Abstract
It is well known that sometimes moved phrases are interpreted in the position that they originate from. This phenomenon is known as Scope Reconstruction. There are two main approaches to account for this. The first, known as Syntactic Reconstruction (SynR), assumes that the “reconstructed” phrase is moved back at Logical Form (LF), and the usual semantics applies. The second, known as Semantic Reconstruction (SemR), assumes that the reconstructed phrase is interpreted in the higher position, but that its trace is type shifted to a higher type, giving a “lowered” interpretation. The argument for SynR comes from the fact that in many languages (like English), patterns of anaphora involving moved phrases (wh-movement as well as raising) that are interpreted at a lower position can be explained if one assumes that the moved phrase is lowered in the syntax of LF, where Binding principles apply. In this squib, I consider data from Hindi that involve NPI licensing under scrambling that are problematic for an account based on SynR, as the expected violations of Principle A and Principle C that form the major argument for SynR, do not arise. This leads to the conclusion that SemR must sometimes be allowed in cases of Scope Reconstruction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Under standard assumptions, it is unclear why the adjunct-argument distinction should matter in the first place in scope reconstruction anyway. The standard argument for late merger of adjuncts involves wh-movement, like the contrast between (a) “Guess which argument that supports John’s theory he adopted” and (b) “??Guess which argument that John’s theory is correct he adopted”. On the copy theory of movement, for example, the copy that is eventually deleted phonologically would be the one violating Principle C in both cases if there was no late merger. The standard account is that the relative clause is not present in (a) before wh-movement, and so the copy that gets deleted in the phonology is simply which argument, thus not violating Principle C. The relative clause gets merged late, i.e., after wh-movement. This option is not available with the nominal complement clause in (b), which cannot be merged late, and thus the oddity of (b), taken to be a violation of Principle C. However, in the scope reconstruction cases, the relative clauses have to be present at LF (simply in order to be interpreted) and if binding principles apply at LF, a principle C violation must result. Trying to get an argument-adjunct distinction in the scope reconstruction cases would require late merger of adjuncts after covert movement, and not just overt movement. For discussion and other independent arguments against allowing late merger after covert movement, see Fox (2003).
- 2.
The object of the verb kah- “tell” is marked with the instrumental in the western dialects of Hindi.
- 3.
While I do not discuss the relevant examples in the main body of the paper, I should note that a reciprocal inside a scrambled NPI can also be bound by a NP/DP in the embedded clause that the NPI scrambled out of: thus in example (28), ek duusre “each other” can also be bound by un logoN “those people-obl.” This means that if one sticks to the simplest semantics for reciprocals and reflexives, syntactic reconstruction is also allowed in Hindi. Alternatively, one can assume a more complex semantics for these items (as would be assumed in the Jacobson works referred to in the text) and just stick to a semantic reconstruction account for these cases as well: this well requires a very different binding theory. Alternatively, one could mimic the semantics of reciprocals via appropriately typed interpretations of traces of the reciprocal operators in the embedded clause, which would obviate the need for syntactic reconstruction at all for these readings.
References
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Veneeta Dayal. 2007. Rightward scrambling as rightward remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 287–301.
Bittner, Maria. 1994. Cross-linguistic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 53–108.
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3: 79–122.
Fox, Danny. 2003. On logical form. In Minimalist Syntax, ed. Randall Hendricks. London: Routledge.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 2004. Condition A and scope reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 475–485.
Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 77–155.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Toward a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184.
Karttunen, Lauri, and Stanley Peters. 1977. Conventional implicature. In Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. C.K. Oh, and D.A. Dineen. New York: Academic Press.
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2000. XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–258.
Kumar, Rajesh. 2006. The Syntax of Negation and the Licensing of Negative Polarity Items in Hindi. London: Routledge.
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–125.
Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in Wh-phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.
Rooth, Matts. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst.
Rullmann, Hotze. 1993. Scope ambiguities in how many-questions. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America meeting, 1993.
Sauerland, Uli, and Paul Elbourne. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.
Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Connectivity in specificational sentences. Natural Language Semantics 7: 299–339.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lahiri, U. (2017). Binding Theory, Scope Reconstruction, and NPI Licensing Under Scrambling in Hindi. In: Sengupta, G., Sircar, S., Raman, M., Balusu, R. (eds) Perspectives on the Architecture and Acquisition of Syntax. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4294-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4295-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)