(5) what N vs. where mit ATB: a. What city 1 did Elaine work in t 1 and Gwen vacation in t 1? b. Where 2 did Elaine work t 2 and Gwen vacation t 2?

Transkript

1 Doreen Georgi LoMo Uni Leipzig Postal (1993): Parasitic Gaps and the Across-the-Board Phenomenon 1 Hintergrund (1) a. Which book 1 did Lulu review t 1 before reading pg 1? b. Which book 1 did Lulu purchase t 1 at the airport and (Nora) read t 1 on the plane? Für eine ATB-Analyse von pgs haben argumentiert: Pesetsky (1982), Huygbregts and Van Riemsdijk (1985), Haïk (1985), Williams (1990). Kritik an Williams (1990): (i) Williams Analyse ist vage und unausgearbeitet, (ii) Koordination muss graduell sein (eine Struktur ist mehr oder weniger koordinationsartig), (iii) Ambiguität: jedes pg-beispiel muss eine Struktur mit und eine ohne Koordination haben Postal vergleicht die Eigenschaften von klaren ATB-fällen mit denen von klaren pg- Fällen empirisch. Nach Williams sollten sich die Konstruktionen ähnlich verhalten. Postal zeigt nun, dass es eine Reihe von Unterschieden zwischen pgs und ATB- Lücken gibt, und folgert, dass Sätze, die pgs enthalten, nicht durch ATB-Bewegung entstanden sind. 2 Unterschiede zwischen pg- und ATB-Strukturen 2.1 Kategorie der extrahierten Konstituente Die Menge der Konstituenten, die ATB-Lücken sein können, ist eine Obermenge der Konstituenten, die eine pg sein können. pgs entsprechen nur NPs, ATB-Lücken können XPn jeder Kategorie sein (alles, was man extrahieren kann). (2) pg muss NP sein (Emonds 1985): a. *How sick 1 did John look t 1 without actually feeling pg 1? b. *How long 2 does John drink t 2 before lecturing pg 2? c. This is a topic 3 you should think about t 3 before talking about pg 1. d. *This is a topic about which 4 you should think t 4 before talking pg 4. e. *Sick 5 though Frank was t 5 without looking pg 5, he didn t visit a physician. f. *How 6 did Deborah cook the pork t 6 after cooking the chicken pg 6? (3) Extraktion bei ATB: a. How sick 1 did John look t 1 and (Betty) say he actually felt t 1? b. How long 2 did John want to drink t 2 and Bill actually end up drinking t 2? c. This is a topic 3 you should think about t 3 and I should talk about pg 3. d. This is a topic about which 4 you should think t 4 and I should talk pg 4. e. Sick 5 though Frank was t 5 and Greg certainly looked t 5, neither visited a physician. f. How 6 did Deborah cook the pork t 6 and Jane cook the chicken t 6? Ein weiterer Unterschied: (4) what N vs. where mit pgs: a. What city 1 did Elaine work in t 1 without ever living in pg 1? b. *Where 2 did Elaine work t 2 without ever living pg 2? (5) what N vs. where mit ATB: a. What city 1 did Elaine work in t 1 and Gwen vacation in t 1? b. Where 2 did Elaine work t 2 and Gwen vacation t 2? 2.2 Subjekte in finiten Sätzen Eine pg kann nicht in der Subjektposition eines finiten Satzes auftreten, eine ATB-Lücke aber schon. (6) pg in Subjektposition: a. Which patient 1 did he convince t 1 (that he had agreed) (that) he should visit pg 1? b. *Which patient 2 did he convince t 2 (that he had agreed) (that) pg 2 should visit him? c. the militant 1 who 1 he arrested t 1 after learning the mayor wanted to interrogate pg 1 d. *the militant 2 who 2 he arrested t 2 after learning pg 2 was carrying a gun (7) ATB-Lücke in Subjektposition: a. Which patients 1 did he convince you t 1 were already doctors and t 1 were going to become psychiatrists? b. It was those weapons 2 which 2 he testified t 2 were used in the first crime and she testified t 2 were used in the second crime. c. It was that militant 3 that we thought t 3 was carrying a gun but they believed t 3 was never armed. 1

