qu: reconstruction effects

[Florian Jaeger]

Hi Ash, Joan, list members,

thx for your feedback (my earlier reply to Joan only went to her since I
didn't see that the list was cc-ed). Your answers confirm that
reconstruction is not an issue for LFG (or rather: argues nicely for LFG).
I wanted to know whether this (the fact that reconstruction falls out of
structure sharing) has already been use as an argument in the literature
and I take Joan's reply to mean that this is the case (darn ;-).

However, since structure sharing is the norm, I was next wondering about
those cases that - within the GB/MP - literature have been taken to argue
against 'reconstruction': Reinhart's 1990 argues, as I infer from Cheng
1997:182, that the semantics/scope of wh-elements can only be correctly
accounted for if one does NOT assume reconstruction. If "picture of
himself" is reconstructed in (1) than the restrictor of the wh-operator is
empty and the wh-operator thus quantifies over anything/the whole universe.

(1) Which picture of himself does Hank like?

Again, the LFG story seems to be rather straight-forward since rather than
reconstructing or not (an either-or situation) LFG has structure sharing (a
take-both situation). I am interested in LFG literature that discusses both
aspects of 'reconstruction' (i.e. the argument why one needs it and the
argument by Reinhart arguing that reconstruction makes the wrong
predictions for the semantics of questions) in some detail. For the first
part of the story (and maybe the second part as well?) I will have a look
at your work and the earlier work that Joan referred to. Thank you again,

Florian

>Hi Florian, Joan and list members
>
>I don't know of any recent LFG work on reconstruction in picture NPs in
>particular, but I talk about reconstruction with respect to relational
>noun binding in LFG in a recent paper that's available from my website
>("The resumptive puzzle of relational nouns"). The discussion is on page
>28ff.
>
>Also, in my thesis I discuss reconstruction in the final section of
>chapter 3, in section 5.1.5.1 of chapter 5, and in section 6.2.7 of
>chapter 6. The thesis is not generally available yet, but the final
>version will be posted at my website by the end of the month.
>
>In chapter 5 I also make the point that Joan makes below, namely that
>"reconstruction" is a consequence of structure-sharing. Interestingly,
>there are reconstruction-like effects for resumptive pronouns in Swedish
>questions that are absent in corresponding relative clauses.
>
>Ash
>
>On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Joan Bresnan wrote:
>
> > See Bresnan 2001, Ch. 13 and particularly the historical note on
> > p. 301.  Picture nouns are not discussed there, but gerundive and AP
> phrases
> > are.  In a nutshell, the structure-sharing of lfg extractions already
> > entails what are now called "reconstruction effects", as was already
> > noted in 1980.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > are there any recent LFG accounts on binding in picture NPs or did that
> > > get
> > > out of focus/grammar? Here an example:
> > >
> > > (1) Peter saw a picture of himself/him.
> > > (2) Peter saw Mary's [who else] picture of himself/him.
> > >
> > > (no judgments intended; though Keller & Asudeh clearly show that (1) is
> > > ok/* and (2) is ok/ok)
> > >
> > > I am aware of Asudeh, Keller, Runner et al. on the
> > > experimental/theoretical
> > > side and Dalrymple's discussion in her '93 book (I couldn't find anything
> > > about it in the 2001 book; neither did I see anything about picture
> NPs in
> > > Bresnan 2001).
> > >
> > > I am especially interested in any discussion of reconstruction
> effects, as
> > > in the examples below (we probably won't find reconstruction IN LFG =),
> > > but
> > > maybe discussion of it?):*
> > >
> > > (3) Which picture of himself/him did Peter buy?
> > >
> > > Some people have argued that the acceptability of an anaphor
> (confirmed by
> > > an experiment I finished) in (3) is due to reconstruction of the fronted
> > > wh-phrase in LF. This raises other problems (movement is not compatible
> > > with certain order effects in which-phrases, Pesetsky 1982, but there are
> > > problems with the interpretation of which-phrases if not moved, Reinhart
> > > 1990, etc.). So, some people have suggested something that allows
> > > anaphoric
> > > chains to be accessible to binding (e.g. Barss 1986, as cited by Cheng
> > > 1997). In other words, the whole story isn't that beautiful.
> > >
> > > Thx a lot for your attention,
> > >
> > > Florian
> > >
> > > ========================================
> > >
> > > *Thx to Ash for bringing those examples to my attention.
> >