1. Separability Diagnostics
It is widely believed that, for any head H, the syntactic dependents of H form two distinct classes, the arguments of H and the adjuncts to H. This Argument/Adjunct Distinction (A/AD) is associated with a wide range of empirical contrasts, called diagnostics for argumenthood: patterns of omissibility, iterability, islandhood, etc. are all thought to follow from the basic distinction between arguments and adjuncts (see Schütze Reference Schütze1995, Hedberg & DeArmond Reference Hedberg and DeArmond2002, Hornstein & Nunes Reference Hornstein and Nunes2008, Needham & Toivonen Reference Needham, Toivonen, Butt and King2011, Forker Reference Forker2014, Toivonen Reference Toivonen2016, Moura & Miliorini Reference Moura and Miliorini2018, Bergs Reference Bergs, Aarts, McMahon and Hinrichs2020, Bode Reference Bode2020, Milway Reference Milway2022, Zyman Reference Zyman2022, among others).
More precisely, argumenthood diagnostics serve as the evidence that motivates specific theoretical implementations of the A/AD in syntax, such that the empirical properties of adjuncts follow from formal aspects of the implementation. This paper focuses on one purported formal aspect of the syntactic A/AD in particular, namely, the idea that the A/AD conditions the relative configuration of a head’s dependents. The core idea, originating with Lakoff & Ross (Reference Lakoff and Ross1966),Footnote 1 is that the arguments of a head H occur within a smaller projection of H than the adjuncts to H do. With respect to the verbal domain specifically, I refer to this purported property of adjunction as differential attachment-heigh of verbal dependents (DAVD).
Example 1
Lakoff & Ross motivated DAVD with their now-famous ‘do so-test’. They noticed that some dependents of V, such as tomorrow in (2a), can occur alongside do so, while others, such as onto the wagon in (2b), cannot.
Example 2
Assuming that do so must substitute for a complete VP, Lakoff & Ross deduced that temporal adverbials like tomorrow must be syntactically ‘outside’ the VP, while directional/goal PPs like onto the wagon must be syntactically ‘inside’ the VP. Today, the X-bar theoretic implementation of this idea remains the rough-and-ready cross-framework mainstream for argument/adjunct configuration in the VP.Footnote 2
Example 3
If we identify the ϒP of (1) with VP, then patterns of stranding under do so-substitution support DAVD and make do so-substitution an effective diagnostic for argumenthood: if a verbal dependent XP can be stranded by do so-substitution, then it must be an adjunct; otherwise, XP must be an argument.
After Lakoff & Ross (Reference Lakoff and Ross1966), several other phenomena, including do what-pseudoclefting, VP-fronting and VP-ellipsis, came to be accepted as evidence for DAVD, and hence, also serve as argumenthood diagnostics, under analyses similar to that of do so-substitution. The central premise of all these diagnostics is that they involve an operation targeting the argument-containing ϒP of (1). Crucially, given DAVD, a ϒP-targeting operation can separate adjuncts but not arguments from V.
Example 4
Example 5
Any phenomenon that involves a ϒP-targeting operation can function as an argumenthood diagnostic by the logic in (5). I call such diagnostics separability diagnostics.
Example 6
The goal of this paper is to critically reevaluate separability diagnostics as evidence for DAVD and, by extension, for the A/AD more broadly. To this end, I consider four purported separability diagnostics in English, all commonly taken to support DAVD by the logic just described:
Example 7
A complete analysis of each phenomenon doing justice to the full range of individual complexities falls far outside the scope of this paper. Instead, my approach is to focus on the DAVD-relevant properties of the phenomena, identifying problems for these specific aspects of their analysis. Sections 2 through 4 below address each of do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting and VP-fronting in turn. For each one, I first introduce the DAVD-relevant aspects of its analysis as a separability diagnostic, then present data challenging that analysis and finally identify an alternative A/AD-free analysis that plausibly better captures the facts. I conclude that the data, carefully analyzed, are incompatible with the assumptions in (6) and thus that these purported separability diagnostics fail to motivate DAVD as a syntactic property of the A/AD. Section 5 turns more briefly to VP-ellipsis. I identify a constellation of analytical assumptions that must align for VP-ellipsis to succeed as a separability diagnostic, which I suggest is unlikely.
It should be noted that the literature attests a variety of views regarding the precise attachment-height of adjuncts (see, e.g. Maienborn Reference Maienborn2001, Ernst Reference Ernst2001, Reference Ernst2020). For concreteness and consistency in discussing and analyzing the data relevant for this paper, I adopt Harley’s (Reference Harley2007, Reference Harley2014) implementation of the A/AD in bare phrase structure. Harley’s (Reference Harley1995) approach draws on the root (√) analysis of Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz Reference Halle, Marantz, Hale and Keyser1993, Marantz Reference Marantz1997). The relevant assumption is that verbs are underlyingly roots √ in the presence of an abstract verbalizer v and that the arguments in a verb phrase are sisters to (a projection of) √, while adjuncts are sisters to (a projection of) v. The argument-containing ϒP of (1), then, is vP: arguments of the verb will be strictly internal to vP, while adjuncts will be external to at least some projection of vP.Footnote 3 Thus, in (8), which assumes that in the kitchen is an adjunct – and a pizza an argument – of the verb eat, a vP-targeting operation could separate in the kitchen from the verb, but could not separate a pizza from it.
Example 8
Finally for this introduction, although the point of this paper is to engender skepticism toward DAVD as a property of the A/AD (and toward the A/AD more generally), I will assume for the sake of argument that there is a valid A/AD that separability diagnostics could in principle identify.Footnote 4 While there is no consensus on where the precise boundary between arguments and adjuncts falls, there is broad agreement on certain properties of the most clear-cut cases. For example, the most prototypical arguments must be licensed by specific verbs, while the most prototypical adjuncts are essentially self-licensing (this licensing criterion is Huddleston & Pullum’s (Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002: 219) ‘most important property’ of arguments). Meanwhile, any dependent that is non-omissible and/or L-selectedFootnote 5 (in the case of PPs) is a prototypical argument. DPs are also virtually always considered arguments as a rule.Footnote 6 These relatively uncontroversial criteria will be sufficient for the purposes of this paper.
2. Do so-anaphora
This section demonstrates that the A/AD does not play an explanatory role in accounting for the separability of PPs from the verb in do so-anaphora. Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski1999; see also Reference Przepiórkowski, Arnold, Butt, Crysmann, King and Müller2016) has previously argued for this same conclusion by compiling prior arguments that do so-anaphora resolution is a discourse-pragmatic phenomenon rather than a properly syntactic one. For example, Kehler & Ward (Reference Kehler, Ward and Turner1999) find that do so can refer to material split across antecedents and that do so-anaphora allows certain active-passive voice mismatches. Culicover & Jackendoff (Reference Culicover and Jackendoff2005), Houser (Reference Houser2010) and Bruening (Reference Bruening2019) also conclude that do so-anaphora resolution is discourse-pragmatic in nature on the basis of these facts and others.
