Roots Workshop, Special Syntax Session University of Stuttgart, June 10-13, 2009 SINGLE OUTPUT SYNTAX WITHOUT ATTRACTION

Transcription

1 Roots Workshop, Special Syntax Session University of Stuttgart, June 10-1, 2009 GENERALIZED SURVIVE: SINGLE OUTPUT SYNTAX WITHOUT ATTRACTION Winfried Lechner, University of Athens 1. THE ATTRACTION OF SURVIVAL Drag chains: In attract models, movement is triggered by feature compatibility with an attracting head. (1) a. A feature F 1 is compatible with a feature F 2 iff F 1 can be checked by F 2. b. A node α is feature compatible with a node β iff the features of α are compatible with the features of β. (transitive version) c. A node α is feature compatible iff there is a node β, such that features of α are compatible with the features of β. (intransitive version) (2) A feature F 1 is checked by F 2 iff (i) F 1 and F 2 are hosted by nodes in a local relation (sisterhood or specifier-head relation) and (ii) F 1 and F 2 match. () Movement Attract a. A node α attracts a node β iff α is the closest node feature compatible with β. b. A node α is the closest node to β iff α c-command β and there is no node γ, s.t. α c-commands γ and γ c-commands β. Push chains: The Survive Principle (TSP; Stroik 1999, 2009) imports a concept similar to push chains into syntax. In this model, dislocation is the result of feature incompatibility with the local environment. (On push chains in syntax see also Moro 2007; Putnam 2007; Preminger 2008; van Riemsdijk 1997; a.o.) (4) Movement Survive (adapted from Stroik 2009) For any nodes α, β and γ: If α is contained within β, and α is not feature compatible with the head of β, (i) merge β with a new head γ and (γ: the trigger ) (ii) remerge α with a projection of γ. Example: β contains feature incompatible α ((5)a). A new head γ (the trigger) is merged with a projection of β ((5)b). Then, α is expelled from its original position, moving to a projection of the trigger γ ((5)c). (5) a. α feature-incompatible with β β 1 α Y β Notation: b. Merge new head γ γ 1 γ β 1 α Y β Y marks incompatibility between two elements c. Move α to a projection of γ γ 2 α γ 1 γ β 1 t α β

2 Some questions that bear on distinguishing Attract from Survive based models: L L a. How do Survive models deal with multiple interleaving movements (order preservation)? b. How dense are movement paths? Is there evidence for/against intermediate copies at every category (as opposed to phase) across a movement paths? (Abels 200) c. Are Survive models compatible with phase theory? d. What are the formal differences between the models? OBJECTIVE: Evidence: Identifying evidence for Survive from covert movement. I. Survive model supports common account of scope restrictions in double object constructions and inverse linking (for attract based approaches see Bruening 2001; Sauerland 2000, 2004). II. Push-chain conception makes it possible to trace the motivation behind syntactic and semantically driven displacement to a single property. Corollaries: I. Evidence for single output model of the grammar (overt covert movement). II. A new account of order preservation effects. Outline: " Component I: Implementing TSP ( 2) " Component II: Model of the grammar ( ) " Multiple movements I (c-command): Scope Freezing ( 4) " Multiple movements II (containment): Inverse Linking ( 5) " Extensions: VP-fronting and DP-reconstruction ( ) 2. SURVIVE () is a paraphrase of Stroik s (2009) version of Survive in (4): () The Survive Principle (TSP; paraphrase of (4)) If a node α is not feature compatible, move α to the next higher position projected by a new head γ. TSP resembles closely the principle of type driven interpretation (TDI; see (7)), which expresses the widely held view that certain covert movements are induced by the need to repair type incompatibilities: (7) Type driven interpretation (TDI) If a node α is not type compatible, move α to the next higher position type compatible with α. (8) α is type compatible, iff either (i) or (ii) holds for its sister node β: (i) ƒα 0D <τ, σ> and ƒβ 0D <τ> (Function Application) (ii) ƒα 0D <τ, t> and ƒβ 0D <τ, t> (Predicate Modification) (9) a. John read <e,et> every book <et,t> Y b. John every book <et,t> [ <et> λ5 [ vp, t read t 5... (QR driven by TDI; but see Kratzer 2004)

