1. Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle Change and Reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 30-4: 587-620. Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in Ā-Chains Safir (1999) Fiengo & May (1994): “Vehicle Change”, which permits copies of names to be evaluated as pronouns with respect to interpretive principles, plays a key role in accounting for reconstruction effects in ellipsis environments. This paper argues that the alleviation of Principle C violations (“antireconstruction effects”) is not due to deletion of the lower copy (as in Chomsky 1995), but to vehicle change. It also predicts the class of “weakest crossover” environment.

2. Copy theory is the best device to capture the reconstruction effects of bound anaphora, but the alleviation of Principle C violations (“antireconstruction effects”, where it occurs in Ā- chains, is not due to deletion of the lower copy; rather, it is due to what Fiengo & May (1994) have called vehicle change. The lowest copy in an Ā-chain need not require deletion of the uppermost position in the chain. More than one copy of a chain is required for LF interpretation. Deletion of copies must be restricted to the interpretation of quantifiers, where deletion of a copy of a quantifier creates a variable. Since deletion of whole copies in chains is unnecessary, Chomsky’s (1995) Preference Principle is unnecessary as well.

3. 1 Chomsky’s Copy Theory as an Account of Reconstruction Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist Program: there is a single interface level between form and meaning, namely, LF. Copy theory of movement: Movement leaves a full copy of the moved constituent in the “tail’ position of the chain. (1)a. Which claim that Mary had offended John did he repeat? (John ≠ he) b. [which claim that Mary had offended John] did he repeat [which claim that Mary had offended John] Freidin-Lebeaux Generalization (Freidin 1986: 179, Lebeaux 1990) L&F point out that Principle C does not appear to block coreference between John and he in (2a). Adjunct (rel. cl) (2) a. Which claim that offended John did he repeat? b. [which claim that offended John] did he repeat [which claim] via late-Merge Merging of an adjunct to a moved phrase is possible.

4. An XP that enters the derivation after a wh-phrase has been moved cannot be a complement to the N head of the wh-phrase since it cannot attach where complements do; rather, it is an adjunct. Thus, if they enter the derivation late, adjuncts do not show reconstruction effects; late entry can be employed to avoid Principle C effects. Preference Principle (Chomsky 1995, 209) At the top of the Ā-movement chain, the restriction on the quantifier (here, which) should always be minimized as much as possible while still permitting the derivation to converge. (1)a. Which claim that Mary had offended John did he repeat? (John ≠ he) In (1a), claim that Mary had offended John, is deleted in favor of the lower copy, and the lower which is deleted to create a variable bound by the higher which. (3) [which] did he repeat [t claim that Mary had offended John] Therefore, complements to nominals moved by wh-movement must always reconstruct because the Preference Principle favors retaining the lowest copy; both copies cannot be retained because doing so would leave extraneous uninterpretable material at LF, violating Full Interpretation. Only one copy in the movement chain is retained at LF.

5. 2 The Legitimacy of the Preference Principle LF does not require linearization, so there is no obvious reason to exclude trees that have two instantiations of the same numeration index at LF. When the lower copy containing β is c-commanded by δ, it is not necessarily the case that δ c-commands α. The device that ensures that c-command of the lowest position (e.g., β) is neutralized in Chomsky’s system is deletion. Safir: proposes an alternative mechanism assumes that quantifiers are unique in their copy sets; a quantifier cannot bind another quantifier as a variable, and a copy of Ā-movement must count in some sense as a variable. “Make OP” for wh-movement (Munn 1994, 399): (4c) is the only possible result. (4) a. Whose mother did Bill see? b. whose [whose mother] did Bill see [whose mother] c. whose [x mother] did Bill see [x mother] (5) α is a syntactic variable if α is in an argument position that is locally c-commanded by β, β in an Ā-position, and α and β are in the same copy set.

