-command domain of a negative operator. (26a) shows that a NEG-marked subject counts as such an operator in English. If a fronted object remained in the c-command domain of the subject, then (26b) would be grammatical. (27a) Two boys danced with some girl. (27b) Some girl two boys danced with. In both (27a) and (27b), some girl may be construed as having wider scope than two boys. In (27a), a second reading is available in which two boys has wider scope than some girl, this construal permitting, contrary to

the first, the existence of two girls. The second reading is unavailable in (27b), however, a fact that is inexplicable in Reinhart’s framework. Given the array of counterexamples to the claim that preposed constituents are c-commanded by the subject of S, we conclude that the claim is false and henceforth assume that a subject does not c-command material outside of S. (This conclusion follows from (18) above if S is a maximal projection.) Another explanation must therefore be sought for contrasts such as those in (1) (2) (22) and (24).

3.

GuCron (1978, 1979a) : reconstruction

3.1.

The parallelism between (1) and (12) with respect to the acceptability of coreference suggests that d-structure rather than s-structure configurations determine constraints on coreference. One way of formalizing this generalisation is by positing a transformation in LF which reconstructs a moved constituent in the position of its trace. Such a solution was proposed in Gueron (1978, 1979a). It was suggested that preposed constituents are analysed in LF as either FOCUS or TOPIC of S. A FOCUS constituent is reconstructed in the position of its trace by rule (28).

1

In the structure Xc’ . . . ei . . . , move Xi’ to the position of its trace. [S

(28) FOCUS

rule:

If reconstruction does not take place, the fronted constituent as the TOPIC of S. (29) TOPIC

rule: In the configuration

is interpreted

1

X” NP. . . , X” is TOPIC of S,. [ Sll

After the application of the FOCUS and TOPIC rules, (2a) has the LF (30a) and (2b) the LF (30b). (30a) In John’s picture of Mary she looks good. (30b) She found a scratch in John’s picture of Mary.

J. GuPron / Topicalisation structures and cort$wnce

147

(8) follows reconstruction, permitting coreference in (30a) but not in (30b). Pragmatic constraints filter the application of the TOPIC and FOCUS rules, which are otherwise freely applied. For example, either (28) or (29) could apply to (2b). However, (2b) does not satisfy the pragmatic constraints on a topic. The corresponding LF will therefore be filtered out in the pragmatic component (see Gueron 1979b for discussion). 3.2. Although our proposal accounted for the contrasts in (1) and (2), it had serious defects. No precise definition of FOCUS and TOPIC was provided. And no statement was made concerning the relation, if any, between subcategorization and FOCUS. It may not be assumed that subcategorized constituents count as FOCUS when preposed, while non-s&categorized constituents count as TOPIC. Although such a correlation appears to hold in (2), it does not hold in (3b) and (24b) where the fronted constituent is subcategorized, yet would have to count as a TOPIC with respect to rule (29).4,5

4.

Z&on de Fourier (1980) : decomposition

De Fourier proposes an algorithm to account, inter aliu, for the contrast in (24). He suggests that preposed wh-constituents are decomposed into two parts in LF, a ‘restrictive’ part and a ‘non-restrictive’ part. The restrictive part contains the wh-operator and all subconstituents of the preposed phrase which are subject to pied-piping, i.e., the NP and PP complements of X. The non-restrictive part contains the lexical element which specifies the range of the wh-operator plus those sub-constituents which do not pied-pipe, essentially S’ complements of X. Only the restrictive portion of the preposed element would be subject to the c-command rule (8) with S’ the domain of c-command, as for Reinhart. De Fourier’s proposal is illustrated in (31) and (32), where the restrictive part of the preposed phrase is italicized and the non-restrictive part is in parentheses. (31a) (31b) (32a) (32b)

*Whose picture of Mary did she buy? WA-x, of Mary, (x = a picture), she bought x. Which picture that Mary bought does she like best? W/z-x (x = a picture that Mary bought), she likes x best.

In (31) the preposed name Mary is included in the restrictive part of the preposed constituent. It is therefore c-commanded by the pronominal subject of S, and coreference between the two NPs is excluded by (8). In (32), however, the name Mary is in the non-restrictive part of the preposed constituent. There it is ‘protected’ from c-command, and may corefer with the subject. This solution suffers from a number of technical defects. (i) The claim that S’ rather than S is the domain of rule (8) has been shown above not to be tenable. (ii) The analysis of (24) does not extend to topicalisation structures, such as (23), which do not contain a wh-morpheme. (iii) In examples like (33) below, constituents which are inseparable in syntax are separated in LF. The analysis thus adds power to the grammar by positing a structure-changing operation in LF which has no independent justification on the syntactic level.6 (33a) Which book that you told John to give to the father of the brother of whom does he like? (De Fourier 1980) (33b) Which x, to the ,fhther, I$ the brother, qf‘ whom, (x = a book that you told John to give PP), he likes x.

5.

Cinque (1982):

LF chain and reconstruction

We refer briefly to that part of the discussion of ‘connectedness phenomena’ in Cinque (1982) which is pertinent for coreference in topicalisation structures. In examples such as (2b), the preposed PP and its trace form a single discontinuous constituent, a chain (cf. Chomsky 1981). The preposed element behaves just as if it were in the place of its trace for a series of connectedness effects, including subcategorization and the. principles of binding theory. This type of reconstruction without movement explains the ungrammaticality of the coreferential construal of (lb), (2b), (23a) and (24a) as a function of the d-structure position of the preposed constituent and rule (8). With respect to (8) (23a) and (24a) are equivalent to their d-structures (34) and (3.5) respectively. (34) *He spends a lot of time in John’s apartment. (35) *She bought how many pictures of Mary? (2a) is grammatical

because

the preposed

PP is an S-adverbial,

not

a

subcategorized VP complement. PP not being linked to a position in S by means of a trace, it is not reconstructed. Therefore, nothing prevents coreference between an NP inside the adverbial and a pronoun in S. Cinque recognizes that the chain and reconstruction hypothesis does not account for the grammaticality of (23b) and (24b), which he attributes to discourse rules.

6.

Van Riemsdijk

and Williams

(1981):

NP structure

The level of grammar pertinent for (8) is NP-structure, a level which follows NP-movement but precedes the (wh-)movement transformations which produce topicalisation and related structures. This hypothesis is equivalent to the reconstruction hypothesis for the contrasts which concern us. In NP-structure, (23a) has the form shown in (34) above and (24a) that of (35). The impossibility of a coreferential construal of these Ss is a function of rule (8), as in the previous analysis. The grammaticality of the coreferential reading of (23b) and (24b) is inexplicable in this theory, as in the previous one, since the corresponding structures, (36) and (37) respectively, are ungrammatical prior to whmovement. (36) *He spends a lot of time in the apartment John just (37) *She prefers which of the pictures Mary bought? Van Riemsdijk and Williams on the discourse level.

7.

