Linguistic Inquiry Early Access Corrected Proof - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Consulta lingüística Acceso anticipado Prueba corregida
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00467
(cid:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Publicado bajo una atribución Creative Commons 4.0 Internacional (CC POR 4.0) License.

(Im)possible Traces

Ethan Poole

In this article, I argue that when movement maps onto a (cid:2)-atado
variable (a “trace”), that variable must be of an individual semantic
tipo, such as type e or type d. De este modo, even though natural language has
expressions of higher types, these expressions cannot be represented as
traces. When an individual-type trace would not be able to semantical-
ly compose in the launching site of movement, the moved element is
forced to syntactically reconstruct. The motivation for this constraint
on traces comes from a detailed investigation of how DPs in their
different semantic guises—entities, propiedades, and generalized quanti-
fiers—are interpreted when they move. I then argue that strong definite
descriptions exhibit the same type-based restriction—namely, ellos
cannot occur in higher-type positions, which I take as evidence for
the theory that traces are definite descriptions.

Palabras clave: reconstruction, traces, movimiento, syntax-semantics inter-
rostro

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

1 Introducción

Movement has played an integral role in the development of linguistic theory. One of the pivotal
discoveries about movement is that when an element moves, it leaves behind something in its
launching site, traditionally a trace (Chomsky 1973), but more recently a full-fledged copy (Chom-
sky 1993, 1995). This dependency is standardly interpreted with one of two procedures. The first
procedure is to convert the trace/copy into a variable bound by a (cid:2)-operator inserted immediately
below the landing site (1a). The second procedure is to reconstruct, placing the moved element
back in its launching site at LF (1b).

(1) [The book] [Alex read [the book]].

a.
b.

LF: [the book] [(cid:2)X [Alex read x]]
LF: Alex read [the book]

(cid:2)-bound variable
Syntactic reconstruction

This article is concerned with the nature of the (cid:2)-bound variable in (1a)—in particular, qué
kinds of semantic objects it can range over. Assuming the copy theory of movement, I will re-
appropriate the term trace to refer to this (cid:2)-bound variable. I argue that traces only range over
individual semantic types, such as types e (entidades) and d (degrees). De este modo, even though natural

This article stems from my dissertation work in Poole 2017. Many thanks to Rajesh Bhatt and Kyle Johnson for ex-
tensive discussion, comments, and suggestions. Thanks also to Daniel Altshuler, Danny Fox, Tim Hunter, Stefan Keine,
Angelika Kratzer, Andrew McKenzie, Barbara Partee, David Pesetsky, Maribel Romero, Peter Svenonius, Katia Vostri-
kova, Ellen Woolford, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussion and feedback, in addition to audiences at
GLOW 40, WCCFL 35, el 2017 LSA Annual Meeting, Sinn und Bedeutung 22, UMass Amherst, UCLA, and USC,
where portions of this work were presented. This material is based on work financially supported by the National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under NSF DGE-1451512.

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Linguistic Inquiry, Early Access Corrected Proof
1–40
(cid:2) 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Publicado bajo una atribución Creative Commons 4.0 Internacional
(CC POR 4.0) License.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00467

E T H A N P O O L E

language has expressions of higher types (p.ej., propiedades (tipo (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3))), these expressions cannot
be represented as traces. I formulate this principle as the Trace Interpretation Constraint (TIC)
en (2) (see also Chierchia 1984, METRO. Landman 2006).

(2) Trace Interpretation Constraint (TIC)

*[XP1 [(cid:2)F(cid:3) [ . . . [ F(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]], dónde (cid:3) is not an individual type.

Under the TIC, movement is tightly restricted in that it only has two possible semantic representa-
ciones: an individual-type trace or reconstruction.1 Consequently, when a higher-type expression
moves, it is forced to reconstruct if an individual-type trace would be semantically incompatible
with the launching site of movement (p.ej., it is the wrong type).

The motivation for the TIC comes from the interpretation of DP-movement. Comparado con
other categories of expressions, DPs are special in that they come in three semantic guises: entidades
(type e), propiedades (tipo (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3)), and generalized quantifiers (tipo (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3)); these guises are
inherently linked by a set of functors provided by the type theory and the ontological structure
of the entity domain (Partee 1986).2 Given this inherent linking, DPs can (in principle) flexibly
shift from one type to another. The empirical question underlying the investigation in this article
is whether DPs can be represented as traces in all three of their semantic guises. There is already
abundant evidence that entity traces exist; these are the canonical traces left by movement types
like Quantifier Raising (QR). This article provides novel arguments that there are no generalized-
quantifier traces and no property traces. The TIC straightforwardly captures this state of affairs.
I also demonstrate that the TIC accounts for the well-known connectivity effects in VPs and APs
(Barss 1986, Huang 1993, Heycock 1995, Takano 1995).

Work on the interpretation of movement has argued that traces are not simplex variables,
as depicted in (1a); bastante, they are more articulated objects, a saber, bound definite descriptions
(Sauerland 1998, 2004, Fox 1999, 2002, 2003; see also Engdahl 1980, 1986). I argue that the
TIC provides novel support for this hypothesis. The argument involves the distinction between
“weak” and “strong” definites (F. Schwarz 2009). Under this distinction, if traces are taken to
be definite descriptions, then they would have to be strong definites, because only strong definites
can facilitate the required bound interpretation. I show that strong definites cannot occur in envi-
ronments where a DP must be a higher semantic type; only weak definites can. De este modo, traces and
strong definites have the same distribution with respect to semantic types, a fact that is captured
under the hypothesis that traces are in fact (strong) definite descriptions. According to this pro-
posal, entonces, the TIC is a manifestation of a more general constraint on definite descriptions.

The argumentation proceeds as follows. Secciones 2 y 3 investigate the semantic type of
traces in the domain of entities, arguing that generalized-quantifier traces (tipo (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3)) y
property traces (tipo (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3)), respectivamente, are not available in the grammar. These prohibitions

1 I use the terms reconstruction and syntactic reconstruction interchangeably. The precise mechanism behind recon-

estructura (p.ej., selective copy interpretation) is inconsequential for the purposes here.

2 Por simplicidad, I treat properties in purely extensional terms, which reduces them to sets of entities. This treatment

is overly simplistic (see Chierchia 1984), but it suffices for present purposes.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

against generalized-quantifier and property traces serve as the basis of the article’s core proposal
in section 4: the TIC. Sección 5 uses the TIC to further probe the nature of traces; it argues that
the TIC provides novel evidence that traces are strong definite descriptions. Sección 6 briefly
discusses functional questions, which at first glance might appear to contradict the TIC, pero en
fact do not. Sección 7 concludes by discussing previous proposals about possible traces and then
laying out several issues that emerge from the worldview of the TIC.

2 Against Generalized-Quantifier Traces

Generalized-quantifier (GQ) traces have featured prominently in the literature on reconstruction
because they are able to achieve reconstructed scope without invoking syntactic reconstruction.
For illustration, let us first get acquainted with how many–questions, which will be used throughout
this article to probe the scope of wh-moved elements. What is crucial about how many–questions
is that in addition to its wh-meaning, how many carries its own existential quantification, cual
can vary in scope (Kroch 1989, Cinque 1990, Cresti 1995, Rullmann 1995, frampton 1999). Para
ejemplo, imagine that you are helping to organize a potluck. In this context, there are two ways
to interpret the question in (3).3 The first reading assumes that there is a certain set of people
who should bring dessert and asks how many such people there are. This reading is appropriate
si, decir, you know that some of the people make tasty desserts and want them assigned to that
tarea. On this reading, how many takes (wide) scope over should, and so the people being asked
about are constant across the modal alternatives (3a); this is the surface-scope reading. El segundo
reading assumes that a particular number of people should bring dessert without having any spe-
cific people in mind. This reading is appropriate if, decir, you are concerned with there being
enough dessert, but not necessarily with who brings it. On this reading, how many takes (angosto)
scope below should, and so the people being asked about may vary across the modal alternatives
(3b); this is the reconstructed-scope reading.

(3) [How many people]1 debería

1 bring dessert?

a. Surface-scope ((cid:3) wide) lectura

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería
For what number n: There are n-many (particular) people x such that it is necessary
that x bring dessert.

b. Reconstructed-scope ((cid:3) angosto) lectura

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many
For what number n: It is necessary for there to be n-many people x such that x bring
dessert.

