Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Interpretation of Traces

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that parts of the lexical content of an A-bar moved phrase must be interpreted in the base position of movement. The argument is based on a study of deletion of a phrase that contains the base position of movement. I show that deletion licensing is sensitive to the content of the moved phrase. In this way, I corroborate and extend conclusions based on Condition C reconstruction by N. Chomsky and D. Fox. My result provides semantic evidence for the existence of traces and gives semantic content to the A/A-bar distinction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhatt, R.: 2002, ‘The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival Modification’, Natural Language Semantics 10, 43–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G. N.: 1977, Reference to Kinds in English, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cecchetto, C.: 2001, ‘Syntactic or Semantic Reconstruction? Evidence from Pseudoclefts and Clitic Left Dislocation’, in C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, and M.-T. Guasti (eds.), Semantic Interfaces, pp. 90–144. CSLI, Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G.: 1993, ‘Questions with Quantifiers’, Natural Language Semantics 1(2), 181–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 1–52. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormack, A.: 1984, ‘VP Anaphora: Variables and Scope’, in F. Landman and F. Veltman (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, pp. 81–102. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresti, D.: 2000, ‘Ellipsis and Reconstruction in Relative Clauses’, in M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 30. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M.: 1992, Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E.: 1980, The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E.: 1986, Constituent Questions. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F.: 1988, ‘Binding into Anaphoric Verb Phrases’, in J. Powers and K. de Jong (eds.), Proceedings of ESCOL 5, pp. 122–129. The Ohio State University, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiengo, R. and R. May: 1994, Indices and Identity. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D.: 1995, ‘Condition C Effects in ACD’, in R. Pensalfini and H. Ura (eds.), Papers on Minimalist Syntax, MITWPL 27, pp. 105–119. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D.: 1999a, ‘Focus, Parallelism, and Accommodation’, in T. Matthews and D. Strolovitch (eds.), Proceeding of SALT 9, pp. 70–90. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D.: 1999b, ‘Reconstruction, Variable Binding and the Interpretation of Chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D.: 2002, ‘Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. and J. Nissenbaum: 1999, ‘Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt QR’, in S. Bird et al. (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 18, pp. 132–144. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidin, R.: 1986, ‘Fundamental Issues in the Theory of Binding’, in B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Volume 1, pp. 151–188. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, M.: 2000, Comparative Quantifiers, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Hardt, D.: 1999, ‘Dynamic Interpretation of Verb Phrase Ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 185–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1997a, ‘Predicates or Formulas? Evidence from Ellipsis’, in A. Lawson and E. Cho (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 7, pp. 197–221. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I.: 1997b, ‘Predicates or Formulas? Evidence from Ellipsis’. Presentation at LF reading group, MIT.

  • Heim, I.: 2000, ‘Degree Operators and Scope’, in B. Jackson and T. Matthews (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 10, pp. 40–64. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, C.: 1995, ‘Asymmetries in Reconstruction’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 547–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C. J.: 1993, ‘Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsey, S. and U. Sauerland: 2003, ‘Sorting Out Relative Clauses: A Reply to Bhatt’, unpublished ms., MIT and UMass/Tübingen.

  • Jacobson, P.: 1992, ‘Antecedent Contained Deletion in a Variable Free Semantics’, in C. Barker and D. Dowty (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 2, pp. 193–213. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, P.: 1998, ‘Antecedent Contained Deletion and Pied-Piping: Evidence for a Variable-Free Semantics’, in D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 8, pp. 74–91. CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L.: 1977, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C.: 1994, ‘Argument Contained Ellipsis’, Linguistics Research Center Report LRC-94-03, University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C.: 2002, ‘Comparative Deletion and Optimality in Syntax’, Natural Language and Linguist Theory 20, 553–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1989, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in Papers on Quantification, pp. 147–221. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A.: 1991, ‘The Representation of Focus’, in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), pp. 825–834. de Gruyter, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M.: 1995, ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items’, Linguistic Analysis 25, 209–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuno, S.: 1997, ‘Binding Theory in the Minimalist Program’, manuscript, Harvard University.