Comments

attribute

such contrasts

on the proposals examined

rented.

to ordering

constraints

so far

7.1. The reconstruction and NP-structure hypotheses rule out coreference in (23b) and (24b) in S-grammar. Since the Ss are acceptable on some level, these theories imply that discourse rules can reverse a sentence-level judgement of ungrammaticality. Such a principle, which does not seem to be independently necessary, adds power to the grammar and is thus undesirable in principle. Similar remarks may be made with respect to (38a) and (39a), which are much more acceptable than their d-structure counterparts (38b) and (39b).

150

(38a) (38b) (39a) (39b)

J. G&on

/ Topicalisation

structures

and corqfkwxe

The rumour that John stole the money, he has always denied. *He has always denied the rumour that John stole the money. Whether John will come tonight or not he refuses to say. *He refuses to say whether John will come tonight or not.

These proposals are also problematic such as (40).

with respect to contrasts in binding

(40a) How many pictures of himself does John want Mary to keep? (40b) *John wants Mary to keep some pictures of himself: The evidence seems to show that preposing transformations may change the acceptability of coreference and binding relations, contrary to the predictions of the reconstruction and NP-structure hypotheses. 7.2. None of the proposals examined so far, all of which rely ultimately on rule (8), can account for the unacceptability of coreference in pseudo-cleft and speciticational structures such as (41b) and (43b) below. In such structures, the pronominal subject does not c-command its antecedent either in s-structure (Reinhart), ‘reconstructure’ (Gueron, Cinque), or NP-structure (Van Riemsdijk and Williams). (41a) What I like about John is his tie. (41b) *What I like about him is John’s tie. (42) (= structure of (41b))

(Higgins 1974)

J. Gue+on 1 Topicalisation structures and cowferencc

151

(43a) Ses beaux yeux sont le meilleur atout de Christine. ‘Her beautiful eyes are the greatest attraction of C.’ (43b) *Son meilleur atout est les beaux yeux de Christine. (Ruwet 1975) ‘Her greatest attraction is the beautiful eyes of C.’ In (41b) only the wh-phrase, not the focus constituent of the pseudo-cleft construction, can be subject to (8) in reconstructure or in NP structure. For (44) which corresponds to the reconstructed (41b), is ungrammatical, as Higgins points out. (44) *I like John’s tie about him. And in (43b) there is nothing to reconstruct, since the d-structure are identical. Moreover, (43a) and (43b) grammaticality of a coreferential reading even though structures. Nor does De Fourier say anything about structures although they exhibit the same coreference contrasts as his decomposition rule was meant to account for.

s-structure and the contrast as to the they have identical like (41) and (43), (23) and (24) which

(45a) What I like about him is the tie John wears to work. (45b) Son plus be1 attrait est le sourire avec lequel Christine accueille les gens. ‘Her greatest charm is the smile with which Christine greets people.’

8.

An alternative

proposal : operator constituents

8.1.

We assume that the acceptability of coreference in Ss such as (3b), (23b), (24b), (38a), (39a), and (45) above must be explained in S-grammar. We therefore reject the reconstruction and NP-structure solutions which do not account for them. We retain the basic idea of our earlier work; namely, that the notion FOCUS of S is crucial for coreference in general and topicalisation structures in particular. Coreference filters must therefore be stated on the output of logical form, the first appropriate level on which this notion may be defined.

Recall that our hypothesis that topicalised constituents are classed as either TOPIC of S or FOCUS of S could not account for the lack of one-to-one correspondence between subcategorized arguments and the TOPIC-FOCUS distinction (cf. section 3.2 above). If preposed constituents may be divided into two parts in LF, however, then one part may be identified as FOCUS of S, the complementary part as a remainder. We adopt this hypothesis. We assume, furthermore, that the FOCUS constituent contains the head of the topicalised phrase. By the theta-criterion, it is then the FOCUS constituent which is subject to reconstruction in LF. Following Chomsky (1976) we define the FOCUS of S as a syntactic constituent which is interpreted as an iota operator on the level: of logical form. Like wh- and negative quantification, focus quantification picks out one element from among those belonging to a ‘background’ set. The analogy between wh-, negative and focus quantification is illustrated in (46)(49) below, where the (a)-example represents an s-structure, the (b)-example the LF associated with it. (46a) (46b) (47a) (47b) (48a) (48b) Each

John; e; I like e,. John = x XE {M} I like x (where Who, do you like q. Whx XE {M} you like x No onei does he like ei No x x E {M} he likes x

operator

bears

a characteristic

M is the set of humans)

marking:

the interrogative

operator

is marked by a wh-morpheme, the neg operator by a negative morpheme, and the FOCUS operator by prominent stress. We propose that in English, a topicalised constituent is construed both as TOPIC of S and as FOCUS of S. Referential with respect to the rule of Predication which links it to S’, the TOPIC, or a segment of it, is construed as non-referential with respect to the rule of quantification under which an operator binds a trace in S. The hypothesis that the TOPIC fills a double semantic function appears paradoxical. Yet, we believe it is semantically coherent. As subject of a rule of predication, the TOPIC must denote an individual. The FOCUS operator selects one individual or entity from a ‘background’ set of appropriate elements. There is no contradiction. therefore, if the TOPIC of which an open sentence is predicated denotes the same individual as is selected by the FOCUS operator.

A simpl.ex constituent necessarily cumulates the two semantic functions. We propose, following De Fourier, that a complex constituent may be divided into two parts, one of which is identified as the FOCUS of S. Algorithm (61) below picks out the FOCUS constituent. The output of this ‘decomposition’ process is the input for the rule of reconstruction. As proposed in Gueron (1978) only the FOCUS, now construed as (possibly) a subconstituent of the preposed phrase, is reconstructed in LF and subjected to the binding rules. 8.2.

The fronted constituent as TOPIC and as FOCUS

In English, an NP TOPIC must be referential, that is interpretable as denoting an individual whose existence in the world of the discourse is independent of the truth value of the sentential predicate. An operator phrase, on the other hand ~ wh-word, neg-element, or FOCUS - is nonreferential. This distinction accounts for the paradigm in (49). (49a) John, Mary likes. (49b) *Who, Mary likes. (49~) *No-one, Mary likes. The semantic criterion for a TOPIC is satisfied in (49a) but not in (49b) or (49c).’ The semantic distinction between referential and non-referential NPs can also account for the contrasts below (cf. Chomsky 1976, 1982).

