to appear in MITWPL 27 with some editorial corrections

Condition C Effects in ACD* 

Danny Fox
MIT 

This squib proposes a solution for a puzzle noted in Fiengo and May (1994) (henceforth F&M).  The puzzle is related to the interaction between LF operations such as Quantifier Raising (QR) and Binding Theory (BT).   It has been assumed for a while that such an interaction doesn’t exist.  More specifically,  it has been assumed that LF operations do not affect BT  (for a discussion, see Lasnik (1993) and references therein).   However,  F&M  show contrary evidence from Antecedent Contained Deletion constructions (ACD).  In particular, they show that the QR which is needed for ACD resolution can sometimes obviate condition C of BT (BT(C)).  

	 The solution I suggest for F&M’s puzzle utilizes two ideas that have been suggested within Chomsky’s Minimalist program.  One idea is that movement is a copy operation and that certain choices among patterns of deletion account for apparent reconstruction effects (Chomsky (1993)).  The other idea is that movement is restricted by economy considerations.  In particular, I will assume, following Fox (1995a) and Reinhart (1995), that QR is restricted by economy considerations and that it is blocked when the same interpretation can be achieved by a shorter movement. 

	The squib is organized as follows.  In section 1, I present F&M’s puzzle.  In section 2, I present F&M’s solution to the puzzle and point out a few problems for this solution.  In section 3, I present an alternative to F&M which utilizes Economy and the copy theory of movement.  In section 4, I suggest a possible modification of the suggestion made in section 3.  In this modification the copy theory of movement does not play a role.  Instead I utilize Chomsky’s (1995) idea that movement always atracts a feature and that pied piping is possible only when needed for convergence.   

1.  F&M’s Puzzle

It has been assumed for a while that the effects of QR are invisible to BT.  This assumption was based on the observation that sentences like (1) are bad.  The basic idea was that if BT could see the effects of QR,  it would not rule out the sentences in (1).  The structure of these sentences, after QR, was assumed to be that in (1').  Further, this  structure was assumed not to violate BT on the basis of the observation that similar structures, such as those in (2), are well formed.  

(1)	a.	*/?? you bought himi every picture that Johni liked.
	b.	*    Hei bought you every picture that Johni liked.
	c.	??  John and Maryi said I bought every picture of each otheri.

(1')	a.	[[every picture that Johni liked] [I bought himi t]]
	b.	[[every picture that Johni liked] [hei bought you t]]
	c.	J&Mi said [[every picture of each otheri] [I bought  t]]

(2)	a.	[[which picture that Johni liked] [did you buy himi t]]
	b.	[[which picture that Johni liked] [did hei buy you t]]
	c.	John and Maryi wondered [[which picture of each otheri] 
		[I bought t]]

	The assumption that QR does not affect BT has led, in turn, to the conclusion that BT applies before QR.  More specifically, it was assumed that BT applies at SS.  F&M, however, discovered that certain instances of QR differ from those in (1') in that they do affect BT.  In particular, they have discovered that in ACD constructions, QR sometimes seems to obviate BT(C).  This is demonstrated by the contrast between (1a) and (3), and (perhaps more convincingly) by the contrast between (4) and (5), which form a minimal pair.

(3)	You bought himi every picture that Johni thought you would.

(4)	a.	You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would.
	b.	You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to.

(5)	a.	??/* You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would write.
	b.	??/*  You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to meet.

	In ACD constructions such as (3-4), it seems that BT is affected by QR.  One might suggest a generalization according to which BT is affected by QR in and only in ACD constructions.  However, this too is not exactly accurate.  BT doesn’t seem to be affected by QR in the sentences in (6).  

(6)	a.	*Hei bought you every picture that Johni wanted to.
	b.	*Hei bought you every picture that Johni wanted me to.
	c.	*Hei introduces you to everyone Johni wanted to.
	d.	*Hei introduced you to everyone Johni wanted me to.