6. 2.1 Evidence for More Than One Copy in an Ā-Chain at LF (6) a. *?Whose evaluation did John expect its author to repudiate? b. [whose evaluation] did John expect its author to repudiate [whose evaluation] c. [whose [whose evaluation]] did John expect its author to repudiate [whose evaluation] d. [whose] did John expect its author to repudiate [x evaluation] (6a) pied-pied constituent creates a weak crossover (WCO) Move creates a two-copy chain as in (6b). The operation Make OP removes the wh-phrase from the constituent containing its restriction in (6c). Then the rest of the operator phrase, whose evaluation in (6c), is deleted in (6d) in favor of the lower copy in the “trace” position, according to the Preference Principle. But now there is no WCO configuration whereby its is a variable locally c-commanded (locally A-bound in earlier theories) by the same operator that locally c-commands [x evaluation] Principle C effect in (7): (7) a. *[whose evaluation of John i ] did he i expect Mary to repudiate? b. [whose] did he i expect Mary to repudiate x evaluation of John i. (8) [Whose evaluation of John] did he say its author read aloud? J≠he (lowest copy reading)

7. (9) displays no WCO effect: (9) John i, who i his i mother loves t i, is ungrateful. The trace to the right of her is not the variable of a quantifier, in this view, so her is not dependent on a copy containing a variable as in the minimally restricted LF representations in (12a) (= (10a)) or (12b) (= (11a)). (10) a. *?Joe, [a cousin of whom] i her i child loves t i, hates kids. b. Joe, [a cousin of whom] i t i loves her i child, hates kids. (11) a. *?Joe, [whose sister] i her i child loves t i, wants kids. b. Joe, [whose sister] i t i loves her child, wants kids. (12) a. Joe j, whom j her i child loves [a cousin of t ji, hates kids. b. Joe j, whose j her i child loves [t j sister] i, wants kids. the highest copy (e.g., whose sister in (11a)), locally A-binds both her and its trace in (11a) but not in (11b). It is the local binding of the two nonmatching syntactic variables that then induces the violation.(n4) I conclude that copies of both the head and the tail of the A-chain are required at LF, if that is where the principle responsible for the WCO effect is applied.(n5)

8. 2.2 Nonevidence for Deletion (6) c. [whose [whose evaluation]] did John expect its author to repudiate [whose evaluation] d. [whose] did John expect its author to repudiate [x evaluation] Chomsky (1995) This prediction is not borne out, since (13b-c) are just as acceptable as (13a) when Warren is the antecedent of himself. (13) a. Which pictures of himself did Mary say Warren saw? b. Which pictures of himself did Warren say Mary saw? c. Walt wondered which pictures of himself Mary would sell. d. Walt wondered [which] Mary would sell [y pictures of himself] Chomsky (1995) adopts the latter view, arguing that self forms undergo LF cliticization to an Agrs position whose [Spec, Agrs] is their antecedent. (14) a. John himself i -wondered [which pictures of t i ] j Mary would sell t j b. John wondered which j Mary would himself i -sell t j pictures of t j

9. 4Vehicle Change ( 매체변화 ) Fiengo and May (1994) note that examples like (47a) evidence Principle C effects when he is construed with the object of Sally's love, but ellipsis counterparts like (47b) do not. (47) a. Lara loves Sol i and he i thinks that Sally loves Sol i too. b. Lara loves Sol i and he i thinks that Sally does too. As F&M point out, Principle B effects still emerge for such elements. (48) a. *Amy introduced Jack i to everyone and he i introduced him/Jack i too. b. *Amy introduced Jack i to everyone and he i did too. They use the term vehicle change to describe the interpretation of the elided name as a pronoun.

10. These effects are illustrated in (57). In (57b), the (relevant portion of the) LF representation for (57a), vehicle change avoids a Principle C effect by replacing Bill's in the lowest copy with the pronoun his (shown in boldface); however, as (57c) shows, a quantifier in this context is excluded. (57) a. Milt, Bill's i pictures of whom he i was ashamed of... b. Milt, [Bill's i pictures of whom] j he i was ashamed of [his i pictures of whom]... c. *Milt, everyone's i pictures of whom he i was ashamed of... 5 The Freidin-Lebeaux Generalization: The Residue If vehicle change can apply in (57b), then it ought to apply in cases like (la), repeated in (60a) and represented at LF with vehicle change as in (60b). (60) a. Which claim that Mary had offended John did he repeat? b. [which claim that Mary had offended John] did he repeat [which claim that Mary had offended him]