Successive-Cyclic Movement and Island Repair: The Difference between Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis

Abstract

It is well known that in sluicing constructions wh-dependencies can cross certain projections that are otherwise barriers to movement (Ross 1969, Chomsky 1972). This fact would follow under the assumption that the relevant barriers are somehow deactivated when phonologically deleted (“island repair”). The problem, however, is that another form of phonological deletion (VP-ellipsis; VPE) seems to be impossible in certain contexts where sluicing allows for island repair (Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Merchant 2001). Nevertheless, we argue against the conclusion that island repair is a special property of sluicing. The argument is based on two observations. First, the difference between sluicing and VPE seems too broad to warrant the conclusion that island repair is the distinguishing factor (Lasnik 2001). Second, the conclusion is directly refuted by other VPE environments where island repair is possible (Kennedy and Merchant 2000; Fox, in preparation). The argument leaves us with a puzzle that we attempt to resolve while still maintaining the null hypothesis that VPE and sluicing involve the same operation of deletion, differing only in the size of the deleted constituent. Our proposed resolution capitalizes on a special property of the relevant sluicing contexts—namely, the presence of an indefinite NP in the antecedent clause in a position parallel to that of a trace in the elided clause. We argue that given the parallelism conditions on ellipsis, this fact prevents the wh-phrase in the elided clause from undergoing successive-cyclic movement. The remaining option (one-fell-swoop movement) requires the deletion of all barriers, including those that would otherwise be circumvented via an intermediate landing site. Such deletion occurs in sluicing but not in VPE, which targets a smaller constituent.

Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure

“…In Fox and Pesetsky (in prep. ), we argue that this prediction is true, and explains the phenomena often grouped under the rubric of ''Salvation by Deletion'' (Ross (1969);Chomsky (1972);Lasnik (2001); Merchant (to appear); Fox and Lasnik (2003)). 8 We are now in a position to contrast our proposal with others, including other attempts to relate island phenomena to the syntax-phonology interface.…”

MaxElide and the Re-binding Problem

“…(Schuyler 2001 :7) If Re-binding is involved in these cases (as is widely assumed), they could be treated on a par with (1 \). See Fox and Lasnik (2003) and Merchant (to appear) for relevant discussion of these cases. 3 XP reflexively dominates YP if XP dominates YP or XP = YP.…”

Wh-Extraction (A)symmetries Between Sluicing and Vp-Ellipsis Revisited

“…Based on Chomsky's (1986) notion of barrier, Fox and Lasnik (2003) argue that wh-extraction (a)symmetries between sluicing and vP-ellipsis can be accounted for if it is assumed that the elided clause permits one-fell-swoop wh-movement due to the parallelism constraint on ellipsis, unless the antecedent clause involves wh-movement.…”

“…The main goal of this paper is to explore an alternative way of explaining Fox and Lasnik's (2003) wh-extraction (a)symmetries in the minimalist program without recourse to the notion of barrier, while maintaining their insight that the parallelism constraint on ellipsis determines whether whmovement in the elided clause is successive-cyclic or one-fell-swoop.…”