An intervention account of the distribution of main clause phenomena: Evidence from ellipsis

! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! ! ! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main! clause!phenomena:!Evidence!from!ellipsis1! J.>Marc!Authier! [email protected]! The)Pennsylvania)State)University) Liliane!Haegeman! [email protected]! Ghent)University) DOI!to!be!assigned! ! Abstract:!Based!on!an!examination!of!some!asymmetries!between!VP!ellipsis! and!VP!fronting,!this!paper!argues!for!an!intervention!approach!and!against! a! truncation! approach! to! the! distribution! of! main! clause! phenomena! in! adverbial! clauses! and,! by! extension,! in! non>root! contexts! in! general.! Adopting!Authier’s!(2011)!treatment!of!VP!ellipsis!whereby!the!to>be>elided! VP! undergoes! fronting! in! the! computational! component! but! fails! to! be! spelled!out!at!PF,!these!asymmetries!follow!from!the!fact!that!a!fronted!VP,! being! an! intervener! for! wh>movement! in! adverbial! clauses,! triggers! a! PF! crash!unless!ellipsis!allows!the!derivation!to!converge!via!Bošković’s!(2011)! ‘rescue! by! PF! deletion’! mechanism.! This! proposal! entails! that! adverbial! clauses!are!derived!by!wh>movement!(Haegeman!(2006)!among!others)!and! that!the!landing!site!for!VP!fronting!is!available!in!a!non>root!environment,! two! assumptions! that! militate! against! a! truncation! account! of! non>root! clauses.! Keywords:)main) clause) phenomena,) VP) ellipsis,) VP) fronting,)repair) by) ellipsis,) truncation,)left)periphery,)intervention,)adverbial)clauses.) Resumen:!Partiendo!del!examen!de!algunas!asimetrías!entre!la!elipsis!del!SV! y!la!anteposición!del!SV,!este!artículo!propone!una!explicación!basada!en!la! intervención! y! contrario! a! un! enfoque! basado! en! el! truncamiento! de! la! distribución!de!los!fenómenos!de!cláusula!principal!en!cláusulas!adverbiales! y,! por! extensión,! también! en! cláusulas! no! principales! en! general.! Si! adoptamos!el!tratamiento!de!la!elipsis!del!SV!de!Authier!(2011),!en!el!cual!el! SV!a!elidir!se!mueve!a!izquierda!en!el!componente!computacional!aunque! termina!no!siendo!pronunciado!en!la!FF,!estas!asimetrías!son!consecuencia! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 1!Liliane! Haegeman'ʹs! research! is! funded! by! FWO! Belgium! as! part! of! project! 2009>Odysseus>Haegeman>G091409.! We! are! grateful! to! two! anonymous! Iberia! reviewers! for! helpful!comments! and! suggestions.!We!are!solely!responsible!for!any! remaining!errors.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 62! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! del!hecho!de!que!un!SV!antepuesto,!por!intervenir!en!el!movimiento>Q!de! cláusulas!adverbiales,!provoca!una!incompatibilidad!en!FF!a!menos!que!la! elipsis!permita!la!convergencia!de!la!derivación!mediante!el!mecanismo!de! ‘rescate!por!borrado!en!FF’!de!Bošković!(2011).!Esta!propuesta!implica!que! las! cláusulas! adverbiales! se! derivan! por! movimiento>Q! (Haegeman!(2006)! entre! otros)! y! que! la! posición! a! la! que! se! mueve! un! SV! antepuesto! está! disponible! en! cláusulas! no! principales,! dos! supuestos! que! contradicen! explicaciones!basadas!en!el!truncamiento!de!las!cláusulas!no!principales.!!! Palabrasclave:! fenómenos! de! cláusula!principal,! elipsis! en! el! SV,! anteposición! del! SV,! reparación! por! elipsis,!truncamiento,! periferia! izquierda,!intervención,!cláusulas!adverbiales.! Resumo:)Baseado!numa!análise!de!algumas!assimetrias!entre!elipse!de!VP!e! fronteamento!de!VP,!este!artigo!defende!uma!abordagem!intervencional!e! rejeita! uma! abordagem! de! truncamento! da! distribuição! de! fenómenos! de! orações!raiz!em!orações!adverbiais!e,!por!extensão,!em!contextos!não!raiz!em! geral.!Adotando!o!tratamento!da!elipse!de!VP!de!Authier!(2011),!de!acordo! com!o!qual!o!VP!a!elidir!sofre!fronteamento!na!componente!computacional! mas!não!é!interpretado!em!PF,!estas!assimetrias!decorrem!do!facto!de!que! um! VP! fronteado,! sendo! um! interveniente! no! movimento>wh! em! orações! adverbiais,!desencadeia!uma!falha!em!PF,!a!não!ser!que!a!elipse!permita!que! a! derivação! convirja! através! do! mecanismo! de! “reconstrução! por! apagamento! em! PF”! de! Bošković! (2011).! Esta! proposta! implica! que! as! orações! adverbiais! sejam! derivadas! por! movimento>wh! (Haegeman,! 2006;! entre!outros)!e!que!a!posição!de!chegada!para!o!fronteamento!de!VP!esteja! disponível! num! ambiente! não! raiz,! duas! assunções! que! vão! contra! uma! abordagem!de!truncamento!de!orações!não!raiz.! Palavras0chave:!Fenómenos!de!orações!raíz,!elipse!de!VP,!fronteamento!de! VP,!reconstrução!por!elipse,!truncamento,! periferia!esquerda,!intervenção,! orações!adverbiais.! 1.!Background:!Main!clause!phenomena!in!embedded!domains! It! is! well! known! that! a! subset! of! complement! clauses! and! adverbial! clauses!resist!left!periphery!phenomena,!hereafter!referred!to!as!‘main!clause! phenomena’!(MCP).!In!the!present!study,!we!restrict!our!attention!to!MCP!that! are! derived! by! the! fronting! operations! illustrated! in! (1):! (1a)! exemplifies! topicalization!of!an!argument,!(1b),!negative!inversion,!(1c),!locative!inversion,! (1d),! inversion! in! copular! structures,)and! (1e),! VP! fronting.! Our! discussion! initially!focuses!on!argument!fronting,!but!is!then!extended!to!cover!English!VP! topicalization!and!French!infinitival!TP!topicalization.!! In! English,! argument! fronting! is! available! in! root! clauses! and! in! a! restricted!set!of!complement!clauses,!but!it!is!excluded!from!central!adverbial! clauses!(in!the!sense!of!Haegeman!2003a!and!later!work)!and!from!sentential! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 63! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! complements!to!factive!verbs!(see!Authier!1992!among!others).2!For!example,!as! shown!in!(2),!argument!fronting!is!found!in!clauses!complement!to!tell!(2a),!but! is!excluded!from!complement!clauses!to!factive!verbs!like!regret!and!realize!(2b> e).3!) (1)!a.!This!book,!Mary!hasn’t!read.! !b.!Not!a!single!proposal!did!we!agree!with.! !c.!In!each!hallway!is/hangs/has!long!stood!a!large!poster!of!Lincoln.!(Emonds!1976:!37,!! ! ! his!(40)).!! !d.!Present!at!the!meeting!were!the!company!directors.4! !e.!Fix!the!car,!he!will.! (2)!a.!She!told!me!that!that!book,!she!hadn’t!read!yet.! !b.!(%)*John!regrets![that!this!book,!Mary!read].!(Maki!et!al.,!1999:3,!their!(2c))! !c.!*I!regret![that!Mary,!my!antics!upset!as!much!as!they!did].!(Alrenga!2005:!179!(16b)! !d.!*John!regretted!that!Gone)with)the)Wind,!we!went!to!see.!(Watanabe!1993:!525!cited!in!!! ! ! Honda!2010:730,!example!(17a))! !e.!*Mary!realizes![that!this!book,!John!read].!(Hegarty!1991:!52,!n.19,!his!(iii))! In! their! seminal! work,! Hooper! and! Thompson! (1973)! account! for! the! restricted!distribution!of!these!fronting!operations!in!semantic/pragmatic!terms.! For!them,!such!operations!encode!emphasis!and!depend!on!