Nevertheless, the do so-test remains widely accepted as a diagnostic for argumenthood. I, therefore, take a different approach here. Instead of seeking to show that do so-anaphora must be discourse-pragmatic in nature, I start with the assumption that do so-anaphora is a separability diagnostic and explore the consequences of this for the A/AD. I specifically identify three cases where the behavior of do so-anaphora is incommensurate with an independently motivated understanding of the A/AD. Only after establishing these problems for the DAVD-based analysis of do so-anaphora do I turn to the discourse-pragmatic understanding, where I show that an extension of Bruening’s (Reference Bruening2019) analysis, incorporating the core idea of Miller Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990 with respect to do so, straightforwardly handles these problems, as well as the standard cases, without recourse to the A/AD.
2.1. Do so-substitution as a separability diagnostic
It is essential first to establish in exactly what way do so-anaphora is supposed to involve a vP-targeting operation, by virtue of which fact it may serve as a separability diagnostic for argumenthood. I will discuss three different views that the reader may hold on this, namely, (i) do so simply is a vP, (ii) do so seeks a semantically complete predicate as its antecedent and (iii) do so copies the meaning of a syntactically defined vP antecedent. Only the third view is valid for present purposes. I return to the second view in Section 2.3.
Consider the view that do so-anaphora functions as a separability diagnostic simply because it is a proform with the category vP. Under this view (assuming DAVD), the only dependents that will be able to occur with do so are adjuncts. This is essentially what is assumed by Sobin (Reference Sobin2008) and Mikkelsen et al. (Reference Mikkelsen, Hardt, Ørsnes, Choi, Choi, Hogue, Punske, Tat, Schertz and Trueman2012), among others. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is unacceptable. The reasoning is not specific to the expression do so; any expression that we want to consider a vP can play the same role as do so in this argument. Suppose we transfer the reasoning to the verb talk: talk is a vP, and therefore any PP that can occur with talk must be an adjunct. We would then conclude that to X in ‘talk to X’ is an adjunct. This is fallacious: the assumption that talk is a vP (which it probably is) does not allow us to conclude that any PP occurring with talk must occur outside that vP. The reasoning with do so suffers the same problem. We can assume that do so is a vP, but that does not allow us to conclude that any PP occurring with do so must be an adjunct.Footnote 7
Next, consider the idea that do so functions as an argumenthood diagnostic because it seeks an antecedent which is semantically defined to include a predicate’s arguments but not necessarily its adjuncts. This paper is about DAVD, which is a syntactic-configurational property. If do so picks out an antecedent defined along semantic lines as just described, then it not directly relevant to DAVD.Footnote 8
In order for do so to function as a separability diagnostic, it needs to take on the meaning of a vP-constituent antecedent. This can be accomplished in two different ways: a complete vP could be built up and then replaced by do so (the classic transformational analysis) or do so could be treated as a base-generated proform whose interpretation is identified with a vP-constituent antecedent. The former understanding (with a substitution transformation) can be compared to the PF-deletion approach to ellipsis and the latter to the LF-copying approach to ellipsis.Footnote 9 In the domain of ellipsis, these different perspectives are notoriously difficult to disentangle (see Merchant Reference Merchant, van Craenenbroeck and Temmerman2018). For the purposes of this paper, I will treat them as interchangeable but will keep to the copying approach in exposition.Footnote 10 What is essential, then, is simply that the interpretation of do so corresponds to that of a discourse-accessible vP constituent.
2.2. Behavior of different PPs under do so-anaphora
Do so is compatible with certain kinds of PPs, and not others. This subsection considers the behavior of several different kinds of PPs under do so-substitution, each of which poses problems of varying degrees for the DAVD-based approach just discussed. Specifically, the behavior of argumental to-phrases, benefactives, comitatives and locatives highlight misalignments between the observed data and the predictions from the A/AD.
2.2.1 Argumental to-phrases
One problem for the DAVD-based approach to do so comes from what I will call ‘argumental to-phrases’.Footnote 11 (9) from Huddleston & Pullum (Reference Huddleston and Pullum2002: 1533) illustrates the phenomenon. As they point out, the interpretation of do that in (9) is something like ‘question me for over an hour before letting me go’, with the to-phrase to me corresponding to the patient participant Jill in the antecedent clause.Footnote 12
Example 9
Many examples of this sort with do so occur in corpora. Below are three from Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Further examples can be found in COCA and other corpora, as well as in the literature (see, e.g. Miller Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990, Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Culicover & Jackendoff Reference Culicover and Jackendoff2005, Mikkelsen et al. Reference Mikkelsen, Hardt, Ørsnes, Choi, Choi, Hogue, Punske, Tat, Schertz and Trueman2012).
Example 10
In the examples above, the to-phrases in the do so-clauses correspond to argumental dependents in the antecedents. In (10a) and (10b), the to-phrases correspond to direct objects, which are universally considered arguments (not adjuncts). In (10c) the to-phrase corresponds to a goal PP, also classed as an argument by standard criteria.Footnote 13 Such examples undermine do so-anaphora’s ability to function as a separability diagnostic. As discussed above, this ability is predicated on the analysis whereby do so seeks a complete vP as its antecedent. Yet, DAVD predicts there to be no complete vPs in (10) that match the meanings we find for do so. In (10a), for example, do so’s interpretation is, roughly, ‘control through physical harm’. According to DAVD, there is no such vP in (10a); the minimal v P would be control others . If this vP is chosen as the antecedent for do so, an unacceptable interpretation for the do so clause would result, namely ‘control others to our children’.
Example 11
Though Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski1999) argues against do so as evidence for the A/AD, he remarks (290–291) that data like in (10) may be insufficient to ‘pronounce the demise of the do so test’, because one could imagine an analysis whereby the problematic material covertly evacuates the antecedent vPFootnote 14 (see Mikkelsen et al. Reference Mikkelsen, Hardt, Ørsnes, Choi, Choi, Hogue, Punske, Tat, Schertz and Trueman2012 for a concrete solution along similar lines). However, I claim that this would not, in fact, save the do so-test. While Przepiórkowski’s hypothetical solution could preserve both (i) DAVD and (ii) the idea that do so seeks a vP antecedent, it only does so by introducing a uniform treatment of arguments and adjuncts, and as such, it neutralizes do so’s ability to function as evidence for DAVD or the A/AD more broadly. Crucially, if we allow overlapping argumental material, like the patient others in (10a), to covertly evacuate the vP so that do so can target the remnant, then we allow this same analysis for adjuncts. That is, just as do so could target the remnant vP in (12a), it could also target the remnant vP in (12b).
Example 12
This eliminates the implication from strandability to adjuncthood under do so-anaphora. Therefore, while the behavior of argumental to-phrases may not undermine the idea that do so seeks a syntactically defined vP as its antecedent, it does radically undermine the idea that do so-anaphora serves as a separability diagnostic for argumenthood.
2.2.2 Benefactives
A similar problem is posed by benefactives, as in (13).