3 Lechner: Generalized Survive Difference 1: Specifiers are relevant for TDI only. For TSP, the escape strategy consists in movement to a position above the next head, while for TDI, movement must target a node of suitable type (s. (10)). (10) a. α type incompatible with β β 1 α <et,t> Y β <e,et> b. Merge specifier of β (= γ) β 2 γ e β 1 α <et,t> Y β <e,et> c. Move α to projection of β β n <e,t> α <et,t> λ5 β 2 t γ e β 1 <e,t> t 5, e β <e,et> Difference 2: TSP regulates contexts of feature incompatibility, while TDI resolves type mismatches. Asymmetry in definition of TSP and TDI: TSP triggers movement of α only if a new, higher, head is merged (γ in (11)a). By contrast, TDI expels type-incompatible nodes also from environments in which α is first-merged. The trigger for movement in (11)b is the local head β. (11) a. Insertion of new head γ triggers movement of α γ 2 α γ 1 L γ β 1 t α Y β b. Combining α with local, typeincompatible head induces movement of α β 1 α <et,t> Y β <e,et> Revision: (12) removes these three imbalances, resulting in a simpler model: feature incompatible nodes are pushed up the tree in smallest possible, incremental steps. (12) The Survive Principle (final version) For any nodes α, β and γ, such that (i) α is feature or type incompatible, (ii) β is the mother of γ, and (iii) γ c-commands α, remerge α with β. (1) Case I: Merging α with head γ induces movement of α α β t α γ Case II: Insertion of specifier or new head γ induces movement of α α β γ t α... º Not only new heads, but also local heads and specifiers trigger movement. º Movement is motivated by type as well as feature incompatibility. (on Halting Problem see below)

4 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart 4 (14) Hypothesis: TSP and TDI manifest the syntactic and the semantic side of a single, more fundamental principle, which expels semantically and/or syntactically incompatible categories from their local environment. Empirical consequence: (12) predicts intermediate landing sites of α (boxed in (15)). In this position (i) α itself is not interpretable, because α does not combine with a two-place relation, but (ii) the e-type trace of α is interpretable. (15) δ 2 t α <et,t> δ 1 <e,t> (Adjunction to vp, i.e. a proposition) λ... vp t... VP <e,t> t, e VP 2 <e,et> (Adjunction to VP, i.e. a property) λ5 VP 1 <e,t> t 5, e V <e,et> º Existence of this intermediate position is not predicted by TDI, but will be seen to be instrumental for deriving order preservation effects. (see 4). Interim summary: " Simplification of Survive: every merge operation pushes incompatible categories one node up in the tree. " (Partial) Unification of type driven interpretation and feature driven movement (modulo level of representation; see next section). (1) The Survive Principle qp higher head β 2 triggers movement of α qp (original version) specifier β 1 triggers movement of α qp (version (12)) α β triggers movement of α (version (12)) Next: " Model of the grammar (background assumption for analysis) " How does Survive treat multiple movements? " Survive at work: the analysis of scope restrictions

5 5 Lechner: Generalized Survive. SINGLE OUTPUT SYNTAX Component II of the analysis below is provided by the single output model (Bobaljik 1995; Pesetsky 1998; Nissenbaum 2000, a.o.). Extraposition bleeds disjoint reference effects (Taraldsen 1981): (17) a. *I showed him a book [that Sam wanted to read] yesterday b. I showed him a book t yesterday [that Sam wanted to read] Phonological theory of QR: Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) note that the combination of overt covert movement and Late Merge offers an explanation for Principle C obviation: (18) I showed him a book t yesterday [that Sam wanted to read] a. Overt covert movement of a book: I [ VP showed him a book] yesterday [a book] b. Late Merge of relative clause: I [ VP showed him a book] yesterday [a [book][that Sam wanted to read]] The analysis of 4 will be seen to provide qualitatively different support for the single output model. 4. SCOPE FREEZING IN DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS In the double object construction, indirect object (IO) and direct object (DO) do not permute in scope: (19) a. I gave a child each doll. œ/*œ (Bruening 2001, (2a)) b. The judges awarded a (#different) athlete every medal. *œ (ibid., (28c)) 4.1. PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS BRUENING (2001) Feature based analysis of scope freezing in double object constructions. Order preservation: DO may scope over the subject, indicating that DO is not subject to absolute constraint, but that IO and DO must move in order preserving way: (20) a. A (different) teacher gave me every book. œ (Bruening 2001, (28)) b. At least two judges awarded me every medal. œ at least two (21) Assumptions Attract (part I) a. QPs check Q-feature on v. b. Multiple movements to a single position result in tucking in (Richards 2001a, 2001b) Taken together, these two assumptions derive scope freezing for (19). IO is attracted by v first ((22)b), followed by movement of DO to a position below IO ((22)c):