‘assertion’.!They,!in! fact,!explicitly!reject!the!plausibility!of!a!syntactic!account,!which!they!claim! would!be!non>explanatory!(1973:!495).!Nevertheless,!Hooper!and!Thompson’s! discussion! does! not! entirely! rule! out! the! relevance! of! syntax! in! that! they! explicitly!state!that!MCP!are!banned!from!‘reduced’!clauses!(1973:!484>5).!This! observation,! coupled! with! cartographic! views! of! syntax,! including! the! hypothesis!of!the!articulated!structure!of!the!left!periphery,!can!be!reinterpreted! to!mean!that!the!restriction!on!fronting!operations,!which!are!operations!that! affect!the!left!periphery!of!the!clause,!can!be!(partly)!syntactic.!In!terms!of!a! cartographic!view,!a!syntactic!approach!to!the!restricted!distribution!of!MCP! can! then! be! taken! to! imply! that! the! domains! that! resist! the! type! of! fronting! illustrated!in!(1)!are!in!some!way!structurally!deficient:!either!these!domains!are! truncated!structures!and!simply!lack!the!relevant!left>peripheral!landing!sites! targeted! by! the! fronting! operations! or,! alternatively,! while! the! landing! sites! might! potentially! remain! available,! they! cannot! be! fully! projected! to! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 2!See,!however,!section!3.4!for!a!more!in>depth!discussion.! 3!Bianchi!and!Frascarelli!(2010)!discuss!some!instances!of!argument!fronting!in! factive! clauses.! We! refer! the! reader! to! Haegeman! and! Ürögdi! (2010a:! 129>132)! for! further!discussion.! 4!A!specific!subset!of!these!are!comparative!constructions!like!(i)!(Emonds!1976:! 35,!(35))! (i)!More!important!has!been!the!establishment!of!legal!services.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 64! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! accommodate! the! fronting! operations! in! question! for! independent! reasons.! Following!these!two!lines!of!thought,!two!syntactic!accounts!for!the!absence!of! MCP! in! the! domains! considered! here! have! been! elaborated:! the! truncation! account!and!the!intervention!account.!The!truncation!account!takes!structural! reduction! to! be! a! primitive:! this! account! directly! ascribes! the! restrictions! on! argument!fronting!to!the!lack!of!structural!space!needed!for!these!operations!to! take!place.!The!intervention!account,!on!the!other!hand,!hypothesizes!that!those! domains! that! are! incompatible! with! the! fronting! operations! in! (1)! are! themselves! derived! by! movement! and! that! this! movement! interferes! with! fronting!operations.!In!other!words,!on!this!view,!the!‘truncation!effect’!is,!in! fact,!taken!to!be!a!by>product!of!locality!considerations.! In! sections! 2! and! 3! we! will! first! briefly! outline! these! two! syntactic! accounts.! Empirically,! they! appear! to! be! equivalent! in! that! both! approaches! correctly! predict! that! English! argument! fronting! is! banned! in! sentential! complements!to!factive!verbs!and!in!adverbial!clauses.!It!must!be!pointed!out! from! the! beginning,! however,! that! conceptually,! the! intervention! account! is! superior!because!it!appeals!to!constraints!on!locality,!which!are!independently! motivated!(Rizzi!1990),!and!thus!it!derives!the!truncation!effect.! In! the! second! part! of! the! paper,! we! examine! an! asymmetry! in! the! distribution!of!VP!topicalization!and!VP!ellipsis!in!English!and!TP!ellipsis!in! French!and!show!that!one!specific!account!of!that!asymmetry,!cast!in!terms!of! Bošković’s! (2011)! ‘repair! by! ellipsis,’! is! compatible! with! the! intervention! account!but!raises!non>trivial!problems!for!the!truncation!account.! Note!finally!that!throughout!this!paper,!we!use!the!term!MCP!to!refer!to! the!fronting!operations!illustrated!in!(1),!and!we!take!argument!fronting!to!be! representative!of!these!operations.!Other!MCP!may!have!a!different!distribution! (Miyagawa!2012)!but!we!will!not!be!concerned!with!them!here.! 2.!The!truncation!approach!! One! type! of! syntactic! account! of! the! restricted! distribution! of! MCP! interprets!Hooper!and!Thompson’s!findings!in!terms!of!a!‘structural!deficiency’! exhibited!by!certain!clauses.!Such!clauses,!adverbial!and!complement!clauses!of! the! relevant! type,! are! taken! to! have! a! reduced! left! periphery.! The! idea! that! structural!truncation!determines!the!distribution!of!MCP!has!been!put!forth!in!a! number! of! works,! including! Kuroda! (1992:! 350),! Benincà! &! Poletto! (2004),! Grewendorf! (2002:! 53),! Emonds! (2004),! McCloskey! (2006),! Meinunger! (2004),! and! Haegeman! (2003a,! 2006).! Haegeman’s! specific! implementation! for! adverbial! clauses! was! subsequently! explored! by! Carrilho! (2005:! 244>5,! 2008),! Munaro! (2005),! Hernanz! (2007a,! b,),! Bentzen! et) al.! (2007),! Abels! &! Muriungi! (2008:! 693>4),! Cardinaletti! (2009),! Wiklund! et) al.! (2009).! Basse! (2008)! offers! a! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 65! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! Minimalist!implementation!according!to!which!complements! to! factive! verbs! lack!an!edge!feature,!thus!disallowing!fronting.! As!has!been!clear!from!the!beginning!of!this!line!of!research,!however,! domains!that!lack!MCP!cannot!be!assumed!to!lack!a!left!periphery!altogether.! This! is! because! such! clause! types! manifest! phenomena! that! are! typically! associated!with!the!C>field!such!as!clitic!left!dislocation!in!French!(3)!and!Italian! (4).!For!Spanish!see!Jiménez>Fernández!(2010).! (3)!a.!Quand!cette!chanson,!je!l’ai!! ! entendue,!! ! ! ! when!! that!song! I! it>have>1SG!hear>PART,!! !!!! ! j’ai!! ! pensé!! à! mon!premier!amour.! ! ! I>have>1SG!think>PART!to!my!first!love! ! ! ‘When!I!heard!that!song,!I!thought!of!my!first!love.’! !b.!Jean!regrette!que!son!texte,!tu!ne!l’aies!!pas!lu.! ! ! ! Jean!regret>3SG!that!!his!text!you!ne!it!have>SUBJ>2SG!! not!read>PART.! ! ! ‘Jean!regrets!that!you!haven’t!read!his!text.’!! ! (4)!a.!Se!la!stessa!proposta!la!fa!anche!l’altro!candidato…! ! ! ! if!! the!! same!proposal!it!make3SG!also!the!other!candidate…!! !!!!!!‘If!the!other!candidate!also!makes!the!same!proposal…’!! ! ! (Cardinaletti!2009:!6,!(22a))!(Italian)! !b.!Mi!dispiace!che!questo!problema!gli!studenti! ! ! ! me!displease>3SG!that!this!problem!the!student>PL! ! ! ! non!l'ʹabbiano!potuto!risolvere!!!! ! ! ! non!! it!have>SUBJ>3PL!can>PART!solve! ! ! ! ‘I!am!sorry!that!the!students!have!not!been!able!to!solve!this!problem.’! So,!rather!than!claiming!that!there!is!no!left!periphery!at!all,!‘positional’! accounts! of! the! incompatibility! of! the! clausal! domains! in! question! with! argument!fronting!postulate!that!such!domains!are!characterized!by!a!reduced! or! ‘truncated’! left! peripheral! space.! Thus,! while! (5a)! corresponds! to! Rizzi’s! original!articulated!CP,!(5b)!represents!the!reduced!left!periphery!available!in! adverbial!clauses!and!in!complements!to!factive!verbs!proposed!by!Haegeman! (2003a,!2006).!Haegeman!