  • Lappin, S.: 1984, ‘VP Anaphora, Quantifier Scope, and Logical Form’, Linguistic Analysis 13, 273–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, R. K. and R. May: 1990, ‘Antecedent Containment or Vacuous Movement: Reply to Baltin’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 103–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H.: 1998, ‘Some Reconstruction Riddles’, in A. Dimitriadis et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, pp. 83–98. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, D.: 1988, Language Acquisition and the Form of Grammar, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, W.: 1999, Comparatives and DP-structure, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobeck, A.: 1995, Ellipsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marti, L.: 2003, ‘Only, Context Reconstruction, and Informativity’, in M. Kadowoki and S. Kawahara (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33, pp. 187–203. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R.: 1985, Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, J.: 2000, ‘Economy, the Copy Theory, and Antecedent-Contained Deletion’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 566–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, J.: 2001, The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, A.: 1994, ‘A Minimalist Account of Reconstruction Asymmetries’, in M. Gonzàlez (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24, pp. 397–410. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pafel, J.: 1999, ‘Interrogative Quantifiers within Scope’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 255–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1997a, ‘Quantifier Scope: How the Labor Is Divided between QR and Choice Functions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart, T.: 1997b, ‘Strategies of Anaphora Resolution’, OTS Working Paper 97/07, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, M.: 1997, ‘Problems for a Semantic Account of Scope Reconstruction’, in G. Katz and H. Winhast (eds.), Proceedings of the Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, pp. 119–146. University of Tübingen, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M.: 1992a, ‘Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy’, in S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 29, University of Stuttgart. Published by IBM Germany, Heidelberg.

  • Rooth, M.: 1992b, ‘A Theory of Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 75–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys, E.: 2000, ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 513–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safir, K.: 1999, ‘Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A-bar Chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 587–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I.: 1976, Deletion and Logical Form, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Sauerland, U.: 1998, The Meaning of Chains, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Sauerland, U.: 2000a, ‘No ‘no’: On the Crosslinguistic Absence of a Determiner ‘no’’, in H. Suzuki (ed.), Proceedings of the Tsukuba Workshop on Determiners and Quantification, pp. 415–444. University of Tsukuba, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U.: 2000b, ‘Obligatory Reconstruction and the Meaning of Traces’, Technical Report 160, Sonderforschungsbereich 340, University of Tübingen.

  • Sauerland, U.: 2000c, ‘Two Structures for English Restrictive Relative Clauses’, in M. Saito et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, pp. 351–366. Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U.: 2001, ‘A Contrast to a Trace’, in K. Megerdoomian and L. Bar-El (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 20, pp. 498–509. Cascadilla Press, Somerville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U.: 2003, ‘Unpronounced Heads in Relative Clauses’, in K. Schwabe and S. Winkler (eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, pp. 205–226. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, P.: 1973, ‘Focus and Relativization’, Language 49, 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, C.: 1995, ‘PP Attachment and Argumenthood’, in C. Schütze, J. Ganger, and K. Broihier (eds.), Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition, MITWPL 26, pp. 95–151. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B.: 1999a, ‘Silent Verb Phrases as Bound Variables’, manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Schwarz, B.: 1999b, Topics in Ellipsis, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Y.: 1999, ‘Connectivity in Specificational Sentences’, Natural Language Semantics 7, 299–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternefeld, W.: 2001, ‘Semantic vs. Syntactic Reconstruction’, in C. Rohrer, A. Rossdeutscher, and H. Kamp (eds.), Linguistic Form and its Computation, pp. 145–182. CSLI Publications, Stanford, Cal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tada, H.: 1993, A/A-bar Partition in Derivation, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Takano, Y.: 1995, ‘Predicate Fronting and Internal Subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 327–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomioka, S.: 1999, ‘A Sloppy Identity Puzzle’, Natural Language Semantics 7, 217–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W.-T. D.: 1994, On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • van Riemsdijk, H.: 2000, ‘Free Relatives’. Syncom Case Study 44, Tilburg University.

  • von Stechow, A.: 2000, ‘Some Remarks on Choice Functions and LF-movement’, in U. Egli and K. von Heusinger (eds.), Reference and Anaphoric Relations, pp. 193–228. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasow, T.: 1972, Anaphoric Relations in English, PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Williams, E.: 1977, ‘Discourse and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, D.: 1995a, ‘Antecedent-Contained Deletion in Comparative Constructions’, manuscript, MIT.

  • Wold, D.: 1995b, ‘Identity in Ellipsis: Focal Structure and Phonetic Deletion’, manuscript, MIT.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, U-1145, University of Connecticut, 337 Mansfield Road, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    Uli Sauerland

Authors
  1. Uli Sauerland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sauerland, U. The Interpretation of Traces. Natural Language Semantics 12, 63–127 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000011201.91994.4f

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000011201.91994.4f

Keywords

Search

Navigation