(50) *Whoi does his, mother like ei? (51) *Hisi mother likes JOHN,. (52) Johni hisi mother likes e. We make the assumptions in (53) concerning the relation between binding and reference : (53) (i) A non-pronominal empty category is non-referential. (ii) A bound pronoun has the referential status of its A-binder. (cf. Evans 1982) (iii) An unbound pronoun is referential. (cf. Reinhart 1980) Given

our assumption,

the pronoun

his is referential

in (50)(52),

since

it is not A-bound. This explains the ungrammaticality of (50) and (51) independently of a putative FOCUS movement rule in LF. An NP interpreted as a quantifier phrase, such as who, or John under the FOCUS construal, has no reference. It cannot therefore be coreferential with a referential pronoun. In (52) however, the TOPIC is construed as referential. It can therefore be coreferential with the pronoun, as suggested in Chomsky (1982). The topicalised constituent must also be construed as an operator, however. For, following Predication, it is coindexed with a trace construed as a variable. The trace is located in A-position and is locally A’ bound. Like other variables, it licenses parasitic gaps. (54a) Who did you agree to go out with e without meeting e? (54b) No one would I agree to go out with e without meeting e. (54~) John I agreed to go out with e without meeting e. The traces of referential NPs do not license 1981, 1982; Engdahl 1980). (55) *Je l’ai aime e avant de rencontrer ‘I him loved e before meeting e.’

parasitic

gaps

(cf. Chomsky

e.

We will now show how the topicalised constituent satisfies its double semantic function. We assume, following Chomsky (1977) that in topicalisation structures, the TOPIC is coindexed with an empty element in COMP. We identify this empty element as a FOCUS operator. An empty operator, being neither lexical nor PRO, is not an argument and cannot satisfy the theta-criterion, which requires a one-to-one relation between an argument and a theta-role (Chomsky 1981). The Predication rule coindexes the TOPIC and the operator, providing lexical content so that the operator may qualify as an argument. Following Predication, the topic, now non-distinct from the operator, is reconstructed in LF (or equivalently, extending the proposal of Cinque (1982) a chain is formed containing the TOPIC, the operator, and the trace in S). The coindexing and reconstruction process is illustrated in (56). (56a) John

we like.

155

(56b) S-structure : we like e, Johnj ei TOPIC FOCUS (56~) Output of Predication rule: we like ej John, e, TOPIC FOCUS (56d) Output of reconstruction :’ Johnj ej we like John, (56d) is subject to the binding rules. The hypothesis that Predication applies before reconstruction and binding is crucial to our grammar of coreference. This hypothesis is independently necessary to account for cases in which the TOPIC contains an anaphoric pronominal, as in (57). (57a) Pictures of himself Bill hates to look at e. (57b) His arm I think Bill broke e skiing. An anaphor must be bound in its minimal governing category (Condition A of the binding theory, Chomsky 1981). If S or S’ is the relevant category, then (57) satisfies Condition A only if predication and reconstruction precede binding. 8.3. Our basic claim in this study is that certain cases of non-coreference are explicable solely on a semantic basis, that others require a combination of interpretive and structural criteria, and that both types involve reference to the FOCUS of S. Examples of each case will now be reviewed. 8.3.1. The reconstruction hypothesis suffices to account for the contrast between (58) and (59), on the basis of rule (8). (58a) (58b) (59a) (59b)

John his mother likes. LF output: Johni his mother likes Johni *John’s mother he likes. LF output: [John’s motherly he likes [John’s motherly

8.3.2. But decomposition is needed in addition to reconstruction the grammaticality of coreference in (60).9 (60a)

The article

(60b) Output

John just wrote

of Predication

he thinks

Mary likes.

to account

for

(= (3b))

in LF:

John just wrote ei

(60~) reconstructed [[the articlei] article]] Decomposition X” constituent.

LF : [John

just

wrote

e]i] [ei he thinks

is the process of isolating an operator Rule (61) governs this process.

Mary

phrase

likes

within

[the

some

(61) The operator constituent of Xi’ is the minimal maximal projection which contains an operator morpheme plus the head of X”. In (58) and (59) above,

the entire preposed

NP is the operator

constituent.

This NP is reconstructed, and coreference is ruled out by (8). In (60), however, either the entire relative clause or its head satisfies definition (61). If the head NP alone is reconstructed, as in (60~) nothing prevents coreference between the NP John within the preposed relative and the pronoun in S. 8.3.3. The contrast

in (62) recalls

that

between

(51) and (52) above.

157

(62a) It is John whom his mother likes. (62b) *The one whom his mother likes is John. Following Chomsky (1977), we analyse a cleft S as containing a topicalisation substructure. In (62a), the NP John is both TOPIC of the embedded S’ and FOCUS of the matrix S. The TOPIC is coindexed with the whelement in COMP, in order to satisfy the theta-criterion, and reconstructed. In the pseudo-cleft structure (62b), however, the NP John is FOCUS of the matrix S, but not TOPIC of the embedded S; for it is not in the proper structural relation to the relative clause to be subject to the predication rule (cf. Williams 1980). Nor is the TOPIC of a cleft structure semantically equivalent to the head of the relative clause subject of a pseudo-cleft S. While the first position may be occupied by either a name or a universal quantifier, the second contains only operator phrases. It follows that many pseudo-cleft structures have no grammatical cleft equivalent, as can be seen by the contrast between (62b) and (63) below. (63) **It is the one whom his mother likes. After the Predication that of (64b).

rule applies, (62a) has the LF (64a) and (62b)

(64a) It is JOHNj whomj his mother likes ej TOPIC (64b) The one, whomj his mother likes e, is JOHNk FOCUS The NP John is a TOPIC in (64a), and may be coreferential with the pronoun his. But John is only a FOCUS in (64b). As an operator phrase, it cannot corefer with a pronoun, as in (51) above. Our account of (62a) and (52) above is a variant of that in Chomsky (1982). Our account of (62b) and (51) is distinct, however. It invokes neither the Bijection Principle (Koopman and Sportiche 1981) nor the “leftness constraint” (Chomsky 1976). The former constraint we reject, first, because it ‘depends on the assumption that a quantifier can bind a pronoun in Ss such as (50). If this assumption were warranted, then (65) should be grammatical.

(65) **Who

do you like his mother?

Secondly, neither the Bijection Principle nor the ‘leftness constraint’, can account for (43b). These constraints are therefore empirically inferior to our hypothesis, which accounts for non-coreference in (51) (43b) and(64b) on the basis of the semantic distinction between referential and non-referential NPs. Consider, moreover, the Ss below. (66) The one she likes best is a friend of Mary’s. (67) Which friend of Mary’s is the one she likes best? (66) is ambiguous between a predicational and a spec@cational reading (cf. Higgins 1974). Coreference is compatible only with the predicational reading, however. This fact lends support to our theory, for it shows that purely interpretive distinctions between Ss have an effect on coreference. Note, further, that (67) is unambiguous. Only the predicational reading of (66), with she possibly coreferential with Mary, is possible. Since the speciticational reading of (66) disappears in (67) we conclude that speciticational structures do not allow wh-movement. If we assume that the constraint which blocks wh-movement in S-structure (ECP?) blocks FOCUS movement in LF, then the FOCUS a JLiend qj” Mary’s does not move in LF.‘O However, since the object NP in (66) is nevertheless construed as FOCUS of S, some rule must exist which identifies a FOCUS constituent in situ, plausibly on the basis of stress patterns. Why can the rule which identifies the FOCUS in (66) not identify that of (51) as well, in which case no LF movement is needed, and there is no variable in LF subject to the ‘leftness’ constraint. 8.3.4. In (68), as in (60) above, the preposed NP is decomposed into an operator constituent and a remainder. Only the former is reconstructed, so coreference is possible between a pronoun in S and any NP in the non-operator segment of the TOPIC. (68a) The first of John’s books he dedicated to Sue. (68b) LF : [[The first PRO] [of John’s books]] he dedicated to Sue.