2 2.3 Passivierung Beschränkungen über Passivierung und die Möglichkeit pgs zu lizensieren interagieren. Beschränkungen darüber, was passiviert werden kann, schränken auch das Auftreten von pgs ein, jedoch nicht das Auftreten von ATB-Lücken. (8) Passivierung und pg-lizensierung: a. Anyone can catch/contract/get/have diphtheria. b. Diphtheria can be caught/contracted/*gotten/*had by anyone. c. Which disease 1 did Arthur catch/contract/get/have t 1? d. Which disease 2 did everyone who caught/contracted/*got/*had pg 2 want Dr. Jones to study t 2? e. Which disease 3 did Dr. Jones study t 3 only long after admitting that he had caught/contracted/*gotten/*had pg 3? (9) Passivierung und ATB, vgl. (9-d,e): a. Which disease 1 did Dr. Jones study t 1 but Dr. Kline deny that he had ever caught/contracted/gotten/had t 1? b. the disease 2 which 2 Dr. Kline admitted that he had caught/contracted/gotten/ had t 2 and that Dr. Jones had studied t 2 Es gibt verschiedene Typen von Beschränkungen, die Passivierung blockieren. dieselben Typen blockieren auch die Lizensierung von pgs: Genau 1. Pseudo-Passiv kann nicht von unakkusativischen Verben gebildet werden. Diese Verben lizensieren auch keine pgs, aber ATB-Lücken. (10) a. Trolls slept/died under that bridge. b. That bridge was slept/*died under by trolls. c. Which bridge 1 did he tell you trolls slept/died under t 1? d. It was that bridge 2 that every troll who slept/*died under pg 2 had wanted the government to preserve t 2. e. the bridge 3 he liked t 3 before learning (that) trolls had slept/*died under pg 3 f. the bridge 4 which 4 trolls played under t 4 and elves died under t 4 2. Multiple Passivierung innerhalb eines Satzes ist ausgeschlossen. Eine pg in einem passivierten Satz ist ausgeschlossen, eine ATB-Lücke aber nicht. (11) a. Charlie was given the book by Ted. b. Which book 1 was Charlie given t 1 by Ted? c. *It was that book 2 which 2 everyone who was given pg 2 by Ted refused to read t 2. d. *It was that book 3 which 3 I read t 3 before being given pg 3 by Ted. e. It was that book 4 which 4 Charlie was given t 4 by Ted but only Greg read t Unmarkierte Infinitive können nicht passiviert werden. Sie können auch keine pg enthalten, wohl aber eine ATB-Lücke. (12) a. Abigail felt the rocks move. b. *The rocks were felt move by Abigail. c. Which rocks 1 did Abigail feel t 1 move? d. *It was those rocks 2 which 2 everyone who felt pg 2 move tried to fasten down t 2. e. *Which rocks 3 did the gorilla sit on t 3 after feeling pg 3 move? f. the rock 4 which 4 Ted sat on t 4 but only Joyce felt t 4 move 4. Visser s Generalization: Ein Satz mit Subjektkontrollprädikat erlaubt keine Passivierung. Im selben Kontext kann auch keine pg lizensiert werden, eine ATB-Lücke kann aber auftreten. (13) a. Gregor swore to that goddess to find the perpetrator. b. *That goddess was sworn to by Gregor to find the perpetrator. c. Which goddess 1 did you swear to t 1 twice to find the perpetrator? d. *Which goddess 2 did you convince t 2 that you had never sworn to pg 2 to find the perpetrator? e. *the goddess 3 that everyone who swore to pg 3 to find the perpetrator later turned their back on t 3 f. *Which goddess 4 did they betray t 4 after swearing to pg 4 twice to find the perpetrator? g. Who 5 did Jean visit t 5 and (Morris) swear to t 5 to find the murderer? 5. Ein Aktivsatz mit einem Expletiv als Subjekt kann nicht passiviert werden. In solchen Sätzen kann eine ATB-Lücke enthalten sein, aber keine pg. (14) a. It amused Sonia to tickle alligators. b. *Sonia was amused by it to tickle alligators. c. the people, who 1 it amused t, 1 to tickle alligators d. *the people 2 who 2 Bob convinced t 2 that it would amuse pg 2 to tickle alligators e. *It was Ida 3 that Bob contacted t 3 immediately after concluding that it would muse pg 3 to tickle alligators. f. the kind of people 4 who 4 Bob might warn t 4 but it would nonetheless still amuse t 4 to tickle alligators 2

3 6. Objekte der Präposition from können tendenziell nicht im Pseudopassiv auftreten. In dieser Position können auch keine pgs auftreten, ATB-Lücken aber schon. (15) a. Frank stole from ministers. b. *Ministers should not be stolen from. c. What minister 1 did he steal from t 1? d. *What minister 2 did he convince t 2 that they were stealing from pg 2? e. *That is the minister 3 who 3 their stealing from pg 3 impoverished t 3. f. *the minister 4 who 4 he consulted t 4 despite stealing from pg 4 g. the minister 5 who 5 Graham consulted t 5 and Melvin stole from t Pronominalisierung Cinque (1990): pgs sind in Positionen blockiert, wo auch definite Pronomen nicht auftreten