6 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart (22) a. [ vp SUB v [Q] [ VP IO 2 [ DO ]]] b. [ vp IO 2 [ vp [ vp SUB [ VP t 2 [ DO ]]]]] c. [ vp IO 2 [ vp DO [ vp SUB [ VP t 2 [ t ]]]]] d. Mapping from base order to LF: 2 Y SAUERLAND (2000) Sauerland observes that the subject may scopally interfere inbetween IO and DO: (2) Two boys gave every girl a flower œ 2 (Sauerland 2000, (49)) (24) a. [ vp IO 2 [ vp SUB 1 [ vp DO [ vp t 1 [ VP t 2 [ t ]]]]] b. Mapping from base order to LF: 1 2 Y 2 1 º Order preservation is limited to the relation between IO and DO (21) Assumptions Attract (part II) c. Reconstructed subject in SpecvP and IO are equidistant from v. (25) a. [ vp SUB v [Q] [IO... b. [SUB 1 [IO 2 [ vp t 1 v [Q] [t 2... (move SUB, then move IO; tucking in) c. [IO 2 [SUB 2 [ vp t 1 v [Q] [t 2... (move IO, then move SUB; tucking in) º Either subject or IO may be attracted by v first, deriving orders SUB IO and IO SUB Complications: I. Reconstructed subject is interpretable in SpecvP. Why does it move? ± Q-feature is not semantically motivated for subjects. II. With objects, Q-features replicate the effects of TDI in syntax. ± Q-features overdetermine movement for objects III.Order preservation appears to be a more general property of purely type driven movements. For instance, NP-internal QPs display a strong tendency towards surface scope: (2) a. the discovery of two (#different) species by every biologist 2 œ/??œ 2 b. Two different species were discovered by every biologist 2 œ/œ 2 (27) a. the recommendation of a (#different) book by each teacher œ/??œ b. A different book was recommended by each teacher œ/œ (28) Conjecture: α and β permute in scope only if α has overtly moved across a copy of β. (Aoun & Li 199; Frey 199; additional conditions such as an appropriate version of Scope Economy may apply; Fox 2000) ± Subject moves overtly, hence permutes in scope with IO and DO (s.a. Hornstein 1995) ± IO and DO do not move overtly, and do therefore not permute in scope. º The observation that overt movement feeds scope supports single output model (s. below)

7 7 Lechner: Generalized Survive 4.2. SURVIVE AND MULTIPLE MOVEMENTS (12) The Survive Principle For any nodes α, β and γ, such that (i) α is feature or type incompatible, (ii β is the mother of γ, and (iii) γ c-commands α, remerge α with β. For expository reasons, it is convenient to distinguish between two types of multiple movements: " α and the first-merged trigger of γ move ± Trigger movement ( 4.2.1) " Two instances of α land below a single trigger ± Multiple target movement ( 4.2.2) TRIGGER MOVEMENT (LOW - HIGH SIGNATURE) In (29)a, α has been moved, and γ is first-merged above α. Moreover, both α and γ are feature incompatible in their local environment. TSP induces two (order preserving) movement steps: (29) a. β γ Y... α Y b. α moves across higher trigger α β γ Y... t I. c. Trigger γ moves across α (low - high signature) γ 1... α 2 β t 1... II. t 2 Halting problem: (12) does not prevent iteration, leading to endless regress. Conjecture: Movement tests new hypotheses about featural environments. For every context (tentatively: set of vocabulary items), every hypothesis is only tested once. Consequence: Derivation is halted in (29)c, because α has moved across γ and γ has moved across α MULTIPLE TARGET MOVEMENT (HIGH - LOW SIGNATURE) In the second type of multiple movement contexts, two feature incompatible nodes α 1 and α 2 land below - and move across - a single trigger. In these cases, the derivation must be instructed about two facts: " Landing site: Where do the two categories land? Answer: definition of TSP entails tucking in. " Order of movement: Which category moves first - higher or lower one? Determined by (0). (0) Assumption: Move the category that was last manipulated by the derivation first. (push down automaton with stack of one; Stroik 2009) (see analysis of (41)) Assuming that α 1 and α 2 have moved below trigger γ and α 1 has been merged last (see e.g. (29)c), the TSP induces the two movement operations in (1)a. (1)b repeats the corresponding trigger movement.