[the first PRO]

And (69) is excluded, like (58), as a function of predication, reconstruction, and rule (8).

decomposition,

(69a) A book about John he sent to Sue. (69b) [A book about John], he sent [a book about John]i to Sue. Now consider the crucial contrast below. (70a) *John’s child he met. (70b) John’s eldest child he sent to camp.

(Gueron

1978)

While (70a), which is structurally identical to (59) is unacceptable, (70b) is acceptable. We account for this contrast by assuming that N’ may marginally count as a major projection, and therefore as an operator constituent, provided it satisfies the semantic formula associated with the FOCUS constituent (cf. (46) above). N’ is then coindexed with the empty operator in COMP and reconstructed, with a dummy pronoun in the place of the missing specifier. The LF output of (70b) is (71). (71) [John’s eldest child] he sent [pro eldest child] to camp. 8.3.5. An S’ TOPIC, we propose, is dominated by an NP with an empty pro head. This analysis is supported by the fact that the verbs which allows S’ preposing seem to be a subset of the verbs subcategorized to take an NP object. As for the pro head, its local determiner, in the sense of Chomsky (1981), would be the S’ complement it is coindexed with. The pro head alone is coindexed with the empty element in COMP and reconstructed, satisfying the theta-criterion. The LF output of (72a) is (72b). (72a) That John stole the money he denies. (72b) [[pro]i [that John stole the money]] he denies proi The hypothesis that a pronominal head rather than S’ itself is coindexed with the operator in COMP accounts for the absence of reconstruction effects: any NP in a preposed S’ may be construed as the antecedent of a pronoun in S. When VP is preposed, the entire VP counts as the operator constituent, by definition (61), and is reconstructed in S. Consequently, no NP contained

in VP, albeit ‘embedded’, may be the antecedent illustrated in (73).

of a pronoun

in S, as

(73a) *They said Mary was happy that she was going to Paris and happy that Mary is going to Paris she is. (73b) *Happy with the man Mary married though she is . . . The hypothesis that a preposed S’, but not a preposed VP, is part of a complex NP is supported by the fact that the head pronoun may actually appear in S’ complements but not in VPs. (74a) I deny it that John stole the money. (74b) **She is it happy with the man she married 8.4. The notions FOCUS and TOPIC which are crucial to our account of (lt(3) are necessary in any grammar of coreference. The notion FOCUS is needed in any theory to explain the ungrammaticality of (51) and (62b), that of TOPIC to explain the grammaticality of (52) and (62a). An interpretive distinction between the referential and the operator construal of the same NP functions in discourse as well as in S. It accounts for the contrast below, for example (from Akmajian and Jackendoff 1970). (75a) John washed the car. I was afraid someone else would do it. (75b) John washed the car. I was afraid someone else would do it. In (75a), the unstressed someone else is interpreted as coreferential with John. In (75b), however, someone else is the FOCUS of S. As an operator constituent, it cannot be coreferential with a name, on semantic grounds. 8.5. We now show that the notion ‘operator constituent’ is justified in the grammar independently of topicalisation. In structures with preposed wh- and neg-constituents, it is often the case that the wh- or neg-morpheme marks a constituent which is properly contained in a larger X” phrase, as in (23) or (24). However, such morphemes cannot appear freely in any position at all within X”. Some positions are accessible for marking, others inaccessible. An accessible position in X” is

one in which a wh- or neg-marker may be inserted when X” is fronted without causing ungrammaticality. An inaccessible position is one in which insertion of such a marker results in ungrammaticality. (76) below shows structures with accessible wh- and neg-markers, (77)-(79) structures with inaccessible markers. (76a) (76b). (76~) (77a) (77b) (78a) (78b) (79a) (79b)

Who /no one did Mary say you liked. The father of whom /no one did Mary see. Whose I no one’s friend did Mary see. **A man who saw whom did Mary like? **A man who knew no-one did Mary like. **One of the people with whom did Mary like? **One of the people with no-one did Mary see. **That who stole the papers did you deny? **That no-one stole the papers did he deny.

We have claimed that prominent accent functions in the same way as the wh- and neg-morphemes: it identifies a type of operator constituent, the FOCUS of S. It should then follow that for any position in a fronted X” constituent in which a wh- or neg-marker is accessible, an NP in the same position is construed as the FOCUS operator. It will therefore be reconstructed in LF and subject to rule (8). On the other hand, for any position in which the wh- or neg-marker is inaccessible, a name in the same position is not construed as an operator. It is therefore not part of the reconstructed constituent and may optionally corefer with a pronoun in S. This prediction is borne out. The examples below show that a preposed definite NP may be coreferential with a pronoun in S only if it is located in a position which is inaccessible to wh- or neg-marking. (80) corresponds to (76) above, and (81))(83) to (77)-(79) respectively. (80a) *Jim, he says you like. (80b) *A picture of Jim, he wants. (80~) *Jim’s picture, he likes. (81) Every picture Jim sees, he likes. (82) One of the people with Jim, he likes. (83) That Jim stole the money, he denies. We claim that the inverse correspondence

between the grammaticality

of an S with a fronted wh- or neg-marked constituent and the possibility of coreference between a fronted NP and a pronoun in S is not an accident, but a function of the accessibility of the wh-, neg-, or focus operator inside the preposed constituent.“.i2 We have thus reduced the grammaticality of the coreferential construal of (23b) and (24b) to the accessibility of sub-constituents of X” to operator marking. Note that the accessibility problem belongs to S-grammar, since Ss with inaccessible wh- or neg-markers, such as (77)(79) are ungrammatical. If the contrasts in (23) and (24) are, as we claim, a function of accessibility, then the grammaticality of (23b) and (24b) is determined in S-grammar, contrary to the claims embodied in the reconstruction and NP-structure hypotheses. As for the question of why certain subconstituents of X” are accessible to operator marking and others not, the answer appears to be relatively straightforward. A preposed operator binds a trace in S. Therefore, the operator constituent must be ‘high’ enough in the preposed constituent to c-command S. More precisely, we propose (84): (84) The scope of an operator is defined by the c-command the operator constituent which contains it.

domain

of

In the examples of (76) above, the operator constituent of S is NP, and S is, correctly, in the scope of NP. In (77)-(79) however, the operator constituent, S’ or PP, does not have S in its scope. As a result, the operator in these examples quantifies vacuously. The one significant difference between wh- and neg-marking on the one hand and focal marking by prominent accent on the other is that inaccessibility causes ungrammaticality in the first case and not in the second. the failure of accessibility in the first This difference is easily explained: case leaves no way to interpret the fronted constituent, since wh- and negconstituents may not be construed as referential. In structures like (81)(83) however, the head NP alone can function as FOCUS, while the remainder is construed

as referential.

