Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1 A crossover typology
The boxed/unboxed division is one that should, I argue, be reflected in the grammar. All the examples
are deviant to some degree; I provide no judgments in (2).
(2) primary secondary
extracted element extracted element
is the binder properly contains
the binder
Weakest crossover? Lasnik and Stowell 1991 + Postal 1993 weakest crossover is where no
crossover effect exists even though the surface order might have led you to think there would be one.
primary quantified = secondary quantified In everyones mother, everyone has the same binding
possibilities as everyone when it is a clausal argument.
1
Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 1921, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan)
2 Disunity
2.1 Contrasting judgments
(3) Wasow 1979:158:
The sentences in (7), however, demonstrate that [. . . ] a differentiation is necessary, for al-
though weakly crossed sentences would violate a cross-over constraint, they are far less deviant
that strongly crossed sentences. ((7a) is from Remembered Death by Agatha Christine, Pocket
Books, p. 58; [. . . ]).
(7a) He was the type of man with whom his work would always come first.
This argues that the similarity between (ia) and (b) fails to represent a genuine generalization.
2
Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 1921, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan)
Two approaches:
(9) a. We want to generate the boxed sections of (2) and explain why they sound iffy (to some)
in the absence of repair items. All other kinds of crossover should be blocked.
b. We want to block all of (2), and then use other mechanisms to explain (i ) why the unboxed
sections are perceived as worse (Shan and Barker 2003:5); and also (ii ) how the repair
items save the boxed parts.
Since Wh - weak crossover cases appear in naturally occurring texts, and since the judgments for them
have always been iffy (one finds all of , ?? , and ? in the literature), it might be wise to favor (9a).
Another suggestion: Another BINDer Shan and Barker (2003:22) write that Wh - primary weak
crossover cases have no derivations because
(11) (BIND who) has category (e (e B A)) (e ? A). Note that the e corresponding to
the trace is outside the e corresponding to the pronoun (i.e., the connective is outside the B
connective). This means that the trace must always outscope the pronoun [. . . ].
Thus, we could define a second bind operator, one that flips the order of the trace and the pronoun (with
no change to the semantics). This would have to be accompanied by some other adjustments to the type
shifting rules: for instance, where appears in META, we would have to allow or B. In the end,
this might undermine the distinguished status that pronouns have in the theory of categories.
3
Brown Workshop on Direct Compositionality, June 1921, 2003 Comments on Barker (and Shan)
But Both solutions still leave the problem of controlling the repair particles when neither the pro-
noun nor the binder is embedded i.e., we need to avoid predicting that primary strong crossover is
repairable.
I believe that the accounts of quantification and Wh - extraction are sufficiently different from each
other that we can allow Wh - extraction some leeway without losing the ability to block all the quantified
cases.
In sum At a minimum, we need to distinguish who from whose mother and he from his mother in
the theory of categories. Once weve done this, well have the tools to get a grip on the contrasting
intuitions that Wasow (1979) first noted. Well also be well positioned to understand how and where
the repair particles work.
References
Buring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles
in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(2):229281.
Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4):687720.
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3):539556.
Potts, Christopher. 2001. (Only) some weak crossover effects repaired. Snippets 1(3).
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1):29120.
Shan, Chung-chieh and Chris Barker. 2003. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right
evaluation, Ms., Harvard and UC San Diego.