	The difference between the sentences in (6) and those in (3-4) lies in the syntactic position of the binder of the R-expression.  In (6) this binder is not contained within the VP that has to be reconstructed (for ACD resolution, henceforth the antecedent VP).  In (3-4) it is.  It seems, therefore, that two factors are involved in the generalization.  Whether BT(C) is obviated by QR depends (a) on whether ACD is involved, thus distinguishing between (3) and (1a) and between (4) and (5); (b) on the syntactic position of the binder (whether or not it is within the antecedent VP).   F&M’s generalization is, thus, the following:

(7)	QR obviates BT(C) iff
	a.	ACD is involved.				and
	b.	The binder of the R-expression has a copy contained within the 		
		elided VP.

	The generalization in (7) is rather puzzling.  It is far from obvious how the two factors in (7) could determine whether or not QR obviates BT(C).  One could imagine two ways in which the puzzle might be resolved.  One possibility is that the existence of ACD and the position of the binder somehow affect the relative ordering of QR and BT.  The other possibility is that they somehow affect the nature of QR.  F&M pursue the former possibility whereas I will pursue the latter. 

2.  F&M’s  Proposal

F&M suggest that BT applies at any linguistic level of representation in which it can apply.  In other words, they assume that a structure is ruled out if it violates BT at any level of representation (at which BT can apply).  Further, they suggest that BT applies to indices, and that it can apply to an index, i, only when all instances of i are present in the structure.  In addition, they assume a theory of ellipsis that involves LF copying.  That is to say, they assume that interpretable material which is not present at PF is also not present at syntactic levels which are the input to PF.  Such material is not deleted at PF, but rather added (copied/reconstructed) to the structure in the covert component.  With these assumptions, they propose to explain the generalization in (7).

	BT fails to apply to a certain index under one condition: when the index is absent from the structure.  Therefore, QR could affect the way BT applies to a certain index, only in case QR is a prerequisite for the index to enter the structure.  Only in such a case, will BT have to wait for QR before it applies.  Given F&M’s assumption about ellipsis (the assumption that the “elided” VP enters the structure only in the covert component),  QR is a prerequisite for an index to enter a structure when the index is contained in an “elided” VP and when QR is necessary for the LF copying of this VP.  Such is the case when (and only when) the two conditions in (7) are met.  To see this, let us consider again the relevant cases, which are repeated in (8).

(8)	a.	??/* You bought himi everything Johni likes.
	b.	* Hei bought you everything Johni wanted to <buy you t>.
	c.	you bought himi everything Johni wanted you to <buy himi t>

	(8a) doesn’t involve ACD.  Therefore, as the generalization in (7) states, QR does not obviate BT(C).  This result is predicted by F&M in the following way.  Because (8a) doesn’t involve ellipsis, all of the LF material is already present at SS.  Consequently, BT(C) can, and therefore must, apply at SS.  At SS, (8a) is ruled out, and QR cannot reverse the verdict.  (8b) does involve ACD.  Nevertheless, the binder of the R-expression doesn’t have a copy inside the “elided” VP, and, according to the generalization in (7), QR does not obviate BT(C).  This result is also predicted by F&M.  Here the missing structure doesn’t contain an instance of the index, i.  Therefore, BT can, hence must, apply before the missing structure is filled.  BT applies at SS, and (8b) is ruled out before QR applies.  In (8c) both of the conditions in (7) are met, and BT(C) is obviated.  Once again, F&M predict the result.  The missing structure, the elided VP, contains an instance of the index, i.  Therefore, BT can apply only after reconstruction.  Reconstruction, in turn, can take place only after QR.  (QR is necessary in order for ACD resolution to take place without infinite regress, as argued in Sag (1976) and May (1985) (among others).)  By transitivity, QR must apply before BT and, consequently, can obviate BT(C).

	I would like to point out two problems with F&M’s proposal.  One problem is that it doesn’t give us a handle on what distinguishes QR from certain instances of SS movement.  What distinguishes the sentences in (2), repeated below, as well as the sentences in (9), from those in (8a,b)?  Why is BT not forced to apply before the application of SS movement in (2) and in (9)?  Why can SS movement obviate BT(C) irrespective of the conditions in (7)? 

