C-command Facts

In the previous two sections, we saw evidence that compared-to phrases sit higher than thematic-PP's and for-PP's. The previous section also argued that thematic-PP's do not sit in the complement position of adjectives, but rather are introduced above the adjective. We will see further evidence of both these

conclusions in this and the following subsections. One thing the previous section was inconclusive about was whether the for-PP is always below the thematic-PP (the generality hypothesis), or whether it optionally attaches above or below the thematic- PP (the structural ambiguity hypothesis). In this and the following subsections, I will provide evidence that the for-PP is below the thematic-PP and, thus, closer to the adjective head than the thematic-PP is. I apply c-command diagnostics that are able to make a distinction between the thematic-PP and the for-PP. I use the thematic-PP as a reference point and show that while it doesn't c-command into the compared-to phrase, it does c-command into the for-PP. In order to show that this is indeed the case, I will first determine the position of the thematic-PP.

To help determine the position of the thematic-PP, I will use an adjunct of the adjective phrase as a reference point. The adjunct in the examples in (165) before he

defended must be part of the adjective phrase since it can be fronted along with the

adjective.

(165) a. Mary was happy with John before he defended. b. How happy with John before he defended was Mary?

c. Happy with John BEFORE he defended, Mary was NOT. But she WAS very happy with him AFTER.

First, notice that a quantifier can bind out of the thematic-PP and into the adjunct phrase, indicating that the PP c-commands the adjunct.

(166) a. Mary is happy with every studenti before hei defends.

b. Mary is happy with no studenti before hei defends.

(167) a. How happy with every studenti before hei defends is Mary?

b. Happy with every studenti BEFORE hei defends, Mary is NOT. But

she IS very happy with them AFTER.

Second, NPI's inside the adjunct can be licensed by the thematic-PP, again indicating that the PP c-commands the adjunct.

(168) a. Mary is happy with no jury members before any trial. b. *Mary is happy with all jury members before any trial.

This could, however, be an effect of quantifier raising of the PP or A-movement into some type of Agr position by the PP (like the A-movement of direct objects proposed in Lasnik, 1995). From either of these high positions, the PP would be expected to c- command the adjunct, and perhaps also, the compared-to phrases and for-PP's. If it is true that this is a raised position, then we need to use the base-position of the PP for testing the height of for-PP's and compared-to phrases.

If the high position is due to QR, then this should be optional or at least only needed when the object of the PP is a quantifier. If it is due A-movement analogous to that proposed by Lasnik (1995), then it should be able to be postponed until LF. In either of these cases, we should be able to force it to remain low by setting up an example where the high position would violate a grammatical constraint. It is

possible to do this by using anti-c-command diagnostics. For instance, the PP can be prevented from raising above the adjunct, if such movement would trigger a

Condition C violation. In the following examples, there is no Condition C violation, so the PP must not have moved to its higher position.

(169) a. Mary was happy with himi before Johni defended.

b. How happy with himi before Johni defended was Mary?

c. Happy with himi BEFORE Johni defended, Mary was NOT. But she

A related diagnostic also shows that the PP can remain in a low position. Epithets are only allowed when they are not c-commanded by their antecedent.

(170) a. Mary was happy with Johni before the bastardi defended.

b. How happy with Johni before the bastardi defended was Mary?

c. Happy with Johni before the bastardi defended, Mary was NOT. But

she was very happy with him after.

Again, we would only expect the examples in (170) to be acceptable if the thematic- PP did not raise to its high position.

Lastly, parasitic gaps can be licensed by extraction from the thematic-PP.

(171) Whoi was Mary happy with ti before offending <pgi>?

Assuming an anti-c-command requirement between the real gap and the parasitic gap, the PP must not c-command into the adjunct.

To summarize, the c-command diagnostics indicate that the thematic-PP is higher than the adjunct, but the anti-c-command diagnostics indicate that it can also sit lower than the adjunct. I take this to mean that the thematic-PP can optionally raise higher than the adjunct. Therefore, the anti-c-command diagnostics must be used in order to test the relative height of compared-to phrases and for-PP's in order to insure that the thematic-PP is in its low position.

