ABSTRACT

Examples such as (1) illustrate weak crossover (WCO), originally discussed by Wasow (1979). Transformational analyses of WCO assumed that a violation ensues when a wh-phrase moves to the front of the sentence and "crosses over" a coindexed pronoun; in (1), "who" crosses over "his". Nontransformational accounts assume that such examples violate prominence requirements between the pronoun and the quantifier that binds it.

Bresnan (1996) shows that an operator, such as a quantifier or wh-phrase, cannot bind a pronoun that is more prominent than it. Under her account, prominence has three aspects: thematic, syntactic, and linear. Different aspects of prominence are relevant for different languages. Bresnan's theory of prominence accounts for examples like (1) by assuming the presence of a trace. We provide revised definitions of these three aspects of prominence that account for WCO without assuming traces. Our analysis is inspired by Sag's (1998) analysis of WCO in a framework without traces. His intuition is that the element containing the operator is the one relevant for determining linear order constraints on quantifier binding.

An operator O is more prominent than a pronoun P if and only if there are coargument f-structures CoargOp and CoargPro such that CoargOp contains O, CoargPro contains P, and:

Thematic Prominence: CoargOp outranks CoargPro on the thematic hierarchy.
Syntactic Prominence: CoargOp outranks CoargPro on the functional hierarchy.
Linear Prominence: CoargOp f-precedes P.

We define coarguments as the arguments and adjuncts of a single predicate. F-precedence is defined as in Zaenen and Kaplan (1995): F1 f-precedes F2 iff all c-structure nodes corresponding to F1 precede all nodes corresponding to F2. We claim that WCO can be analyzed in terms of these definitions of prominence without assuming traces. Consider WCO in German. Following Choi (1995), Bresnan (1996) shows that a quantifier or wh-phrase in German may not corefer with a pronoun that outranks it in both syntactic and linear prominence. As such, (2) and (3) are grammatical. In (2), CoargOp and CoargPro are bracketed, and the subject CoargOp outranks the object CoargPro in syntactic prominence (SUBJ outranks OBJ). In (3), CoargOp outranks the pronoun in linear prominence, but not syntactic prominence. Bresnan (1996) and Berman (2000) also predict that these examples are grammatical, since they assume there is no trace in scrambling and clause-internal topicalization in German. If the
pronoun outranks the quantifier in both syntactic and linear prominence, the sentence is ungrammatical. In (4), CoargOp is the object, and CoargPro is the subject. CoargOp does not f-precede the pronoun, and CoargOp does not outrank CoargPro syntactically.

In example (5), a long-distance dependency is involved, and the same rules of prominence apply. CoargOp is the sentential complement of meinte `said', and CoargPro is its subject. CoargOp does not outrank CoargPro in syntactic prominence, and CoargOp does not f-precede the pronoun; thus, the sentence is ungrammatical. Bresnan (1996) and Berman (2000) account for (5) by assuming that there is a trace of the fronted quantifier or wh-word in the subordinate clause which is outranked by the possessive pronoun in linear prominence.

In contrast, sentence (6) is grammatical. CoargOp is the fronted object of getroested `consoled', and CoargPro is the subject of the same verb. Although CoargOp does not outrank CoargPro syntactically, CoargOp f-precedes the pronoun, and the example is grammatical. Bresnan (1996) and Berman (2000) account for (6) by assuming that the trace in the subordinate clause appears in clause-initial position so that it outranks the pronoun in linear prominence.

In Malayalam, operators must outrank pronouns only in linear prominence; syntactic rank is not a factor. Kaplan and Zaenen's definition of f-precedence entails that a "null" pronoun, one that is realized only at f-structure, will vacuously f-precede and be f-preceded by every element in the sentence; thus, we predict that null pronominals do not give rise to WCO violations. Example (7) shows that this is correct. CoargOp f-precedes the null pronominal, and grammaticality results. In contrast, when an overt pronominal f-precedes CoargOp, the linear prominence condition is violated.

Thus, our new definition of linear prominence accounts for WCO without assuming traces, allowing a return to the earlier traceless LFG account of long-distance binding.

(1) *Who(i) do his(i) friends adore?

(2) dass [jeder] [seine Mutter] mag
that everyone-NOM his mother likes

dass [seine Mutter] [jeder] mag
that his mother everyone-NOM likes
`that everyone(i) likes his mother(i)'

(3) dass [jeden] [seine Mutter] mag
that everyone-ACC his mother likes
`that his(i) mother likes everyone(i)'

(4) *dass [seine Mutter] [jeden] mag
that his mother everyone-ACC likes
`that his(i) mother likes everyone(i)'

(5) *jeden/wen meinte [seine Mutter], [habe sie getroested]
everyone/who said his mother has she consoled
`Everyone(i), his(i) mother said that she consoled./
Who(i) did his(i) mother say that she consoled?'

(6) [jeden/wen] sagte sie, habe [seine Mutter] getroested
everyone/who said she has his mother consoled
`Everyone(i), she said that his(i) mother consoled./
Who(i) did she say that his(i) mother consoled?'

(7) [iNNale _ SakaaRicca sTriikaLe] iNNE [ooRoo kuTTiyum] sahaayiccu
*awaRe
yesterday 0/they scolded woman today each child helped
`Today each child(i) helped the woman who scolded them(i) yesterday.'

References:

Berman, Judith. 2000. Topics in the Clausal Syntax of German. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.
Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Linear order, syntactic rank, and empty categories: On weak crossover. Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional
Grammar, ed. by Dalrymple, Kaplan, Maxwell, and Zaenen. CSLI.
Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Morphology Competes with Syntax: Explaining Typological Variation in Weak Crossover Effects. Is the Best Good
Enough?, edited by Barbosa et al. MIT Press.
Choi, Hye-Won. 1995. Weak Crossover in Scrambling Languages. Paper presented at the 1995 LSA meeting.
Sag, Ivan A. 1998. Without a Trace. ms, Stanford University.
Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in Generative Grammar. E. Story.
Zaenen, Annie and Ronald M. Kaplan. 1995. Formal devices for linguistic generalizations: West Germanic word order in LFG. Linguistics and Computation. CSLI.