(2003a,!2006)!further!argues!that!the!projection!ForceP! exclusively!encodes!illocutionary!force,!and!that!the!subordinating!conjunction! is! hosted! by! a! distinct! head! ‘Sub’.! Presupposed! domains! such! as! central! adverbial!clauses!and!complements!to!factive!verbs!are!then!assumed!to!lack! illocutionary!force,!hence!ForceP!is!absent.!! Haegeman!assumes!that!the!higher!TopP!and!FocP,!but!not!the!lower! TopP,!are!dependent!on!ForceP.!As!a!result,!in!reduced!domains,!FocP!and!the! higher! TopP! are! absent,! de) facto) ruling! out! argument! fronting! in! English,! although!the!lower!TopP!remains!available.!The!lower!TopP!is,!however,!only! ‘active’!in!Romance,!where!it!hosts!CLLD!constituents.!The!same!lower!TopP!in! English!cannot!host!argument!fronting,!as!(5c)!shows.!We!refer!the!reader!to! Haegeman!(2006)!for!details.!Finally,!to!accommodate!adjuncts!that!appear!in! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 66! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! the! left! periphery! in! English! central! adverbial! clauses! (cf.! (5d)),! Haegeman! (2003b,!2006)!postulates!a!specialized!projection!ModP!(cf.!also!Rizzi!2004).! (5)!a.!(SubP)>! ForceP!>!(TopP)!>!(FocP)!>! ModP!>!TopP!>!FinP! !b.!SubP! ! ForceP!>!(TopP!)>!(FocP)!>! ModP!>!TopP!>!FinP! !c.!*When![that!song]!we!heard…! !d.!When![last!year]!she!started!to!work!for!the!UN,!she!suddenly!became!much!more!! relaxed.! Recall!now!that!Hopper!and!Thompson!relate!the!availability!of!MCP!to! assertion.! On! the! truncation! account! this! follows! from! the! fact! that! reduced! domains!lack!ForceP,!the!projection!that,!by!hypothesis,!encodes!illocutionary! force,!i.e.!assertion.! There! are! a! number! of! problems! of! implementation! inherent! to! the! truncation!account!(cf.!Haegeman!2012,!to!appear)!that,!for!reasons!of!space,!we! will!not!discuss!here.!There!is,!additionally,!a!further,!more!serious!objection!of! the!conceptual!type!that!one!may!raise!with!respect!to!the!truncation!account;! that! is,! it! ignores! the! fact! that! the! patterns! observed! in! the! left! periphery! of! reduced!clauses! are,! in!fact,! replicated! in! other! domains! in! which! they! have! standardly!been!accounted!for!in!terms!of!intervention!and!for!which!structural! truncation! has,! so! far,! not! been! advocated! as! an! explanatory! principle.! In! particular,! we! observe! that! the! domains! with! restricted! argument! fronting! operations! display! a! double! asymmetry:! (i)! while! argument! fronting! is! unavailable!in!English,!adjuncts!can!appear!in!the!left!periphery!(5d),!(ii)!while! argument!fronting!is!unavailable!in!English,!CLLD!involving!argument!phrases! is! available! in! Romance.! Similar! asymmetries! have! also! been! reported! for! domains! such! as! embedded! wh>questions! (6),! relative! clauses,! (7),! and! embedded!clauses!in!the!context!of!long!extraction!(8).!! (6)!a.!*Robin!knows!where,!the!birdseed,!you!are!going!to!put.!(Culicover!1991:!5,!(6c))! !b.!Lee!forgot!which!dishes,!under!normal!circumstances,!you!would!put!on!the!table! ! ! (Culicover!1991:!9,!(17d))! !c.!! It.!Non!so!proprio!chi,!!questo!libro,!!potrebbe!! recensirlo.! ! ! ! ! ! non!know>1SG!honestly!who,!!this!book,!!can>COND>3SG!review>it! ) ) ) ) ‘I!honestly!don’t!know!who!could!review!this!book.’!! ! ! ! ! (based!on!Cinque!1990:!58,!(1b))! (7)!a.!*These!are!the!students!to!whom,!your!book,!we!will!recommend!next!spring.! !b.!These!are!the!students!to!whom,!next!spring,!we!will!recommend!your!book.! !c.!! It.!?Eccolo!studente! a! cui,!il!tuo!libro,!lo!darò! ! domani.! ! ! ! ! ! This.is.the!student!to!whom!the!your!book!it!give>FUT>1SG!tomorrow! (8)!a.!*Who!did!you!say!that!to!Sue,!Bill!introduced?!(Boeckx!&!Jeong!2004,!(3))! !b.!Which!book!did!Leslie!say!that!for!all!intents!and!purposes,!John!co>authored!with! Mary?!(Bošković!2011:34,!n.!34,!(i),!from!Culicover!1991)! ! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 67! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! !c.!! It.! ?Non!so!! a! chi!!pensi!!che,!tuo!fratello,!! ) ) ) ) ) non!know>1SG!!to!whom!think>2SG!!that!your!brother!! ! ! ! ! lo!potremmo!!affidare.! ! ! ! ! ! him!can>COND>1PL!entrust!!!!(Rizzi!2004,!(64a))! ! ! ! ! ! ‘I!don’t!know!to!whom!you!think!that,!your!brother,!we!could!entrust.!’!! ! ! The!patterns!in!(6)>(8)!are!not!usually!dealt!with!in!terms!of!truncation.! Rather,!it!is!standardly!assumed!that!fronted!arguments!are!interveners!for!wh> movement,!while!adjuncts!and!CLLD!constituents!in!the!left!periphery!are!not.! The!precise!formalization!of!the!locality!constraints!on!movement!depends!on! the!theory!of!intervention!adopted,!and!implementations!vary.!In!section!3.1!we! outline! a! version! of! the! feature>based! Relativized! Minimality! developed! by! Rizzi!(1990,!2004)!and!Starke!(2001)!and!recently!adopted!in!Abels!(2012),!one! that!gives!fronted!arguments!the!status!of!strong!interveners.!We!specifically! refer!the!reader!to!Haegeman!and!Ürögdi!(2010a,!b),!on!which!this!section!is! based.!!! Finally,! we! note! that! in! English,! a! fronted! argument! is! (perhaps! marginally,!see!Rizzi!1997:!331>2!for!discussion)!compatible!with!an!adjunct!to! its!right!(9a);!multiple!argument!fronting!is!excluded!(9b)!(see!Breul!2004:!199> 205!for!a!recent!survey);!and!multiple!adjuncts!(9c)!and!multiple!CLLD!(9d)!are! possible!in!the!left!periphery.!For!Spanish!see!Jiménez>Fernández!(2010,!2011).! (9)!a.!This!book,!around!Christmas,!you!should!buy.!(Rizzi!1997:331,!n!26,!(i))! !b.!!*This!book,!to!Robin,!we!gave.!(Culicover!1991:36,!(117a)).!5! ! ! *Bill,!that!house,!she!took!to!for!the!weekend.!(Emonds!2004:95!(27b))! !c.!Last!week,!in!Paris,!after!a!hard!day’s!work,!he!met!his!agent!again.! ! ! Deep!down,!as!we!grew!up,!we!rued!the!fact!we!hadn’t!taken!that!path.!! ! ! ! (Guardian!05.05.2009,!page!2,!col.!5)! !d.!It.!Il!libro,!!a!Gianni,!!glielo!!darò!!!senz’altro.!! ! ! ! ! the!book,!to!Gianni!!!him>it!give>FUT>1SG!without!doubt! ! ! ‘I!will!give!Gianni!the!book!without!doubt.’!(Rizzi!1997:!290,!(21))! As!will!be!discussed!in!section!3.1,!this!type!of!paradigm!also!seems!to! call! for! an! intervention! account! in! which! one! fronted! argument! blocks! the! movement!of!another!but!a!left>peripheral!adjunct!does!not!block!the!fronting! of!another!(but!see!Haegeman!(2003b)!for!provisos!concerning!adjunct!fronting).! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 5!See!Breul!(2004:!199>205)!for!discussion!of!multiple!fronting!in!English.!The! English!examples!are!much!improved!if!the!first!constituent!is!a!topicalized!constituent! and!the!second!is!focalized.!This!follows!from!a!feature!based!account!on!intervention! as!in!Starke!(2001)!and!Rizzi!(2004).! !! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 68! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! 3.!Movement!and!intervention!! 