8.6. Our account of coreference in topicalisation structures such as (23) carries over straightforwardly to interrogative structures like (24), for it is based on the proposition that both topicalised and wh-marked phrases contain operator constituents.

J. GuPron / Topicalisarion structures and cor+wncr

163

8.7.

We account for (43b) and (51) without positing FOCUS movement in LF. One advantage of our proposal is that no further explanation is needed for the fact that such movement does not exhibit ECP effects. The contrast between FOCUS elements and wh-elements with respect to the ECP, pointed out in Chomsky (1981) is illustrated in (85). (85a) *I remember who said that who left early. (85b) Mary thinks that John left early.

(Kayne 1979)

The same problem arises with respect to (41a), repeated here. (41a) What I like about John is his tie. As shown in (86), the focus constituent of (41a) may not be extracted in the syntax, presumably because be in its specificational use is not a proper governor. (86) *What is what you like about John. If the ECP rules out (86) in the syntax, why does it not rule out FOCUS movement in LF? Our own proposal, which accounts for the contrast between topicalisation structures and specilicational structures in terms of the semantic difference between referential NPs and operator phrases, does not run into this problem. 8.8. Our hypothesis explains the otherwise puzzling fact that Ss which are syntactically identical in English and French differ consistently with respect to coreferentiality. (87a) (87b) (88a) (88b)

His mother loves John. ?*Sa mere aime Jean. People who know him like John. ?*Ceux qui le connaissent aiment Jean.

This difference we claim to be a function of the stress patterns of the two

languages. In French, stress placement is less flexible than in English; the tonic accent generally falls on the last syllable of a syntactic phrase. As prominent accent marks the FOCUS of S, final accent gives Jean the status of FOCUS of S in (87b) and (Mb), excluding coreference with the pronoun, on semantic grounds. The greater flexibility of the rules of accenting in English permits coreference between a pronoun and a name in final position which does not bear prominent stress.13 Our proposal distinguishes between X” as a whole and the operator constituent X” may contain. It thus predicts that (89) below is acceptable in the coreferential construal with the accentual pattern of (90a) but not with that of (90b). (89) John’s mother he never listens to. (90a) ?John’s mother he never listens to e. (90b) *John’s mother he never listens to e. The contrast between the Ss of (90) and their non-preposed equivalents in (91), both of which are ungrammatical, supports our claim that (8) does not suffice to account for coreference. (91a) *He likes John’s mother. (91b) *He likes John’s mother. Our proposal explains in precisely the same terms coreference contrasts in structures which do not undergo preposing, such as (91) and (92), and topicalisation structures such as (90) and (93). (92a) *What finished him off was John’s drink. (92b) ?What finished him off was John’s last drink. (93a) *John’s child he sent to camp. (= (70b)) (93b) John’s eldest child he sent to camp.

8.9. Further support for our grammar comes from the domain of binding. For most people, whose may bind him in (94) even though the wh-word does not c-command the pronoun.

(94) [Whosei motherly

[ej loves himi]

J. GuPron :I Topicalisaiion

structures

and corqference

165

The grammaticality of (94) suggests that binding should be stated in terms of the scope of the operator constituent, as defined in (84) above, rather than in terms of either the operator morpheme or the largest X” constituent containing it. Some principle must be included in the grammar to determine how operators embedded in lexical constituents get scope. While some operators, such as not in English, are constituents and can therefore define a c-command domain, others are embedded in lexical constituents from which they cannot define a domain. (84) above provides an algorithm for prescribing a scope for such morphemes. The notion of operator constituent, defined above with respect to topicalisation structures, is thus independently necessary for binding theory. l4 If, as we claim, the grammaticality of both preposing and binding depends on the accessibility of the operator constituent with respect to its intended domain, it should be the case that for any position in a preposed X” in which a wh- or neg-marker is accessible, an NP in the same position in a non-preposed X” may bind a pronoun. Such appears to be the case. The parallelism of preposing and binding accessibility is illustrated in (95)-(97) below. (95a) (95b) (96a) (96b) (97a) (97b)

9.

To/with whom did you speak e? I spoke to/with each student about his work. Whose mother did you see? Every man’s mother loves him. *A man who knows who did you see? *A man who loves each girl came for her.i5,i6

Conclusion

9.1.

We have used the notion FOCUS of S to account for coreference both in ‘weak crossover’ cases such as (51) and in topicalisation structures such as (lt(3). Whereas the semantic distinction between referential and operator NPs suffices to account for the first type of case, the second requires identification of an operator constituent (decomposition) and reconstruction.

9.2. We have so far neglected the phenomenon of binding into topicalised constituents. Reinhart cites examples such as (98) to support the claim that c-command is relevant for binding as well as for coreference. (98) His mother,

However, Reinhart’s But this prediction for example, (98).

every man

loves.

theory also predicts a subject-object appears to be incorrect. (99) below

binding asymmetry. is as acceptable as,

(99) His ticket you must ask each guest for as he enters. The reconstruction and NP-structure hypotheses considered in sections 3, 5, and 6 can account for both (98) and (99) for they all interpret a fronted constituent as c-commanded by its binder on some level of grammar. However, these hypotheses cannot account for (100) below, which combines binding and coreference, for the same reason they do not account for (23b): (lOOb), the reconstructed LF or NP structure of (lOOa), is subject to rule (8). (100a) (100b)

His contribution to the fund Mary established, she gave each man a receipt for e. *She gave each man a receipt for his contribution to the fund that Mary established.

De Fourier divides preposed constituents into a set of restrictive constituents, which are subject to c-command a la Reinhart, and a set of nonrestrictive constituents, which are invisible to c-command. This hypothesis accounts for (101) below, in which the NP hiscontribution is c-commanded by the subject each man in s-structure. (101) His contribution her for a receipt

to the for e.

fund

Mary

established

each man

asked

But it makes the wrong prediction for (100a) above, where the quantifying phrase does not c-command the bound pronoun in s-structure. Our grammar, which includes both decomposition and reconstruction, accounts for all these examples.

