One of the most important results of syntactic inquiry has been a detailed empirical and, to some extent, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a wide array of superficially different phenomena. Therefore, any phenomena that appear to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction deserve scrutiny. This squib investigates an almost unremarked-upon phenomenon of just that type: apparent in situ mixed
One of the most important results of work in syntax has been a detailed empirical and, to some extent, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction. Thus, it is now known that arguments and adjuncts differ systematically along multiple dimensions:
(1) | a. | |
b. | ||
c. |
For many more argument/adjunct asymmetries, some seldom discussed, see Toivonen (
This squib investigates a phenomenon of just that type: apparent in situ mixed
Section 4 develops two analyses of ISMW: the
As is known, many overt-
(2) | a. | What and when did Mary eat? |
b. | When and what did Mary eat? |
This would be problematic for the argument/adjunct distinction if, in such mixed
Fortunately, though, a number of analyses of mixed
There is, however, another type of mixed
(3) | a. | Mary ate |
b. | Mary ate |
(4) | a. | Mary ate |
b. | Mary ate |
Of course, the adjunct
(5) | Mary ate |
Someone who wanted to deny that (5) involves (apparent) in situ mixed
(6) | [CP Mary ate |
But whatever the merits of (6) as a parse for (5), no analogous parse is available for (3-a). In (3-a),
(7) | Mary [[ate |
A defender of the CP-coordination-plus-sluicing analysis might argue that
(8) | [ConjP [ConjP [CP Mary ate |
However, replacing
(9) | Mary |
Sentence (3-a) therefore cannot have a structure along the lines of (6): its structure must be as in (7).
But this raises the question of how an argument and an adjunct
Before we analyze ISMW, it will be worth noting that ISMW also occurs in (at least) Kuria, Dholuo, Spanish, and German ((10)–(13)). This indicates that ISMW (along with the apparent problem it poses for the argument/adjunct distinction) is not an English-specific quirk, but a phenomenon of much broader crosslinguistic import.
(10)
John
John
aragire
eats
nke
what
na
and
ake?
where
‘What and where does John eat?’
(11)
John
John
chamo
eats
ang’o
what
kod
and
kanye?
where
‘What and where does John eat?’
(12)
María
Mary
bebió
drank
{
{what
y
and
when
/
/
%
when
y
and
what}
para
for
impresionar
to.impress
a
Juan?!
John
‘Mary drank {
(13)
Marie
Mary
hat
has
{
{what
und
and
when
/
/
when
und
and
what}
gegessen?!
eaten
‘Mary ate {
We can now ask how ISMW sentences are derived—and, in particular, why they seem to allow coordination of argument and adjunct
(14) | Mary ate |
Two possible analyses of ISMW are the following:
(15) | a. | |
b. |
The relevant (partial) derivations follow:
(16)
Partial derivation of (14):
(17)
Partial derivation of (14): VP-Coordination Analysis
All else being equal, the VP-Coordination Analysis predicts that there should be free apparent in situ argument/adjunct coordination with non-
(18) | *Mary ate oysters and at strange times. |
But all else is not equal. Grosu (
(19) | a. | Mary ate only oysters and only at strange times. |
b. | Mary ate the most exotic oysters and at the strangest times. |
The source of this constraint deserves further investigation.
Now, with the
The VP-Coordination Analysis, but not the
On the VP-Coordination Analysis (17),
Viewed against the background of the argument/adjunct distinction, the
Given the robustness of the argument/adjunct distinction and its near-centrality to the theory of syntax, these considerations indicate that the VP-Coordination Analysis is conceptually preferable to the
Furthermore, as a reviewer notes, the derivation in (17) is quite unremarkable in the current theoretical context. All else being equal, we expect it to be available: it would take something special to rule it out.
The next subsection shows that the VP-Coordination Analysis is also superior empirically.