The standard analysis of (3) is that the surface-scope reading corresponds to an entity trace
and the reconstructed-scope reading corresponds to syntactic reconstruction—the wh-semantics,

3 The scope ambiguity in (3) might be taken as belonging to the A-movement step to Spec,TP. Sin embargo, lo mismo
ambiguity exists for how many–questions targeting nonsubject positions: Por ejemplo, How many books should Alex
read? (ver (27)). I use a wh-subject question for illustration because it makes the derivation for GQ traces in (7) simpler
by sidestepping the issue of interpreting GQs in nonsubject positions, cual, under standard assumptions, would require
an intermediate movement step for purely type-related purposes.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

whatever they may be, holding constant.4 Thus, the scope relations are isomorphic to the c-com-
mand relations at LF. Cresti (1995) and Rullmann (1995) argue, sin embargo, that if traces were
permitted to be the semantic type of GQs ((cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3)), then modulating between entity and GQ
traces would also be able to produce the two interpretations of (3). Under their proposal, ambos
readings of (3) thus correspond to trace representations. Simplified derivations (not representing
intensionality or the full question meaning) with entity and GQ traces are given in (6) y (7),
respectivamente, assuming the common pieces in (4). Following Heim and Kratzer (1998), I assume
(a) the semantic-composition rules for movement in (5), where t is the variable assignment
función, y (b) that the (cid:2)-operator binding the trace is syntactically represented as a copied
índice, as in (4a). Note that for ease of exposition, I will represent traces as simplex variables
until section 5, and the copied index will often be represented directly as a typed (cid:2)-operator, como
en (8).

(4) a. LF: [hown many people] [1 [debería [t1 bring dessert]]]

b. (cid:4)hown many people(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:2)PAG(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) . ∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ P(X)]

(5) a. (cid:4)de(cid:5)t :(cid:3) t(i)

b. (cid:4)[i (cid:5)](cid:5)t :(cid:3) (cid:2)X . (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:5)t[i N x]

(6) Entity-trace derivation

Traces & Pronouns Rule
Predicate Abstraction

a. (cid:4)[1 [debería [t1 bring dessert]]](cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:2)ye . SHOULD( y brings dessert)
b. (cid:4)hown many people(cid:5) ((cid:4)[1 [debería [t1 bring dessert]]](cid:5))

(cid:3) ∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ [(cid:2)ye . SHOULD( y brings dessert)](X)]
(cid:3) ∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ SHOULD(x brings dessert)]

(7) GQ-trace derivation

a. (cid:4)[1 [debería [t1 bring dessert]]](cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:2)q (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) . SHOULD(q((cid:2)ze . z brings dessert))
b. (cid:4)[1 [debería [t1 bring dessert]]](cid:5) ((cid:4)hown many people(cid:5))

(cid:3) SHOULD([(cid:2)PAG(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) . ∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ P(X)]]((cid:2)ze . z brings dessert))
(cid:3) SHOULD(∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ [(cid:2)ze . z brings dessert](X)])
(cid:3) SHOULD(∃x[#X (cid:3) n ^ *PEOPLE(X) ^ x brings dessert])

Romero (1997, 1998) and Fox (1999) argue against this semantic approach to reconstructed scope
(sometimes called “semantic reconstruction”) by showing that there is a correlation between the
scope of a moved element and its Condition C connectivity. This correlation follows for free
under syntactic reconstruction, but would need to be stipulated in a theory with GQ traces. I

4 “Total” reconstruction of the wh-phrase goes against the simple view that the wh-phrase must be interpreted in
Spec,CP in order to form a constituent question. Sin embargo, most full-fledged proposals about constituent-question semantics
do not require the wh-phrase to be interpreted in Spec,CP: the wh-morpheme splits from the rest of the wh-phrase at LF
so that the two scope separately (Romero 1998, Heim 2019); the wh-phrase introduces a variable that is (selectively)
bound by a question operator (Panadero 1970, Rullmann 1995); the wh-phrase denotes a choice function that is existentially
atado (Engdahl 1980, 1986, Reinhart 1997); or the wh-phrase introduces focus alternatives that “percolate” up the structure
(Arroyo 2006, Beck and Kim 2006, Cable 2007, 2010, Kotek 2014, 2019). All of these proposals about the semantics of
constituent questions are compatible with the claims in this article.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

review their arguments in section 2.1.5 To their arguments, I add several novel arguments against
GQ traces in section 2.2. Tomados juntos, these arguments provide compelling evidence that GQ
traces are ungrammatical (8).

(8)

No generalized-quantifier traces
*[DP1 [(cid:2)
(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [ . . . [

(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]]

2.1 Previous Argument: Condition C Connectivity

Romero (1997, 1998) and Fox (1999) made the pioneering discovery that there is a correlation
between reconstructed scope and Condition C connectivity (see also Heycock 1995). The correla-
tion manifests as a blocking effect: if evaluating a moved element for Condition C in its launching
site would result in a Condition C violation, reconstructed scope is blocked. For illustration,
consider (9), where the moved element contains an R-expression that is coindexed with a pronoun
that c-commands the launching site. If the moved element were evaluated in its launching site,
it would thus violate Condition C. As discussed above, how many results in a scope ambiguity
when it moves over another scope-bearing element. Fundamentalmente, (9) is scopally unambiguous, incluso
though how many moves over the intensional operator want. The sentence only has the surface-
scope reading in (9a), where it is assumed that there is a set of particular pictures that John wants
the editor to publish, and the question is asking how many such pictures there are. This reading
is appropriate in a context where, Por ejemplo, John has several favorite pictures from his Sarajevo
trip, and he wants those published. The sentence lacks the reconstructed-scope reading in (9b),
where the question asks about the quantity of pictures that John wants the editor to publish,
without having any particular pictures in mind. This reading would be appropriate in a context
dónde, Por ejemplo, John wants the editor to publish three pictures because then his commission
will be sufficient to cover his bills, but the particular pictures do not matter.

(9) Condition C connectivity forces surface scope

1 in the Sunday Special?

[How many pictures [RC that John2 took in Sarajevo]]1 does he2 want the editor to
publish
(Romero 1998:96)
a. Surface-scope ((cid:3) wide) lectura

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) want
For what number n: There are n-many (particular) pictures x that John took in
Sarajevo such that John wants the editor to publish x.

b. Reconstructed-scope ((cid:3) angosto) lectura

want (cid:4)(cid:4) how many
*For what number n: John wants the editor to publish in the Sunday Special (cualquier)
n-many pictures that John took in Sarajevo.

5 Romero (1998:114–138) presents another kind of argument against GQ traces: a GQ trace cannot satisfy the fo-
cus condition in the standard analysis of VP-deaccenting (Rooth 1985, 1992), essentially because a GQ trace cannot be
properly compared with a full-fledged DP. This argument, sin embargo, crucially relies on the assumption that GQ traces
are necessarily simplex. A priori, the question of whether traces are simplex or articulated is orthogonal to the semantic
tipo(s) of traces. Under an analysis where GQ traces are articulated (p.ej., Lechner 2019), this particular argument from
Romero no longer goes through.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Compare (9) con (10), where the R-expression and the pronoun have been swapped, de modo que
binding connectivity would not induce a Condition C violation. The reconstructed-scope reading
becomes available again in (10).

(10) Swapping the R-expression and the pronoun

reconstructed
[How many pictures [RC that he2 took in Sarajevo]]1 does John2 want the editor to
publish
(Romero 1998:96)

1 in the Sunday Special?

surface,

(9) y (10) are a minimal pair; they differ only in whether evaluating the moved element in its
launching site would violate Condition C. Romero (1997, 1998) and Fox (1999) thus conclude
that what blocks the reconstructed-scope reading in (9) is Condition C connectivity. They demon-
strate that this blocking effect can be produced in a variety of configurations involving both A-
movement and A¯ -movement.

If the mechanism for achieving reconstructed scope is syntactic reconstruction, then the
correlation between reconstructed scope and Condition C connectivity follows without further
ado; the same does not hold for GQ traces. Considerar (9) again for illustration. Reconstructing
the moved element back into its launching site at LF places the R-expression in the c-command
domain of the coindexed pronoun, thereby violating Condition C and yielding ungrammaticality,
as schematized in (11).6 The reconstructed-scope reading is available in (10) precisely because
Condition C is not at stake.

(11) Syntactic reconstruction and Condition C

Op (cid:4)(cid:4) DP

*[DP . . . R-exp1 . . . ]2 . . . pron1 . . . Op . . . [DP . . . R-exp1 . . . ]2 . . .

With GQ traces, the moved element crucially remains in its landing site at LF. Por eso, the R-
expression in the moved element is not in the c-command domain of the coindexed pronoun, y
there is no violation of Condition C, as schematized in (12). All else being equal, on a GQ-trace
cuenta (9) should have a reconstructed-scope reading, contrary to fact.