Example 13
I assume that DP-benefactives like Lee in (13) are to be considered arguments (e.g. because they are DPs and occur with specific verbs like license them). Data like (13) thus cannot be analyzed in the way necessary for do so-anaphora to serve as a separability diagnostic. Let us assume that double-object benefactives have a structure like either (14a) (based on Pylkkänen Reference Pylkkänen2008) or (14b) (based on Bruening Reference Bruening2010, Bosse Reference Bosse2015).Footnote 15
Example 14
For do so-anaphora to serve as a separability diagnostic, do so must seek a complete vP as its antecedent. In both structures (14a) and (14b), the minimal vP is bake Lee cookies. However, if this vP were targeted as the antecedent to do so in (13), then the do so clause would receive an unacceptable interpretation, namely, ‘bake Lee cookies for Terry’. The actual interpretation of do so in (13) is ‘bake cookies in a heartbeat’, including the temporal adjunct in a heartbeat and not including the antecedent beneficiary Lee.
As with argumental to-phrases, one could imagine an analysis that preserves both DAVD and the assumption that do so seeks a vP antecedent, by allowing the beneficiary Lee to covertly evacuate the antecedent vP. This neutralizes do so-anaphora’s ability to serve as a separability diagnostic for the same reasons as with argumental to-phrases.
One could also imagine accounting for examples like (13) with a subtly different analysis of do so: instead of being a proform seeking a vP antecedent, do so could result from an ellipsis-like derivation, wherein a complete vP structure is constructed for the do so-clause, only to be replaced by do so. The relation between do so and its antecedent would then be similar to that between elliptical clauses and their antecedents (see Harley Reference Harley2007). While this might arguably be able to account for (13) (assuming do so-replacement for bake cookies in a heartbeat would be licensed by the antecedent bake Lee cookies in a heartbeat), it will not work in general because of examples like (10a)/(10b). With patient to-phrases, no appropriate vP could be constructed for do so to replace (consider *control to our children, for (10a), for example).
2.2.3 Locatives and comitatives
The behavior of benefactives and argumental to-phrases indicates that a key aspect of the DAVD-based analysis of do so-anaphora is incorrect; namely, these phenomena show that do so can have an antecedent that excludes arguments of the verb. A complementary problem is posed by locatives and comitatives, showing that there are some adjuncts that do so cannot separate from the verb. To illustrate the problem, I first distinguish locatives and comitatives that are subject-oriented from those that are object-oriented. The difference can be illustrated with (15).
Example 15
These sentences are ambiguous. One reading of (15a) is that where the 2nd-person addressee is at home, but there is another reading where the 1st-person speaker is at home.Footnote 16 (15a) is similarly ambiguous; in addition to the reading where the 2nd-person addressee is with family, there is another reading where the 3rd-person referent (him) is the one with family.Footnote 17
Locatives and comitatives are among the most prototypical adjuncts. It is perhaps surprising, then, to find that the object-oriented versions of these elements are incompatible with do so-anaphora.
Example 16
On their own, the antecedent clauses in (16) would be ambiguous: ‘Lee called Terry at home’ could mean that Lee was at home or that Terry was, for example. But with do so-anaphora, the object-oriented reading goes away. (16a) can only mean that Lee called Terry while Lee was at work (not while Terry was at work), and (16b) can only mean that Lee talked to Terry while Lee was with their friends (not while Terry was with their friends). Yet, on a DAVD-based analysis of do so-anaphora, assuming that adjuncts attach outside the vP, this is unexpected.
One could maintain the idea that do so seeks a vP antecedent by taking data like (16) to indicate that the subject- versus object-oriented readings of locative/comitative PPs involve different attachment heights: the subject-oriented versions attach outside the vP, and the object-oriented versions attach somewhere lower (see Zhang Reference Zhang2007, for example, and Maienborn’s Reference Maienborn2001 analysis of external vs. internal modifiers). This would make the right predictions about (16), but it would neutralize do so-anaphora’s ability to function as a separability diagnostic: if some adjuncts attach within the vP, then we cannot conclude from a dependent’s non-separability from the verb under do so-anaphora that the dependent is an argument.
2.3. An A/AD-free analysis of do so-anaphora
Section 2.2 presented several problems for the idea that do so-anaphora functions as a separability diagnostic. In this section, I suggest that an A/AD-free analysis of do so-anaphora better captures the data. I specifically adapt Bruening’s (Reference Bruening2019) discourse-pragmatic account of do so-anaphora resolution, in combination with Miller’s (Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990) crucial point that the dependents of do so are subject to the selectional restrictions of the lexical verb do. I first review Bruening’s analysis, then introduce the crucial claim from Miller (Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990), showing how this accommodates all the problems discussed in Section 2.2. As noted in Section 1, an analysis of the full range of subtleties exhibited by do so-anaphora falls outside the scope of this paper. Here, I focus only on the DAVD-relevant aspects of the analysis. Any adequate account of do so-anaphora must deal with two questions. First, how is the semantic value of do so determined? Second, where do the (in)compatibilities with different PPs (such as those described in Section 2.2) come from? I begin here with the first question and return to the second.
As mentioned, much prior literature demonstrates conclusively that do so-anaphora is fundamentally discourse-pragmatic in nature. I will not repeat the relevant arguments here; see Houser (Reference Houser2010) for a concise summary and Przepiórkowski (Reference Przepiórkowski1999) for copious examples. Here, I adopt Bruening’s (Reference Bruening2019) analysis treating do so as a vP with denotation λe.f ⟨v, t⟩(e). According to Bruening (Reference Bruening2019), do so gets its surface semantic value simply by searching the discourse for a function f of the appropriate semantic type ⟨v, t⟩ (i.e. a predicate of events). The value of this function replaces that of f in the denotation of do so. In many cases, the value of f corresponds to the value of a vP node in an antecedent clause (see Bruening Reference Bruening2019: 31–34), but that need not be the case. With respect to split-antecedents, for example, Bruening (Reference Bruening2019: 42) explicitly notes that the value of f must sometimes be ‘constructed from multiple functions in the discourse’.
Though Bruening (Reference Bruening2019) does not address them in detail, there are many restrictions on potential values for f (which I also cannot go into here); for example, do so cannot have a stative antecedent and is limited in reference to linguistic (as opposed to situationally evoked) content. See Kehler & Ward Reference Kehler, Ward and Turner1999, Ward & Kehler Reference Ward, Kehler, Branco, McEnery and Mitkov2005 for discussions. For the purposes of this paper, I understand Bruening’s (Reference Bruening2019) required value f to be the maximalFootnote 18 predicate of events meeting the relevant conditions (such as those identified by Kehler & Ward (Reference Kehler, Ward and Turner1999)) that is entailed in the discourse. This analysis then straightforwardly models the problematic examples with argumental to-phrases and benefactives discussed in Section 2.2, as well as all standard examples of do so with stranded adjuncts. To illustrate, consider (17) with an argumental to-phrase.
Example 17
The antecedent for do so here is sack Carthage.
