Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation ☺ economy & the ‘intolerability’ of strong features derive all there is to say about movement and its timing • with Case analysed as a [–int] FF that needs to be checked, economy also derives the Case Filter and the distri- bution of (c)overt Case-driven mov’t ☻ Case Theory need not and cannot (recall English and VSO-lgs!) make reference to S-structure

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ Case theory provides no support for any particu- lar level of syntactic representation once Case assignment is traded in for Case-feature checking

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]] (1b) * he is easy [CP C [PRO to please him ]] (1c) it is easy to please him • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]] → easy to please is a predicate thanks to the Op – variable dependency inside CP • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]] → Op is licensed only after movement → so the predicate for he emerges after mov’t • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]] → Op is licensed only after movement → so predication (θext ass.) happens after mov’t • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CP Op C [PRO to please t ]] → reference to D-structure in the θ-domain is impossible • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface since reference to D-structure in the θ-domain is impossible, the Projection Principle and the θ-Criterion cannot hold • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface the good results of the Projection Principle and the θ-Criterion can be independently ensured: movement to θ-positions is untriggerable, hence * • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ (2a) *Johni loves ti (2b) *I showed Johni [a picture ti]

Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ ☻ the last pillar that may support D- and S-structure Q: do the binding-theoretic arguments hold?

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? (3a) is straightforward, at any level of application (3b) can give us the i-reading at S-Structure and the k-reading at D-structure → argument for D/S-Structure application of BT-A?

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient because (3c) also gives us the i-reading

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient → but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong → can we go further and show that it is wrong?

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ only gives us the k-reading

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? explanandum: the i-reading is available in (3b,c) in principle but NOT on the idiomatic ‘photograph’ reading

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself how many pictures of himself movement as a two-step operation: (i) copy the constituent that is to be moved (ii) remerge one of the two copies ‘upstairs’ we now have two tokens of himself at LF one locally c-commanded by Bill and the other by John

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himselfi how many pictures of himselfk is this going to be our final LF-representation? NO: the two copies are ‘too rich’! @ LF we want an operator-variable structure

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION I keep the complete upstairs copy turn the complete lower copy into a variable

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took t Johni does not know… reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT himself is only present upstairs @ LF → the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues took pictures is NOT an LF-unit in this structure → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is absent

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation aside… the only level of representation at which idiomatisation can be dealt with is LF: some idioms only exist as transforms you don’t have a leg to stand on you’ve got it made (in the shade) you’ve got your work cut out (for you)

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy keep the restriction in the downstairs copy

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT himself is only present downstairs @ LF → the k-reading (and only the k-reading) ensues took pictures IS an LF-unit → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is available

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took t Johni does not know… summary — OPTION I (i) i-reading (‘John’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ UNavailable

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) b. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… pictures of himself summary — OPTION II (i) k-reading (‘Bill’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ available

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structure we could base antecedent choice directly on (3b)

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … independently of what happens later, at LF! (i.e., regardless of whether option I or II is chosen)

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? binding S-str. idiom LF b′. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… pictures of himself

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … so we would predict the i-reading to be okay on the idiomatic reading of took pictures ← BAD!

Binding Theory & Levels of Representation conclusion: Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory & Levels of Representation conclusion: correlation between idiomatic fixing and antecedent choice follows ONLY with BT-A @ LF → reference to S-Structure is impossible in the domain of the Binding Theory

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues the distribution of ‘reconstruction’ and the Preference Principle

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] b. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] [‘NP’ in (5) corresponds to himself in (4a), him in (4b), Bob in (4c)] → ‘reconstruction’ is optional in (4a) → ‘reconstruction’ is obligatory in (4b,c) (if ‘reconstruction’ were optional, j-reading should be fine)

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] twh twh the LF in (5a) yields i-reading for (4a) the LF in (5b) yields j-reading for (4a)

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [wh pic of Bob ] hej saw [wh pic of NP*i/*j] twh twh the LF in (5a) should support a j-reading for (4b) the LF in (5a) should support a j-reading for (4c) why don’t these sentences support the j-reading?

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [wh pic of Bob ] hej saw [wh pic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh → (5b) must be chosen whenever possible why don’t these sentences support the j-reading?