(12) GQ traces and Condition C

[DP . . . R-exp1 . . . ]2 [(cid:2)q (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [ . . . pron1 . . . Op . . . q . . . ]]

Op (cid:4)(cid:4) DP

6 Two notes are in order here. Primero, for this analysis Condition C must be evaluated at LF (Lebeaux 1990, 2009,
Chomsky 1995). También, note that the moved element could in principle reconstruct to or leave a GQ trace in an intermediate
posición. This possibility does not affect the argument here, sin embargo, because any position below want (Op in (11)) es
also in the pronoun’s c-command domain.

Segundo, something needs to be said about why the R-expression in the lower copy does not invariably trigger a
Condition C violation. The reason is likely tied to the relative clause. The standard explanation is that the relative clause
can be countercyclically late-merged onto the moved element after movement, so that the lower copy never contains the
offending R-expression (Lebeaux 1990, 2009). Fundamentalmente, Late Merge bleeds being able to reconstruct the higher copy
because it would strand the relative clause without a host. De este modo, if the higher copy is to reconstruct at LF, the relative
clause must be first-merged in the lower copy. Sin embargo, the claims in this article are not contingent on Late Merge being
the explanation of Lebeaux effects, nor are they contingent on the argument-adjunct distinction that Lebeaux effects are
claimed to exhibit. Alternative explanations of Lebeaux effects, such as Sportiche’s (2016), are equally compatible with
the claims made here.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

Fundamentalmente, there is nothing inherent about GQ traces that derives a correlation between scope and
Condition C.7 Romero and Fox thus argue that (a) reconstructed scope always involves syntactic
reconstruction and (b) GQ traces must not be available in the grammar. If GQ traces were avail-
able—even as a supplement to syntactic reconstruction—they would overgenerate, producing the
unattested reconstructed-scope reading in (9).

2.2 New Arguments

This section provides three novel arguments against GQ traces. Each argument follows the same
logic: there is some phenomenon for which it has been independently argued that a trace representa-
tion is required, crucially for purposes unrelated to scope. If this trace were type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3), el
need for a trace representation would be satisfied and the derivation would semantically compose,
but it would end up producing the wrong scope. Eso es, reconstructed scope is blocked in these
casos. Por lo tanto, if GQ traces were available in the grammar, then they would need to be blocked
on an ad hoc basis in all of these cases in order to avoid overgeneration.

2.2.1 Antecedent-Contained Deletion
It is standardly assumed that ellipsis is resolved in ante-
cedent-contained deletion (ACD) by covertly moving the host (es decir., the DP hosting the ellipsis
site) to a VP-external position (p.ej., Sag 1976, Larson and May 1990, Fox 2002).8 La resultante
LF satisfies the parallelism requirement on ellipsis and avoids the infinite-regress problem (13).

(13) [Subj [(cid:2)xe [VP V x]] [DP NP [RC (cid:2)ye . . . (cid:2)[VP V y](cid:3)]]]

antecedent VP

elided VP

This analysis is independently supported by the fact that the host in ACD configurations obligato-
rily takes scope above VP (Sag 1976, Larson and May 1990). Consider the paradigm in (14). En
the baseline in (14a), every painting that Blanche painted may scope above or below the intensional
verb want. On the narrow-scope reading, Rose for example is an admirer of Blanche and has the
“de dicto” desire to own any painting that Blanche has painted. On the wide-scope reading, Rose
wants a particular set of paintings, all of which happen to have been painted by Blanche, possibly
unbeknownst to Rose. The equivalent narrow-scope reading disappears in the ACD configuration
en (14b). Only a wide-scope reading survives, where Rose wants a particular set of paintings, todo
of which Blanche also wants, possibly unbeknownst to Rose. In the absence of ellipsis in (14C),
the narrow-scope reading reappears, where Rose has the desire to have any painting that Blanche
also wants.

7 The correlation between scope and Condition C could of course be stipulated; see Sternefeld 2001 and Ruys 2015
for such proposals. Such a modified version of GQ traces will, sin embargo, not address the arguments against GQ traces
raised in section 2.2.

8 Under Fox’s (2002) análisis, the relative clause (RC) containing the ellipsis site is late-merged onto the host DP

after it has moved. The arguments here are not contingent on ACD involving Late Merge; see also footnote 10.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

(14) a. Base

Rose wanted every painting that Blanche painted.

b. ACD

Rose wanted every painting that Blanche did (cid:6).

C. No ellipsis

Rose wanted every painting that Blanche wanted.

want (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; ∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) want

*want (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; ∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) want

want (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; ∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) want

The scope pattern in (14b) follows from mapping the covert movement step of the host out of
VP onto a trace of type e; this is the familiar operation QR. De este modo, movement of the host leaving
an entity trace not only creates a suitable antecedent for ellipsis, thereby resolving the ACD, él
also makes a nontrivial, correct prediction about the scope of the host. Against this backdrop,
consider what would happen if the movement step instead mapped onto a trace of type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3),
t(cid:3). As schematized in (15), a GQ trace would still provide a suitable antecedent for ellipsis,
avoiding the problem of infinite regression.

(15) [Subj [(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [VP V

]] [DP NP [RC (cid:2)xe . . . X [(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) (cid:2)[VP V

](cid:3)]]]]

antecedent VP

elided VP

Sin embargo, a GQ trace would fail to derive the scope pattern in (14b) because the host would be
interpreted as taking scope inside VP.9 In canonical cases of QR, a constraint like Scope Economy
(Fox 2000) might be invoked to block the trace from being type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3), since such a trace
would not affect semantic interpretation. Sin embargo, the purpose of the covert movement step in
ACD is not to give the host a certain scope; this can be done without ACD, as in (14C). Bastante,
the movement is done to provide a suitable antecedent for ellipsis, for which traces of type e or
(cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) would in principle suffice. Only a trace of type e, sin embargo, derives the scope facts in
(14b). De este modo, if GQ traces were available in the grammar, then some additional constraint would
need to be invoked to block them in ACD.

2.2.2 Extraposition Williams (1974) observes that extraposition of an adjunct from a DP forces
that host DP to take scope at least as high as the extraposition site, which Fox (2002) dubs
Williams’s Generalization (see also Fox and Nissenbaum 1999). For illustration, first consider
the baseline sentence in (16), which is scopally ambiguous. On the first reading, I am looking
for a picture from John’s factory, and any such picture would satisfy my search; a picture from
John’s factory scopes below look for, in its base position. On the second reading, there is a
particular picture from John’s factory, and I am looking for that particular picture; a picture from
John’s factory scopes above look for, presumably via QR.

9 To satisfy the parallelism conditions on ellipsis, the trace in the elided VP in the RC would need to be type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,
t(cid:3), t(cid:3) también. I assume that this GQ trace would correspond to an intermediate step of movement and that the final
movement step to the RC edge maps onto an entity trace, with the semantic composition proceeding in the normal way.
This kind of mixed-type chain is permitted under Rullmann’s (1995) system of GQ traces: the intermediate entity trace—x
en (15)—is type-lifted from e to (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) via Partee’s (1986) LIFT operator (see Rullmann 1995:185–191 for discussion).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(16) Base

look for (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃; ∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) look for

I looked (very intensely ) para [a picture from John’s factory].
(Fox and Nissenbaum 1999:141)

Compare (16) con (17), where the adjunct from John’s factory has been extraposed. (17) is not
scopally ambiguous; it only has the wide-scope reading from (16).

(17) Extraposition

*look for (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃; ∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) look for

I looked for [a picture
(Fox and Nissenbaum 1999:141)

] very intensely from John’s factory.

Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) propose that extraposition involves a derivation in which the
adjunct late-merges to the host DP after the host DP has undergone rightward movement to the
extraposition site (18a).10 The extraposition follows from where the pieces are pronounced: el
adjunct is pronounced where it is merged and the host DP is pronounced in its base position.
Fundamentalmente, Fox and Nissenbaum assume that the movement step maps onto a trace of type e (18b),
which forces the host DP to take scope in the extraposition site, thereby deriving Williams’s
Generalization.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

(18)

a.
b.

[[VP look for [a picture]1] [very intensely]] [a picture from John’s factory]1
LF: [(cid:2)xe [[VP look for x] [very intensely]]] [a picture from John’s factory]

Ahora, consider what would happen if the movement step instead mapped onto a GQ trace.
A GQ trace would still allow for a Late Merge extraposition derivation, but it would fail to derive
Williams’s Generalization because the moved host DP would be interpreted as taking scope in
its base position. As with ACD, invoking a constraint like Scope Economy would not explain
why the trace in an extraposition derivation cannot be type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3). Although we do not know
precisely why adjuncts extrapose, it is unlikely that the reason is to give the host DP a particular
alcance, given that this scope can be achieved without extraposition, as in (16). De este modo, if GQ traces
were available in the grammar, then there would have to be some other constraint blocking them
in extraposition.