Example 18
Do so is interpreted to mean sack, excluding the patient. Under a neo-Davidsonian event representation, this value is entailed from (18) via conjunction elimination.
Example 19
Deriving the ultimate interpretation of the do so-clause involves combining the denotation (19) with the thematic content of the argumental to-phrase. Following a reviewer’s suggestion, I take these to-phrases to contribute a malefactive theta role mal, leading to the denotation λe. Sack(e) ∧ mal(e)=Corinth for the do so-clause in (17). The acceptability of an example with an argumental to-phrase thus depends on a speaker’s willingness to accept the role of the to-phrase’s correlate as compatible with the malefactive role assigned to it in the do so-clause.Footnote 19
Examples with benefactives, like (13), as well as any standard example with a stranded adjunct, work straightforwardly along the same lines. What remains unexplained (so far) under this analysis is why not just any PP can be stranded by do so-substitution. For example, what makes sentences like (20) unacceptable, given that apparently appropriate values for do so could be determined straightforwardly along the lines just described?Footnote 20
Example 20
This brings us to the second question raised at the beginning of this section, and it is here that Miller’s (Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990) insight is relevant. As he points out, the do of do so is a lexical verb (not an auxiliary), and as such, it can be expected to have selectional requirements,Footnote 21 like all verbs have. To take a random example, a goal at-phrase is incompatible with the verb sleep not because of any DAVD-based configurational property of goal PPs, but simply because sleep is not compatible with the goal theta role. Countless other verbs have the same property, and the verb do is among them. It is selectional requirements like this that determine which kinds of PPs can occur with do so, not the A/AD.
We can test Miller’s (Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990) proposal by explicitly comparing the kinds of thematic PPs that can occur with do so against those that can occur with the lexical verb do in another context (something Miller Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990, Reference Miller1992 do not do). (21) illustrates with the kinds of PPs discussed above.Footnote 22
Example 21
The PPs compatible with do so align closely with those compatible with lexical do. Notice also that the locative and comitative in (21c) and (21d) necessarily have the subject-oriented reading, just as with do so.Footnote 23 These data strongly support the idea that the selectional requirements of do, not the A/AD, determine a PP’s compatibility with do so.
This section considered do so-anaphora as a potential separability diagnostic for argumenthood. While do so-anaphora has been widely cited as evidence for DAVD since Lakoff & Ross (Reference Lakoff and Ross1966), I presented several major misalignments between this diagnostic and the A/AD. Though these misalignments are problematic for the DAVD-based analysis of do so-anaphora, I showed that they are handled straightforwardly on an analysis like that of Bruening (Reference Bruening2019), treating do so-anaphora as a fundamentally discourse-pragmatic phenomenon. The compatability of different types of dependents with do so can be handled in terms of the selectional properties of the verb do. In light of these facts, we should conclude that strandability under do so-substitution is orthogonal to the A/AD.
3. Do What-Pseudoclefting
Do so-anaphora does not provide evidence for DAVD as a property of adjunction. However, the closely related do what-pseudoclefting is also widely cited in support of this property and is sometimes claimed to provide more robust support than do so-anaphora does (see Schütze Reference Schütze1995, Hedberg & DeArmond Reference Hedberg and DeArmond2009, Needham & Toivonen Reference Needham, Toivonen, Butt and King2011, Kim et al. Reference Kim, Rawlins and Smolensky2019, Zyman Reference Zyman2022). In this section, I show that do what-pseudoclefting also fails to provide evidence for DAVD as a property of adjunction. The argumentation is very similar to that of Section 2. I first introduce the DAVD-based analysis necessary for do what-pseudoclefting to function as a separability diagnostic. Next, I present data that is problematic for this idea. Finally, I show that an A/AD-free analysis similar to that proposed for do so-anaphora better captures the data, suggesting that strandability under do what-pseudoclefting is unrelated to the A/AD.
3.1. Do what- pseudoclefting as a separability diagnostic
Do what-pseudoclefting serves as a separability diagnostic under assumptions similar to those for do so-anaphora discussed in Section 2.1. Recall from Section 2.1 that simply assuming do what to be a pro-vP (as Kim et al. Reference Kim, Rawlins and Smolensky2019 do) is insufficient to conclude that elements it can ‘strand’ are adjuncts. It is also insufficient to adopt a semantic condition on pseudocleft reconstruction, because the property at issue here (i.e. DAVD) is a syntactic one.
In order for do what-pseudoclefting to function as a separability diagnostic, it must involve a vP-targeting operation. I take the relevant operation to be reconstruction along the lines of Bošković (Reference Bošković1997). Specificational pseudocleftsFootnote 24 consist of three parts, (i) a wh-clause with a gap bound by a wh-operator, (ii) a ‘counterweight’ constituent that specifies the content of the gap and (iii) a copula linking these two components.
Example 22
In an analysis like that of Bošković (Reference Bošković1997), the syntactic derivation of (22) involves replacement of what by the counterweight at LF, for example, transforming (23a) into (23b). Reconstruction into the gap site then yields a final logical form as in (23c).
Example 23
See Van Luven (Reference Van Luven2018: 30) for application of Bošković’s (Reference Bošković1997) analysis to do what-pseudoclefts as in (23). For present purposes, what’s critical is that the counterweight must be a complete vP, and any elements stranded at the gap site (like yesterday in (23)) must be able to attach outside this vP when it reconstructs. Compare (24a), which is predicted to be unacceptable because reconstruction to (24b) places an argument at-phrase outside vP.
Example 24
In this way, do what-pseudoclefting meets the definition of a separability diagnostic and could potentially provide evidence for DAVD.
3.2. Behavior of different PPs under do what-pseudoclefting
If do what-pseudoclefting is a separability diagnostic, then any PP that can be stranded under this operation should be an adjunct, and any PP that cannot be stranded should be an argument. This section presents several problems for that idea. These problems closely parallel those discussed with respect to do so-anaphora in Section 2 above. Therefore, for conciseness, the exposition in this section is abridged (see discussion of the parallel do so for more detail).
3.2.1 Argumental to-phrases
As with do so-anaphora, a do what-pseudocleft can host a to-phrase that corresponds to an argument in the counterweight. Many examples occur in corpora, and examples are also easy to construct. Here is one example from COCA and one constructed example:
Example 25
The wh-clause in sentence (25b) is what they did to the children, where the to-phrase to the children that appears stranded at the gap site corresponds to an argument NP in the counterweight vP (i.e. the patient them). However, if the counterweight in (25b) reconstructs into the gap site as in (23), then an illicit vP would be formed, namely, they chased them through the park to the children. This is problematic for the idea that do what-pseudoclefting is a separability diagnostic.
3.2.2 Benefactives
Benefactives in do what-pseudoclefts pose a similar problem. Consider a sentence like (26).
