Focus association into copies and the scope of even

Abstract

Nakanishi 2012 presents a novel argument for the so-called "scope theory" of English VP-even, based on examples with antecedent-contained deletion (ACD). Nakanishi's argument is based on the assumption that even cannot associate with a focus which has moved out of its scope. I show that this assumption is incorrect, defusing Nakanishi's argument. I propose that when even associates with a focus which has moved out of its scope, it actually associates with focused material in the lower copies of movement (trace positions). I show that a closer look at ACD examples of Nakanishi's type in fact forms a new argument against the scope theory. I conclude that English VP-even must always be interpreted in its pronounced position. The patterns of focus association with even presented here constitute a new argument for the copy theory of movement.

Proportionality and conservativity: the view from Turkish

“…13 The implicit assumption being made here is that the tail of a movement chain cannot be focus-marked (Beaver & Clark 2008). This is not an uncontroversial assumption (Erlewine 2014a). See the discussion later in this section.…”

“…15 To see how, observe that, in Erlewine's (2014a) analysis, the syntactic representation of (91b) is as in (i). The lower copy undergoes Trace Conversion and a lambda operator binding the variable inside the lower copy is added to the sister note of the head of the movement chain as in (ii).…”