CP-modifying reduced parenthetical clauses

1. CP-modifying reduced parenthetical clauses James Griffiths CLCG, Groningen j.e.griffiths@rug.nl Part of the Incomplete Parenthesis projectERC INCPAR 263836 

2. Background – what are RPCs? • Reduced parenthetical clause (RPC) (Fortmann 2007, Schneider 2007) • Host clause • (1)a)John will,it seems, be late. • b) John will, I’m told, be late.c) John will, he says, be late. d) John will, I’m afraid to say, be late. e) John will, I am led to believe, be late. f) John will, the newspapers and T.V. reports allege, be late.

3. An overview • Background • Relevant syntactic properties of RPCs: • Syntactic independence from host clause • Linked to host clause via a covert host-denoting element • Corver & Thiersch (C&T) (2001) • RPCs display cross-categorical attachment (to CP, DP, PP, AP, etc.) • Problems with C&T’s approach • My claim • RPCs always modify CPs • Fragment answers to which RPCs attach are actually elided CPs • Conclusion

4. Background – syntactic properties of RPCs • No c-command relations pertain between host clause and RPC • (Emonds 1979, Safir 1986, Haegeman 1991, Burton-Roberts 2006, De Vries 2007) • (2) a) * Who1 did John will, t1 says, be late? (No movement) • b) * Nobodyi was, hei claimed, the dumbest guy in the room. (No Q-binding) • c) * John willi, himselfi claims, be late. (Condition A) • d) Hei will, Johni thought to himselfi, be late. (Condition C) • e) Will I, John asked himself, be late? (independent force) • f) John might, I reckon, be late. (independent mood) 4

5. Background – syntactic properties of RPCs • RPCs are independent clauses linked to their host by an empty category • Empty proposition-denoting pronominal (Reis 1995, Fortmann 2007) • (3) Theo kam,so sagt{es/epro} Paul, mitseinemHund. Theo came, so says {it/epro} Paul, with his dog. • Host-denoting operator (Corver & Thiersch 2001, De Vries 2006, Collins & Branigan1997, Schelfhout, Coppen & Oostdijk2004) • (4) [Bob is, [CP Op1 [vermoed2 [TP ik t2t1]]], een echtecharmeur]1. • “Bob is, I suspect, a real charmer.” • NB – operator analysis is more plausible, as operator movement is island sensitive • (5) * John will, [Op1 I heard [Island the rumour that Mary had spread t1]], be late. 5

6. Corver & Thiersch (C&T) (2001) • RPCs display cross-categorical attachment • The host-denoting operator within the RPC may denote CPs, APs, PPs, DPs, etc. • This is based on evidence from two construction types: • (6) fragment answers A: Where is my book? B: On the table, I think. • (7) Constituent modification • a) conjunct modification The road is closed between Amsterdam and [(I think) Groningen (I think)]. • b) clefted constituent modification It was [(I think) John (I think)] that kissed Mary.

7. Corver & Thiersch (C&T) (2001) C&T (2001:14): Thus, the analysis of (6) in (8) is ruled out because of the existence of the constructions in (7). (8) A: Where is my book? B: [[CP [On the table]1 [TPyour book is t1]]2[CP Op2 I think t2]] Consequence of C&T (2001): RPC constructions, regardless of whether CP-modifying or DP/PP/AP-modifying, should exhibit the same properties. “one might object that in [(6)] the [RPC] is not attached to PP, DP, etc., but rather to an entire clause which is elided… this way, one could restrict attachment of [RPCs] to clausal constituents. As seen in [(7)], however, there are structural contexts in which such an ellipted reading is not possible and which therefore strongly suggest that [RPCs] can take various phrasal categories as their host.”

8. Problems with C&T (2001) • RPC verbs (think, guess, estimate, suppose, etc.) usually select for only CPs. • (ii) Constituent modifying RPCs pattern dissimilarly with fragment answer and CP modifying RPCs w.r.t.: • Licensing ‘so’ (the overt realization of the RPC operator) • (Corver & Thiersch 2001, De Vries 2006, Van Maastricht 2011) • (9) a) The band will be on around nine, (so) they say. • b) A: What time will the band be on? • B: Around nine, (so) they say. • c) The road is closed between [((*so) they say) Amsterdam ((*so) they say)]and Groningen.