(2)	a.	[[which picture that Johni liked] [did you buy himi t]]
	b.	[[which picture that Johni liked] [did hei buy you t]]
	c.	John and Maryi wondered [[which picture of each otheri] 
		[I bought t]]

(9)	a.	John’si mother seems to himi to be a fool.
		(c.f. * It seems to himi that John’si mother is a fool )
	b.	John’si mother is believed by himi to be obnoxious.
		(c.f. * It is believed by himi that John’si mother is abnoxious)

	Another, more direct problem with F&M’s approach is that it incorrectly predicts a generalization somewhat different from that in (7).  More specifically, according to F&M’s account, the binder of the R-expression need not have a copy within the elided VP.  All that is needed for BT(C) obviation is that there be an instance of the relevant index within the elided VP.  To see this, consider the sentences in (10).  In these sentences, the binder of the R-expression -- the matrix subject -- doesn’t have a copy within the elided VP.  In these sentence BT(C) is not obviated, in accordance with the generalization in (7).  However, there is an instance of the index, i, within the elided VP.  Therefore, according to F&M, BT can apply to index i only after QR, and it is incorrectly predicted that BT(C) will be obviated.   

(10)	a.	*Hei bought hisi brother everything Johni wanted to <buy hisi 	
		brother t>.
	b.	*Hei introduced hisi brother to everyone Johni wanted to 			
		<introduce hisi brother to t>.

3.  An Alternative Proposal

In this section I will present an alternative account of the generalization in (7), repeated below.  I will try to show that there is no need to postulate levels of representation other than LF for the account of (7), and that Chomsky’s minimalist guidelines (Chomsky (1993)) can be maintained.  However, before doing that, I would like to present one further piece of evidence (in addition to that presented in F&M) that (7) is, in fact, a correct generalization.  Consider the sentence in (11).  

(7)	QR obviates BT(C) iff
	a.	ACD is involved.				and
	b.	The binder of the R-expression has a copy contained within the 		
		elided VP.

(11)	I expected himi to buy everything that Johni thought I did.
	a.	*<bought t>
	b.	<expected himi to buy t>,

This sentence is good only if the elided VP is understood as in (b).  This accords with the generalization in (7).  The elided VP in (b), but not in (a), contains a copy of the binder of the R-expression.  The condition in (7b) holds only under the interpretation in (11b), and accordingly only under this interpretation should QR obviate BT(C).  

	The fact in (11) is very important evidence that the generalization in (7) is in fact a generalization about QR.  In the previous cases we have seen that BT(C) does not hold in certain ACD constructions.  This was linked by F&M to the existence of QR in ACD constuctions.  In (11), we have direct evidence for such a linking.  What we see in (11) is a direct link between scope and BT(C) obviation.  In order to get the interpretation in (11b), the object of buy  must move by QR over the matrix verb.  In order to get the interpretation in (11a),  it is enough for the object of buy to move over the embedded verb.  We see that BT(C) is obviated only when scope indicates that QR has taken the R-expression outside of the c-command domain of its binder.

	The obvious question is why the object of buy  cannot move over the matrix verb and still yield the interpretation in (11a).  It seems reasonable that the object must QR for ACD resolution, but it is not clear why long QR (over the matrix verb) should not license reconstruction of the embedded VP alone.  I will now propose an answer to this question.  This answer will turn out to be an explanation of the second part of the generalization in (7), that is, an explanation of (7b).

	The answer to the question is straightforward.  QR over the matrix verb is not possible for the interpretation in (11a) because it is not needed for that interpretation.  As argued in Fox (1995a) QR is allowed only as a last resort for achieving a designated interpretation.  When two instances of QR yield the same interpretation, the longer movement is blocked.  For this reason, QR as in (11'a) is blocked by (11'b) when the embedded VP alone is reconstructed.

(11')	a.	I [everything that Johni thought I did[expected himi to buy t]].
	b.	I expected himi to [everything that Johni thought I did[buy t]].
	
	This, as it turns, provides an explanation for (7b).  In ACD constructions, the argument that contains the elided VP must move by QR outside of the antecedent VP.  However, it need not move any further.  Therefore, by Economy, it mustn’t move any further.  It follows that the moved element will get out of the scope of the binder of the R-expression only if this binder is within the antecedent VP.  To see this, consider again the contrast between the sentences in (4) and (6), exemplified in (12).  

(12)	a.	*Hei bought me everything that Johni thought hei should 
		<buy me t>.
	b.	I bought himi everything that Johni thought I would 
		<buy himi t>.