First, when the thematic-PP (in its low position) contains a pronoun that is co- indexed with an R-expression in the compared-to phrase, we do not see a Condition C violation, indicating that the compared-to phrase is higher than the low position of the thematic-PP.

(172) a. Mary is quite happy with Norberti compared to the Japanese girl in hisi

class.

b. ?Mary is quite happy with himi compared to the Japanese girl in

Norberti's class.

But there is a Condition C violation when the co-indexed R-expression is included in the for-PP. The important contrast here is between (172) and (173); that is, compare the difference in acceptability between the two examples in (172) to the difference between the examples in (173).

(173) a. Mary is quite happy with Norberti for a Japanese girl in hisi class.

b. *Mary is quite happy with himi for a Japanese girl in Norberti's class.

The contrast between the examples in (173) is much greater than in (172). This indicates that regardless of whether the thematic-PP raises or not, it c-commands into the for-PP. Notice that both the narrow and the wide readings (discussed in section 2.4.3) of (173)b are unavailable. On the structural ambiguity story, the wide reading was caused by attaching the for-PP above the thematic-PP. If it were the case that the

two readings of for-PP's was caused by structural ambiguity, we would expect the wide reading to be available here, but it is not. Therefore, we can also see this data as arguing for the generality story of for-PP's: they always attach lower than the

thematic-PP, and only the narrow reading is actually available (though it is subject to contextual specificity).

Second, epithets must not be co-indexed with an item that c-commands them.

Compared-to phrases can contain an epithet co-indexed with an R-expression in the

thematic-PP, but for-PP's cannot.

(174) a. Mary is quite happy with Johni compared to the bastardi's other

girlfriends.

b. ??Mary is quite happy with Johni for a girlfriend of the bastardi.

Again, this indicates that the thematic-PP does not c-command into the compared-to phrase, even in its low position, but it does c-command into the for-PP. Also, this again argues in favor of the generality story, since we would expect on the structural ambiguity story that the wide reading would be possible in (174)b.

Lastly, it is possible to get a parasitic gap in a compared-to phrase that is licensed by a real gap in the thematic-PP.

(175) a. You are proud of Bill compared to the father of Bill. b. ?Whoi are you proud of ti compared to the father of <pgi>?

(176) a. You would be unhappy with the real painting compared to a print of it.

b. ?Which paintingi would you be unhappy with ti compared to a print of

<pgi>?

But this is not possible with for-PP's.

(177) a. You are proud of science teachers for a science teacher. b. *What kind of teacheri are you proud of ti for <pgi>?

If parasitic gaps may not be c-commanded by the real gap that licenses them, then we can conclude that thematic-PP's c-command into the for-PP but not into the

compared-to phrase.

This leads us to a structure of gradable adjective phrases in which compared-

to phrases are high, followed by thematic-PP's, followed by the adjective head and the for-PP. But notice that there are linear order restrictions on these phrases.

(178) a. John is patient with Mary for a boy compared to Bill. b. ??John is patient for a boy with Mary compared to Bill. c. ??John is patient compared to Bill with Mary for a boy. d. ??John is patient for a boy compared to Bill with Mary.

Only the order in (178)a seems natural. While the compared-to phrase is highest in the structure, followed by the thematic-PP, and then the for-PP, the thematic-PP must be linearly closest to the adjective, followed by the for-PP and then the compared-to phrase. Therefore, I will assume that the standard expressions right adjoin to the tree, and the thematic-PP adjoins on the left. I will use a little aP as the functional head that introduces the thematic-PP (referred to below as PPθ). Head movement of the

adjective, as indicated in the tree diagram below, results in the correct word order.

(179) Deg2P wo Deg2' PP 3 6 Deg2 aP compared-to ! 3 POScomp PPθ a' 3 a AP 6 adjective [for-PP]

The head movement is from the A head into the little a head and then into the Deg2

head position. This results in the order adjective PP_θ for-PP compared-to. I have

left the structure of the adjective-for-PP undetailed because we have not yet seen evidence that the for-PP is separated from the AP. I will provide this evidence in section 2.4.7 below. Next, however, I want to provide further evidence for the structure in (179).