können (siehe (16) und (17)). ATB-Lücken können aber in diesen Positionen auftreten (siehe (18)). (16) there-konstruktionen: pgs und definite Pronomen blockiert a. There are spiders/*them in the soup. b. What kind of spiders 1 are there t 1 in the soup? c. *It was such spiders 2 that everyone who said there were pg 2 in the soup refused to eat t 2. d. *What kind of spiders 3 did he praise t 3 before learning there were pg 3 in the soup? (17) Ausdrücke der Farbveränderung: pgs und definite Pronomen blockiert a. Blake painted his house green/*it. b. What color 1 did Blake paint his house t 1? c. *It was that color 2 that everyone who painted their house pg 2 wanted to paint their car t 2. d. *What color 3 did they criticize t 3 after painting their house pg 3? (18) ATB-Lücke in there-konstruktionen und Ausrücken der Farbveränderung: a. The kind of spiders 1 that he found t 1 in the chicken soup yesterday and there will be t 1 in the bean soup today are hairy ones. b. The color 1 that they chose t 1 yesterday and (Mike) will paint their barn t 1 tomorrow is red. Es gibt aber auch einige Fälle, in denen eine pg in einer Position erlaubt ist, in der kein definites Pronomen auftreten kann, z.b. die Objektposition von attend/go to: (19) a. *Frank attends/goes to Yale 1 but Sandra does not attend/go to it 1. b. Which school 1 does Sandra attend/go to t 1? c. Which college 1 did she apply to t 1 without really wanting to attend pg 1? d. It was Yale 2 that your having attended pg 2 made me want to apply to t 2. e. *Which college 1 did she apply to t 1 without really wanting to go to pg 1? f. *It was Yale 2 that your going to pg 2 made me want to apply to t 2. Mögliche Erklärung für den Kontrast von (16)/(17) und (19-a)/(19-c): (i) (19-a) ist durch eine Beschränkung über das Auftreten von overten Pronomen ableitbar. (ii) Die Beschränkung, die die ungrammatischen Fälle in (16)/(17) ausschließt, gilt für overte wie coverte Pronomen. Der Kontrast zwischen attend und go to in (18) folgt aus der Beschränkung über Passivierung: (20) Yale was attended/*gone to by numerous foreigners that year. Vorhersage: Wenn Rel.pronomen in nicht-restriktiven Relativsätzen (RC) definit sind, sollte die there- und Farbveränderungskonstruktion im RC unmöglich, attend aber möglich sein: (21) a. *She left the magazines 1, which 1 there are t 1 on the table. b. *I hate pink 2, which 2 they painted his house t 2. c. Herman contributes to Yale 3, which 3 he never attended t Prädikatsnomen An der Position von PNs können ATB-Lücken aber keine pgs auftreten. (22) a. Jerome is a doctor. b. What 1 they said Jerome was t 1 was a doctor. c. People who want to be doctors are often unable to become doctors. d. *What 2 people who want to be pg 2 are often unable to become t 2 is doctors. e. *What 3 he became t 3 without wanting to become pg 3 was a traitor. f. What 4 Ted was t 4 and Greg intended to become t 4 was a doctor. (23) a. They turned Elizabeth into a zombie. b. What kind of zombie 1 did they turn Elizabeth into t 1? c. *What kind of zombie 2 did they convince t 2 that Elizabeth had turned into pg 2? d. *It was that kind of zombie 3 that everyone who turned into pg 3 had prayed not to become t 3. e. *What 4 Jane turned into t 4 after praying not to become pg 4 was a zombie. f. What 5 they turned Elizabeth into t 5 last week and we expect Jane to become t 5 tomorrow is a zombie. 3

4 Diese Restriktion über das Auftreten von pgs an der Stelle eines PNs könnte eine Konsequenz (i) der Passivierungsbeschränkung (PNs im Englischen sind nicht passivierbar) oder (ii) der Pronominalisierungsbeschränkung (PNs können keine definiten Pronomen sein). (24) Passivbeschränkung auf PNs: a. Martin turned into that kind of outfielder. b. *That kind of outfielder was turned into by Martin. c. They made that kind of outfielder out of Martin. d. *That kind of outfielder was made out of Martin. (25) Pronominalisierungsbeschränkung auf PNs: a. *Martin turned into him/it/them. b. *They made him/it/them out of Martin. Gegen (ii) spricht allerdings, dass in den wenigen Fällen, in denen PNs doch definit sein können, pgs immer noch ausgeschlossen