3.1.!A!feature!based!theory!of!intervention.! In! this! section! we! sketch! a! feature! based! theory! of! intervention.6!This! particular!version!of!it!was!developed!by!Haegeman!and!Ürögdi!(2010a,!2010b)! and! Haegeman! (to! appear:! chapter! 3).! It! must! be! stressed! from! the! onset,! however,!that!the!arguments!put!forth!in!this!paper!go!through!regardless!of! the!specific!implementation!of!locality!one!adopts.!! It!is! generally!agreed!in!the! literature!that!in!English,! the!manner!wh> adjunct!how!cannot!be!extracted!out!of!a!weak!island!created!by!whether!(10a),! whereas!a!D>linked!wh>phrase!like!which)problem!in!(10b)!may!be!so!extracted! and!so!can!a!relative!operator!as!(10c)!illustrates.! (10)! a.!!*!How!do!you!wonder!whether!John!will!solve!the!problem?! !b.!?!Which!problem!do!you!wonder!whether!John!will!solve?! !c.!?!These!are!the!problems!which!we!wonder!whether!John!will!solve.! Based!on!paradigms!such!as!that!in!(10),!the!consensus!in!the!literature!is! that!extraction!out!of!a!weak!island!is!facilitated!by!the!presence!of!an!‘extra’! discourse>related! feature! on! the! extractee.! Following! Haegeman! (2012),! and! Haegeman!and!Ürögdi!(2010a),!we!represent!the!facilitating!discourse>feature! that!plays!a!role!in!the!availability!of!extraction!in!(10b>c)!with!the!symbol!δ.!As! discussed!by!the!authors!cited,!δ!may!be!treated!as!a!unitary!factor,!although!it! more! likely! consists! of! a! set! of! features! that! determine! different! types! of! extraction! (cf.! Starke! 2001).! Following! Boeckx! and! Jeong! (2004),! Rizzi! (1990,! 2001,!2004),!Starke!(2001),!Haegeman!(to!appear),!Abels!(2012),!and!others,!we! assume!that!locality!should!be!understood!as!a!ban!against!‘likes!crossing!likes’! (Abels!2012:!247).!Accordingly,!a!constituent!bearing!a!feature!α!will!block!the! extraction! of! another! constituent! endowed! with! the! same! feature.! Following! Starke!(2001)!and!Rizzi!(2004),!we!assume!that!the!blocking!effect!induced!by!an! intervening!α!can! be! overcome! if! the!moved! constituent! that! also! bears!α!is! enriched!with!an!additional!feature.!We!propose!that!D>linking,!which!relates! an!operator!to!the!discourse,!endows!the!moved!constituent!with!such!a!feature,! here!represented!as!δ.!! To!account!for!the!pattern!in!(10),!schematized!as!in!(11),!Haegeman!and! Ürögdi!(2010b)!assume!that!wh>phrases,!including!whether,!are!associated!with! an!operator!feature,!Q.!In!(11a),!Q!on!whether!blocks!the!movement!of!the!lower! wh>constituent!endowed!with!the!matching!feature!Q.!In!(11b>c),!however,!the! blocking!effect!of!Q!is!obviated!by!virtue!of!the!presence!of!δ.!The!assumption!is! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 6!This! section! was! written! in! response! to! the! reviewers’! suggestion! that! we! discuss!this!issue!in!more!detail.!We!thank!them!for!their!helpful!input.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 69! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! therefore!that!D>linked!wh>phrases!are!featurally!enriched!and!as!such!have!the! ability! to! void! the! island! created! by! a! (bare)! Q! feature.! Similarly,! following! Haegeman!(2012),!wh>operators!in!restrictive!relatives!are!taken!to!be!featurally! enriched,!by!virtue!of!being!linked!to!a!nominal!head.!(In!a!promotion!analysis,! the!head!itself!would!be!the!‘enriched’!operator.)7! (11)!a.!! ! whether)) whint! ! ! Q! Q! ! Q! !b.! ! whether!! whint,D>linked! ! ! Q+δ! Q! ! Q+!δ! !c.! ! whether!! Rel! ! ! Q+δ! Q! ! Q+!δ! Consider!next!the!fact!that!English!fronted!arguments!also!create!islands! for! wh>extraction! (12a),! while! they! themselves! are! extractable! out! of! weak! islands!(12b).! (12)!a.!! *Who!did!you!say!that!to!Sue,!Bill!introduced?!(Boeckx!and!Jeong!2004,!(3))! ! b.!!?This!problem,!we!wonder!whether!John!will!be!able!to!solve.!! Since! fronted! arguments! prevent! wh>extraction,! they! must! share! a! relevant! feature! with! wh>constituents.! We! assume! this! feature! to! be! Q.! Moreover,! the! fact! that! fronted! arguments! can! overcome! the! weak! island! created!by!whether!in!(12b)!suggests!that!they!are!(or!can!be)!enriched!with!δ!as! well.! Hence,! English! fronted! arguments! may! have! the! combination! δ! +! Q! (Boeckx! and! Jeong! 2004:! 18),! and! by! virtue! of! this! specification! they! are! interveners!for!both!constituents!bearing!a!Q!feature!(i.e.,!‘pure’!wh>operators)! and! constituents! endowed! with! the! combination! δ! +! Q! (i.e.,! D>linked! wh> operators!and!topicalized!DPs).!! Consider!next!the!case!of!examples!like!(13).8! (13)!He!is!a!man!to!whom!liberty,!we!should!never!grant.!(cf.!Baltin!1982)! Such! examples! are,! for! many! speakers,! fully! grammatical! and! their! existence!suggests!that!fronted!arguments!in!English!are!not!absolute!blockers! for!extraction.!This!is!not!unexpected.!If!we!assume!that!in!relative!clauses,!the! operator!can!be!featurally!enriched,!we!predict!that!it!will!be!able!to!cross!over! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 7!Shigeru! Miyagawa! (p.c.)! points! out! that! such! an! account! presupposes! that! relativization! is! sufficiently! similar! to! topicalization.! The! issue! is! discussed! in! Haegeman!(to!appear,!chapter!3).!The!idea!that!there!indeed!is!a!connection!between! topicalization! and! relativization! goes! back! to! at! least! Kuno! (1976).! For! more! recent! proposals! to! the! effect! that! topicalization! and! relativization! are! similar,! see! Bianchi! (1999:! 200,! 2004:! 93>4),! Miyagawa! (2010:! 155,! note! 2),! Abels! (2012:! 250)! and! the! references!cited!there.! 8!We!are!grateful!to!an!anonymous!reviewer!for!reminding!us!of!these!data.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 76! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! appears! to! be! that! in! a! neutral! context,! factive! complements! do! not! allow! argument!fronting,!in!line!with!the!standard!judgments,!and!that…! Argument!fronting!becomes!available!if!the!context!is!enriched!to!allow! the! construction! of! a! reference! set! for! the! event,! at! which! point! it! is! the! embedded!event!(rather!than!what!appears!like!a!contrastive!topic)!that!bears! the!contrast.!The!enriched!event!operator!can!overcome!the!intervention!by!a! fronted!argument.!The!very!fact!that!enrichment!is!required!means!to!us!that!a! feature>based! account!of!both!the!canonized!judgments!and! specific!contexts! involving!focused!embedded!clauses!is!essentially!correct.!(H&U!2010:132)! 4.!VP!topicalization,!VP!ellipsis!and!French!TP!ellipsis! In!this!section,!we!turn!to!an!asymmetry!between!the!distribution!of!VP! topicalization!(VPT),!another!instantiation!of!MCP!(1e),!and!that!of!VP!Ellipsis! (VPE)!in!English.!We!will!explore!Johnson’s!(2001)!account!of!VPE,!an!account! that!exploits!the!striking!syntactic!parallelisms!between!contexts!allowing!VPE! and!those!allowing!VPT!to!propose!that!VPE!is!derived!by!VPT!followed!by! ellipsis! of! the! fronted! VP! (Johnson! 