8 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart 8 (1) a. β MULTIPLE TARGET MOVEMENT α 1 was merged last,and α 1 β 2 therefore moves across the trigger γ first α 2 β 1 (high - low signature) I. γ t 1 b. TRIGGER MOVEMENT β γ 1 β 2 (low - high signature) α 2 β 1 II. t 1 II. t 2 I. t 2 Summary: two types of multiple movement " Both trigger movement and multiple target movement " Both movement types are order preserving. For trigger movement, this property directly falls out from TSP. For multiple target movement, it follows from conjunction of TSP and (0). " The movement types differ in the order in which the operations apply (low - high vs. high - low) 4.. SURVIVE AND SCOPE FREEZING In double object constructions, IO and DP are introduced by small clause HAVE. Moreover, the small cause [IO HAVE DO] serves as an argument of BECOME (simplified from Beck & Johnson 2004). (2) a. I gave a child each doll. œ/*œ (Bruening 2001, (2a)) b. I [ VP BECOME [ VP [a child] [HAVE [each doll]]] TSP analysis of scope freezing: DO moves across V (()a), followed by Merge of IO (()b). TSPinduced movements in ()c and ()d display low - high signature characteristic of trigger movement: () a. Merge V, move DO V DO V (= β) I. V (= γ) t c. Move DO across IO VP DO VP (= β) IO 2 (= γ) V t V 2 II. V t b. Merge IO VP IO 2 V DO V V t d. Move IO across DO VP (Trigger movement; low - high) IO 2 VP (= β) DO (= γ) VP t 2 V III. t

9 9 Lechner: Generalized Survive " (4) exposes the derivation of the vp without the subject. In (4)c, IO and DO are neighbors in a new environment, above v. Just like in ()b-d, this induces two movement steps (low - high signature): (4) a. vp v VP IO 2 VP DO... b. vp IO 2 vp (Multiple target movement; high - low) DO vp v VP I. t 2 VP II. t... c. vp IO 2 vp º IO is the node last manipulated by derivation DO vp (Trigger movement; low - high) IV. t 2 vp III. t vp v... " Next, the subject is merged ((5)a). As a result, IO and DO move across the subject in that order ((5)b&c). IO moves first, as it was merged last (s. (4)c). Crucially, both quantifiers are now for the first time located in type compatible positions, and TSP therefore ceases to force further displacement: (5) a. [ vp SUB 1 [ vp IO 2 [ vp DO v... b. [ vp IO [ vp SUB 1 [ vp t 2 [ vp DO v... c. [ vp IO 2 [ vp DO [ vp SUB 1 [ vp t 2 [ vp t v... " In a final series of movements, the subject is ejected from its base position due to feature incompatibility, moving in small steps up to T. The subject, which is interpretable in all these positions may now optionally reconstruct, deriving intermediate ((5)d) or narrow scope ((5)e): (5) d. [ vp IO 2 [ vp SUB 1 [ vp DO [ vp t 1 v... ± scope order 2 1 e. [ vp IO 2 [ vp DO [ vp SUB 1 v... ± scope order 2 1 º Survive derives scope freezing of IO-DO and scope flexibility of subjects. º Interaction of feature driven subject movement and type driven movement of objects supports single output model, in which conditions on overt and covert movement interact.

10 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart DP-PP FRAME Why is DP - PP frame ambiguous? () I showed a picture to every student œ/œ Base order is IO-DO and surface order derived by movement of DO across PP and verb raising (Aoun & Li 199; Pesetsky 1995). (7) a. I to every student 2 showed a picture (base order) b. I a picture to every student 2 showed t (move DO across IO) c. I showed a picture to every student 2 t V t (move verb) TSP-Analysis: In the initial steps, IO and DO move up to a position above the subject in order preserving way ((8)a-c). Then, in (8)d, DO moves across IO. Movement is Case driven, and lands into a higher functional projection XP. Since PP-DP inversion takes at a place in which both IO and DO are interpretable, DO may " scope above the IO, if it is interpreted in its surface position, or " scope below the IO, if DO reconstructs into the trace position above the subject (see 7). (8) a. Move DO, merge PP/IO VP PP VP 5 IO 2 DO VP V t c. Move IO and DO across subject vp IO 2 vp DO vp SUB 1 VP I. t 2 VP II. t b. Move DO, then eject IO (PP suppressed) VP IO 2 VP (low - high signature) DO VP II. t 2 VP I. t VP d. DO and verb move to XP XP DO XP DO IO (surface order) V vp IO 2 vp IO DO (reconstruction t 7 vp into t ) SUB 1 VP t V