Example 26
The wh-clause here contains a benefactive PP corresponding to an indirect object benefactive them in the counterweight. If the counterweight bake them cookies were to straightforwardly reconstruct into the gap site as in (23), the result would be (27).Footnote 25
Example 27
This paraphrase is acceptable for some speakers, if the for-phrase is interpreted as a ‘deputative’ benefactive (a benefactive for-phrase indicating that the event was carried out on someone else’s behalf, in this case, on behalf of the students, see Bosse Reference Bosse2015: 121–122). If reconstruction yields (27), it is predicted that the for-phrase in the wh-clause in (26) is interpreted as a deputative benefactive; thus, in addition to being the recipient of the cake, the students in this example should also be the party on whose behalf the baking was carried out. That is not necessarily the case, though. The pseudocleft in (26) does not require an interpretation in which cookies were baked on behalf of the students. Instead, (26) can be interpreted as simply saying that the cookies were baked for the students to eat.Footnote 26 To the extent that for the students in (26) needs not be interpreted as a deputative benefactive, it is a problem for the DAVD-based understanding of do what-pseudoclefting.
3.2.3 Locatives and comitatives
Just as with do so-anaphora, benefactives and argumental to-phrases show that the elements apparently stranded at the gap site in do what-pseudoclefting do not necessarily have to correspond to adjuncts of the counterweight vP. Also as with do so-anaphora, locatives and comitatives pose a complementary problem, that is, showing that not all adjuncts can be stranded by this operation. To illustrate, consider (28).
Example 28
The reconstructed versions of these sentences would be ambiguous between subject- versus object-oriented readings of the locative and comitative (compare (15) above). If object-oriented locative and comitative adjuncts could occur outside the vP, as DAVD would predict, we would expect the object-oriented readings to remain available under pseudoclefting. Yet, in these pseudoclefts, only the subject-oriented readings are available: (28a) can only mean that the speaker shouldn’t be called when the 2nd-person addressee is at home, and (28b) can only mean that the 3rd-person referent him shouldn’t be talked to when the 2nd-person addressee is with his family. This is problematic if do what-pseudoclefting is supposed to be a separability diagnostic.
3.3. An A/AD-free analysis of do what-pseudoclefting
I have presented several problems (paralleling those discussed for do so in Section 2.2) for the idea that do what-pseudoclefting is a separability diagnostic. In this section, I argue that an A/AD-free understanding of do what-pseudoclefting better accounts for the data, contradicting the idea that do what-pseudoclefting provides evidence for DAVD. In brief, I adopt the analysis of Den Dikken et al. (Reference Den Dikken, Meinunger and Wilder2000), according to whom the relevant pseudoclefts have the structure of ‘concealed questions’. Do what-pseudoclefts, therefore, do not involve reconstruction of the counterweight into the wh-clause, instead being interpreted in the same way as a question-answer pair. The key insight of Miller (Reference Miller, Ziolkowski, Noske and Deaton1990) is also relevant here in the same way as with do so-anaphora.
Den Dikken et al.’s (Reference Den Dikken, Meinunger and Wilder2000) concealed-question analysis is necessitated by the existence of what O’Neill (Reference O’Neill2015) terms ‘amalgam pseudoclefts’. In this construction, the counterweight duplicates part of the material of the wh-clause and is often a fully articulated clause itself. Several examples are given in (29).
Example 29
Den Dikken et al. (Reference Den Dikken, Meinunger and Wilder2000) propose that pseudoclefts of this sort comprise a topic-comment structure mediated by a Topic Phrase (TopP) projection. The wh-clause subject of the pseudocleft occupies Spec-TopP, and the counterweight occupies Comp-TopP.
Example 30
This structure is claimed to be present even when overlap between the wh-clause and the counterweight is not overt; in these cases, Den Dikken et al. (Reference Den Dikken, Meinunger and Wilder2000) (citing Ross Reference Ross1997 as precedent) argue extensively that overlapping material in the counterweight is elided (see also O’Neill Reference O’Neill2015, Van Luven Reference Van Luven2018).
Example 31
Den Dikken et al. (Reference Den Dikken, Meinunger and Wilder2000) propose that, rather than involving syntactic reconstruction, such sentences are interpreted in the manner of question-answer pairs like (32), which can similarly involve overlap between the question and the answer.
Example 32
The ability of a PP to occur at the gap site in a do what-question like (32) is determined by the selectional properties of the lexical verb do. Compare (33) with (21) above.
Example 33
The same PPs that can occur in do what-questions are the ones that can appear ‘stranded’ at the gap site in do what-pseudoclefts. All the questions in (33a) make acceptable do what-pseudoclefts when paired with appropriate counterweights (i.e. answers), while none of the questions in (33b) do. For example, What I’d like to do to Lee is surprise them, *What I’d like to do at Lee is toss the ball.
Therefore, DAVD is not needed to explain which PPs can occur with do in the wh-clause of a do what-pseudocleft. Instead, the ability of a PP to occur in a do what-pseudocleft depends on that PP’s compatibility with the lexical verb do. This account naturally resolves all the problems discussed in Section 3.2. For example, the overlap that occurs with argumental to-phrases and some benefactives works by the same mechanisms as when overlap occurs in pseudoclefts or question-answer pairs generally, as in (29) or (32). As for locatives and comitatives, the reason why only the subject-oriented versions are compatible with do what-pseudoclefting is that the object-oriented versions are incompatible with lexical do, as discussed in Section 2.3.
This section considered patterns of apparent stranding under do what-pseudoclefting potentially providing evidence that DAVD is a property of the A/AD. I argued that this phenomenon provides no such evidence. Instead, I presented several misalignments between the A/AD and the set of PPs that appear separable from the verb under do what-pseudoclefting, and I argued that an analysis accurately capturing these data has no need to invoke DAVD or the A/AD more generally.
4. VP-Fronting
This section considers the phenomenon of VP-fronting as a potential motivation for DAVD as a property of the A/AD. Specifically, the idea is that a PP’s ability to be stranded under VP-fronting is predictable from its argumenthood. I demonstrate that attested examples are incompatible with the A/AD-based predictions and that contemporary approaches to VP-fronting predict that the A/AD need not be involved at all. Instead, PPs are separated from the verb under VP-fronting by extraposition, applying to arguments and adjuncts equally. VP-fronting, therefore, does not provide evidence in favor of DAVD. To show this, I first discuss how VP-fronting is thought to be a separability diagnostic in Section 4.1, then report data from prior literature which pose problems for A/AD-based approaches to VP-fronting in Section 4.2 and conclude by explaining how an A/AD-free analysis could account for the stranding facts in Section 4.3.
4.1. VP-fronting as a separability diagnostic
VP-fronting is standardly analyzed as movement of a verbal projection assumed here to be vP. This straightforwardly makes VP-fronting a separability diagnostic capable of motivating DAVD as a property of the A/AD. Given DAVD, the targeted vP will have to contain all the arguments of the verb but could potentially exclude adjuncts to the verb. Extraction of vP, therefore, must carry along the arguments of the verb to the landing site but could leave adjuncts behind at the extraction site.