2001).! Such! an! analysis! is! by! all! means! compatible!with!and!even!receives!indirect!support!from!the!fact!that!VPE!is! only! possible! if! the! to>be>deleted! VP! has! a! discourse! antecedent,! hence! is! in! some!way!discourse!given,!or!‘topical’.!We!will!show!that!there!are,!however,! some! interesting! distributional! differences! between! VPT! and! VPE! (see! also! Authier!2011,!and!Aelbrecht!and!Haegeman!to!appear).!!The!ultimate!goal!of! our! discussion! will! be! to! argue! that! Authier’s! (2011)! implementation! of! Johnson’s!thesis!not!only!accounts!for!the!observed!distributional!differences! between!VPT!and!VPE,!but!also!presupposes!the!intervention!account!and!is! less!obviously!compatible!with!the!truncation!account.!! 4.1!English!VP!ellipsis!as!VP!topicalization! As!is!well!known!from!the!literature!on!VPE,!this!particular!ellipsis!can! be!licensed!by!a!finite!auxiliary10!or!by!infinitival!to.!This!is!illustrated!in!(23a>c)! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 10!It!has!also!been!proposed!that!there!is!a!difference!between!root!modals!and! epistemic!modals!with!respect!to!the!licensing!of!VPE!and!VPT.!Authier!gives!the!data! in!(i)!in!support!of!the!claim!that!with!both!VPE!(ia)!and!VPT!(ib),!a!modal!like!must! can!only!have!a!deontic!reading.! (i)!a.!John!must!wash!his!car!every!day,!and!Peter!must!too.!(Authier!2011:!193,!(27)).!! !b.!!!Peter!said!that!Max!must!work!for!the!KGB!and!work!for!the!KGB,!Max!must.! (Authier!2011:!195,!cf.!Drubig!2001;!(34))! We!will!not!discuss!these!facts!in!the!present!paper,!due!to!the!fact!that!the! status! of! epistemic! modals! as! licensers! of! VPE! is! not! entirely! clear.! For! instance,! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 77! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! and! (23d>e)! respectively.! The! examples! in! (23f)! and! (23g)! show! that! in! the! absence!of!such!a!licenser,!VPE!is!ungrammatical.! (23)!a.!Jane!doesn’t!eat!grapefruit!and!Holly!doesn’t!Ø!either.! !b.!Jane!wouldn’t!eat!grapefruit!and!Holly!wouldn’t!Ø!either.! !c.!Jane!hasn’t!eaten!any!grapefruit!and!Holly!hasn’t!Ø!either.! !d.!Mag!Wildwood!wants!to!read!Fred’s!story,!and!I!also!want!to!Ø.! ! ! (Johnson!2001:!440,!(5d))! !e.!John!wants!to!go!on!vacation,!but!he!doesn’t!know!when!to!Ø.! ! ! (Johnson!2001:!441!((9a),!from!Zagona!1988a:!101,!(21))! !f.!I!can’t!believe!Holly!won’t!eat!grapefruit.!We!can’t!believe!Fred!*(won’t)!Ø,!either.! ! ! (Johnson!2001:!439,!(4))! !g.!Sally!Tomato!started!running!down!the!street,!but!only!after!José!started!*(to)!Ø.!! ! ! (Johnson!2001:!440,!(7))! VPT!is!also!licensed!by!a!finite!auxiliary!(24a−c)!and!by!infinitival!to!(24d),! and!again,!in!the!absence!of!such!a!licenser,!VPT!is!ungrammatical!(24e).!)) (24)!!She!claimed!that…! !a.!eat!grapefruit,!Holly!didn’t.! !b.!eat!grapefruit,!Holly!wouldn’t.! !c.!eaten!grapefruit,!Holly!hasn’t.! !d.!eat!grapefruit,!Holly!wants!*(to).!(cf.!Johnson!2001:!444,!(17))! !e.!?*!eating!grapefruit,!Holly!started.!(cf.!Johnson!2001:!444,!(18))11! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Huddleston! and! Pullum! (2002:! 1520,! [4i])! give! (ii)! in! which! VPE! is! licensed! by! an! epistemic!modal:! (ii)!A:!They!must!have!made!a!mistake.!! ! B:!Yes,!they!must.!! The!examples!in!(iii)!also!show!that!epistemic!modals!can!be!licensers,!at!least! in!some!contexts;!arguably,!may)in!(iiia−c)!and!must!in!(iiid)!are!epistemic.! (iii)!a.!What!is!empathy?!You!may!feel!it!when!Oliver!Twist!asks!for!more!gruel,!though!you! ! ! may!not!when!a!banker!demands!a!bonus.!(Observer!1.4.12!page!37!col!1)! !b.!All!declined!to!give!their!thoughts!to!the!Observer,!though!they!said!they!may!in!the! near!future.!(Observer!31.1.10!page!32!col!2)! !c.!If!others!want!to!stick!with!Everest![the!name,!LH]!let!them!do!so.!We!have!no!! ! ! problem!with!diversity,!though!the!Chinese!may.!(Guardian,!26.11.2,!page!9,!col!1)! !d.!'ʹThere!must!be!something!wrong!with!you,!'ʹRonald!said.'ʹ!So!there!must.'ʹ!(Muriel! ! ! Spark,!The!Bachelors,!Macmillan!1960!Penguin!edn!1963:!170)! 11!Observe,!however,!that!while!VP!topicalization!is!impossible!in!examples!like! (ia),!its!VPE!counterpart!in!(ib)!is!well>formed.! (i)!a.!?*Eat)rutabagas,!Holly!made!me!t.!(Johnson!2001:!444,!his!(18))! !b.!Why!did!you!eat!those!rutabagas?!Holly!made!me.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 78! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! Assuming! that! VPE! is! VPT! minus! the! PF! spell>out! of! the! head! of! the! chain! created! by! VP! fronting,! the! parallelism! in! judgments! illustrated! in! (25)−(27)!is!immediately!accounted!for.!While!VPT!out!of!an!infinitival!clause! complement!to!a!tensed!verb!is!licit!(25b),!as!is!its!‘silent’!VPE!counterpart!(25a),! both!VPE!and! VPT! are! illicit!in!(26)>(27)! because! extraction! out! of!infinitival! adjuncts,!infinitivals!embedded!within!an!NP,!and!wh>islands!is!impossible.! (25)!a.!Mag!Wildwood!wants!to!read!Fred’s!story,!and!we!also!want!to!Ø.! !b.!Mag!Wildwood!wants!to!read!Fred’s!story,!and![read!Fred’s!story]!we!also!want!to.! (26)!!a.!*Mag!Wildwood!came![to!read!Fred’s!story],!and!we!also!came![to!Ø].! !b.!?*Madame!Spanella!questioned![Mag’s!desire!to![eat!rutabagas]],!but!only!after!we! had!questioned![Sally’s!desire!to!Ø].! !c.!??Ron!wanted!to!wear!a!tuxedo!to!the!party,!but!Caspar!couldn’t!decide![whether!to!Ø].! (Johnson!2001:!445,!(22c))! (27)!!a.!*Madame!Spanella!questioned![Mag’s!desire!to![eat!rutabagas]]!and![eat!plums]!we! ! ! !! questioned![Sally’s!desire!to!t].! !b.!??Ron!wanted!to!wear!a!tuxedo!to!the!party,!but![wear!a!tuxedo!to!the!party]!Caspar!! ! ! ! couldn’t!decide![whether!to!t].!(Johnson!2001:!447,!(29c))! This!leads!Johnson!(2001:!447)!to!conclude!that...! ! ! …!the!island!effects!we’ve!seen!for!VPs!elided!in!infinitival!clauses!can! now!be!traced!back!to!the!fact!that!VPs!in!infinitival!clauses!are!forced!to!move! out!of!that!infinitival!clause,!and!this!movement!is!subject!to!island!constraints.! Moreover,!the!somewhat!variable!effects!that!we!have!seen!in!indirect!questions! –![…]!–!might!be!traced!back!to!the!fact!that!the!wh>island!constraint!is!itself! quite!variable.!(Johnson!2001:!447)! Johnson!does!point!out!that,!as!it!stands,!some!problems!remain!for!the! movement!analysis.!We!refer!the!reader!to!his!paper!and!to!Authier!(2011:!195)! for!discussion!about!whether!such!problems!can!be!ironed!out.! 4.2!French!TP!ellipsis!as!TP!topicalization! The!parallelism!between!VPE!and!VPT!in!English!is!mirrored!in!French,! as! discussed! in! detail! in! Authier! (2011),! who! interprets! the! ellipsis! of! an! infinitival! complement! to! a! modal! verb! in! French! as! TP! ellipsis! (TPE).! The! phenomenon!will!be!illustrated!below.!Authier!(2011:!202)!concludes!that!...! Given!that!the!restriction!on!modal![TP]!ellipsis!