J. GuPron / Topicalisation

structures

167

and c.oref2ermc.e

However, nothing so far predicts the grammaticality

of (102)

(102) [[The picturei] [he took of Mary]], she thinks each student would like to keep ei Under

decomposition-reconstruction, only the head NP in is associated with the trace in S. Otherwise, Mary could antecedent of she. But then each student does not c-command pronoun he. To account for such cases, we modify the structural constraint of pronouns and anaphors as shown in (103).

picture,

(102) the not be the the bound on binding

(103) A lexical anaphor or pronominal a may be bound by an antecedent 8 iff (i) 0 c-commands a or (ii) a is contained in y and B c-commands y (= (i)) or a trace coindexed with y. (103) allows binding of the pronoun he in (102) since the pronoun is contained in the relative clause NPi and a trace of NPi is c-commanded by the binder each student. (103) also accounts for binding in (104) (from Higginbotham 1980). (104) The woman every man loves is his mother. (105a) below is the s-structure of (104) in which only the wh-operator and its trace are coindexed. (105b) is the LF of (104) after application of Predication, and (105~) is its LF output following a late rule which coindexes the subject (and all NPs coindexed with it) and the FOCUS constituent of the pseudo-cleft S. (105a) The woman whi every man loves ei is his motherk (105b) The woman whj every man loves ej is his motherk (105c) The WOmank Whk every man loves ek is his mother-k (103) allows the subject of S to bind both a reflexive and a pronoun (106) below. (106) The picture of himself that every man is embarrassed baby picture.

in

by is his

The NP-structure analysis cannot account for (107) since the FOCUS NP, his baby picture, is not c-commanded by every man in d-structure. The chain and reconstruction solution cannot account for it either: a chain may contain but a single R-expression, which, in the case of (106) must be the picture of himsepl A rule like (103) is therefore necessary to allow binding of a pronominal independently of reconstruction. 9.3. In this final section, we consider two problems which have not yet been accounted for. The first concerns the contrast in (2) above, repeated below. (107a) (107b)

In John’s picture of Mary, she looks good. *In John’s picture of Mary, she found a scratch.

If we construe the topic as a verbal complement in (2b) and as adverbial in (2a), then this contrast is a function of reconstruction G&on 1978, 1979a; Cinque 1982). Whereas verbal complements, subject to the theta-criterion, leave traces, S adverbials need not. only the former are obligatorily reconstructed and subjected to rule This explanation does not account for (22) however, repeated as (108). (108a) (108b)

an S (cf. being Thus, (8). below

In whose picture of Mary does she look good? *In whose picture of Mary did she find a scratch?

In both Ss of (108), the fronted PP contains a wh-operator. Therefore it must bind a trace, to avoid vacuous quantification. In both Ss, the entire fronted PP is the operator constituent, the minimal maximal projection which contains the wh-operator and the head of the preposed X”. If reconstruction applies in both examples, then coreference between the NP contained in the TOPIC and the pronominal subject should be excluded in both of them. Reconstruction is necessary only in (108b), however. There the fronted PP is linked to a trace in VP which receives a theta-role, plausibly as a function of the interpretation of the small clause which contains it. Reconstruction is not necessary in (108a), for the trace of the adverbial does not receive a theta-role. We propose that this trace is dominated by S and properly governed by its antecedent, as shown in (109).

169

(109) [In which picture of Mary,] [ei she looks good] A second problem concerns (26b) and (27b), repeated below. (110a) *Anyone no one saw. (= (26b)) (1 lob) Some girl two boys danced with.

(= (27b))

Why can these topicalised NPs not be construed in the scope of the subject of S once reconstruction puts them back into the c-command domain of the subject? We suggest the reason is semantic. An existential quantifier or polarity item in the scope of some element X is referentially dependent on X (cf. Haik, to appear). But a TOPIC must be interpreted as referentially independent. An NP cannot be simultaneously construed as both referentially independent of and referentially dependent on an element in S. Universal quantifiers can appear in TOPIC position, plausibly because the universal quantifier is inherently referentially independent. Note that indefinite NPs ‘in scope’ cannot occupy the FOCUS position of a pseudo-cleft construction either, even though, as argued above, the FOCUS is not a TOPIC in such structures.” (11 la) *Who John doesn’t like is anyone. (111 b) *Who two boys danced with is a girl. However, pseudo-cleft structures do not involve reconstruction of the FOCUS of S. Therefore the FOCUS is not c-commanded by the relevant neg or NP on any level of grammar.

Notes I

* indicates

non-coreference,

** an ungrammatical

’ (21b) and (i) below show that cyclic application not suffice to make Reinhart’s proposal workable. (i) *In John’s

picture

of Mary,

I think

S. of (8), which

Bill showed

can account

for (19b), does

her a scratch.

3 Although we question the claim that subjects and objects behave differently with respect to coreference in topicalisation structures, we believe Reinhart has pointed out interesting asymmetries with respect to control sf pronouns (i)-(iv) below, from Reinhart (1980). (i) For each other’s party,

the two neighhours

in adverbial bought

structures

lots of vodka.

within

S. Consider

(ii) *For P&I (iii) Near

(1976,

delines

party,

interpretation

give nobody

the important

of variable

lots of vodka.

keep matches.

crib. you should

1980) makes

both the domain

The

I sold I/IC /n’o nerglrhours

crib, /rohody would

his child’s

(iv) *Near Reinhart

other’s

his child’s

matches.

generalisation

and anaphor

that

binding

of S’ (I > 0) as the domain

the c-command

and the domain

of c-command

contiguration

of disjoint

implies

reference.

complementary

distribution in preposed position of anaphors and variables on the one hand, definite NPs on the other. The former may be preposed if bound by the subject but not if bound by the object;

the latter

with a subject Although respect

may be preposed

if coindexed

with an object

pronoun

but not if coindexed

pronoun.

the data

is subtle,

to the binding

plement

containing

subject

or the object

there

of fronted a pronominal

(v))(viii)

interpreted

of S, appear

(v) Back to his house

seem in fact to be no subject&object

VP arguments.

below, in which

as a variable

may

asymmetries a fronted

be bound

with

VP com-

by either

the

to us to be typical.

each student

trudged.

I sent each student.

(vi) Back to his house

(vii) (It was) his mother (that) each student sat next to e. (viii) (It was) his mother (that) I sat each student next to e. There is, however, a clear asymmetry with pre-subject S-adverbials. as shown in (ix))(xiv) (ix) While shaving

himself,,

Bill cut himself,.

(x) *While

himself,,

Jack

shaving

(xi) To get a good job, (xii) To get a good job,

send your

(xiii) With his hair so short, (xiv) *With These

Jackendoff

recall,

and

Bill,.

son to a good

college.

silly.

we made are

pronominals in cf. Smits 1983).

college.

Bill looks

his hair so short,

asymmetries

hurt

go to a good

respect to control of bound below (for recent discussion.

fun of Bill.

plausibly

a variant

of,

‘subject-oriented’

adverbials

(cf.

1972).

(xv) Slowly,

he opened

(xvi) *Slowly,

the door.

I saw John

The fact that pronominals by a subject

but

not

open

(i.e. John the door.

within

pre-subject

by an object

however.

