Superiority and Scope Freezing

David Lebeaux (cited in Larson 1990:603) observes that English double object constructions (DOCs) show “scope freezing” between the two objects. Quantified indirect and direct object arguments must be interpreted in their surface order (1a). Schneider-Zioga (1988) makes a similar observation about quantified arguments in the with-variant of spray-load constructions (1b); they also exhibit scope freezing.

(1)

a. John taught [two persons] [every language].

  2 > ∀; *∀ > 2

b. John loaded [two trucks] with [every box].

  2 > ∀; *∀ > 2

As noted in Larson 1990, scope freezing does not involve absolute low scope for the outer quantifier; instead, it involves fixation of the relative scopes of the quantifier-quantifier pair. This is clear in DOCs showing antecedent-contained deletion (ACD) in the outer quantified object.

(2)

a. John gave someone [everything that you did [_VP e]].

b. John wants to give someone [everything that you do [_VP e]].

On standard views of ACD (Sag 1976, May 1985, Larson and May 1990), reconstruction of the elliptical VP requires the quantified nominal containing it to receive scope at least as wide as the VP serving as its reconstruction source. For (2a), this entails that everything you did [_VP e] must receive scope at least as wide as VP (3a). Given the two possible interpretations of (2b), two scopes must be available for everything you did [_VP e]: an embedded-S scope interpretation in view of (3bi), and a matrix-S scope interpretation in view of (3bii).

(3)

a. ‘John gave someone everything that you gave him.’

b.

i. ‘John wants to give someone everything that you give him.’

ii. ‘John wants to give someone everything that you want to give him.’

Importantly, again as noted in Larson 1990, someone must in all cases be understood with scope over the theme, whatever the latter’s scope. (2a) must have an LF structure approximately as in (4a). And (2b) must have LFs approximately as in (4bi–ii) (where the relevant VPs are indicated in boldface).

(4)

a. [someone]_i [everything that you did [_VP e]]_j John

  [_VP gave t_i t_j]

b.

i. John wants [[someone]_i [everything that you did

  [_VP e]]_j PRO to [VP give t_i t_j]]

ii. [someone]_i [everything that you did [_VP e]]_j [John

   [_VP wants PRO to give t_i t_j]]

Thus, whether everything you did [_VP e] scopes in the lower or in the higher clause, someone must scope higher, preserving their relative “frozen” order.

1 Scope Freezing as Superiority

Bruening (2001) proposes that the scope constraint observed in (1) and (2) be assimilated to Superiority. In a sentence like (5) with multiple wh-phrases, movement must target the higher (5a) rather than the lower (5b) argument. Standard domain tests provide independent evidence for the height asymmetry (6a–b).¹

(5)

a. Who ____saw what?

b. *What did who see ____?

(6)

a. No one saw anything.

b. *Anyone saw nothing.

By a variety of domain tests, Barss and Lasnik (1986) demonstrate conclusively that in DOCs the goal object is asymmetrically higher than the theme (7a–b). We therefore expect DOCs to exhibit Superiority, which Barss and Lasnik do in fact note (8a–b).²

(7)

a. John gave [no one] [anything].

b. *John gave [anyone] [nothing].

(8)

a. Who did John give ____what?

b. *What did John give who ____?

In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), Superiority effects issue from the general account of movement. A head α bearing an edge feature (∈) and a feature [ϕ] capable of undergoing agreement probes its c-command domain for a [ϕ]-bearing β (9a). On detecting β, α agrees with it on [ϕ], activates its edge feature, and raises β to its specifier position (9b). Crucially, the probe-goal relation respects Minimality; α cannot probe γ “past” an intervening β that is a [ϕ]-bearer (9c).

(9)

 

In the specific case of wh-movement, an interrogative feature [_Q] on C probes its domain, targeting the closest wh-phrase who in (10a) and raising it (10b). The remaining wh-phrase what raises subsequently at LF, “tucking in” beneath who, thus preserving the original who-what order...