…!is!in!every!respect! similar!to!that!governing!the!topicalization!of!infinitival!clauses…,!I!would!like! to!suggest!that![French]!modal![TP]!ellipsis!is!licensed!by!topicalization.! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Interestingly,! VPE! in! (ib)! is! licensed! here! by! a! lexical! verb.! We! thank!Philip! Miller!(p.c.)!for!bringing!these!data!to!our!attention.!We!have!nothing!further!to!say! about!these!cases.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 79! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! The!French!examples!in!(28)!illustrate!the!fact!that!both!TP!fronting!and! TPE!are!licensed!in!the!context!of!a!class!of!modals!that!includes!pouvoir!‘be! able’,!devoir!‘must/should’,!vouloir!‘want’,!falloir!‘be!necessary’!and!avoir)le)droit! ‘be!allowed.’!Note!that!(28a),!the!fronted!infinitival!is!directly!linked!to!a!gap!in! argument!position!and!is!therefore!an!instance!of!English>style!topicalization! rather!than!CLLD.!!! (28)!a.!Je!veux!pas!!laver!tes!chaussettes,!!mais!![nettoyer!l’évier]!je!veux!bien.! ! ! I! want!not!wash!your!socks!but!clean!the!sink!! I! want!well! ! ! ‘I!don’t!want!to!wash!your!socks,!but!clean!the!sink,!I’m!willing!to.’!! !(Authier!2011:!198!(44c))! !b.!Peux>tu!nettoyer!l’évier?!Je!veux!bien!Ø.! ! ! can>you!!clean!the!sink! I! want!well!! Authier! shows! that,! in! contrast,! infinitivals! embedded! by! epistemic! modals!are!incompatible!with!both!TPE!and!TP!fronting.12!In!(29a)!and!(29c),! devoir!‘must’!and!pouvoir!‘may/be!able’!can!only!have!a!deontic!reading.!In!(29b),! the!context!forces!an!epistemic!reading!of!pouvoir!and!TP!fronting!is!barred.!! (29)! a.!La!police!doit! !arriver!dans!cinq!minutes!et!l’ambulance!!doit!!aussi!Ø.! ! ! the!police!must!arrive!in!five!minutes!and!the>ambulance!must!!too! ! ! (Authier!2011!:!193,!(26))! !b.! *Arriver!!d’un!!moment!à! l’autre!!la!police!peut,!alors!accelère!! ! ! arrive!!of>a!!moment!to!another!the!police!may,!so!hurry>up!! !‘The!police!may!arrive!at!any!moment,!so!hurry!up.’! !c.!Partir!!en!vacances,!!tu!!peux!pas.! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! leave!!for!holidays,!!you!!can!not.! Further,! as! (30)! shows,! both! TPE! and! TP! fronting! are! not! found! in! infinitival!adjuncts.! (30)!a.!*Paul! a! télephoné![pour!![obtenir!!son!visa!!plus!rapidement],!pouvoir].! ! ! Paul!has!phoned!for! ! obtain!!his!visa!!more!quickly!can!! ! ! (Authier!2011:!198,!(46a))! !b.!*Astrid!voulait!obtenir!son!visa!!plus!rapidement!! ! ! Astrid!! wanted!obtain!!her!visa!!more!quickly! ! ! et!!elle! a! envoyé!des!fonds!supplémentaires![pour!pouvoir!Ø].! ! ! ! and!!she!has!sent!!funds!extra!! !to!can!!!! ! ! (Authier!2011:201,!(48f))! This!is!because!French!fronted!infinitival!TPs,!just!like!English!fronted! VPs,! must! be! able! to! find! a! finite! clause! to! land! in! and! that! the! topicalized! clauses!in!(30),!being!contained!in!an!island!to!extraction,!cannot!do!so.!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 12!Aelbrecht!(2010)!also!shows!that!ellipsis!of!modal!complements!in!Dutch!is! restricted!to!root!modals.!See!also!note!10!on!English.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 80! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! 4.3!VP!Ellipsis!vs.!VP!topicalization! Attractive!though!the!analysis!of!VPE!(and!TPE)!as!VPT!(and!TP!fronting)! may!be,!a!number!of!problems!arise.!One!important!issue!discussed!in!Authier! (2011)! and! in! Aelbrecht! and! Haegeman! (to! appear),! is! that! VPT! has! a! more! restricted!distribution!than!VPE.!We!will!only!discuss!some!examples!of!this! distributional! asymmetry! and! refer! to! reader! to! the! papers! cited! for! a! full! discussion.!! 4.3.1)(Lack)of))sensitivity)to)islands) Like!other!types!of!extraction,!VPT!is!sensitive!to!islands:!VPT!out!of!an! embedded!wh>domain!or!out!of!a!relative!clause!is!ungrammatical!(31).!On!the! other! hand,! VPE! is! fully! grammatical! in! the! same! domains! (32).! Under! a! movement! account! of! VPE,! according! to! which! the! to! be! elided! VP! is! first! fronted!by!VPT,!this!asymmetry!is!so!far!unexplained.! (31)!a.!*I!knew!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but![present!the!article]! we!couldn’t!recall![which!of!the!students!didn’t!t].! !b.!*I!know!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but![present!the!article]! we!can’t!recall![the!students![who!didn’t!t]].! (32)!a.!I!knew!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!couldn’t!recall! [which!of!the!students!didn’t!Ø].! !b.!I!know!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!can’t!recall![the! students![who!didn’t!Ø]].! 4.3.2.)Topicalization)within)certain)types)of)clauses) It!might!be!argued!that!to!derive!VPE!by!VPT!in!(32)!the!fronting!of!the! relevant!VP!is!restricted!to!the!embedded!domain,!hence!avoiding!the!island! effect.!However,!it!is!standardly!assumed!that!VPT!belongs!to!the!class!of!so> called!MCP.!Like!argument!fronting,!discussed!above,!VPT!is!excluded!from! embedded! interrogatives! and! from! relative! clauses! (33),! while! VPE! remains! fully! licit! in! these! contexts! (34).! Authier! (2011:! 210)! discusses! the! same! asymmetry!with!respect!to!French!TPE!and!TP!fronting.!! (33)!a.!*I!knew!that!one!student!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!can’t!recall!now! [which!of!the!students![present!this!article]!did!t].! !b.!*I!know!that!one!student!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!can’t!recall!the! student![who![present!this!article]!did!t].! (34)!a.!I!knew!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!couldn’t!recall! [which!of!the!students!didn’t!Ø].! !b.!I!know!that!some!students!presented!this!article!in!my!class!but!we!can’t!recall!the! students![who!didn’t!Ø].! In!a!similar!vein,!while!VPT!is!incompatible!with!argument!fronting!(35a> b),! which! can! be! seen! as! the! result! of! a! violation! of! locality! conditions! on! movement,!VPE!and!argument!fronting!can!coexist!(35c).! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 81! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! (35)!a.!*and![increase!in!value]!the!old!house!he!was!sure!would.!! ! ! (Emonds!2004:!95)! !b.!*and!the!old!house![increase!in!value]!he!was!sure!would.! ! ! (Emonds!2004:!95)! !c.!! She!doubted!whether!the!new!house!might!increase!in!value,!but![the!old!house]!she! was!sure!would!Ø.!! Further,! as! illustrated! in! (36)! and! (37),! while! VPT! is! excluded! from! central!adverbial!clauses,!VPE!is!licit!in!the!same!context.!Authier!(2011:!209)! discusses!similar!data!involving!French!TP!fronting!and!TP!ellipsis.!(We!borrow! (36a>e)! from! Aelbrecht! and! Haegeman! (to! appear:! their! (26)),! and! (36f)! from! Authier!2011:!209,!his!(57c))! (36)!Mary!wanted!to!move!to!London!! a.!and![move!to!London]!she!did!t.! b.!