For the fronted

expressions

Therefore exemplify

no trace links them topicalisation at all.

was slow) (# John

is irrelevant in (ix)-(xiv)

to a position

was slow)

S-adverhials

may he in some sense ‘controlled’

to coreference above

in topicalisation

are not subcategorized

in VP, in which

case

these

structures, by the verb.

structures

do not

The contrasts in (ix)-(xvi) can be accounted for if we assume that ‘subject-oriented’ adverbials are base generated as daughters of S. Extending the theory of Manzini (1983) to these cases, we may take binding

of a pronominal

within

the adverbial

to be a function

of c-command

of the adverbial by the subject ~.it/ri~ S. 4 A reconstruction rule similar to our (28) but which does not refer to the FOCUS stituent, was independently proposed by L. Rizzi, Colloque de Vincennes, 1979. 5

In Gueron

(1979b),

1 interpreted

the distinction

between

FOCUS

and

TOPIC

con-

in terms

of a different structural parameter. The FOCUS rule would move the focus constituent to the ~ig/rt of S. as proposed in Chomsky (1976), while the TOPIC rule remains unchanged. Coreference is then excluded in (2h) not order of NP and pronoun in S.

by rule

(8). but

by a constraint

on the relative

However,

this

solution

could

not

account

for

ad hoc, movement rules in LF. h While such an objection bears little weight to few or no syntactic ago,

it is an

logical

important

Whereas

relative other

a ‘hanging must

structures

relatives,

Principle, topic’,

a universal

for some may

found topics.

in a subset

reason

serve

of such

These divisions

structures;

and

logical

semantics

forms

theories

of Chomsky

further, are subject

of some

(1981).

In this

such as the binding

years theory.

principles

(1977). and the head of a non-restrictive the semantic

requirement

in topicalisation

structures

as topic.

subject

are illustrated

introducing

itself.

to a rule of predication:

quantifier

in which

to the same constraints,

as syntax

: (i) names, found in all structures

NPs

framework

in the sense of Cinque

be a Name,

subject

for a theory

(7) without

as the generative

in the

level, subject

Category

clause

such

objection

form is a syntactic

and the Empty ’

constraints,

Ss like

We thus

have

for

restrictive

a three-way

division

(ii) universal

quantifiers,

to a rule of predication; (iii) existential

is weaker and

quantifiers,

which

of

are not suitable

below:

I think e can lift this rock. I think he can lift this rock.

(i) a. John b. John.

(ii) a. Anyone

Mary

claims

e can lift this rock.

b. *Anyone, he can lift this rock. (iii) a. *Someone there is e in the garden. ’

b. *Someone. he appeared. We illustrate reconstruction by means

notion

of ‘peripheral

9 Haik (to appear) independently account for cases like (60). ”

The

rather

non-mobility

than

(i) A friend

of Mary’s

rule,

for the sake of clarity,

(1982) would

be equivalent

a decomposition-reconstruction

FOCUS

is illustrated

but the

for our purposes. solution

by wh-movement

to

in (67),

as in (i).

the one who she likes is.

while (i) is unacceptable

as a case of VP fronting. ‘I

proposes

of the pseudo-cleft

by topicalisation,

This is because,

of a copying

chain’ in the sense of Cinque

Thus,

as a case of topicalisation.

(i) is much

improved

if preceded

it is marginally

acceptable

by (ii).

(ii) They said the one whom she likes is a friend of Mary’s and ,.. One must ask how accessibility is satisfied in a relative clause such as (i). (i) Which

man whom

The operator

constituent

If the entire either

relative

the grammaticality than

The operator necessary

were obligatorily

to allow

c-commands

constituent,

in (i), ivhich man, c-commands

the NP which man is the head

extraction

from

and Rizzi

Ss with

postposed

relative

we could

clause.

not explain

of the examples

however:

S. To solve this problem,

B, the head of A c-commands

constituent

of the ECP, cf. Belletti

the operator

of (23b) and (24b) or the ungrammaticality

its head which

does and

NP which man and not the entire

clause does not have S in its scope,

(ii) If A c-commands as a whole

likes did she see?

of (i) is the head

clause

The head of the relative NP rather

Mary

of (77).

it is the entire preposed we propose

(ii).

B. S by (ii), since of the relative. subjects

the relative

clause

((ii) is independently

in Italian

without

violation

1981).

‘* In early work, Higginbotham uses the term accessibility with respect to the binding phenomena exhibited in (94) in the text. Here we define this notion, in (84), and extend it to both preposing and binding structures. ‘a The grammaticality of (43a) in the coreferential construal shows that the difference

between

English

obligatory I4

and

in French

Keeping

French

is only

in mind assumption

(i) [whose,

mother],

The operator

a matter

only in specilicational

of degree,

however. are FOCUS-last,

Ss, which

(53i), the scope relations

Final accent is really as in English.

in (94) are as follows:

[er loves him,]

constituent

is NP,, by (61). NP, binds

the variable

e, in S-structure,

the pronoun /rim only in LF, following reconstruction. Note that the incorrectly predicts no difference in grammaticality between (i) and (ii), (ii) [Whose, ”

mother],

For some reason,

of a pronoun

by an operator

over all relevant

structures.

b. ?*the mother

of no student

however.

came

constituent

smaller

than

X”

scope relation between a preposed operator structures. The difference in acceptability For example,

inaccessible for binding in the position of complement (i) a. *A picture of no one pleased him A wh- or neg-element

binds

Principle

[does he, love e,]? the binding

is less acceptable within S than the corresponding constituent and S in topicalisation or interrogative is consistent

and

Bijection

the neg marker

is generally

of N, as in (i).

for him.

is also ungrammatical

or marginal

in the same position

in a preposed

constituent. (ii) a. ??A book

about

no one did I read.

b. ??A book

about

whom

We attribute

the acceptability

(iii) Kissinger, to the same operator

a book

cause

about

as that

but as a TOPIC.

constituent

which

contains

did you read?

of whom

I read,

of (81))(83)

was there.

above:

Therefore,

the fronted

although

it is. (iii) is then equivalent

functions

not

itself is not accessible,

(vi) and (vii) ((vii)

from

Nanni

and

1978)).

(vi) *To see whom (vii) John,

would

to see whom

The wh-operator

you go a long way? I would

is not accessible

way to interpret the wh-phrase as a TOPIC if we assume that an anaphor

bound

by the head

go a long way. in either

(vi) or (vii). However,

of the relative

out for (vii) by Nanni and Stillings. (viii) *Kissinger, Bill’s book about (ix) *John,

for Mary

T.ie ungrammaticality

whereas

there

is no other

of (vi) but as an operator, that of (vii) may be construed the wh-word does not function here as an operator, but as

the fact that Ss like (iii) and (vii) are sensitive

to see whom of (x), pointed

clause.