We now turn to some empirical predictions of the VP- and
For convenience, the sample ISMW sentence in (3-a) is repeated in (20), and the structures assigned to it by the
(20) | Mary ate |
(21)
Partial derivation of (20):
(22)
Partial derivation of (20): VP-Coordination Analysis
The
(23) | a. | |
b. |
The subprediction in (23-b) is straightforward. If
That the
It turns out, however, that obligatorily transitive verbs are impossible in ISMW:
(24) | a. | *Mary devoured |
b. | **Mary devoured |
(25) | a. | *Mary congratulated |
b. | **Mary congratulated |
This provides an argument for the VP- and against the
The
(26) | a. | |
b. |
Consider why. On the
On the VP-Coordination Analysis, by contrast, the conjuncts in ISMW are VPs. Therefore, an adverb immediately following the first
The correct prediction, it turns out, is (26-b). Thus, the adverb
(27) | a. | MMary ate |
b. | MMary ate |
But it cannot immediately follow
(28) | What (*greedily) (and {when/where}) did Mary eat to impress John? |
The same holds in the corresponding embedded questions (where, as in (27), the linearly first
(29) | I wonder what (*greedily) (and {when/where}) Mary ate to impress John. |
Likewise,
(30) | a. | MMary spoke |
b. | MMary spoke |
But it cannot immediately follow
(31) | a. | With whom (*publicly) (and {when/where}) did Mary speak to annoy John? |
b. | I wonder with whom (*publicly) (and {when/where}) Mary spoke to annoy John. |
In the examples discussed so far in this subsection, the first
(32) | a. | MMary spoke |
b. | MMary spoke |
But it cannot immediately follow
(33) | a. | {When/Where} (*publicly) (and with whom) did Mary speak to annoy John? |
b. | I wonder {when/where} (*publicly) (and with whom) Mary spoke to annoy John. |
The distribution of adverbs in ISMWs, then, provides a second argument for the VP- and against the
The discussion so far has focused on apparent in situ coordination of argument and adjunct
(34) | a. | |
b. |
On the
On the VP-Coordination Analysis, by contrast, the conjuncts are VPs. Therefore, if the V that undergoes across-the-board head movement is one that can assign more than one type of
One such V is
(35) | Mary served { |
( |
Significantly, apparent in situ coordination of these two types of objects of
(36) | MMary served { |
Two more examples of apparent in situ coordination of argument
(37) | a. | Mary spoke |
b. | Mary spoke |
Sentences like (36)–(37) provide a third argument for the VP- and against the
This squib has examined the almost uninvestigated phenomenon of apparent in situ mixed
The VP-Coordination Analysis is also superior empirically, judging by evidence involving (a) obligatorily transitive verbs, (b) adverb insertion, and (c) apparent in situ coordination of argument
There are apparent cases of obligatory adjuncts (
For formal definitions of Adjoin and Merge that account for some of these argument/adjunct asymmetries, see Merchant (
On their analysis,
Citko (
(i)
(judgment from
*Who ate what and where on Monday?
For me, (i) is acceptable, though semantically complex, a possible answer being
For one reviewer, ISMW in echo questions is particularly acceptable “when their echo nature is primed”:
(ii)
You said that Mary ate
Two other conceivable analyses of (i) (= (3-a)) are easily dismissed.
(i)
Mary ate
First, (i) could be a variant of (ii) (involving CP-coordination with sluicing) in which
(ii)
Mary ate
This analysis, though plausible for (iii), fails for (i), in which
(iii)
Mary ate
Secondly, (i) could involve CP-coordination, with multidomination of everything except
Mandarin lacks ISMW, however (
Examples (10)–(11) unfortunately lack a clause-final adjunct (e.g., ‘to impress Mary’), so they may involve CP-coordination with sluicing (cf. (6)) rather than true ISMW.
No clause-final adjunct is included here, since the clause-finality of V rules out a CP-coordination-plus-sluicing derivation.
The VP-Coordination Analysis is briefly proposed by Zhang (
(i)
Grosu (
John writes only funny letters and only to funny people.
This squib extends the VP-Coordination Analysis to ISMW, arguing for it and against the
Coordinate structures are assumed here for concreteness to be ConjPs (
Furthermore, on the ConjP analysis of coordinate structures,
One might wonder whether the
(i)
… [VP [V(P) eat] [ConjP what and when]]
Unfortunately, (i) suffers from a problem that is approximately the mirror image of the problem with (16). The treatment of
(ii)
Mary ate steak (*
And crucially, a phrase (e.g.,
(iii)
a.
Let’s discuss
b.
*Let’s discuss it
c.
Let’s discuss it in the {morning/afternoon}.
d.
*Let’s discuss it
These sentences must be read in a prosodically integrated manner. Unlike (24-a), (i) is acceptable:
(i)
Mary devoured
But (i) is presumably a variant of (ii) (which involves CP-coordination plus sluicing) in which
(ii)
Mary devoured
Presumably the (b)-sentences in (24)–(25) are even worse than the (a)-sentences because the (a)-sentences at least contain locally well-formed strings like
The VP-Coordination Analysis also predicts, correctly, that ISMW should allow double-object verbs whose objects are both optional:
(i)
Mary paid him
Sentences like (27a–b) are slightly marked (M). In the default version of, e.g., (27-a), the adverb follows both conjuncts:
(i)
Mary ate
Crucially, though, there is a sharp contrast between (27a–b) and the unacceptable versions of (28). Of 13 native speakers consulted, 12 judged *
On the VP-Coordination Analysis, the adverbs in ISMWs like (27a–b) are VP-adjoined. Therefore, only low adverbs (e.g.,
(i)
Mary ate
This is true (barring stipulative additional assumptions) both on traditional
Kasai (
Thanks to the reviewers for valuable feedback, and to numerous colleagues for Spanish and German help. The usual disclaimers apply.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-1339067. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
The author has no competing interests to declare.