Example 34
According to this analysis of VP-fronting, any instance of Internal Merge targeting vP represents VP-fronting, not just VP-topicalization.Footnote 27 Therefore, VP-fronting in though-preposing can also be considered as relevant data, as it has in prior literature (see, e.g. Phillips Reference Phillips2003: 77 fn. 33, Baltin Reference Baltin2006, Reference Baltin, Everaert and Van Riemsdijk2017, Landau Reference Landau2007, Janke & Neeleman Reference Janke and Neeleman2012, Bruening Reference Bruening2018, Culicover & Winkler Reference Culicover, Winkler, Molnár, Egerland and Winkler2019, Thoms & Walkden Reference Thoms and Walkden2019). For example, the fact that (56b) is acceptable with the same interpretation as (56a) would be taken to indicate that the durational PP throughout the entire day is an adjunct to eat.
Example 35
4.2. Behavior of different PPs under VP-fronting
This section collects judgments from a variety of sources contradicting the generalization that VP-fronting can strand adjuncts but not arguments. Judgments on VP-fronting are notoriously variable. Some speakers reject VP-fronting outright. Among those that accept it, some do not accept any stranding at all. However, in the judgments reported in the literature from speakers who do accept stranding under VP-fronting, there is little reason to believe that strandability is conditioned by the A/AD. The literature attests to many examples in which conventional argument PPs are stranded. This includes addressee to-phrases, recipients, goals and certain of-phrases.
Example 36
Example 37
Example 38
Example 39
All these kinds of PPs would be considered arguments, not adjuncts, by standard criteria – for example, none of them has the self-licensing property that is characteristic of prototypical adjuncts (see Section 1 above). If DAVD is a property of the A/AD, these PPs should be situated within the vP. The vP in (36a), for example, would have a structure along the lines of (40).
Example 40
With this structure, it is not possible to separate the PP from the verb simply by targeting the vP for Internal Merge. We could stipulate that the to-phrase is first dislocated to a position external to vP, with movement then targeting the remnant vP (compare Lechner Reference Lechner, Schwabe and Winkler2003), but such a move would make it possible to separate anything that can be dislocated, including arguments.Footnote 28 VP-fronting would not then be expected to treat arguments differently from adjuncts and would not provide evidence for the DAVD hypothesis. I conclude that data from VP-fronting do not provide evidence for the hypothesis that adjuncts attach externally to the vP while arguments attach internally to the vP or that the A/AD otherwise plays a role in determining which PPs VP-fronting can separate from the verb.
4.3. An A/AD-free analysis of VP-fronting
Many analyses of English VP-fronting do not assume that the A/AD constrains separability. I will not attempt to adjudicate between the various options, which would require discussion of a vast literature.Footnote 29 Instead, in this subsection, I will consider one state-of-the-art analysis of English VP-fronting (that of Thoms & Walkden Reference Thoms and Walkden2019), showing that within this analysis, the A/AD cannot parsimoniously be invoked to account for the possibilities of separation from the verb. With a minor extension, this analysis more parsimoniously accounts for the possibilities of separation without requiring DAVD as a property of the A/AD.
Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) propose that VP-fronting does not involve movement of vP at all but instead involves base generation of a vP in fronted position. The fronted vP is linked to the ‘extraction site’ via ellipsis plus operator movement. Their proposed analysis is exemplified in (41) for a sentence like eat the pies he did. In this example, strikethrough indicates ellipsis, and angled brackets (< >) indicate an unpronounced copy created by Internal Merge.
Example 41
According to Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019), the subject of the lower vP is merged with an operator Op forming a complex DP. The operator, co-indexed with the subject of the lower vP, moves to Spec-CP, where it binds the PRO subject of the fronted vP (ensuring the subject of the fronted vP covaries with the subject of the lower vP). Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) argue that connectivity effects between the vP in fronted position and the lower vP arise through identity requirements on ‘high predicate ellipsis’, that is, ellipsis which applies relatively ‘high’ in the vP (they assume the relevant domain is VoiceP, a detail I omit from the notation below).
This analysis has a variety of advantages. Specifically, Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) show that their analysis enables an account of (i) the restricted licensing conditions on VP-fronting, (ii) the possibilities of morphological mismatch between the fronted vP and the elided vP and (iii) the restricted set of connectivity effects occurring with VP-fronting. However, Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) do not consider the way their proposal deals with the instances of stranding considered in this section. I argue that, according to Thoms & Walkden’s (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) proposal for VP-fronting, such examples cannot be treated as stranding involving the A/AD but are better treated as involving extraposition from the fronted vP (ignoring the A/AD).
To reach this conclusion, first consider Thoms & Walkden’s (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) critical diagnostic for high Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VPE): retorts and question tags. The reason VPE in these constructions is considered ‘high’ VPE is that voice mismatches are not possible.
Example 42
Example 43
This suggests that retorts and question tags involve ellipsis of Voice (compare Merchant Reference Merchant2013). Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019), following Sailor (Reference Sailor2014), take the target of deletion in these constructions to be (the maximal projection) VoiceP. They argue that VP-fronting involves high VPE because, for instance, the possibilities of morphological mismatch in VP-fronting mirror those in high VPE (see Thoms & Walkden Reference Thoms and Walkden2019: Section 2.3).
High VPE does not strand dependents of the verb. According to Sailor (Reference Sailor2014), high VPE is preferred to low VPE when the antecedent and ellipsis site are structurally equipotent, as in (44).
Example 44
Sailor (Reference Sailor2014) notes that the interpretation of (44) preferentially includes the manner adverb carefully, so that the interpretation of the elliptical clause is ‘carefully review the book’ rather than just ‘review the book (not necessarily carefully)’. Sailor (Reference Sailor2014) thus assumes that the adverbial is contained in the minimal projection targeted by high VPE.
The idea that manner adverbs are contained within the minimal target of high VPE is supported by their behavior with retorts and question tags.
Example 45
Example 46
The retort of (45) seems to necessarily include the unfairly part of the antecedent; it asserts that, in fact, John will penalize Molly unfairly. The question tag of (46) includes the carefully part of the matrix clause; the answer would be ‘no’ if Jordy had in fact reviewed the book carelessly. Thus, because retorts and question tags involve high VPE, (45)–(46) suggest that the domain of high VPE includes manner adverbials.
The same diagnostics can be applied to various other adjuncts to the verb, suggesting that all kinds of verbal dependents are included in the domain of high VPE. (47)–(48) illustrate with benefactives, comitatives and temporals, all typically considered adjuncts.
Example 47
Example 48
The interpretation of the retort in (47) and the question tag in (48) necessarily includes the ‘adjuncts’ in their antecedents. The retort in (47), for instance, asserts that ‘you will buy cookies for me/with me/on Tuesday’. The question in (48) would be answered ‘no’ if the buying didn’t take place ‘for me/with me/on Tuesday’. Thus, we should conclude, based on the diagnostics from Sailor (Reference Sailor2014) and Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019), that adjuncts of various kinds are contained in the domain of high VPE.