	For both sentences, adjunction of the quantifier to VP is sufficient for receiving the designated interpretation.  Therefore, adjunction to IP (a longer movement) is not allowed.  Adjunction to VP yields an obviation of BT(C) in (12b) but not in (12a).  

	We are left with a need to explain (7a).  We have to explain why the existence of ACD is a prerequisite for BT(C) obviation.  In other words, we have to explain the difference between the sentences in (4) and (5), repeated below.  

(4)	a.	You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would.
	b.	You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to.

(5)	a.	??/* You sent himi the letter that Johni expected you would write.
	b.	??/*  You introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted you to meet.

One might suggest that QR is not needed in cases that do not involve ACD.  However, under such a suggestion, one would incorrectly expect that in constructions such as (13), in which the object can normally have wide scope over the subject, BT(C) would be obviated.

(13)	??/* someone introduced himi to everyone that Johni wanted to meet.

	I propose that the ill-formedness of (5) and (13) should be given the same explanation that is given to cases in which overt movement doesn’t obviate BT(C).  Recall that in section 2 we have seen cases in which overt movement does obviate BT(C).  However, as noted in Lebeaux (1988), this is not always the case.  While A-movement always obviates BT(C), A'-movement sometimes does not.  Thus, Lebeaux points out the contrast in (14).  

(14)	a.	?? Which argument that Johni is a genius did hei believe.
	b.	Which argument that Johni made did hei believe.

	Chomsky (1993) proposes to explain the contrast in (14) by the assumption that A'-movement never obviates BT(C).  The reason, Chomsky proposes, is that A'-movement always leaves a copy and that although this copy is deleted at PF it is still present at LF (where BT applies). The reason BT(C) seems to be obviated in (13b) is that the relative clause is an adjunct.  As such, it need not be present at the point at which movement takes place and can be added at a later stage (without violating the extension requirement).  A'-movement doesn’t obviate BT(C); there isn’t a stage in the derivation  of (14b) in which the R-expression is within the c-command domain of the co-indexed pronoun.  QR, being A'-movement, should not obviate BT(C).  Further, in the case of QR we know that there is a stage of the derivation in which the R-expression is within the c-command domain of the pronoun (the point of SPELL OUT).  In the case of QR we know that the adjunct was added before movement took place.  Therefore, we should never see obviation of condition C.

	So, why should ACD bring about obviation of condition C?  To understand this we have to go in greater detail into the mechanisms that form LF operator variable constructions.  Chomsky suggests that there are two ways to form such constructions.  One way is to have the restrictor at the head of the chain and the other is to have it at the tail.  He stipulates that there is a preference for the latter. However, he assumes that this preference is observed only up to convergence.  In other words, he assumes that whenever convergence requires having the restrictor at the head of the chain, the preference will be overriden.  Suppose we assume, in the spirit of Golan (1993), Reinhart (1995) and Fox (1995a), that this preference is observed up to interpretabilty.  This will explain (7a).  In ACD constructions, the restrictor must be at the head of the chain or else the problem of infinite regress will not be overcome.  Hence, the preference is overriden.  In standard quantificational structures, nothing forces a deletion of the restrictor from the tail of the chain.,

4.  Move F 

Chomsky (1995) proposes that all movement is in essence feature movement and that in SS we find whole categories moved only because PF convergence requires pied piping.  He proposes that at LF there is only feature movement.  However, as he notes, this proposal holds only if there are no LF considerations which would require pied piping.  Suppose that the need to resolve ACD is a consideration which is visible to the computational system and licenses pied piping.  We would predict that BT(C) will be obviated only in ACD constructions, (7a).  Further, it will be obviated only when Economy forces movement over the binder of the R-expression, (7b).

5.  Conclusion

In this paper we have gone over F&M’s generalization, (7). We have seen F&M’s evidence for this generalization as well as further evidence which supports the idea that the generalization is, in fact, a generalization about QR.  We have also seen an explanation for the generalization. (7a) follows from the assumption that there is a preference to minimize material at the landing site of QR. (If Chomsky (1995) is correct, this could be a preference to minimize pied piping.)  This preference is obeyed up to interpretability.  Specifically, it is obeyed in regular quantificational constructions, but not in ACD.  Only when this preference is overriden does QR take the R-expression away from its base position.  Therefore, only in ACD constructions does QR obviate BT(C).  