2.2.3 Parasitic Gaps Adopting Nissenbaum’s (2000) análisis, a parasitic gap is created by a
null operator moving from the parasitic-gap position to the edge of the adjunct clause, cual es
interpreted as a (cid:2)-operator binding a variable located in the gap position—namely, a trace, como
schematized in (19). This derived predicate then conjoins with the (cid:2)-abstraction independently
created by the A¯ -movement step in the matrix clause.

(19) [Op1 [ . . . t1 . . . ]]

LF: [(cid:2)xe [ . . . X . . . ]]

10 The argument here against GQ traces is not contingent on Late Merge, only on extraposition involving movement
of the host DP. Alternativamente, the adjunct is merged in the base position of the host DP, the host DP with the adjunct
moves, and the higher copy of the host DP is not pronounced (ver, p.ej., Sportiche 2016). Además, under Fox’s (2002)
analysis of ACD, where the ACD host is extraposed (es decir., undergoes QR), the ACD argument in section 2.2.1 would
reduce to the extraposition argument being laid out here.

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Nissenbaum assumes that the trace in the parasitic gap is type e, but consider what would happen
if the trace were instead type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3). Because only elements of the same type may be conjoined,
a GQ trace in the parasitic gap would require the trace of the matrix A¯ -movement step to be a
GQ trace as well. Both traces being type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) crucially makes the prediction that the moved
element should be able to take reconstructed scope in both the matrix gap and the parasitic gap,
as schematized in (20), dónde (cid:7) y (cid:8) represent scope-bearing operators.

(20) [DP [[(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [(cid:3) . . .
matrix clause

]] [(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [(cid:4) . . .

]]]]

parasitic-gap adjunct

(cid:3)

(cid:5)(cid:5)

DP; (cid:4)

(cid:5)(cid:5)

This prediction is difficult to test given independent constraints on parasitic gaps. Testing whether
DP can scope below (cid:7) is complicated, if not impossible, because parasitic-gap adjuncts attach to
vP (Nissenbaum 2000). Como consecuencia, (cid:7) would need to be something within vP. The problem is
that the obvious candidates for (cid:7) (p.ej., modals) are all located above vP. Sin embargo, (21) pruebas
whether DP can scope below (cid:8). The acceptability of (21) is independently degraded because the
adjunct is a finite clause, and parasitic gaps prefer nonfinite clauses (Engdahl 1983). To the extent
eso (21) is acceptable, aunque, how many people cannot take scope below want in the adjunct.
This hypothetical reading is paraphrased as follows: what is the number n such that there are n-
many people that Alex blackmailed because in all of his doxastic alternatives, there are n-many
people that Alex extorts for money. Such a reading might be used, decir, in a context where Alex
is blackmailing people in order to extort not them, but their spouses.

(21) ?[How many people]1 did Alex blackmail

dinero ]?

1 [because he wanted to extort pg for
how many (cid:4)(cid:4) want; *want (cid:4)(cid:4) how many

The absence of reconstructed scope in (21) reveals that (20), where the trace is type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3),
is not a possible LF for parasitic-gap constructions. Sin embargo, the absence of reconstructed scope
follows directly if the trace is type e, as in (19). De este modo, if GQ traces were available in the grammar,
then there would have to be a constraint blocking them in parasitic gaps.

2.3 Section Summary

Syntactic reconstruction and GQ traces produce the same interpretation under ordinary circum-
posturas. Como consecuencia, it is difficult to empirically distinguish between the two mechanisms. El
crux of all the arguments in this section is that a grammar with GQ traces would have to restrict
their distribution in a disparate set of environments in an ad hoc manner in order to avoid overgen-
erating interpretations. Por otro lado, a grammar without GQ traces (22)—per the TIC—
where reconstructed scope is only ever achieved via genuine syntactic reconstruction, does not
face this problem and derives all of these restrictions in a unified way.11

11 There is a weaker constraint that would derive (22): a trace must be the lowest semantic type compatible with its
syntactic position (Arroyo 1996, Fox 1999). Such an account differs from the TIC in that it does not predict a ban on
property traces. See section 7.1.1 for discussion.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(22)

No generalized-quantifier traces
*[DP1 [(cid:2) (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [ . . . [

(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]]

3 Against Property Traces

Unlike GQ traces, property traces have received little to no attention in the literature. This section
provides a novel argument that such traces of type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) are unavailable in the grammar (23).
This discovery supplies a crucial piece of the argument that the constraint on possible traces bans
any higher-type trace.

(23)

No property traces
*[DP1 [(cid:2) F (cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) [ . . . [ F (cid:2)mi,t(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]]

The motivation for the ban on property traces comes from a series of observations about syntactic
environments where a DP denotes a property. The four environments examined here are the piv-
ot of an existential construction (24a), the color term of a change-of-color verb (24b), el nombre
argument of a naming verb (24C), and predicate nominals (24d).12 Despite their surface heterogene-
idad, what these four environments have in common is that they all require a DP of type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3).

(24) a. There is [a potato](cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) in the pantry.

b. Megan painted the house [magenta](cid:2)mi,t(cid:3).
C. Irene called the cat [Snowflake](cid:2)mi,t(cid:3).
d. Erika became [a teacher](cid:2)mi,t(cid:3).

Existential constructions
Change-of-color verbs
Naming verbs
Predicate nominals

For reasons of space, I will not review the arguments that DPs in these positions denote properties.
The arguments come from the respective literatures on each of the constructions and thus are
independent from the arguments here. Change-of-color verbs are textbook examples of resulta-
tives, and under standard analyses, the color term denotes a property (p.ej., Kratzer 2005). Para
predicate nominals, that they are properties is the standard analysis (p.ej., williams 1983, Partee
1986). For existential constructions and naming verbs, the arguments are somewhat more involved
and come from McNally 1992, 1997, 1998 and Matushansky 2008, respectively.13

The argumentation in this section proceeds as follows. Primero, I set the stage by showing that
movement types in English differ in whether they allow for scope reconstruction (sección 3.1).
Segundo, I apply these movement types to DPs in the property positions in (24), showing that only

12 These four property positions belong to a larger movement-type asymmetry first observed by Postal (1994), cual
he links to these positions prohibiting “weak” pronouns like it. Discussing this movement-type asymmetry in full would
take us too far afield, though see Poole 2017:cap. 2 for extensive discussion and for arguments against Postal’s analysis
of the asymmetry in terms of movement types leaving behind covert pronouns. For the way the analysis in this article
accounts for the ban on pronouns, see footnote 33.

13 If the pivot of an existential construction is taken to denote a GQ, as is commonly assumed following Barwise
and Cooper (1981), and not a property, as McNally (1992, 1997, 1998) argues for, then the arguments presented in this
section about existential constructions could alternatively be taken as further arguments against GQ traces, en vez de
as arguments against property traces.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

movement that reconstructs can target them, which categorically precludes some movement types
(sección 3.2). Tercero, I argue that this pattern follows from the unavailability of property traces in
the grammar (sección 3.3).

3.1 Movement Types and Scope Shifting

Movement types vary in the effect that they have on the scope of the moved element. En particular,
some movement types obligatorily shift the scope of the moved element to the landing site of
movimiento, while others allow for scope reconstruction, thereby shifting scope only optionally.
Let us consider the scopal properties of three movement types in English that target DPs: topicali-
zación, wh-movement, and QR.

3.1.1 Topicalization Topicalization of DPs in English obligatorily shifts scope. (AP-fronting
and VP-fronting—sometimes considered “topicalization”—are discussed in section 4.2.) For illus-
tration, first consider the interpretation of the baseline sentence in (25), which has both narrow-
scope and wide-scope readings of some student with respect to every teacher.14

(25) Every teacher liked some student in the first week.

a. Narrow-scope reading

For every teacher x, there is some student y such that x liked y.

b. Wide-scope reading

There is some student y such that for every teacher x, x liked y.

∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃

∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀

In a scenario where the student is a different student for each teacher, only the narrow-scope
reading in (25a) is true. Fundamentalmente, topicalizing some student bleeds the narrow-scope reading in
(25a), as shown in (26).

(26) [Some student]1, every teacher liked

1 in the first week.

*∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃; ∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀

The only possible interpretation of (26) is the wide-scope reading in (25b), where some student
takes surface scope in the landing site of topicalization, above every teacher. Como consecuencia, (26)
is true if and only if there is a single student that every teacher likes. En suma, topicalization
obligatorily shifts scope and does not allow for scope reconstruction.15

14 A few disclaimers: Primero, this behavior is notably distinct from other movement types called “topicalization” in
other languages (p.ej., German V2-fronting), which typically allow for scope reconstruction. Segundo, “topicalization”
should be taken as a movement type and not be conflated with topichood. Tercero, en Inglés, topicalization is string-
identical to focus movement and Y-movement (modulo prosody), at least the latter of which allows for scope reconstruction
(ross 1967, Príncipe 1981). It is possible to control for this issue using question-answer scenarios that license topicalization
but not the other two movement types. The relevant facts concerning topicalization and property positions hold when
such controls are in place. I do not include the data here for reasons of space; see Poole 2017:15–31, 48–51.