Because Thoms & Walkden (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) argue that VP-fronting involves high VPE in the ‘extraction site’, this predicts that arguments and adjuncts cannot be stranded in situ by VP-fronting. That is, the arguments and adjuncts in the lower vP are necessarily contained in the domain of high VPE, as (47)–(48) show; they are, therefore, necessarily deleted. Thus, a representation like (49b) could not be derived for (49a) by high VPE.
Example 49
Such sentences are acceptable, however, as illustrated in Section 4.2 above. How can these sentences be derived on Thoms & Walkden’s (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) analysis? The A/AD-based hypothesis that arguments are attached within the vP while adjuncts are attached outside it are of little help here. The domain of high VPE seems to cover arguments and adjuncts alike. Attachment height of arguments versus adjuncts thus can’t be used to explain what can be stranded and what can’t be.
I propose here that separation of dependents from the verb under VP-fronting can be derived via extraposition from the higher vP. That is, an instance of VP-fronting like (49a) would be analyzed as in (50). Both the fronted vP and the lower vP contain the stranded PP. High VPE deletes the PP in the lower vP, and the PP in the fronted vP is extraposed from Spec-CP.Footnote 30
Example 50
Importantly, there is independent evidence that extraposition can take place from Spec-CP in English. Consider (51)–(52).
Example 51
(Adapted from Reeve Reference Reeve2012: 77 fn. 19 ex. (i))
Example 52
(Adapted from Culicover & Rochemont Reference Culicover and Rochemont1990: 43 ex. 50)
In fact, the idea that dependents ‘stranded’ from a fronted vP are actually extraposed is suggested by Baltin (Reference Baltin, Everaert and Van Riemsdijk2017: 242). Baltin (Reference Baltin, Everaert and Van Riemsdijk2017) suggests specifically that the apparently stranded dependents in (53) are separated from the vP via extraposition.
Example 53
This analysis is supported by Culicover & Winkler’s (Reference Culicover, Winkler, Molnár, Egerland and Winkler2019) observation that constituents which can be extraposed can also be ‘stranded’ by VP-fronting. PP dependents of the verb, arguments and adjuncts alike, can be extraposed, explaining core examples like those in (36)–(39). It also explains why clausal complements to the verb can be stranded by VP-fronting, as illustrated in (54a). Strikingly, it additionally explains why heavy NPs can be stranded, while their light counterparts cannot be (Janke & Neeleman Reference Janke and Neeleman2012, Culicover & Winkler Reference Culicover, Winkler, Molnár, Egerland and Winkler2019), as in (55): heavy but not light NPs can be extraposed.Footnote 31
Example 54
Example 55
With this extension (i.e. allowing extraposition from the fronted vP), Thoms & Walkden’s (Reference Thoms and Walkden2019) analysis of VP-fronting can accommodate possibilities of separation without the DAVD hypothesis. Since both arguments and adjuncts of different kinds can be extraposed, there is no expectation that VP-fronting should be sensitive to the A/AD.
5. VP-Ellipsis and Pseudogapping
The preceding three sections of this paper considered three different phenomena commonly cited as separability diagnostics for argumenthood: do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting and VP-fronting. As noted in Section 1, another phenomenon sometimes cited (e.g. by Hornstein & Nunes Reference Hornstein and Nunes2008) as evidence for a configurational distinction between arguments and adjuncts is VP-ellipsis (VPE).Footnote 32 As advocates point out, if we assume (i) DAVD and (ii) that VPE targets a vP constituent for either syntactic deletion or PF-non-realization (see Merchant Reference Merchant, van Craenenbroeck and Temmerman2018), then VPE makes a natural diagnostic for argumenthood. Ellipsis would be able to strand adjuncts to the verb but not arguments of it.
Example 56
Under the right analysis along these lines (see below for more discussion), VPE would meet the definition assumed in this paper for separability diagnostics and could potentially provide evidence for DAVD as a property of the A/AD.
VPE is even more vast a topic, with more competing analyses and intricate confounds than the other three diagnostics considered above. The potential relation between VPE and DAVD hangs on the interaction of a variety of distinct aspects of the analysis of ellipsis, no one of which can be addressed in detail in this paper. As such, it would not be feasible for this paper to examine the DAVD-relevant aspects of VPE along the same lines as in Sections 2 – 4 above. The status of VPE as a separability diagnostic, therefore, cannot be settled here.
Nevertheless, I conjecture that the prospects that VPE will make a successful separability diagnostic are not promising. The reason is that, for VPE to succeed in this way, a very specific constellation of analytical stars must align, some aspects of which seem particularly unlikely. First, VPE must be a syntactic operation, crucially involving the derivation of a vP which becomes suppressed in the syntax or at spellout. If an alternative non-structural approach like that of Culicover & Jackendoff (Reference Culicover and Jackendoff2005) were adopted, then VPE would not make a successful separability diagnostic. Second, VPE must have the effect of silencing the complete vP constituent that it targets, such that any material stranded by ellipsis must be located outside the vP. In other words, we need to adopt a ‘move-and-delete’ approach to ellipsis remnants. If we were to adopt an approach allowing non-constituent deletion, then VPE would not be relevant for DAVD. Third, our analysis must distinguish the remnants of ordinary VPE from the remnants of pseudogapping. That is, constructions like (57a), where a direct object survives ellipsis, must be derived by mechanisms distinct from those by which in five minutes is stranded in (57b). Otherwise, argument- and adjunct-remnants alike could survive ellipsis by the same move-and-delete procedure.
Example 57
Further, we must assume that argument-PP remnants of ellipsis result from pseudogapping, not from ordinary VPE, which is not obviously true. Levin (Reference Levin1979: 17) excluded PP remnants results from the pseudogapping construction on the basis of the observation that examples with PP remnants tend to have a much higher acceptability than the prototypical pseudogapping examples with NP remnants. Lasnik (Reference Lasnik, Lappin and Benmamoun1999) also develops an analysis whereby pseudogapping leaves NP remnants only. Argument and adjunct PPs alike would then have to be remnants of ordinary VPE, as explicitly assumed by Janke & Neeleman (Reference Janke and Neeleman2012), for example.
With the necessary analytical assumptions in place, it would have to be shown, using robust criteria for distinguishing pseudogapping from ordinary VPE (criteria which prove difficult to pin down in the first place; see Miller Reference Miller and Piñón2014), that argument PPs are systematically unacceptable as remnants of ordinary VPE, while adjunct PP remnants are systematically acceptable. In ordinary contexts, however, this contrast is not obvious. I do not detect a systematic difference in acceptability between examples like (58) and examples like (59). The former involves conventional argument PPs and the latter conventional adjunct PPs.
Example 58
Example 59
Some of the necessary assumptions just described are quite plausible (see, e.g. arguments for a structural approach to ellipsis in Van Craenenbroeck & Merchant Reference Van Craenenbroeck, Merchant and den Dikken2013, Merchant Reference Merchant, van Craenenbroeck and Temmerman2018). However, others are less likely. For example, there are many challenges for the move-and-delete approach to ellipsis remnants (see, e.g. Ott & Struckmeier Reference Ott and Struckmeier2018, Broekhuis & Bayer Reference Broekhuis and Bayer2020, Ott & Therrien Reference Ott and Therrien2020, Griffiths et al. Reference Griffiths, Güneş and Lipták2023). Additionally, the necessary distinction between argument and adjunct PPs with respect to pseudogapping is not obvious, as reflected in Levin’s (Reference Levin1979) explicit choice to exclude PP-remnants from the pseudogapping construction and as reflected in the similar status of (58)–(59).
