The previous two sections were concerned with covert quantifier movement chains and overt wh-movement chains. While there were differences between overt and covert A-bar movement with respect to relative clause modifiers, the NP-part of the moved
phrase was always represented in the trace position. Recall that an R-expression that is part of the NP-part always triggers a Condition C effect in the trace position, as illustrated by (41a): The pronounhe that c-commands the trace position cannot be coreferent with the R-expression Kai. It is well known that A-chains differ from A-bar chains in this respect. Namely, an R-expression that is part of the NP-part of an A-moved phrase doesn’t trigger a Condition C effect in the trace position. This is illustrated in (41b), where the R-expression Kai and the pronoun him, which c-commands the A-traceti, can be coreferent. (I’m concerned with the interpretation of (41b) whereone takes scope over seem. In case seem takes scope overone—the case of Scope Reconstruction—, a Condition C effect is found as Fox (1997) and Romero (1997) show. See also section 6.2.)
(41) a. [∗[Which relative of Kaij’s]i did hej say ti likes Kazuko.
b. [One relative of Kaij’s]i seemed to himj to ti like Kazuko.
On the view that binding reconstruction is represented by lexical material in the trace position, the fact (41b) indicates that in A-chains no lexical material of the head is represented in the trace position. On the copy theory of movement, the behavior of A-chains seems unexpected, since nothing seems to motivate deletion of the lexical material in the trace position. Recall though from the previous section that, while the NP-part was always represented in the trace position in A-bar chains, relative clause modifiers generally weren’t required to be represented in the trace position in chains created by overtwh-movement. Then, (41b) shows that the NP-part in an A-chain,
which is created by overt movement, behaves in the same way that modifiers behave with overt A-bar chains.
At this point, there are various ways to state the difference between A-chains and A-bar chains. It seems to me that the difference between the NP-part and modifiers in an A-bar chain is unexpected because semantically both the NP-part and the modifiers are alike: they contribute predicates that form the restrictor of the quantificational determiner which is heading the moving DP. Hence, I propose to capture the difference between A-chains and A-bar chains by means of the condition in (42), which stipulates the unexpected behavior of the NP-part in A-bar chains.
(42) In A-bar chains, the NP-part of the moving DP must be represented in the lowest trace position.
Obviously it’s desirable to derive (43) from something, but, at this point, I must relegate the issue to future research. I hope to show, however, that the difference between A and A-bar chains at the level of logical form can be reduced to the condition in (42). In the remainder of this section, I present some tentative results that relate to this project concerning the distribution of Condition C effects with modifiers in A-chains. Obviously there are other differences between A-chains and A-bar chain.
In section 5.2, I show that differences with respect to weak crossover follow from (42). For the different behavior with respect to the licensing of parasitic gaps, I refer the reader to Nissenbaum (1998). Nissenbaum shows that this difference can be derived from syntactic locality differences between different types of movement,
namely whether intermediate adjunction is required. For the differences with respect to locality, I again refer the reader to the respective literature (Rizzi 1990, Chomsky 1995, Takano 1993, 1994, M¨uller 1993, 1996), which reduces main differences between different movement types to . The open question remaining, is how the difference with respect to intermediate adjunction sites are captured on this approach. However, this problem doesn’t directly relate to the issue of the LF-representation of chains, and hence is not crucial for the following.
The position I take above is that the NP-part of an A-chain is subject to the same principles that determine the distribution of modifiers in all chains. These are discussed in the previous two sections; namely, a preference for the surface position which can be overridden by variable binding or ACD. The interaction with variable binding, leads us to expect cases with A-chains where the determiner of the moving DP is separated from the NP-part. It is difficult to determine whether this expectation is fulfilled, as we see in (43) and (44).
In (43), I tried to force reconstruction of the NP-part of the A-moved phrase.
The question we’re interested in is whether (43) has the LF-representation in (44a), whereone takes scope in its surface position, but himself is interpreted as bound by everybody. However, since (43) definitely allows the representation in (44b), where one takes scope below seemand everybody, it is impossible to discern whether there are also readings with wide scope for one. The kind of reading we might expect (44a) to have—and it’s not so clear what this might be—could also be a specific or wide-scope reading of (44b) (see Fodor and Sag 1982, Reinhart 1997, Kratzer 1995)
(43) [One picture of himselfj]i seemed to everybodyj to ti be too small.
(44) a. [One] λxseemed to everybodyj to [x, picture of himselfj] to be too small.
b. seemed to everybodyj to [one picture of himselfj] to be too small.
A better test are interactions between variable binding and Condition C. The paradigm in (45) resembles that in (34) and the judgment is similar, though the contrast seems to be less sharp.11
(45) a. [∗[A picture that hek showed to Maryj]i seemed to herj to have been given ti to every studentk.
b. [A picture of hisk that Maryj was shown]i seemed to herj to have been ti
given to every studentk.
c. [∗[A picture of hiskmeeting with Maryj]iseemed to herjtoti have been given to every studentk.
In (46), a slight contrast in the predicted direction is found, though again even the better example (46b) is not perfect. Here the reason might be the complexity of the construction, and the fact that it’s generally hard to reconstruct in an A-chain if an overt full DP intervenes.
11One problem with the examples in the text might be a minor violation of weak crossover.
However, in examples like (i), weak crossover is even weaker than it usually is (Burzio 1986:203, Pesetsky 1994:221-223, Pica and Snyder 1994).
(i) ?AA picture of hisj mother seemed to have been given to every studentj.
(46) a. [∗[A letter that hiskmother sent to Maryj]i seemed to herjto appear to every studentk to be ti interesting.
b. [A letter of hisk mother that Maryjhad received]i seemed to herjto appear to every studentk to be ti interesting.
Another prediction of the assumption that the A/A-bar difference reduces to (42) is that covert A and A-bar chains should behave alike (except if ACD is in-volved) because in covert A chains the preference to represent the NP-part in its surface position also predicts it will be represented there. Most cases discussed as covert A-movement in the older literature, namely movement to replace an exple-tive, don’t exhibit any of the semantic effects associated with movement, therefore aren’t regarded as covert A-movement at this point. However, there’s one case in Modern Greek which seems to disconfirm my prediction. Namely, Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou (1997) argue that certain cases of clitic doubling in Greek involve covert A-movement, and are hence similar to overt scrambling in languages like Ger-man and Japanese. As we see in (47) (Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou 1997:147), Condition C is obviated by the covert A-movement in (47b), which indicates that there the NP-part of the A-chain doesn’t occupy its surface position, but the top position of the A-chain.12 This could be a problem for the approach taken here, and definitely deserves further study. The fact alone that this construction in Modern
12Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou (1997) also present a contrast similar to (47), but using weak crossover. Since it’s known thought that severity of weak crossover is affected by Pesetsky’s (1989) D-linking and since clitic doubling seems to bring about a discourse effect similar to D-linking, I consider Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou’s (1997) weak crossover facts unconvincing.
Greek might be the a case of covert A-movement, the only one known to me, is in-teresting. However, Sabine Iatridou (p.c.) finds the contrast in (47) less clear than Alexiadou and Anagnastopoulou (1997) indicate, and therefore I ignore (47) for now.
(47) a. O∗O
In sum, despite the tentative nature of the evidence presented, it seems feasible to fit A-chains into the picture developed for A-bar chains in the previous two sections.
I adopt the assumption that the difference between A and A-bar chain can be reduced to (42). I come back to the A/A-bar distinction in section 5.2 with a discussion of weak crossover.