9. Problemswith C&T (2001) • Complementizer distribution in Spanish • (10) Los estudiantes de Sarriko, y creo *(que) los de Leioa, haránunasentadaenfrentedel rectorado • the students of Sarriko, and I.think that the of Leioawill.make a sit-down in.frontof.thepresident’s.office • ‘The students of Sarriko and I think the Leioa will have in sit-in in front of the president’s office.’ • (Vicente 2011) • (11) Mariácompró un cóche nuevo, creo yo (*que) • Mariábought a car new, think I that • ‘Mary bought I car, I think.’ • (12) A: Con quiénhablaba Pedro ? • with whom was.talking Pete. • ‘With whom was Pete talking?’ • B: Con María, creoyo (*que) • with María, think I that • ‘With Mary, I think.’ • (Luis Vicente, p.c.)

10. Interim summary • Problems with C&T (2001) • (i) RPC verbs usually select for CPs • (ii) Constituent modifying RPCs pattern dissimilarly to fragment answer and CP-modifying RPCs w.r.t: • ‘so’ licensing • complementizer licensing in Spanish • My claim • Separate analyses of fragment answer and constituent modifying RPCs are required to account for the observed differences between them. • Consequence of this claim • A clausal ellipsis account of fragment answer RPCs is once again viable. • The remainder of this talk: • Provide some arguments for adopting a clausal ellipsis account of fragment answer RPCs • Left for future investigation: constituent modifying RPCs • How can we reconcile the fact that RPC verbs usually select for CPs with the observation that constituent modifying RPCs appear able to modify DPs, PPs, APs, etc.?

11. Strong island (in)sensitivity in fragments • Contrast in fragment answers • (13) relative clause island • a) A: I heard that John speaks the same Balkan language that someone in your syntax class speaks. • B: Yeah, Bill. • b) A: I heard that John speaks the same Balkan language that Bill speaks. • * B: No, Mary. • B’: No, the same Balkan language that Mary speaks. • (14) Conjunct island • a) A: I heard that John and someone you know are coming to the party tonight. • B: Yeah, Bill. • b) A: I heard that John and Bill are coming to the party tonight. • * B: No, Mary. • B’: No, John and Mary. 11

12. Strong island (in)sensitivity in F.A. RPCs (15) relative clause island a) A: I heard that John speaks the same Balkan language that someone in your syntax class speaks. B: Yeah, Bill, I reckon. b) A: I heard that John speaks the same Balkan language that Bill speaks. * B: No, Mary, I reckon. B’: No, the same Balkan language that Maryspeaks, I reckon. (16) Conjunct island a) A: I heard that John and someone you know are coming to the party tonight. B: Yeah, Bill, I’m told. b) A: I heard that John and Bill are coming to the party tonight. * B: No, Mary, I’m told. B’: No, John and Mary, I’m told. 12

13. Unfrontable remnants • Remnant-fronting + TP-ellipsis account of fragment answers is supported by observations from ‘unfrontable remnants’ • (17) A: What didn't he expect? B: [*(That)] John would come, he didn't expect. (Breul 2004:182, Haegeman & Guéron 1999:99) • (18) A: What didn't he expect? B: [[[*(That)] John would come]1 [TPhe didn’t expect t1]] • (19) A: What didn’t he expect? B: [*(That)] John would come, one assumes. 13

14. Host-finalRPCs • C&T on host-final RPCs: • (20) A: Wieheefthier ‘t meestverstand van? Who has here the most knowledge of? ‘Who has most knowledge of this?’ • B: Ikdenkzij. * B: denkikzij. • Problem: “obligatory inversion of the subject and the finite verb is characteristic of clausal structures involving A-movement of an operator to SpecCP, e.g. [in the case of] movement of [+wh] direct objects.”(C&T 2001:5) • C&T posit a sui generis element in (20B) dubbed ‘pro_zo’: • (21) [Ikdenkpro_zoi][ziji] • Sui generis because: • Non-factive verbs don’t select for regular pro • Regular pro is not licensed in a direct object position in Dutch 14

15. Host-finalRPCs On the ‘remnant-fronting + TP-ellipsis analysis’, host-final RPCs can be accounted for without any sui generis pro_zo (22) A: Wieheefthier ‘t meestverstand van? Who has here the most knowledge of? ‘Who has most knowledge of this?’ B: [CPIkdenk[CP [zij]1 [TPt1heeft ‘t meestverstand van]]. (for an in-depth discussion of embedded fragment answers in Dutch, see Temmerman 2011) 15