	In ACD constructions,  QR must take a phrase outside of the elided VP (for interpretability/ACD resolution).  Economy determines that the landing site of QR will be the closest available landing site outside of the elided VP.  BT(C) will be obviated by QR only if the binder of the R-expression does not c-command the landing site.  (7b) follows: BT(C) will be obviated only it the binder of the R-expression is within the elided VP. 

Appendix: Parallelism or ACD Resolution

The explanation I have offered for the observation that ACD is necessary for BT(C) to be obviated, (7a), utilized Chomsky’s preference principle (Minimize Restrictors) together with the assumption that this principle is observed up to interpretability (ACD resolution).  This explanation makes perfect sense in a theory in which ACD is resolved by an LF copy operation as suggested in May (1985). Under such a theory, there is no way to copy the antecedent into the ellipsis site (without infinite regress) unless QR takes place and is followed by an operation that replaces the copy with a variable (copy/variable replacement).  However, it has been argued in Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) and Tancredi (1992) that ellipsis does not involve an LF copy operation.  

	These authors have suggested that ellipsis is a result of deletion at PF, an operation which is restricted by a requirement that the deleted element and its antecedent receive a parallel interpretation (Parallelism).  If this suggestion is on the right track, ACD doesn’t raise a problem of infinite regress.  Rather, it raises a problem for Parallelism.  To see this, consider a simple ACD construction such as that in (15).  This construction involves PF deletion of an expression contained within its antecedent.  The deleted element and its antecedent are obviously not parallel in structure.  The only way in which they can become parallel is if QR takes place followed by copy/variable replacement and resulting in the structure in (15'). 

(15)	John likes everyone Bill does <likes t>.
(15')	John [[everyone that Bill <likes t>] [likes t]]

	If the PF deletion theory of ellipsis is correct, the explanation presented in this paper has to be restated.  Instead of saying that ACD resolution is the reason for copy/variable replacement, we would have to say that Parallelism is the reason.  In this appendix, I would like to suggest that this restatement might be needed for independent reasons.				

	An important motivation for a PF deletion theory of ellipsis comes from the observation that many of the semantic properties of ellipsis are shared with constructions involving phonological deaccenting.  To see this, consider the similarity of the two constructions in (16).  In both constructions, ambiguities do not multiply; the second conjunct must resolve the ambiguity in the same way that the first conjunct does. In other words, in both constructions Parallelism is active.

(16)	a.	John likes flying planes and Bill does, too.
	b.	John likes flying planes and Bill likes flying planes, as well.

	Compare the case of ACD in (15) with the case in (17).

(17)	John likes everyone Bill likes t.

The material which is deleted in (15) is present in the phonological representation of (16), but deaccented. We can call the case in (16), a case of antecedent contained deaccenting (ACDA).  If Parallelism is the motivation for copy/variable replacement, we would predict that such a replacement would be allowed not only in cases of ACD but also in cases of ACDA.  Therefore, we would predict that ACDA will show the same pattern of BT(C) obviation that ACD does. 

	I think that this prediction is borne out.  To see this, consider the paradigm in (18-19).

(18)	a.	I introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted me to.
	b.	I introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted me to introduce himi
		to.
	c.	*I introduced himi to everyone Johni wanted me to meet.

(19)	(a) 	I expected himi to buy everything that Johni thought I did.
		1.	*<bought t>
		2.	<expected himi to buy t>
	(b)	*I expected himi to buy everything that Johni thought I bought.
	(c)	I expected himi to buy everything that Johni thought I expected 	
		him to buy.

In (18) we see that both ACD, (18a), and ACDA, (18b), contrast with standard quantificational structures, (18c), in obviating BT(C). In (19) we see that the interaction between the size of ellipsis and BT(C) that we have observed in (11=(19a)) is also observed in the case of ACDA (19b,c).

	An additional advantage of the claim that parallelism is the motivation for copy/variable replacement comes from a consideration of the theory of Parallelism proposed in Rooth (1992).  Rooth has argued that Parallelism has two independent components.  One component is relevant both for ellipsis and deaccenting (call it, D-Parallelism) and the other is relevant only for ellipsis (call it, E-Parallelism).  This division is argued for on the basis of the observation that although phonological deaccenting and ellipsis are restricted by similar parallelism requirements, (e.g., 15), the requirements are stricter when applied to ellipsis.  This is demonstrated by the contrast in (20).