*and!after![move!to!London]!she!did!t,!her!life!changed!entirely.! c.!! *before![move!to!London]!she!did!t,!she!was!totally!demotivated.! d.!*and!when![move!to!London]!she!did!t,!her!life!changed!entirely.! e.!*and!as!soon!as![move!to!London]!she!did!t,!her!life!changed!entirely.! f.!*when![fix!his!last!faucet],!you!do!t,!I!will!send!you!a!check.!! (37)!Mary!wanted!to!move!to!London!! a.!and!eventually!she!did!Ø.! b.!and!after!she!did!Ø,!her!life!changed!entirely.! c.!! before!she!did!Ø,!she!had!been!totally!demotivated.! d.!and!when!she!did!Ø,!her!life!changed!entirely.! e.!and!as!soon!as!she!did!Ø,!her!life!changed!entirely.! The!incompatibility!of!VPT!with!argument!fronting!and!with!wh>clauses! can! be! made! to! follow! from! locality! conditions! on! movement.! Assuming! a! movement!derivation!of!adverbial!clauses!as!outlined!above,!the!same!locality! account!extends!to!central!adverbial!clauses.!In!all!three!cases,!the!fronted!VP! acts! as! an! intervener! that! blocks! the! additional! movement! of! the! fronted! argument!or!wh>operator.! !Aelbrecht! and! Haegeman! (to! appear)! discuss! some! additional! environments!that!display!the!same!type!of!asymmetry!between!VPE!and!VPT! and!conclude,!contra!Johnson!(2001),!that!VPE!cannot!be!derived!via!VPT.! 4.4.!An!alternative!view!and!its!consequences!! In!their!paper,!Aelbrecht!and!Haegeman!(to!appear)!argue!against!the! VPT!derivation!of!VPE!and!go!over!a!number!of!alternative!derivations!for!VPE! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 82! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! that!correctly!predict!that!the!domains!where!VPT!is!excluded!are!compatible! with!VPE.13!! While! acknowledging! the! distributional! differences! between! VPE! and! VPT!in!his!discussion!of!TP!ellipsis!in!French,!Authier!(2011)!shows!that,!given! certain!assumptions!about!the!place!given!to!intervention!in!the!architecture!of! the! grammar! and! the! interplay! between! ellipsis! and! intervention,! Johnson’s! original!movement!analysis!can!actually!be!maintained.!In!this!section,!we!will! first!go!over!Authier’s!account,!then!we!will!show!that!this!account!is!relevant! for!the!derivation!of!central!adverbial!clauses!and!has!interesting!consequences! with!respect!to!the!choice!between!the!truncation!account!and!the!intervention! account!outlined!at!the!beginning!of!the!paper.!Specifically,!we!will!show!that! the!account!developed!by!Authier!(2011)!(i)!crucially!depends!on!a!derivation!of! central!adverbial!clauses!in!terms!of!movement,!and!(ii)!is!less!easily!compatible! with!a!truncation!account.!Thus,!in!terms!of!Authier’s!approach,!the!movement! account!of!adverbial!clauses!is!superior!to!the!truncation!account.!! 4.4.1.)Repair)by)ellipsis) It!has!been!pointed!out,!in!the!literature!on!ellipsis,!that!PF!deletion!can! sometimes!‘repair’!violations!that!arise!through!extraction!from!an!island.!The! original!observation!goes!back!to!Ross!(1967),!who!gives!paradigms!like!(38).!In! examples!such!as!(38a),!extraction!from!a!relative!clause!within!a!complex!NP! appears!to!be!salvaged!through!an!ellipsis!operation!which!includes!the!island! from!which!wh>extraction!has!taken!place.!We!refer!the!reader!to!the!literature! for!discussion,!especially!to!Bošković!(2011)!and!Authier!(2011).!! Assuming!that!the!sluicing!operation!in!(38a)!is!wh>extraction!of!which) one!out!of!a!sentential!constituent!(TP),!followed!by!PF!deletion!of!that!node,!the! relevant!extraction!of!which)one!must!have!taken!place!from!within!the!relative! clause.!Such!extraction!out!of!a!strong!island,!however,!is!normally!illicit!(see! (38b)).!It!thus!appears!that,!as!a!result!of!ellipsis!(sluicing!in!this!particular!case)! the!island!violation!incurred!in!(38b)!is!‘repaired’,!which!means!that!somehow,! the!island!is!eliminated!in!(38a).!!! (38)!a.!She!kissed!a!man!who!bit!one!of!my!friends,!but!Tom!does!not!realize!which!one.! (Ross!1967:!276)! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 13!The!three!scenarios!Aelbrecht!and!Haegeman!envisage!have!in!common!the! assumption!that!the!crucial!locus!for!the!derivation!of!VPE!is!not!the!left!periphery!but,! rather,! the! middle! field.! We! do! not! elaborate! on! their! proposals! here! and! refer! the! reader! to! their! paper!for!discussion.!Funakoshi!(to!appear)!implements!one! of! their! suggestions!in!his!own!account!according!to!which!VPE!may!be!derived!by!VPT!to!a! Belletti! style! vP! peripheral! TopP! (Belletti! 2001,! 2004).! We! will! not! discuss! this! alternative!here!either!but!will!instead!reconsider!the!VPE!as!VPT!account.! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 83! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! !b.!*She!kissed!a!man!who!bit!one!of!my!friends,!but!Tom!does!not!realize!which!one!of! my!friends!she!kissed![a!man!who!bit!t].!(Ross!1967:!276)! Bošković! (2011),! elaborating! on! earlier! work! by! Chomsky! (1972),! proposes!that!locality!violations!incurred!in!a!derivation!result!in!the!marking! (in!the!syntax)!of!the!element!that!is!responsible!for!blocking!movement.!He! does!this! concretely! by! using! the! diacritic! *.! With! respect! to! illicit! extraction! from!an!island,!he!proposes!that!when!a!wh>moved!element!crosses!an!island! boundary,!the!island!is!*>marked.!In!other!words,!the!diacritic!*!is!assigned!to! the!element!that!has!caused!a!locality>of>movement!violation.!The!presence!of!a! diacritic! *! in! the! final! PF! representation! of! a! derivation! leads! to! a! crash.! However,! such! a! violation! is! ‘repaired’! (i.e.,! does! not! occur)! if! the! *>marked! element! is! deleted! at! PF! since! in! that! case,! no! *! is! present! in! the! final! PF! representation.! For! example,! in! (38a),! the! extraction! of! which) one! from! a! relativized! constituent! will! lead! to! the! *>marking! of! the! nominal! island.! The! diacritic!does!not!cause!the!derivation!to!crash!up!to!PF!(see!Bošković!(2011)!for! discussion!of!the!theoretical!implications!of!this!view!in!relation!to!the!general! architecture!of!the!grammar).!At!this!point,!if!the!offending!*>marked!nominal! island! is! spelled! out,! the! derivation! crashes! (39a).! If,! on! the! other! hand,! the! island! fails! to! be! spelled! out! through! sluicing,! the! offending! diacritic! *! is! removed!and!the!potential!crash!is!avoided!(39b).!Thus,!island!violations!can!be! repaired!by!ellipsis.! (39)!a.!*She!kissed!a!man!who!bit!one!of!my!friends,!but!Tom!does!not!realize!which!one!she! kissed![DP*!a!man!who!bit!t.]!!! !b.!She!kissed!a!man!who!bit!one!of!my!friends,!but!Tom!does!not!realize!which!one!she! kissed![DP*a!man!who!bit.]!(Ross!1967:!276)! 4.4.2.)VP)ellipsis)) Based! on! work! by! Saito! (2001,! 2007)! among! others,! Bošković! (2011)! extends!the!repair!by!ellipsis!account!to!violations!caused!by!an!intervener,!that! is,! cases! in! which! one! constituent! illicitly! crosses! over! another! one.! When! a! moved! wh>element! crosses! over! an! intervener,! leading! to! a! potential! intervention! effect,! the! intervener! is! *>marked,! i.e.! *! is! assigned! to! the! constituent! that! has! caused! a! locality! violation,! in! Bošković’s! terms! the! ‘troublemaker’.!As!before,!the!presence!of!a!