11 11 Lechner: Generalized Survive 5. INVERSE LINKING Above, it was seen how TSP organizes multiple movements of nodes in c-command relation. The present section comments on contexts in which one incompatible node dominates the other. Inverse linking: In (9), every city is contained inside someone 2, but may take scope above its container (Inverse Linking). The subject must not scopally interfere between the inversely linked node every city and its container someone (Larson 1987; Sauerland 2000, 2005; s.a. Heim & Kratzer 1998: 24): (9) [ QP1 Two policemen spy on [ QP2 someone from [ QP every city]]] a. 2 œ (inverse linking, wide scope for subject) b. œ 2 (inverse linking, narrow scope for subject) c. *œ 2 (inverse linking, intermediate scope for subject) (40) If α moves across γ and α contains β, then α and β cannot be separated by γ. (see section for discussion) TSP- Analysis: every city is expelled from its base position inside someone as soon as object is assembled ((41)a; follows from cycle). Merging the subject induces movement of the object ((41)b): (41) a. Adjoin inversely linked every city to container someone someone 2 every city someone 2 from t b. Merge two policemen, move container someone vp 2 qp someone 2 vp 1 every city someone 2 two policemen 1 t 2 from t Movement as in (41)b induces two further movements. Observe that upon completion of (41)b, the subject is the category that was manipulated last (as opposed to every city), and therefore moves first: " First, merge of someone 2 (a value for γ) triggers movement of some policemen ((42)a). " Then, the inversely linked every city moves, attaching at the result of merging someone 2 with vp 1 ((42)b). In this case, vp 1 serves as trigger (γ) for movement of every city. (42) a. Move subject two policemen wo two policemen 1 vp 2 (= β) wo someone 2 (= γ) vp 1 every city someone 2 t 1 from t b. Move inversely linked every city ei 2 œ / œ 2 two policemen 1 vp (reconstruction) ei every city vp 2 (= β) wo someone 2 vp 1 (= γ) t someone 2 t 1 from t

12 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart 12 Closeness: Order of movements cannot be defined in terms of closeness. In (4)a, every city and two policemen 1 are both separated from the root by two nodes. An MLC based analysis therefore predicts that the derivation should also be able to proceed as in (4)b, deriving the unavailable order œ 2 : (4) a. Subsequent to movement of inversely linked QP (every city) vp qo someone 2 vp every city someone 2 two policemen 1 from t (Two policemen spy on someone from every city) b. Move subject to closest available landing site ei *œ 2 every city vp ei two policemen 1 vp qp someone 2 vp II. t someone 2 t 1 I. from t º Evidence for calculating order of operations in terms of derivational algorithm (0).. VP-FRONTING & DP-RECONSTRUCTION Larson s Inverse Linking examples manifest instance of covert remnant movement. In a single output model (phonological theory of QR), one is led to expect that similar locality effects also show up with overt remnant movement. Two contexts corroborate this conjecture: " Scope Freezing with VP-fronting " Locality condition on s-variable binding with syntactically reconstructed DPs. (44) Generalization: If δ contains ε, and δ moves across ζ, then δ and ε cannot be separated by ζ. (.If the container of ε moves, ε has to be bound by the closest potential binder.) (45) ζ δ ε Inverse Linking Predicate fronting DP-reconstruction δ: object QP (container) VP reconstructed DP ε: inversely linked QP object QP s-variable inside DP ζ: subject QP subject QP intensional operator.1. PREDICATE FRONTING Predicate fronting bleeds inverse scope readings (Barss 198; Huang 199; a.o.): (4)... and [ VP teach every student 2 ], noone 1 will œ / *œ Just as with Inverse Linking, Survive analysis generates a representation in which the object QP tucks in below the subject QP. This excludes the unattested wide scope reading for the object every student. (In the diagram below, β and γ are variables used by TSP, while δ, ε and ζ are recycled from (44)).

