Abstract
Fox (2000) argues that a single principle, Rule H, can account for (i) Strong Crossover, (ii) the ban on using co-binding to sneak around Condition B, and (iii) the Dahl paradigm. The focus of this paper is Fox’s analysis of the Dahl paradigm. Though elegant and appealing, the analysis faces both conceptual and empirical problems. On the conceptual side, the analysis assumes that a bound pronoun within an elided VP must be bound in a structurally parallel configuration to its counterpart in the antecedent VP. This requirement does not follow from independently-motivated constraints on VP ellipsis. On the empirical side, Roelofsen (2011) has turned up additional ellipsis phenomena that do not pattern as Fox’s analysis predicts. I will argue that a relatively minor modification to Fox’s analysis suffices to solve both the conceptual and empirical problems. Taking inspiration from Kehler & Büring (2008), I increase the domain of application of Rule H to include syntactic structures which underlie Focus Semantic Values, so that Rule H acts as a filter on Focus Semantic Values. The only relevant constraint on VP ellipsis is an independently-motivated Rooth-style contrast constraint.
Highlights
DrummondGlossa: a journal ofFox (1998; 2000: 113–137) introduces Rule H, which requires that bound pronouns be bound as locally as possible
The revised definition of Focus Semantic Values (FSVs) is as follows: (22) Strict Focus Semantic Value (SFSV) The SFSV of a constituent φ for an assignment g, written SFSVg(φ), is the set of ⟦φ′⟧g such that φ′ does not violate Rule H for g, and φ′ can be obtained from φ by replacing its focused subconstituents with constituents of the same semantic type
The requirement that the members of a constituent’s Focus Semantic Value derive from structures that have maximally local binding has the consequence that there are certain configurations where Parallelism is satisfied and yet Rooth-Style Contrast Constraint (RSCC)+SFSV is violated
Summary
Fox (1998; 2000: 113–137) introduces Rule H, which requires that bound pronouns be bound as locally as possible. (iii) The Dahl paradigm (Dahl 1973, 1974), and a number of related restrictions on the interpretation of pronouns in elided VPs. The focus of this paper is Fox’s analysis of class (iii) phenomena in terms of Rule H. The focus of this paper is Fox’s analysis of class (iii) phenomena in terms of Rule H The key component of my analysis is the hypothesis that Rule H acts as a filter on Focus Semantic Values (FSVs) Given this hypothesis, Parallelism can be replaced by an independently-motivated contrast constraint on VP ellipsis of the type proposed in Rooth (1992). This movement may be QR, or A-movement from the VP-internal subject position to Spec,TP
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