15 A reviewer points out that topicalization in English does allow reconstruction for variable binding, as shown in

(i). I leave this asymmetry for future research.

(i) . . . Pero [the paper that he1 gave to Mrs. Marrón]2, I don’t think [any man]1 would want her to read

(moulton 2013:254)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

3.1.2 Wh-Movement As discussed in section 2, wh-movement optionally shifts the scope of the
moved DP (ver (3)). Another example illustrating this property is given in (27), which has both
surface-scope and reconstructed-scope readings of how many.

(27) [How many books]1 should Alex read
a. Surface-scope ((cid:3) wide) lectura

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería
For what number n: There are n-many (particular) books x such that it is necessary
that Alex reads x this summer.

1 this summer?

b. Reconstructed-scope ((cid:3) angosto) lectura

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many
For what number n: It is necessary for there to be n-many books x such that Alex
reads x this summer.

The scope ambiguity in (27) is the result of the fact that wh-movement allows for scope recon-
struction and thus only optionally shifts scope.

3.1.3 Quantifier Raising QR shifts scope and does not allow for scope reconstruction (p.ej., Fox
2000). In what follows, I will diagnose QR by looking at scope relations. I will assume that the
mere presence of a quantificational DP does not itself require QR; eso es, quantificational DPs
can be interpreted in situ. I will return to this point in section 3.3.

3.2 Property Positions

Under a ban on property traces, there is no trace representation for property-denoting DPs. Este
makes two predictions about how movement should interact with property positions, given in
(28). En esta sección, I show that both of these predictions are borne out.

(28) a. Scope prediction

Movement that targets a DP in a property position must reconstruct.

b. Movement-type prediction

Movement types that cannot reconstruct cannot target DPs in property positions.

In what follows, I examine reconstruction through the lens of quantifier scope. In order to deter-
mine whether reconstruction is obligatory, it is necessary to look at cases where reconstruction
eliminates an interpretation that would have only been possible by not reconstructing. Alcance
reconstruction provides such cases because if a movement step is forced to reconstruct, then it
will lack a surface-scope reading. Other kinds of reconstruction effects only allow one to deduce
whether reconstruction is possible, not whether it is obligatory. Por ejemplo, consider reconstruc-
tion for referential opacity in (29).

(29)

Reconstruction for referential opacity
(cid:2)w0 . . . DPw0 /*w1 . . . (cid:2)w1 . . . DPw0 /w1

Reconstruction in (29) allows the DP to be evaluated at w1, but it also allows the DP to be
evaluated at w0. Como resultado, reconstruction extends the range of possible interpretations, cual
makes it impossible to distinguish optional from obligatory reconstruction. The same line of rea-

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

soning applies to pronominal variable binding as well. Por lo tanto, reconstruction effects other
than scope reconstruction are set aside here.16 To streamline the discussion, I also set aside binding
connectivity here, but see section 7.2 for discussion.

3.2.1 Existential Constructions Wh-movement can target the pivot of an existential construction
(30b), but topicalization (30C) and QR (30d) cannot.17 This confirms the movement-type predic-
tion for existential constructions, because the two movement types that obligatorily shift scope
and cannot reconstruct—namely, topicalization and QR—also cannot target the pivot, eso es, el
property position.

(30) a. There is a potato in the pantry.

b. What1 is there
C. *[A potato]1, hay
d. There must be someone in his house.

1 in the pantry?

1 in the pantry.

Base
Wh-movement
Topicalization
QR: debe (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃; *∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) debe

Even though wh-movement can ordinarily shift scope, when it targets the pivot of an existential
construction, scope shifting is rendered impossible. The wh-movement instead must reconstruct,
as shown in (31), where how many must take scope below should.

(31) [How many questions]1 should there be

1 on the exam?

*how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería;

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many

To better appreciate this fact, let us compare the existential construction in (31) with its copular-
construction counterpart in (32), where how many is able to take scope above or below should.
The logically possible reconstructed-scope and surface-scope readings of (31) y (32) are given
en (33).

(32) Copular counterpart of (31)

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería;

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many

[How many questions]1 debería

1 be on the exam?

(33) a. Reconstructed-scope ((cid:3) angosto) lectura

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many
For what number n: It is necessary for there to be n-many questions x such that x
are on the exam.

b. Surface-scope ((cid:3) wide) lectura

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería
For what number n: There are n-many (particular) questions x such that it is neces-
sary that x are on the exam.

Consider the appropriateness of (31) y (32) in two different scenarios where I am a TA and
the professor is preparing the final exam. In the first scenario, she wants to know the number of
questions that I think the exam should have so that the grading is manageable; the identity of the

16 Note that for property positions, reconstruction for referential opacity and variable binding are indeed possible—as

a ban on property traces predicts—but the data are not given here for reasons of space.

17 The observation that QR cannot target the pivot of an existential construction comes from Williams 1984; ver
also Heim 1987 and Frampton 1999. The contrast between wh-movement and topicalization for property positions was
first observed by Postal (1994); see also footnote 12.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

questions does not matter at this point. Ambos (31) y (32) are appropriate in this context because
they both have the narrow-scope reading in (33a). In the second scenario, the professor has asked
me to pick out from a workbook the questions that I think should be on the exam. She wants to
know the number of questions I have selected so she can gauge the amount of time the exam
room should be reserved for. De este modo, she is asking about the cardinality of a set that exists in the
actual world, the set of questions that I have picked. While the copular construction in (32) es
appropriate in this context, the existential construction in (31) is not. This contrast reflects that
(32) pero no (31) has the wide-scope reading in (33b) where how many scopes above should. Este
difference follows from the fact that wh-movement cannot shift scope when it targets a DP in a
property position, thereby forcing a narrow-scope, reconstructed reading of how many. This con-
firms the scope prediction for existential constructions.

Further confirmation of the scope prediction comes from negative islands, which indepen-
dently block reconstruction into them (p.ej., Rullmann 1995). Since a negative island forces a
moved DP to take wide scope and the pivot position forces a moved DP to take narrow scope,
the two should be mutually exclusive. This prediction is borne out, as shown in (34a). Compare
(34a) with a nonproperty position in (34b), where movement out of a negative island is indeed
posible. (The same fact can be shown with wh-islands, which also block reconstruction.)

(34) a. *[How many books]1 aren’t there

1 on the table?

[How many tables]1 aren’t there books on

3.2.2 Change-of-Color Verbs Wh-movement can target the color term of a change-of-color verb
(p.ej., paint, doblar, and dye) (35b), but topicalization cannot (35C).

(35) a. Megan painted the house magenta.

b.
C. *Magenta1, Megan painted the house

[What color]1 did Megan paint the house
1.

Base
Wh-movement
Topicalization

There is no general prohibition against topicalization targeting color terms. They can otherwise
undergo topicalization, as shown in (36). The prohibition applies exclusively to those color terms
that are arguments of change-of-color verbs.

(36) (cid:9)Verde / That color(cid:10)1, he never discussed

1 with me.

(Postal 1994:164)

Además, QR cannot target the color term of a change-of-color verb (37a). Compare this with
QR targeting the object (37b), which is indeed possible.18

(37) a. A (#diferente) contractor painted the house every color.

b. A (diferente) contractor painted every house that ugly green.

∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; *∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃
∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; ∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃

18 I include different to bias toward the inverse-scope reading. The #-mark indicates that different is infelicitous if
the sentence is uttered out of the blue, because it lacks the inverse-scope reading that would require QR. There is a
felicitous reading of (37a) in which different is interpreted as different with respect to something previously mentioned
in the discourse (p.ej., another contractor), but this reading is not relevant here because it does not involve inverse scope.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

De este modo, (37a) is true if and only if there is a single contractor, who incidentally did lots of painting,
but not if there is a different contractor for each color. This confirms the movement-type prediction
for change-of-color verbs.

Turning to the scope prediction, when wh-movement targets the color term of a change-of-
color verb, it must reconstruct. Por lo tanto, (38) only has the reconstructed-scope reading in (38a),
and extraction from negative islands is outright ungrammatical (39a), thereby confirming the
scope prediction for change-of-color verbs.