(20)	a.  John told Mary that it will rain, and Sue did, too.  
		1. 	<tell Mary that it will rain>
		2.	<*hear that it will rain>
	b.	John told Mary that it will rain, and Sue told Mary  that it will 	
		rain, too.
	c.	John told Mary that it will rain, and Sue heard that it will rain, 
		too.

	A phonologically deaccented phrase must receive a structure parallel to the structure of its antecedent, where parallelism makes reference to notions from the theory of focus.  An elided phrase must also receive a parallel structure from the perspective of the theory of focus, but it must also be comprised of identical lexical items to those of the antecedent (perhaps modulo F&M’s Vehicle Change).  

	Given Rooth’s theory, the claim that Parallelism is the motivation for replacing a copy of a moved constituent with a variable raises a question.  The question is which of the two parallelism constraints is the relevant one.  The observation that ACDA behaves like ACD (18-19) forces the conclusion that D-Parallelism is the relevant constraint.  When combined with the observation in (20), intricate predictions arise.  In particular, we predict that in all cases in which D-Parallelism has a chance to be achieved by QR together with copy/variable replacement, BT(C) would be obviated.  That this prediction is born out is demonstrated by the paradigm in (21-24). 

	In (21a,b) D-Parallelism will be achieved by QR followed by copy/variable replacement, as seen independently in (22a,b), and as predicted by Rooth’s theory.  In (21c), it will not, as we can see by the ill-formedness of (22c).  Therefore, in (21c), BT(C) cannot be obviated.  A further demonstration of this point is made in (23-24).

(21)	a.	I introduced himi to everyone that Johni wanted me to introduce 	
		himi to.
	b.	I introduced himi to everyone that Johni wanted to meet.
	c.	*I introduced himi to everyone that Johni wanted me to meet.

(22)	a.	I introduced John to Sue.  Bill introduced John to Sue, as well.
	b.	I introduced John to Sue.  Bill wanted to meet Sue, as well.
	c.	*I introduced John to Sue.  Bill wanted me to meet Sue, as well.

(23)	a.	I provided himi with everything that Johni wanted me to provide	
		himi with.
	b.	I provided himi with everything that Johni needed.
	c.	*I provided himi with everything that Johni wanted me to have.

(22)	a.	I provided John with a book.  Bill provided John with a book, as 
		well.
	b.	I provided John with a book.  Bill needed a book, as well.
	c.	*I provided John with a book.  Bill wanted me to have a book, as 		well.

References:

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. in The View From Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Progrm, to appear in MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principle and Parameters Theory. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternfeld and T. Vennemann (eds.). Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Economy and the Scope of Amount Phrases. to appear in the  proceedings of WCCFL 14. 
Fox, Danny. 1995a. Economy and Scope. to appear in Natural Language Semantics.
Fox, Danny. 1995b. Locality in Variable Binding. to appear in the proceedings of The Workshop on Optimality in Syntactic Theory, MIT Press.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Golan, Yael. 1993. Node Crossing Economy, Superiority and D-linking. unpublished ms. Tel-Aviv university.
Kenedy, Christopher. 1995. Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Syntax of Quantifiers. unpublished ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and  the Form of the Grammar.  UMASS doctoral dissertation, Amherst, MA.: GLSA.
Lasnik, Howard. 1993. Lectures in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Lasnik, H. 1995. Last resort and Attrat F. to appear in the Proceedings of FLSM, 6.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form, Its Structure and Derivation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Reinhat, Tanya. 1995. Interface Strategies, distributed by OTS, Utrecht.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis reduandancy and Reduction Redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik, eds., Proceedings of Stutgart Ellipsis Workshop.  Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht Nr. 29. IBM Germany, Heidelberg.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 
Tancredi, Chris. 1992. Deletion, Deaccenting and Presuposition, Doctoral dissertation, MIT,  Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 
Tancredi, Chris. 1995. Eliminating Binding Theory. Unpublished ms. 

Danny Fox
Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy
20D-219
MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139
fox@mit.edu