sind: (26) a. It was me that they arrested. b. Who 1 was it t 1 that they arrested? c. *It was me 2 who 2 Claire praised t 2 before knowing it was pg 2 that they arrested. d. The person to be fired was her. e. Who 3 was the person to be fired t 3? f. *It was Sally 4 who 4 they promised t 4 that the person to be fired would not be pg 4. Die Beschränkung kann aber laut Postal auch nicht vollständig auf die Passivierungsbeschränkung (i) zurückgeführt werden. Grund: PNs verhalten sich generell seltsam in Bezug auf Lücken. Nicht nur kann keine pg an Stelle eines PN auftreten, es kann an dieser Position auch nicht die echte, durch A-quer-Bewegung entstandene Lücke auftreten. (27) a. Tom turned into some kind of zombie after studying that kind of zombie. b. *the kind of zombie 1 which 1 Tom turned into t 1 after studying pg 1 Eine solche Beschränkung über die echte Lücke gilt z.b. nicht für die Passivierung: (28) a. Greg bothered Lucy with his marital problems. b. *Lucy was bothered by Greg with his marital problems. c. Who 1 did he bother t 1 with his marital problems? d. *Who 2 did they convince t 2 that Greg would bother pg 2 with his marital problems? e. the woman 1 who 1 Frank bothered [t 1 ] with his marital problems after meeting pg 1 only once 2.6 Infinite Komplemente In ECM-Konstruktionen wie in (29-a) kann man die Akkusativ markierte NP extrahieren (siehe (29-b)). (29) a. The CIA believed/considered/proved Fred to be loyal. b. Which candidate 1 did the CIA believe/consider/prove t 1 to be loyal? In Kontexten, in denen diese Extraktion stattgefunden hat, kann keine pg lizensiert werden (siehe (30)). Eine solche Restriktion gibt es nicht für ATB-Lücken (siehe (31)). (30) a. *Which candidate 1 did the CIA hire t 1 without believing/considering/proving pg 1 to be loyal? b. *This is the student 1 everyone expected t 1 to be intelligent because John believed pg 1 to be intelligent. (Chomsky 1982:54) (31) a. Which candidate 1 did the CIA believe/consider/prove t 1 to be loyal but Melvin believe/consider/prove t 1 to be disloyal? b. This is the student 2 everyone expected t 2 to be intelligent and John recently showed t 2 to be intelligent. Der Effekt zeigt sich noch stärker, wenn das eingebettete Hauptverb nicht be ist (Authier 1989a: 122): (32) a. *Which spy 1 did everyone who believed pg 1 to look dumb tend to underestimate t 1? b. *It was Ernest 2 that they promised t 2 that you would show pg 2 to speak Greek. (33) a. Which spy 1 did Mohammed believe t 1 to look dumb and Jamal prove t 1 to be dumb? b. It was Ernest 2 that the doctors showed t 2 to speak Greek and the nurses proved t 2 to speak Turkish. 3 Konklusion Die Bedingungen, die die Lizensierung von pgs im Englischen regeln, sind restriktiver als die, die die Verteilung von ATB-Lücken steuern. Daraus folgt entweder (i) dass pgs nicht durch ATB-Bewegung entstanden sind oder (ii) dass pgs ein Spezialfall von ATB-Lücken sind, für die noch weitere Beschränkungen gelten. 4

5 (34) A certain class, K, of ATB gaps are subject to special restrictions, namely, those documented for P-gaps in section 2. Postal verwirft die Hypothese in (34), da Die Klasse K (pgs) muss in einem Konjunkt stecken, aber niemand hat präzise gemacht, wie diese Konjunkte genau aussehen, wie sie zustande kommen oder was die Regeln sind, die optional eine Koordinationsstruktur zuweisen. D.h. eine formale Analyse für Koordination wird nicht geliefert. Die Zusatzbedingungen, die für die Klasse K gelten, gelten nicht ausschliesslich für K, sondern auch für eine Reihe von anderen gap-konstruktionen, bei denen es noch unwahrscheinlicher ist, dass ihnen eine Koordinationsstruktur zugrunde liegt (es gibt z.b. keine multiple gaps). Generell sind die Daten aus Section 2 problematisch, wenn man annimmt, dass pgs normale Extraktionslücken sind. Postal schlägt daher vor, dass pgs die Extraktion eines Pronomens involvieren. Das Pronomen geht eine Relation mit einem Antezedens ein und wird infolgedessen nicht phonologisch realisiert, vgl. Kontrolle. Literatur: Postal, Paul (1993): Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon, Linguistic Inquiry 24,