For the purposes of this paper, I conjecture that VPE will not make a successful separability diagnostic and will not revitalize DAVD as a property of the A/AD. Concretely, this conclusion is compatible with the analysis of PP-stranding VPE put forth in Janke & Neeleman (Reference Janke and Neeleman2012) – they argue that PPs stranded by VPE attach to the VP in an ‘ascending’ fashion (i.e. right-adjoined to VP), with VPE targeting the full VP constituent to which the PP adjoins.
Example 60
Crucially, their proposal allows for both argument and adjunct PPs to attach in this way, so that arguments and adjuncts alike can be stranded by the same VP-deletion operation. In contrast, DP arguments must attach in a ‘descending’ fashion (i.e. as complement to V or as specifiers of higher VP shells).
Example 61
Thus, DP-stranding VPE could not be accomplished simply by deleting a single VP constituent without prior evacuation of the DP.
6. General Discussion
Separability diagnostics for argumenthood are predicated on DAVD, the idea that arguments systematically attach within a particular syntactic projection of the verb and that adjuncts systematically attach outside that projection. This paper examined the evidence in favor of this hypothesis, taking the relevant projection, for concreteness, to be vP: arguments attach within vP, adjuncts outside vP. Sections 2–4 of this paper demonstrated that do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting and VP-fronting fail to provide consistent evidence in support of this hypothesis. The evidence shows that none of these phenomena is uniformly sensitive to a purported syntactic difference between argument versus adjunct PPs. Section 5 considered VP-ellipsis as further potential motivation for DAVD but suggested that the combination of analytical assumptions this requires is unlikely.
These results support the null hypothesis regarding DAVD, that is, the hypothesis that there is no systematic difference in attachment height between arguments and adjuncts. The two competing hypotheses can be formulated as in (62).
Example 62
The null hypothesis H0 is strictly more parsimonious than the alternative H1, which involves an added stipulation which is absent from H0. The idea that arguments and adjuncts are systematically distinguished in terms of attachment height, therefore, bears a burden of proof – it must be motivated through demonstration of empirical necessity. Traditionally, do so-anaphora, do what-pseudoclefting, VP-fronting and VP-ellipsis have been invoked as the necessary sort of motivation.
Some authors have proposed that the A/AD be reconceptualized as a ternary distinction (e.g. Hedberg & DeArmond Reference Hedberg and DeArmond2009, Needham & Toivonen Reference Needham, Toivonen, Butt and King2011) or as a gradient distinction (e.g. Forker Reference Forker2014, Rissman et al. Reference Rissman, Rawlins and Landau2015, Kim et al. Reference Kim, Rawlins and Smolensky2019). One might suspect that DAVD could be salvaged if stated as a property of one of these more sophisticated approaches. However, I maintain that the arguments of this paper apply even if we adopt a ternary or gradient A/AD. The purview of such approaches is the set of dependents for which informal intuitions of argumenthood are not always clear, like instrumental with-phrases and perhaps goal PPs. However, I showed above that the most prototypical arguments (e.g. patient direct objects, recipient to-phrases) behave counter to DAVD-based expectations. This is just as problematic for a ternary/gradient A/AD as for the conventional A/AD.
Therefore, if the conclusions of this paper are correct, and the phenomena examined above are not, in fact, sensitive to the A/AD, then the question arises to what extent H1 is justified. Given that these phenomena fail to provide evidence against the null hypothesis, what reason is there to accept the idea that the A/AD is instantiated by a systematic distinction in attachment height? The full answer to this question lies beyond the scope of this paper and would involve considering in detail a range of other properties associated with the syntactic A/AD, including omission, iteration, islandhood and more. However, to the extent that separability diagnostics comprise a primary source of evidence for this particular aspect of the A/AD, the case for rejecting H0 is substantially weakened.
At the very least, then, the results of this paper substantially weaken the case in favor of H1. This conclusion supports theories of clause structure which do not posit DAVD as a property of the A/AD, consistent with H0. In fact, despite the perceived importance of the A/AD in current theory, DAVD is absent from many current approaches to clause structure. For instance, Larson (Reference Larson1988, Reference Larson1990) argued for a VP structure such that arguments and adjuncts alike are treated as specifiers to V0 (save for the rightmost dependent which is the ‘innermost complement’ to V0). Later developments (e.g. Pesetsky Reference Pesetsky1995, Schweikert Reference Schweikert2005, inter alia) have a similar property. Culicover & Jackendoff’s (Reference Culicover and Jackendoff2005) treatment of VP also draws no configurational distinction between arguments and adjuncts; all are complements to the verb in a flat structure. The argumentation against such A/AD-free analyses has been sourced in part from the phenomena discussed in this paper (see Sobin’s Reference Sobin2008 arguments against Culicover & Jackendoff’s flat structure and Jackendoff’s Reference Jackendoff1990 arguments against Larson’s VP shells). This paper supports the A/AD-free analyses (Larson Reference Larson1988, Culicover & Jackendoff Reference Culicover and Jackendoff2005, etc.) by eliminating these potential counterarguments.Footnote 33
This paper considered a particular source of evidence for the syntactic A/AD, separability diagnostics. This is only one of a number of different purported motivations for the syntactic A/AD. Other phenomena, including islandhood, iteration, extraction from weak islands, Condition C reconstruction and selection, have all been taken to motivate further properties of syntactic argumenthood. The results of this paper alone, therefore, should not be taken to cast doubt on the syntactic A/AD as a whole, since all these other properties are widely accepted as independently supporting the distinction. Nevertheless, this work contributes to a trend alongside other detailed investigations showing these additional properties also fail to provide evidence for the A/AD (e.g. Payne et al. Reference Payne, Pullum, Scholz and Berlage2013 on one-substitution, Miliorini Reference Miliorini2019 on weak islands, Bruening & Al Khalaf Reference Bruening and Al Khalaf2019 on Condition C reconstruction, McInnerney Reference McInnerney2023 on the adjunct island effect; and see Przepiórkowski Reference Przepiórkowski1999, Reference Przepiórkowski, Arnold, Butt, Crysmann, King and Müller2016 for critique of the A/AD involving a variety of diagnostics). If this trend continues, it will become increasingly plausible that the A/AD could play a weaker role in syntax than previously assumed.
Acknowledgements
Iam grateful to three Journal of Linguistics reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments on this paper. I also thank Acrisio Pires, Ezra Keshet, Lisa Levinson, Lucy Chiang, Marlyse Baptista, Peter Culicover, Rafaela Miliorini, and Tom Ernst for helpful comments/discussion.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
Open access