13 1 Lechner: Generalized Survive (47) a. Merge container (VP), move subject QP 1 wp noone 1 (ζ) vp 2 (β) ei VP 2 (γ, δ) vp 1 every student 2 (ε) VP 1 t 1 teach t 2...and [ VP teach every student], noone will b. Move object QP 2 ei œ/*œ noone 1 vp qp every student 2 vp 2 (= β) wo VP 2 vp 1 (= γ) t 2 VP 1 t 1 teach t 2 (48) In contexts affected by predicate fronting, the subject cannot reconstruct into its base position. (Barss 198; Sauerland & Elbourne 2002, a.o.) " Why can subject reconstruct into its base position (vp) in contexts of Inverse Linking, but not with Predicate Fronting? Although there is no direct answer, note that this falls under generalization (44). (44) If β contains α, and β moves across γ, then α and β cannot be separated by γ. " (49) provides the LF-skeleton of (4), subsequent to VP-reconstruction: (49) ei ei...and [ VP teach every student], noone will VP (δ)... ä? ei every student noone (ζ) ã Y VP (δ) â U every student (ε) In contexts that combine object QR with VP-fronting, object QR may proceed in three ways: â ã ä Short movement of object below subject: observes (44), licensing narrow object scope. Long movement of object across subject: violates (44), object variable not locally bound. ± Unattested object wide scope reading blocked. Short movement of object out of higher VP copy, lower copy is interpreted (Duke of York): incorrectly ruled in by (44). Mysterious, as DoY is attested in other contexts (Lechner 2009). Note that in both contexts, movement of δ imposes local binding requirement on ε within δ: (50) a. Inverse Linking: Movement of containing object (someone 2 ) blocks long nonlocal movement of inversely linked every city in (42). b. VP-Fronting: Movement of containing VP blocks long movement of object in (49). º Unified analysis of restrictions on Inverse Linking and VP-Fronting supports (44).

14 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart DP-RECONSTRUCTION " Opaqueness entails absence of syntactic reconstruction. Scope reconstruction obviates Principle C effect if restrictor is read de re (Romero 1997; Sharvit 1998): (51) How many students who like John 1 does he 1 think every professor talked to t 1? (52) How many students who hate Anton 1 does he 1 hope will buy him 1 a beer? *de dicto//de re (Sharvit 1998) ± Narrow scope de re reading is produced by Semantic Reconstruction (on SemR see Cresti 1995; Rullmann 1995) " Syntactic reconstruction entails opaque (de dicto) reading. (5) only has consistent interpretation, in which each other s height is read de dicto: (5) [Each others 1 s height] seemed to them 1 to exceed their actual height. /(consistent) de dicto /??(contradictory) de re ± Narrow scope de dicto reading is the result of syntactic reconstruction (Copy Theory). Analysis in terms of (44): DP (δ) moves, and contains situation variable s (ε). (44) entails that s cannot be bound across intensional operator (seem, ζ): (54) ei λ ei DP (δ)... ei s ä? (de re) seem (ζ) λ 2 λ 1 DP (δ) s (ε) ã Y (de re) â U (de dicto) ± Unattested de re reading for syntactically reconstructed DP blocked (44). (Again, Duke of York derivation in ä is mysterious.) º Unified analysis of restrictions on Inverse Linking, VP-Fronting and s-variable binding with DP-reconstruction supports (44) (Lechner 2009) TSP-Analysis: Assuming that s-variable binding is the result of silent pronoun movement (Percus 2000; Percus & Sauerland 200), derivation proceeds just as the derivation of VP-fronting and Inverse Linking.