*!on!the!troublemaker!in!the!final! PF!representation!leads!to!a!crash.!However,!such!a!violation!does!not!occur!if! the!*>marked!troublemaker!is!deleted!at!PF.!! We!illustrate!this!in!(40a)!in!relation!to!VPT.!In!(40a),!movement!of!the! VP![present)this)article]!to!the!left!periphery!leads!to!intervention!with!respect!to! the!wh>movement!of!who,!and!the!offending!VP!is!*>marked.!As!the!*!diacritic! remains!present!on!the!VP!at!PF!(40a)!is!ungrammatical.!The!derivation!of!(40b)! is!like!that!of!(40a),!in!that!the!fronted!VP!is!*>marked,!but!in!(40b),!ellipsis!of! the!VP!removes!the!offending!*.!We!refer!the!reader!to!Bošković!(2011)!for!more! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!ISSN!1989>8525! 84! An!intervention!account!of!the!distribution!of!main!clause!phenomena! details! on! the! assignment! of! *! to! interveners! and! to! Authier! (2011)! for! discussion!of!its!application!to!TPE!in!French.! (40)!a.!*I! know! that! one! student! presented! this! article! in! my! class! but! we! can’t! recall!the! student![who![VP*!present!this!article]!did!t].! !b.!I! know! that! one! student! presented! this! article! in! my! class! but! we! can’t! recall! the! student![who![VP*!present!this!article]!did!t].! Thus,!as!argued!in!detail!in!Authier!(2011),!repair!by!ellipsis!combined! with!the!assumption!that!intervention!is!a!PF!phenomenon,!will!allow!the!VPT! account!of!VPE.!Of!course,!to!the!extent!that!other!problems!arise!for!the!VPE!as! VPT!account,!these!will!not!be!salvaged!by!repair!by!ellipsis.!We!leave!this!issue! aside!here.! 5.!Consequences!for!the!derivation!of!adverbial!clauses! A!Johnson>style!VPE>as>VPT!account,!coupled!with!the!Authier/Bošković! approach! to! intervention! and! repair! by! ellipsis,! has! consequences! for! the! architecture! of! the! grammar,! in! particular,! intervention! is! now! seen! as! a! PF! phenomenon.!We!do!not!dwell!on!this!here,!though,!of!course,!this!is!a!point! that!merits!further!discussion.!! We! do,! however,! wish! to! explore! the! consequences! such! assumptions! hold! for! the! derivation! of! adverbial! clauses! and! for! the! syntactic! account! of! MCP.!Our!main!point!will!be!that!the!assumptions!laid!out!by!Authier!(2011)! and! Bošković! (2011)! dovetail! nicely! with! the! intervention! account! of! MCP.! Given!the!same!assumptions,!however,!it!is!far!from!clear!that!the!truncation! treatment!of!MCP!is!even!viable.!To!see!why,!let!us!first!briefly!return!to!the! core!data.!In!both!English!(41a>b)!and!French!(42a>b),!VP/TP!fronting!is!illicit!in! adverbial!clauses,!while!VPE/TPE!remains!available.!! (41)!Mary!wanted!to!move!to!London!! a.!*and!after![move!to!London]*!she!did!t,!her!life!changed!entirely.! b.!and!after!she!did!Ø,!her!life!changed!entirely.! c.!and!after![move!to!London]*!she!did!t,!her!life!changed!entirely.! (42)!a.!*Quand![PRO!jouer!au!hockey]!*!je!peux,!…!! !when!!play!at>the!hockey! I! can! !b.!Quand!!je!peux!Ø,!je!joue!au!!hockey.! ! ! ! when!! I! can! I! play!at>the!hockey!(Authier!2011:209>210,!(59b),!(60b))! !c.!! Quand![PRO!jouer!au!hockey]*!je!peux,!…!! On!the!Authier/Bošković!repair!by!ellipsis!account,!VPT!in!(41a)!and!TP! fronting!in!(42a)!lead!to!the!assignment!of!a!*!to!the!fronted!constituent,!and!this! leads!to!ungrammaticality!if!this!diacritic!*survives!at!PF.!If!ellipsis!applies,!the! diacritic! *! is! removed! and! there! is! no! violation:! (41c)! and! (42c)! are! the! PF! representations!for!the!elliptical!versions!of!(41a)!and!(42a).!! ! ©!Iberia:!An!International!Journal!of!Theoretical!Linguistics!vol!4.1,!2012,!61>91! !http://revistas.ojs.es/index.php/iberia!! ISSN!1989>8525! 85! J.>Marc!Authier!&!Liliane!Haegeman! However,!it!turns!out!that!there!is!an!important!proviso!to!this!account.! If!(41a)!and!(42a)!can!be!‘rescued!by!ellipsis’,!then!following!Authier!(2011)!and! Bošković!(2011),!it!must!be!the!case!that!the!offending!constituent!to!be!deleted! can!be!identified!as!a!starred!intervener!(Bošković’s!‘troublemaker’).!For!this!to! be!possible,!the!following!conditions!have!to!be!fulfilled:!(i)!the!constituent!is!an! intervener! with! respect! to! another! element! that! moves! across! it,! and! (ii)! the! constituent!must!be!able!to!occupy!a!position!in!the!left!periphery!of!the!clause! that!contains!it!(i.e.,!there!must!be!a!landing!site!available!to!host!it).!We!explore! the!ramifications!of!these!conditions!in!this!section.! !Condition!(i)!leads!to!the!conclusion!that!the!temporal!clauses!discussed! here!must!be!derived!by!movement,!since!movement!creates!the!precise!context! in! which! an! intervention! effect! can! arise.! The! Authier/Bošković! movement! account!of!VP/TP!ellipsis!is!therefore!compatible!with!the!movement!account!of! adverbial!clauses.!! Turning! to! the! implications! condition! (ii)! holds! for! the! movement! account! of! VPE/TPE,! notice! that! while! the! fulfillment! of! that! condition! also! remains!fully!compatible!with!the!movement!derivation!of!adverbial!clauses,!it! is!not!at!all!clear!how!it!can!be!reconciled!with!a!truncation!analysis.!According! to! the! truncation! analysis,! VPT! is! illicit! in! adverbial! clauses! because! such! clauses! are! structurally! deficient! (‘truncated’)! and! they! lack! the! appropriate! landing!site!for!VPT,!say,!the!higher!TopP.!If!VPE!is!itself!derived!through!VPT,! it!will!follow!that!VPE!should!be!excluded!in!those!domains!in!which!VPT!is! not!possible.!This,!of!course,!makes!the!wrong!prediction:!VPE!is!compatible! with!what!would!be!truncated!domains.!! For! the! truncation! analysis! of! adverbial! clauses! to! be! maintained,! one! could!of!course!hypothesize!that!the!left>peripheral!fronting!involved!in!VPE! does!not!have!the!same!landing!site!as!that!in!VPT.!The!landing!site!for!the! former!could!then!be!assumed!to!be!available!in!truncated!clauses,!unlike!that! targeted!by!VPT.!Obviously!this!has!further!ramifications,!as!the!status!of!the! moved! constituent! as! an! intervener! may! then! well! have! to! be! reconsidered! entirely.!14!! At!a!more!general!level,!we!wish!to!point!out!that!the!theory!of!ellipsis! advocated!by!Bošković/Authier!presupposes!that!intervention!effects!are!a!PF! phenomenon.!Obviously!the!question!arises!as!to!whether!accounts!relying!on! intervention!as!a!phenomenon!of!the!narrow!syntax!or!as!an!LF!phenomenon! can!be!devised!to!capture!the!VPE/VPT!asymmetry!while!maintaining!the!VPE! as!VPT!analysis,!and!how!the!feature!based!account!on!intervention!that!we! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 14!See! for! instance! Kayne! (2006)! for! a! proposal! that! to>be>elided! constituents! have!specialized!landing!sites.!