16. Conclusion • Evidence from licensing of ‘so’ and the complementizer in Spanish suggest that constituent modifying RPCs are different constructions than fragment answer and regular CP-modifying RPCs • Evidence from island (in)sensitivity and unfrontable remnant distribution favours a ‘clausal ellipsis’ approach to fragment answer RPCs. • If constituent modifying RPCs can be provided a ‘clausal’ analysis (something for future research), then one can say that all RPCs are CP-modifiers. 16

17. References Breul, C. 2004. Focus structure in generative grammar: an integrated syntactic, semantic, and intonational approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Burton-Roberts, N. 2006. Parentheticals. In K. Brown et al. (eds.) Encyclopaediaof Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.), 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Collins, C. & P. Branigan. 1997. Quotative Inversion. NLLT 15, 1-41 Corver, N. & Thiersch, C. 2001.Remarks on parentheticals. In van Oostendorp, M. & Anagnostopoulou E. (eds.) Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg. Utrecht: Roquade. Drübig, H.B. 1994. Islands Constraints and the Nature of Focus and Association with Focus, Technical Report, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschunsbereichs, 340, IMS Stuttgart. Emonds, J. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 211–243. Fortmann, C. 2007. The complement of reduced parentheticals. In Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (eds.) Parentheticals. pp. 89-120. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Griffiths, J. & Lipták, A. 2012. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. To appear in Syntax. Haegeman, L. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In S. Chiba et al. (eds)Aspects of Linguistics. Papers Presented to MasamotoUkaji on his 60th Birthday, 232–254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford & Malden (MA): Blackwell Modern English Krifka, M. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Molnar, M. and Winkler, S.The Architecture of Focus, 105-136, Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. van Maastricht. 2011. Reporting and Comment Clauses: A cross-linguistic study. MA thesis, University of Groningen. Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 1. Oxford: OUP. Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661-738. Reis, M. 1995. Wer glaubst du hat recht? On so-called extractions from verb-second clauses and verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache und Pragmatik36: 27–83. Safir, K. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 663–690 Schelfhout, C., P.-A. Coppen & N. Oostdijk 2004. Finite comment clauses in Dutch: a corpus-based approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16, 331-349 Schneider, S. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages: A pragmatic typology. In Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (eds.) Parentheticals. pp. 237-260. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Temmermann, T. 2011. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers. On the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. To appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Vicente, L. 2011. Horn Amalgams & Collins conjunctions. Presented at The quirky ellipsis workshop, Groningen, 15/11/11 de Vries, M. 2006. Reported Direct Speech in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23, 212-223 de Vries, M. 2007. Invisible Constituents? Parentheses as B-Merged Adverbial Phrases. In Parentheticals, ed. by Nicole Dehé & YordankaKavalova, 203-234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17

18. Appendix 1:Strong island (in)sensitivity in fragments • Griffiths & Lipták (to appear): • Fragment answers = remnant-fronting + TP-deletion at PF (Merchant 2001, 2004) • Parallelism must pertain at PF between question and fragment answer • Contrastive focus is island-sensitive (Drubig 1994, Krifka 2006) • Non-contrastive remnant extraction from a relative clause: • (23) A: I heard that John speaks the same B.L. that someone in your syntax class speaks. • B: Yeah, [CP [Bill]1 [TP John speaks the same B.L. that t1 speaks]]. • LF representation • A: [someone in your syntax class1λx([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) • B: [Bill1λx([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) 18

19. Appendix 1:Strong island (in)sensitivity in fragments • Contrastive focus LF movement is island-sensitive • A contrastively-focused element must pied-pipe its containing island to the relevant scope position • (24) John only introduced the man that Jilladmires to Sue. a) (LF) John only [[the man that Jill admires]1λx ([vP introduced x1])] to Sue. b) (LF) # John only [Jill1λx ([vP introduced the man that x1 admires])] to Sue. • (Krifka 2006) • Contrastive remnant extraction from a relative clause: • (25) A: I heard that John speaks the same B.L. that Maryspeaks. • * B: No, [CP [Bill]1 [TP John speaks the same B.L. that t1 speaks]]. • B’: No, [CP[the same B.L. that Bill speaks]1[TP John speaks t1]]. • LF representation • A: [the same B.L. that Mary speaks1λx ([TP John speaks x1]) • * B: [Bill1λx ([TP John speaks the same B.L. that x1 speaks]) • B’: [the same B.L. that Billspeaks1λx ([TP John speaks x1]) 19