This

hypothesis

gains

subject

constraint,

to the specified

whom

I read.

would

be a pity.

out by Kayne

support

(cf. (vii))

(p.c.),

is compatible

with

a position

our proposal,

which

to be inaccessible for an operator. This claim is supported by the fact that possible between an NP in this position and a pronominal subject.

we claim

coreference

(i) [[II%ich man] [to whom John gave a book e about tvhich .su/+c~]] did he see [e] The grammaticality of (i) may appear problematic for our hypothesis, which predicts distribution

between

operator

positions

from

as pointed

(cf. (iii))

since (xi), the reconstructed LF of (x), is subject to rule (8). (x) *Kissingeri, whose, aide he, criticized __. (xi) Kissinger,, hei criticized whose, aide .._ I’ In (33a) in the text, a wh-word appears in a relative clause,

plementary

as an the X”

to (iv).

(iv) A book about Kissinger, I read yesterday. The contrast between (ii) and (iii) mirrors that between Stillings

constituent

the wh-word

and referential

positions

in X”.

is

com-

We propose,

however,

that

the second

phrase at all. but as a free variable, first wh-operator. Thus (i) is parallel (ii) [[Everyone,] Just

[who, e, has a donkey]]

as the trace

of ii’110 binds

/o n,lrorn bind the second

in (i) is not

bound,

phrase

(1982),

by the

(ii), a bound

in (i). In support

pronoun

the trace

of

of this hypothesis,

may appear

in the scope of the

wh-binder.

(iii) [[Which

man] [whom

But the second

wh-word

unacceptability

John

must

of indirect

(iv) ?*[Which

binding

man] [whom

asked

e for which

be c-commanded in (iv) parallels

John

book]]

does not have scope and

gave which

need not’be

had given it away’?

by the first within that of (v) under

book

(i) What

they each bought

NP is semantically any element

that

similar

was a linguistics the FOCUS

to the universal

in S. Moreover,

rather

The

an operator,

then

it

that

NPs

book.

quantifier

in that

interpretation

in (i). A generic

it is referentially to have the same

independent syntactic

of

distri-

(i).

hates is (just about)

everyone.

And the FOCUS of (i) may serve as a TOPIC, (iii) A linguistics book they each bought, (iv) Every book

than

to the generalization

NP has a generic

the two types of NP appear

Thus we find (ii) alongside

(ii) Who John

clause.

analysis,

accessible.

” (i). pointed out to us by Kayne. is an apparent exception ‘in scope’ may not appear in pseudo-cleft structures: It seems to us, however,

the relative Haik’s

to e] lost it.

(v) ‘?*[Everyone] [who a donkey likes e] is nice to it. If the second wh-word is, as we claim, a bound variable

bution.

as an operator

(I r/o~orllieyin (ii), so does

oholr( ii,/tic/t subiecr

sentence’

construed

in the sense of Haik

likes it.

the quantifier

wh-phrase

note that, as in the ‘donkey indirect

wh-word

indirectly to (ii).

just as the universal

quantifier

may.

they each wanted.

References Akmajian.

A., R. Jackendoff,

1970. Coreferentiality

Aoun. J., D. Sportiche, 1981. On the formal (to appear in: The Linguistic Review). Belletti, A., L. Rizzi, 1981. The syntax Review I. 117~154.

of

Chomsky,

N., 1976. Condition

Chomsky,

N.,

Formal Chomsky,

syntax. New York: Academic N., 1981. Lectures on binding

Chomsky, binding.

N., 1982. Some concepts and Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Cinque, Cinque,

1977. On

theory

and stress.

‘ne’: Some theoretical

on rules of grammar.

I+%-movement.

In:

Linguistic

P. W. Culicover,

Press. and government. consequences

and

semantics

of questions

Inquiry

Cambridge

implications. Analysis

T. Wasow, Dordrecht:

of the

G., 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. G., 1982. Constructions with left peripheral phrases,

(Ms.) Engdahl, E., 1980. The syntax chusetts (diss.).

Linguistic

of government.

theory

1, 124127. (MA):

MIT

The Linguistic

2, 303-351. A. Akmajian

(eds.),

Foris. of government

and

Linguistic Inquiry 8, 397412. ‘Connectedness’, Move and ECP. in Swedish.

University

of Massa-

Evans, G.,

1982. Pronouns.

Linguistic

Inquiry

11, 337-362.

Fourier, Z. de (J. Aoun, D. Sportiche, J.-R. Vergnaud, M.-L. Zubizarreta), the extended linear model. Cambridge (MA): MIT (ms.). Gueron,

J., 1978. On the C-command

Gueron,

J.. 1979a. La coreference

Paris

1979b. Relations 44. 42-79.

Haik, I., 1982. Indirect Higginbotham, Higgins,

binding.

To appear

R., 1972. Semantic

R., 1979. Two notes

Koopman, GLOW

NELS

Colloque

la phrase

in: Linguistic

lecture,

NYC.

de Vincennes,

Univ. de

construction.

grammar.

Linguistic

Cambridge

in generative

on the NIC. 1981. Variables

Scuola and

le discours.

Inquiry

(MA):

grammar.

In: A. Belletti, Pisa:

et dans

Langue

Inquiry.

variables.

interpretation

in generative

H., D. Sportiche,

dans

and bound

F. R., 1974. The pseudo-cleft

of markedness

Cambridge

L. Brandi,

Normale

4, 6799708.

MIT (diss.).

L. Rizzi

(MA) (eds.),

: MIT Theory

Superiore.

the bijection

principle.

Paper

presented

at

1981.

Langacker,

R.,

1969.

On

S. Schane (eds.), Modern Lakoff, G., 1968. Pronouns

pronominalization

and

the

chain

of

command.

In:

D. Reibel,

studies in English. Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice-Hall. and reference. Bloomington (ID) : Indiana University Linguistics

(mimeogr.).

Manzini, Nanni,

de coreference

J., 1980. Pronouns

Jackendoff, Press.

Club

for coreference. c-commander.

on

VIII.

Gueron, J.. Francaise

Kayne,

criterion

et le critere

1980. Remarks

M. R., 1983. On control D. L., J. T. Stillings,

and control

1978. Three remarks

Reinhart,

T., 1976. The syntactic

Reinhart,

T., 1980. Coreference

domain and bound

theory.

Linguistic

on pied piping.

of anaphora. anaphora:

Inquiry

14, 421-446

Linguistic

Cambridge A restatement

Inquiry

(MA):

9. 31&318.

MIT (diss.).

of the anaphora

question.

To appear. Reinhart,

T.,

1981. Definite

NP anaphora

and

c-command

domains.

Linguistic

Inquiry

4.

6055635. Riemsdijk, H. van, E. Williams, 1981. NP-structure. The Linguistic Review 1, 171-217. Ruwet, N.. 1975. Les phrases copulatives en franeais. Recherches Linguistiques 3, (Universite de Paris VIII) (Repr. in : Grammaire des insultes et autres etudes. Paris: Seuil. 1982.) Smits, R.,

1983. On

some

free adjuncts

University of Amsterdam (ms.). Williams, E., 1980. Predication. Linguistic

in English Inquiry

and

the

11, 2033238

role

of elements

in COMP.