(38) [How many colors]1 should Megan paint the house
a. Reconstructed-scope ((cid:3) angosto) lectura

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many
For what number n: It is necessary for there to be n-many colors x such that Megan
paints the house x.

b. Surface-scope ((cid:3) wide) lectura

how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería
*For what number n: There are n-many (particular) colors x such that it is necessary
that Megan paints the house x.

(39) a. *[How many colors]1 did no one paint their house
[How many houses]1 did no one paint

1?
1 lime green?

3.2.3 Naming Verbs The same pattern is observed for naming verbs and predicate nominals,
so here the discussion will be more compact. Wh-movement (40b) can target the name argument
of a naming verb (p.ej., name, call, and baptize) but topicalization (40C) and QR (40d) cannot.
As with color terms, there is no general prohibition against topicalization targeting names, como
shown in (41). Finalmente, when wh-movement targets the name argument of a naming verb, it must
reconstruct; de este modo, (42) only has a narrow-scope reading of how many. This confirms the movement-
type and scope predictions for naming verbs.

Irene called the cat Snowflake.
[What name]1 did Irene call the cat

(40) a.
b.
C. *Snowflake1, Irene called the cat
d. A (#diferente) child called the cat every nickname.

Base
Wh-movement
Topicalization
QR: ∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; *∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃

(41) Raphael1, we never discussed

1 as a possible name for him.

(Postal 1994:164)

(42) [How many nicknames]1 should Irene call the cat

*how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería;

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many

3.2.4 Predicate Nominals Wh-movement (43b) can target predicate nominals, but topicalization
(43C) and QR (43d) cannot. Además, when wh-movement targets a predicate nominal, it must
reconstruct, as shown in (44). This confirms the movement-type and scope predictions for predicate
nominals.

(43) a. Erika became a teacher.

[Qué (kind of teacher)]1 did Erika become

Base
Wh-movement

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

C. *[A math teacher]1, Erika became
Topicalization
1.
d. A (#diferente) student became every kind of teacher. QR: ∃ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; *∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∃

(44) [How many kinds of teacher]1 should Erika become

*how many (cid:4)(cid:4) debería;

debería (cid:4)(cid:4) how many

3.3 Putting Together the Pieces

The data from the previous section showed that (a) movement that targets a DP in a property
position must reconstruct, y eso (b) movement types that cannot reconstruct cannot target DPs
in property positions. Descriptively, these facts indicate that the representation of scope-shifting
movement is incompatible with property positions, hence the requirement to reconstruct. Fundamentalmente,
the representation of scope-shifting movement is a trace, and property positions would require
property traces. Tomados juntos, entonces, I argue that these data indicate that movement cannot map
onto a trace ranging over properties (45).

(45)

No property traces
*[DP1 [(cid:2) F (cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) [ . . . [ F (cid:2)mi,t(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]]

It should be noted that when the moved DP is type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), a property trace is difficult—if not
impossible—to detect because it would not affect the moved DP’s scope. The crucial case then
is when the moved DP quantifies over properties, eso es, tipo (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3), t(cid:3). Aquí, a trace of type
(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) would allow the moved DP to have the shifted-scope readings that were shown above to
be unavailable. Por lo tanto, we can draw the conclusion that property traces are unavailable across
the board.19

A grammar without property traces (45), per the TIC, straightforwardly derives the behavior
of movement targeting DPs in property positions: There is no trace representation compatible
with property positions because traces of type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) are prohibited, and a trace of some other
type—in particular type e, the relevant individual type allowed by the TIC—would result in a
semantic-type mismatch and would therefore be ungrammatical (46). Reconstruction obviates this
problem by placing the moved DP back in its launching site at LF. If a DP would not ordinarily
violate the type requirement of property positions—that is, if it has an (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) meaning—then it
will not do so under reconstruction either (47).

(46) *[DP (cid:2) xe . . . [ . . . [xe]prop-pos . . . ]]
type-e trace

(47) [DP1 . . . [ . . . [DP1]prop-pos . . . ]]

reconstruct

19 The alternative analysis is that a property trace is unavailable only for DPs of type (cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3), t(cid:3). este análisis
is less principled and requires a more ad hoc stipulation than the analysis I am proposing here, wherein all property traces
are banned.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

According to this analysis, entonces, property positions are an instance where movement must recon-
struct in order to avoid a semantic-type mismatch that would occur if a trace were used.

A consequence of the ban on property traces is that quantificational DPs in property positions
cannot be interpreted via QR, since the requisite trace is unavailable. Por lo tanto, they must be
interpreted in situ. Fully addressing this issue is beyond the scope of this article. Sin embargo, as a
proof of concept, a sketch of how this in-situ semantic composition might work is given in (48)
for existential constructions, where there is stands in for the existential component of the meaning
that combines with a property.20

(48) There wasn’t every kind of doctor (at the convention).

¬ (cid:4)(cid:4) ∀; *∀ (cid:4)(cid:4) ¬

a. LF: [NEG [there-is [every kind of doctor]]]
b. (cid:4)hay(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:2)PAG(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) . ∃xe[PAG(X)]
C. (cid:4)every kind of doctor(cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:2)q(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) . ∀K(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) [DOCTOR-KIND(k) N Q(k)]
d. (cid:4)there isn’t every kind of doctor(cid:5) (cid:3) ¬ (cid:4)every kind of doctor(cid:5) ((cid:4)hay(cid:5))

(cid:3) ¬∀K(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3) [DOCTOR-KIND(k) N ∃xe[k(X)]]

The quantificational pivot in (48) is interpreted in situ, without QR or any kind of special type
shifting. The analysis sketched in (48) extends to the other three property positions if we adopt
small-clause structures for them (as has been independently proposed in Stowell 1981, 1983,
Kratzer 2005, and Matushansky 2008, among other works); this is schematized in (49).

(49) a. [a contractor [paint [CAROLINA DEL SUR [la casa](cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [every color](cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3),t(cid:3)]]]
b. [a child [call [CAROLINA DEL SUR [the cat](cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [every nickname](cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3),t(cid:3)]]]
C. [convertirse [CAROLINA DEL SUR [a student](cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) [every kind of teacher](cid:2)(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3),t(cid:3)]]

((cid:3) (37a))
((cid:3) (40d))
((cid:3) (43d))

De este modo, while I leave fleshing out the details to future research, there is no principled obstacle to
interpreting quantificational DPs in property positions in situ.

4 The Trace Interpretation Constraint

4.1 Proposal

As mentioned at the outset, DPs come in three semantic guises—entities, propiedades, and general-
ized quantifiers—and they can, with some restrictions, flexibly shift from one type to another
(Partee 1986). The previous two sections have argued that traces cannot be types (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) y
(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3). Por lo tanto, of the three possible semantic types for DPs, only traces of type e are allowed.
In light of this, I propose that the bans on GQ traces and property traces are products of a more
general prohibition against all traces of higher semantic types, which I formulate as the Trace
Interpretation Constraint (TIC) en (50) ((cid:3) (2)).21

20 (48) is more acceptable with what is called a coda (p.ej., at the convention), but the semantics of the coda is

complicado (see McNally 1992, 1997), so I exclude it from the sketch in (48) for the sake of simplicity.

21 There must be something that rules out the grammar using an individual-type trace, but lifting its type—for
ejemplo, so that it can be used in property positions (see also F. Landman 2004). De lo contrario, the TIC would effectively
be vacuous—a constraint in name only—because it could always be circumvented under the surface. The data in sections
2 y 3 would also be unexpected. I will take it for granted here that traces cannot be type-shifted.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(50) Trace Interpretation Constraint (TIC)

*[XP1 [(cid:2)F(cid:3) [ . . . [ F(cid:3)]1 . . . ]]], dónde (cid:3) is not an individual type.

According to the TIC, traces may only range over individual (es decir., primitive) semantic types, semejante
as type e for entities and type d for degrees.

In sections 2 y 3, we saw three different restrictions: from section 2.1, reconstructed scope
is blocked if evaluating the moved element in its launching site at LF would violate Condition
C (Romero 1997, 1998, Fox 1999); from section 2.2, an entity trace is obligatory even in instances
dónde, in principle, a GQ trace should be possible as well; and from section 3, movement out of
property positions obligatorily reconstructs. The TIC provides a unified account of all of these
restricciones. It attributes them to the ungrammaticality of higher-type traces, specifically of types
(cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) y (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3). Sin embargo, the details differ in each case, reflecting different repercussions
of the TIC, so let us consider each case in turn.

Primero, recall from section 2.1 that syntactic reconstruction and GQ traces both produce recon-
structed-scope interpretations. The difference between the two mechanisms is that reconstruction
correctly predicts that reconstructed scope is sensitive to Condition C, and GQ traces do not
(Romero 1997, 1998, Fox 1999). Without additional stipulations, GQ traces thus overgenerate
reconstructed-scope readings. According to the TIC, GQ traces are unavailable in the grammar,
hence cannot be used to produce reconstructed-scope interpretations. Como consecuencia, to achieve
reconstructed scope, the grammar must employ reconstruction, thereby yielding the observed
correlation between scope and Condition C.