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [wh pic of Bob ] hej saw [wh pic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh no problem choosing (5b) in (4b,c) → so do! why don’t these sentences support the j-reading?

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [wh pic of Bob ] hej saw [wh pic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh no problem choosing (5b) in (4b,c) → so do! → j-reading blocked in (4b,c) — as desired

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [wh pic of Bob ] hej saw [wh pic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh Q: what makes (4a) stray from the preference for (5b)?

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself twh twh Q: what makes (4a) stray from the preference for (5b)? (7a) is input to anaphor movement at LF → (7b)

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself b. John himself-I saw picture of t twh twh (7b) gives himself antecedent via Spec-Head agr.

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] if LF anaphor mov’t starts out from higher copy the higher copy must be preserved in full @ LF to ensure local licensing of himself’s trace @ LF → (6) can be overridden by need to converge

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) → (6) can be overridden by need to converge

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] but of course (6) does not have to be overridden himself can also be launched from lower copy → in that case, preserve the restriction downstairs

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] b. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] twh twh → with NP=himself, (5a,b) are both available → hence the ambiguity of (4a) notwithstanding the general preference for (5b)

Binding Theory — Further Issues Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Binding Theory — Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself b. John himself-I saw picture of t twh twh governing category is now superfluous for BT-A

Summary of Main Results Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Summary of Main Results governing category is superfluous for BT-A BT-C never referred to government to begin with (perhaps BT-C is not a condition of grammar) BT-B is the mirror image counterpart of BT-A → can be restated as an elsewhere condition government is superfluous for all of BT perhaps all of Binding Theory is superfluous

Summary of Main Results Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Summary of Main Results government is superfluous in the domain of trace theory: the ‘ECP’ has been reduced to a chain condition, the Minimal Link Condition (‘minimise chain links’) government is superfluous in the domain of Case theory: Case assignment has been recast as Case checking, happening uniformly under Spec-Head agreement (in Chapter 3)

Summary of Main Results Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Summary of Main Results recall Chomsky (1995:29–30) ‘The P&P approach is sometimes termed Govern-ment-Binding (GB) Theory. The terminology is misleading. True, early efforts to synthesize current thinking in these terms happened to concentrate on the theories of government and of binding …, but these modules of language stand alongside many others: Case theory, θ-theory, and so on. It may turn out that the concept of government has a kind of unifying role, but there is nothing inherent to the approach that requires this.’

Summary of Main Results Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Summary of Main Results reference to D/S-structure is impossible in the domain of Binding Theory reference to D-structure as the sole input to Move is impossible reference to D-structure is impossible in the domain of θ-theory/predication reference to S-structure is impossible in the domain of Case Theory

S-structure reference elsewhere Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 S-structure reference elsewhere Q: what about other conditions of the grammar that make reference to S-structure? Subjacency = a condition on derivations (MLC) Predication relations cannot be established after S-structure (thus operator relatives must feature overt operator movement even in wh-in-situ lgs) → probably because covert movement = feature movement = unable to form the operator–variable dependencies that create predicates

S-structure reference elsewhere Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 S-structure reference elsewhere Q: what about other conditions of the grammar that make reference to S-structure? Parasitic gaps cannot be licensed after S-structure (*who destroyed which documents after perusing pg?) → probably because covert movement = feature movement = unable to form the operator–variable dependencies that are required in licensing parasitic gap constructions

Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Minimalism ‘Minimalism’ is a continuation of the P&P tradition but departs from it in a fundamental way by eradicating many of the basic notions of its immediate predecessor → government (though ‘Agree’ is much the same) → binding (in the sense of ‘Binding Theory’) → levels of syntactic representation → modules (in the sense of ‘subtheories’) → X-bar structures (in part or in full)

Minimalism what remains? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Minimalism what remains? → Merge (the basic structure-building mechanism) → Agree (for feature valuation) → some notion of locality (the ‘phase’) most, perhaps all, of this is not syntax-specific or even particular to language

Minimalism back to Chomsky (1995:170–71) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 Minimalism back to Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘we assume that S0 is constituted of invariant principles with options restricted to functional elements and general properties of the lexicon’ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ • ‘the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where “optimality” is determined by economy conditions of UG’ • ‘with a proper understanding of such [economy] principles, it may be possible to move toward the minimalist design: a theory of language that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way’