15 15 Lechner: Generalized Survive 7. HOW DENSE ARE MOVEMENT PATHS? Punctuated paths: Abels (200) presents argument that movement paths are punctuated, not dense. (55) a. Which picture of himself 1 did it seem to John 1 that Mary liked? b. *Which picture of himself 1 did Mary seem to John 1 to like? In (55)a, but not in (55)b, fronted category passes through lower CP (5) a. Which picture of himself 1 did it seem to John 1 [ CP which picture of himself 1 that Mary liked] b. *Which picture of himself 1 did Mary seem [ TP to John 1 to like?] ÆÉÉÉÈÉÉÉÇ No intermediate landing site for which picture of himself 1 below John º Movement does not pass through every position along the movement path. Complication (Gereon Müller, quoted in Abels & Bentzen 2008): Assume movement passes through every intermediate landing site, as in (57). Even then (55)b can be excluded, as experiencer is closest binder: (57) *[Which picture of himself 1 ] did [ TP Mary 2 seem [ TP to John 1 [t Mary [t [ TP t Mary to like?] ÆÉÉÈÉÉÇ Mary is closest antecedent of intermediate trace t (= which picture of himself 1 ) " Abels & Bentzen 2008: anaphor binding is not determined by closeness (Barss & Lasnik 198): (58) a. Mary explained the man to himself. b. Mary explained the man to herself. " But closeness is relevant in raising contexts. (59) shows that the binder must not be separated from the reflexive by a subject trace: (59) *John 1 seems to Mary 2 [ TP t 1 to like a picture of herself 2 ] Conclusion: Müller s objection is valid. The argument against dense paths is not conclusive. SUMMARY Push chain model, implemented in terms of The Survive Principle, renders possible a unified view on feature and type driven movement processes. Survive Principle offers new strategy for analyzing conditions on covert movement, a.o. " Scope Freezing in double object constructions " Scope restrictions on Inverse Linking A simple algorithm derives order preservation effects. Survive analysis extends to scope freezing with VP-fronting and DP-reconstruction. Results support single output model. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

16 Roots Workshop, Stuttgart 1 I am indebted to Elena Anagnostopoulou, Mike Putnam and the audience of GLOW 2009, Nantes, for helpful discussion. Also, I would like to thank Klaus Abels for pointing out an inconsistency in an earlier version of one part of the analysis of scope freezing with double object constructions. REFERENCES Abels, Klaus Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut. Abels, Klaus and Kristine Bentzen Are movement paths punctuated or uniform? Ms. Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: Beck, Sigrid, and Johnson, Kyle Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 5.1: Bobaljik, Jonathan Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Bruening, Benjamin QR obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 2.2: Frey, Werner Syntaktische Bedingungen für die Interpretation.vol. vol. 5. Berlin: Studia Grammatica. Fox, Danny, and Nissenbaum, John Extraposition and Scope: A Case for overt QR. In WCCFL 18. Hornstein, Norbert Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell. Huang, C.-T. James Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: Johnson, Kyle, and Tomioka, Satoshi Lowering and Mid-Size Clauses. In Katz, Graham, Shin-sook Kim and Heike Winhart (eds.), Proceedings of the Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, pp Tübingen, Germany. Kratzer, Angelika The event argument. Ms., Umass/Amherst. Kayne, Richard Unambiguous paths. In Connectedness and binary branching, Dordrecht: Foris. Larson, Richard Quantifying into NP. Ms., MIT. Lechner, Winfried Criteria for diagnosing covert movement (and some remarks on the Duke of York). Talk presented at Diagnosing Syntax, January 29-1, 2009, Utrecht University/Leiden University. Handout available for download at Moro, Andrea Talk presented at Ling Lunch, MIT. Nissenbaum, Jon Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Percus, Orin Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8.: Percus, Orin, and Sauerland, Uli Pronoun Movement in Dream Reports. Ms., Univerity of Tübingen. Pesetsky, David Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge: MIT Press. Preminger, Omar (Im)perfect domains: yet another theory of syntactic movement. In Chang, Charles B. and Hannah J. Haynie (eds.)., Proceedings of 2th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Putnam, Michael T Scrambling and the Survive Principle. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Richards, Norvin. 2001a. Movement in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Norvin. 2001b. Featural Cyclicity and the Ordering of Multiple Specifiers. In Working Minimalism, eds. Samuel Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. van Riemsdijk, Henk Push chains and drag chains: Complex predicate split in Dutch. In Scrambling, ed. Shigeo Tonoike, 7-. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Sauerland, Uli Syntactic Economy and Quantifier Raising. Ms., University of Tübingen. Sauerland, Uli, and Elbourne, Paul Total Reconstruction, PF-Movement and Derivational Order. Ms. : Sauerland, Uli DP is not a scope island Linguistic Inquiry :0 14. Sharvit, Yael How-many Questions and Attitude Verbs. Ms. University of Pennsylvania. [Ms. out of circulation.] Stroik, Thomas The Survive Principle. Linguistic Analysis Stroik, Thomas Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambride, Mass: M.I.T. Press. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In Belletti, Adriana, Luigi Brandi and Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, pp Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.