Segundo, sección 2.2 discussed cases where movement must map onto a trace representation:
ACD resolution, extraposition, and parasitic-gap formation. Fundamentalmente, both entity traces and GQ
traces would in principle satisfy the need for a trace representation. Eso es, the movement step
would serve its intended purpose, and the derivation would semantically converge. Sin embargo, en
each of these cases the moved element obligatorily takes scope in its landing site. GQ traces fail
to predict this scope shifting. They would permit a trace representation in which the moved element
takes scope in its launching site. Under the TIC, sin embargo, the only available trace representation is
an individual-type trace. Respectivamente, if a trace representation must be used to achieve some
purpose, then the moved element will necessarily take scope in its landing site.

Tercero, under the TIC, movement is tightly restricted in how it can be interpreted. It only has
two possible semantic representations: an individual-type trace and reconstruction. This restrictive-
ness has a crucial consequence: if an individual-type trace would be incompatible with the launch-
ing site of movement, reconstruction is forced. Property positions are such a case: traces of type
e are type-incompatible with property positions, which require expressions of type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3). Por lo tanto,
the only option for interpreting movement that targets a DP in a property position is to reconstruct.
I discuss another such case—namely, movement of VPs and APs—in section 4.2. Another way
of framing this point is that traces are prohibited in positions that require a higher-type expression,
such as property positions. This generalization, stated in (51), will be relevant in section 5.3.

(51) Higher-type positions prohibit traces (and thus require reconstruction).

It is important here to emphasize that the TIC is not a constraint on movement itself, and it also
never drives movement. Movement takes place in the syntax—for whatever reason—and the TIC

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

restricts how the resulting dependency may be interpreted. The only case where the TIC yields
outright ungrammaticality is when (a) an individual-type trace is incompatible with the launching
site of movement and (b) reconstruction—for reasons not yet understood—is independently
blocked. This is what happens, decir, when topicalization targets a DP in a property position: porque
property positions require reconstruction and topicalization cannot reconstruct, the movement is
ungrammatical (mira la sección 3.2).

The discussion so far has not touched on intermediate landing sites, but only in order to
simplify the exposition. To generate the unavailable readings and sentences in sections 2 y 3,
it would be necessary for at least one of the steps in the movement chain to map onto a higher-
type trace. The argumentation against higher-type traces is not fundamentally changed by which
step in the chain does so. The TIC blocks higher-type traces wherever they might occur and thus
blocks them in intermediate positions as well.

Finalmente, the argumentation here has focused on the entity domain (es decir., DPs), but the TIC is
formulated more generally to include all semantic types. Por ejemplo, the TIC allows traces of
type d (degrees) and type s (situations/worlds), but not type (cid:2)d, t(cid:3) (a property of degrees) or type
(cid:2)(cid:2)s, t(cid:3), (cid:2)s, t(cid:3)(cid:3) (a modal). Extending the TIC to all semantic types seems to make the right empirical
cut, given what we know about the semantics of movement thus far: Primero, though not anywhere
near as ubiquitous as traces of type e, individual-type traces are used to some extent in other
ontological domains. Por ejemplo, traces of type d are widely used in analyses of degree construc-
ciones (p.ej., Heim 1985, 2000, Bhatt and Pancheva 2004). To the best of my knowledge, aunque,
there are no (explicit) proposals for higher-type traces in these other domains.22 Second, en el
case of moving a CP, where we might expect movement to leave a propositional trace (tipo (cid:2)s,
t(cid:3)), moulton (2015) independently argues that such movement in fact leaves a trace of type e.
Neither of these points, por supuesto, is itself evidence for the absence of higher-type traces in these
other domains, but it is very suggestive and highlights the need for further research.

That notwithstanding, prohibiting higher-type traces for all semantic types does have an im-
mediate empirical upshot outside of the data in sections 2 and 3—namely, with VP- and AP-
movimiento. I now turn to this topic.

4.2 vicepresidente- and AP-Movement

It is well-known that movement of VPs and APs displays binding-theoretic connectivity effects
that movement of ordinary DPs does not (Barss 1986, Huang 1993, Heycock 1995, Takano
1995).23 This contrast is illustrated in (52) y (53) for Conditions A and C, respectivamente. En (52),

22 There are analyses that use higher-type traces in these other domains, Por ejemplo, in the semantics literature.
Sin embargo, there are no proposals explicitly claiming that such traces must exist and that syntactic reconstruction would
not work equally well.

23 VPs and APs are traditionally considered “predicates,” which might make them seem identical to property positions.
Sin embargo, given the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis, VPs/APs are not actually predicates, because all of their arguments
are saturated internally. This holds true even if the external argument is severed from the verb, in which case both VP
and vP denote propositions (Kratzer 1996). De este modo, even though I will argue that VPs/APs and DPs in property positions
obligatorily reconstruct because of the TIC, it is important to recognize that they are not one and the same phenomenon.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

an anaphor in a moved DP may have an antecedent in the clause where it originates or in the
clause it moves to (52a), but an anaphor in a moved AP or VP may only have an antecedent in
the clause where it originates (52b–c).

(52) Condition A connectivity

a. [DP Which picture of herself2/3]1 does Sophia2 think that Rose3 admired
b. [AP How proud of herself*2/3]1 does Sophia2 think that Rose3 is
C. [VP Criticize herself*2/3]1, Sophia2 thinks that Rose3 will not

(based on Heycock 1995:548)

En (53), an R-expression in a moved DP does not result in a Condition C violation when a
coindexed pronoun c-commands the launching site of movement (53a), but an R-expression in a
moved VP or AP does (53b–c).24

(53) Condition C connectivity

a. [DP Which allegations about Sophia2]1 do you think that she2/3 denied
b. [AP How proud of Sophia2]1 do you think that she*2/3 is
C. [VP Criticize Sophia2]1, you think that she*2/3 will not

(based on Heycock 1995:548–549)

The consensus in the literature is that VPs and APs obligatorily reconstruct, while DPs do so
only optionally (modulo independent factors that might force or block reconstruction).25 Porque
VPs and APs obligatorily reconstruct, they are always evaluated for binding theory in their base
posición. De este modo, en (52b–c) the only possible antecedent for herself is Rose, and in (53b–c) Sophia
is necessarily c-commanded by she, thereby violating Condition C. Moved DPs, en el otro
mano, can be evaluated for binding theory in either their launching site (es decir., by reconstructing)
or their landing site (es decir., by using a trace). Como consecuencia, en (52a) either Rose or Sophia may
antecede herself—Rose from the launching site and Sophia from the landing site.26 In (53a), el
moved DP can be evaluated in its landing site, so that Sophia is not c-commanded by she, de este modo
obeying Condition C.

The TIC provides a straightforward explanation for why this reconstruction is obligatory.
VPs and APs denote higher-type expressions. Under the simplest assumptions, they denote propo-

24 There is some disagreement in the literature about whether moved DPs exhibit Condition C connectivity and if
they do, when precisely they do so (p.ej., Adger et al. 2017, Bruening and Al Khalaf 2019, Stockwell, Meltzer-Asscher,
and Sportiche 2021). Sin embargo, this disagreement does not extend to VPs and APs, for which the judgments about
Condition C are sharper and more agreed-upon, so this contention does not affect what is at hand.

25 Note that in English, fronting VPs and APs (outside of questions) must be different from topicalizing DPs, incluso
though both are commonly called “topicalization,” because the former must reconstruct and the latter cannot (mira la sección
3.1). This is supported by the fact that in English (a) fronting of DPs is itself not a uniform phenomenon (ross 1967,
Príncipe 1981) y (b) fronted VPs/APs and topicalized DPs seem to have different prosodies and meanings.

26 Technically, when the moved DP is being evaluated for Condition A in its “landing site,” it is in fact being
evaluated in its intermediate position at the edge of the embedded CP, a position from which Sophia c-commands herself
within its binding domain (p.ej., phase).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

sitions ((cid:2)s, t(cid:3)). Taking into account tense and aspect, they might also be taken to denote predicates
of times ((cid:2)i, (cid:2)s, t(cid:3)(cid:3)), predicates of events ((cid:2)v, (cid:2)s, t(cid:3)(cid:3)), or some amalgam thereof. Sin embargo,
what is crucial is that VPs and APs are of some higher type. Como resultado, the TIC does not permit
traces that could represent VPs and APs, because they would have to be higher-type traces, cual
the TIC prohibits. Without licit trace representations, movement of VPs and APs is thereby forced
to reconstruct, which accounts for the binding connectivity effects in (52) y (53) as a side effect
of the more general principle in (51).

