The paper examines certain constructions where clitics exceptionally license sloppy readings and argues that such constructions involve a clitic doubling structure where the double, which is responsible for the sloppy reading, undergoes argument ellipsis. Typological consequences of the proposed analysis are also discussed. Additionally, a number of conclusions are reached regarding the nature of clitic doubling and especially argument ellipsis, for which a new semantically-based analysis is proposed where argument ellipsis is defined in terms of its semantic type and implemented in terms of LF copying. The analysis also considerably broadens the scope of the phenomenon, eliminating the need for independent parameterization regarding the availability of argument ellipsis across languages. The paper also addresses the more general issue of whether certain interpretations of nominal expressions are derived via type-shifting triggered by null heads present in the syntax, or post-syntactically, without corresponding syntactic structure.

Irene Heim in unpublished work proposed a new syntax-semantics interface for propositional attitude reports based on an ontology without transworld individuals, but counterpart functions instead. We show that the approach can capture the ‘de re’/‘de dicto’ distinction, but makes different predictions from accounts with transworld individuals. Specifically, the account uses non-invertible counterpart functions: a single individual in an alternative world can be the counterpart of many individuals of the real world. The directionality of counterpart functions predicts that a ‘de dicto’ interpreted DP cannot be an argument of a ‘de re’ interpreted predicate. We show that the predicted restriction is corroborated by existing work on restrictions on ‘de re’ interpretation. The derivation of constraints on ‘de re’ interpretation argues empirically for the counterpart ontology and Heim’s implementation thereof.

Non-restrictive relative clauses behave as if they were not present in syntactic structure in NPI licensing, VP ellipsis, and do so substitution. Since restrictive relative clauses do not show this property, the behaviors of non-restrictive relative clauses present a theoretical problem: how do these clauses merge with their antecedents? We propose that non-restrictive relative clauses merge counter-cyclically. As Epstein, Kitahara and Seely (henceforth, EKS) (2012, 2014) suggest, counter-cyclic Merge produces two-peaked structures, and these explain the invisibilities. Then, we extend the possibilities of counter-cyclic Merge from the point of view of the free Merge hypothesis, and we propose that various types of counter-cyclic Merge apply to other constructions which also show invisibilities.

Recent works such as Kimura (2010), Abe (2015) and Abe and Hornstein (2012) have proposed an in-situ theory of sluicing in English as an alternative to the conventional movement theory advocated by Merchant (2001). We approach this recent debate concerning the internal syntax of sluicing from the previously unexplored perspective of “immobile” elements, which resist wh-movement under a full-fledged question, but somehow can make grammatical wh-remnants under sluicing. We show that this patterning supports the in-situ theory of sluicing over Merchant’s movement alternative. The paper presents the prohibition against movement of the goal DP in the ditransitive construction and the impossibility of P-stranding with certain P+DP combinations as two case studies of “immobile” elements in the area of English syntax.

This paper investigates the (un)availability of the causative alternation in cutting verbs (e.g. cut) and cooking verbs (e.g. bake) from the viewpoint of the external causes these verbs lexicalize; that is, these types of verbs lexicalize causal meanings; cut implies the use of a sharp object and bake implies the use of an oven or heat. Verbs that denote externally caused events generally resist the causative alternation in English; for example, cutting verbs do not have an anti-causative variant. Cooking verbs, however, can alternate. This contrast is examined in terms of inferred lexicalization.

Resultative constructions are argued to have a generalization called the Direct Object Restriction (DOR) that states that a resultative predicate is predicated of only a direct object. Some literature argues against the generalization, and claims that the DOR is not attainable. However, Matushansky et al. (2012) provide the syntactic evidence for the DOR. Following them, this paper shows additional evidence in favor of the DOR, and that counter-examples to the DOR are not of the typical type of resultative constructions. Moreover, I argue that some modifications should be made in their proposal, and propose that a functional head forms a resultative predicate by taking a predicative XP as its complement and the semantic subject of XP in its specifier.