There is not sufficient space here to do justice to the alternative accounts of why VPs and
APs must reconstruct (p.ej., Heycock 1995, Takano 1995). En breve, these other analyses are in
principle compatible with the TIC. Sin embargo, if the TIC holds, as I have argued here on independent
grounds, they become unnecessary.

5 Traces as Definite Descriptions

Hasta ahora, this article has depicted traces as simplex variables (54a). Numerous works on the
interpretation of movement, sin embargo, have argued that traces are in fact bound definite descrip-
ciones (54b) (Sauerland 1998, 2004, Fox 1999, 2002, 2003), an idea that can be traced back to the
seminal work of Engdahl (1980, 1986). As definite descriptions, traces are more articulated than
simplex variables because they contain content, a saber, an NP restrictor. I will refer to this hy-
pothesis as traces-as-definites.

(54) a. Traces as simplex variables

[every cat] [1 [a child adopted t1]]
b. Traces as bound definite descriptions

[every cat] [1 [a child adopted [the cat 1]]]
((cid:4)the cat 1(cid:5)t (cid:3) (cid:11)X[CAT(X) ^ x (cid:3) t(1)], where ∃!y[CAT( y) ^ y (cid:3) t(1)])

The most well-known approach for achieving the LF in (54b) is Trace Conversion (Fox 1999,
2002, 2003). Trace Conversion involves applying two processes at LF to the lower copy of a
movement step: inserting a variable (55a) and replacing the determiner with a definite determiner
(55b). The inserted variable denotes an identity function over an index, and it conjoins with the
predicate denoted by the NP. The index is bound by the (cid:2)-operator introduced below the landing
site of movement, in the same manner as a simplex-variable trace (ver (4)–(6)). The result is a
bound definite description.

(55) Trace Conversion

a. Variable Insertion

(Det) Pred N (Det) [[Pred] [(cid:2)y . y (cid:3) t(norte)]]
(where t is the assignment)

b. Determiner Replacement

(Det) [[Pred] [(cid:2)y . y (cid:3) t(norte)]] N the [[Pred] [(cid:2)y . y (cid:3) t(norte)]]
(Fox 2002:67)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

For the purposes of this article, it is inconsequential exactly how the LF in (54b) is achieved—that
es, traces do not need to be literally “converted”—but I will assume Trace Conversion (es decir., un
LF process) in the interest of concreteness.27

The impetus behind traces-as-definites has by and large been the copy theory of movement.
If the copies in the launching and landing sites of movement were to both be interpreted as is,
(a) there would be no semantic connection between the two—they would effectively be repeti-
tions—and (b) in many cases, the semantic composition would not converge, due to semantic-
type mismatches. By interpreting the lower copy as a bound definite description, the grammar is
making the most minimal change possible that would render the structure interpretable.

This section argues that the TIC provides a new kind of evidence for traces-as-definites. Él
tests a prediction: if traces are definites, then the TIC should be reflected (in some capacity) con
definites as well. I show that this prediction is borne out. The argumentation rests on a not-widely-
recognized connection between traces-as-definites and the weak/strong-definite distinction drawn
by F. Schwarz (2009): if traces are definites, then they must belong to a certain class of definites
known as strong definites (sección 5.1). I show that strong definites cannot occur in environments
where a DP must be a higher semantic type—the same positions that ban traces under the TIC
(sección 5.2). De este modo, traces and strong definites have the same distribution with respect to semantic
types. This parallel is captured under the hypothesis that traces are just definites. Against this
backdrop, the TIC is a manifestation of a more general constraint on strong definite descriptions
(sección 5.3).

5.1 Traces and the Weak/Strong-Definite Distinction

F. Schwarz (2009) argues that there are two types of definite descriptions: weak definites, cual
encode situational uniqueness, and strong definites, which are anaphoric.28 The distinction be-
tween weak and strong definites manifests morphosyntactically in some languages, though not in
Inglés. Por ejemplo, in German the determiner in weak definites must contract with prepositions
whenever morphologically possible (56a), but the determiner in strong definites can never contract
with prepositions (56b).

(56) a. Hans ging zum

Haus.
Hans went to.theWEAK house
‘Hans went to the house.’

b. Hans ging zu dem

Haus.
Hans went to theSTRONG house
‘Hans went to the house.’
(F. Schwarz 2009:7)

27 The standard formulation of Trace Conversion in (55) is designed for DPs. For a category-general version of

Trace Conversion, which is compatible with the proposals here, see Moulton 2015.

28 The literature on definite descriptions is extensive, and I do not do it justice here. For more on the topic, see F.

Schwarz 2009 and the references therein.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Schwarz shows that the different morphosyntactic forms in (56) are restricted to certain kinds of
usos, reflecting the distinction between weak and strong definites. These interpretive distinctions
will be discussed in section 5.2, where they are retooled as diagnostics for weak and strong def-
inites in English.

According to F. Schwarz’s (2009) análisis, what makes a definite a strong definite is the
presence of an index (see also Elbourne 2005). The interpretation of the index depends on the
assignment function, as the interpretation of a pronoun does. De este modo, the index can be valued
contextually or be bound by a quantificational expression. The presence or absence of an index
in the definite description is encoded in the denotation of the determiner. De este modo, there are two
definite determiners: one that does not take an index, thereby producing a weak definite (57a),
and one that does take an index, thereby producing a strong definite (57b). (The presuppositional
part of the meaning is excluded in (57) for ease of presentation.)

(57)

a.
b.

(cid:4)theWEAK
(cid:4)theSTRONG

(cid:5) (cid:6) (cid:2)s (cid:2)PAG(cid:2)mi,(cid:2)s,t(cid:3)(cid:3) . (cid:7)X[PAG(X)(s)]
(cid:5) (cid:6) (cid:2)s (cid:2)PAG(cid:2)mi,(cid:2)s,t(cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2)y .(cid:7)X[PAG(X)(s)^x (cid:6) y]
índice

índice

Against this backdrop, consider where traces fit into the picture. If traces are definite descrip-
tions—as I am arguing for here—then they would be strong definites, because they are anaphoric
and have an index. De hecho, traces would have to be strong definites because having an index is
a prerequisite for the bound interpretation that traces require.29 In the case of traces, the index
of the strong definite is bound by the (cid:2)-operator inserted below the landing site of movement,
which is syntactically represented as a copied index (58).

(58) [DP every cat] [1 [a child adopted [DP 1 [theSTRONG cat]]]]

moved exp

trace

Weak definites, por otro lado, would be inadequate for representing traces because they lack
an index and hence cannot be bound.

Note that the standard formulation of Trace Conversion in (55) already produces a strong
definite equivalent to (58), though not of exactly the same syntactic form. Sin embargo, it is trivial
to recast Trace Conversion to produce a structure in line with F. Schwarz’s (2009) análisis.
Además, there are other proposals in the literature about the structure of strong definites, en
particular about the position of the index (p.ej., Simonenko 2014, Hanink 2018), which are equally
compatible with the proposals in this article. Trace Conversion could be adapted to produce the
strong-definite structures of these other proposals as well.

29 F. Schwarz (2009:261) briefly mentions this connection between traces and strong definites.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

5.2 Definites in Higher-Type Positions

This section argues that higher-type DP positions—that is, positions that require expressions of
tipo (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) o (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3)—prohibit strong definites, as stated in (59). Por lo tanto, definite descriptions
in higher-type positions are necessarily weak definites.

(59) Higher-type positions prohibit strong definite descriptions.

Because the weak/strong-definite distinction does not manifest morphosyntactically in English,
determining whether a definite is weak or strong requires probing its interpretation. This probing
requires some indirect reasoning, which is worth spelling out explicitly: It is possible to create
contexts where only a strong definite would be felicitous. Two properties that distinguish strong
definites from weak definites, and thus can be used to create such contexts, are that (a) strong
definites must have an antecedent and that (b) strong definites do not have to satisfy the uniqueness
requirement that weak definites do (F. Schwarz 2009). I will show that definite descriptions can
occur in higher-type positions, but that when these two conditions are satisfied and controlled
para, they become infelicitous. Because definites can felicitously occur in higher-type positions,
but not in these contexts that allow only strong definites, we can reason that it must be the case
that the definites in higher-type positions are necessarily weak definites. The infelicity then arises
because the uniqueness requirement of weak definites is not satisfied in the strong-definite context.
Let us proceed by first investigating definite descriptions in property positions and then
turning to GQs. (A note on judgments: many of the infelicitous English examples in this section
are improved by replacing the with that; I will return to this point in section 5.3.)

5.2.1 Property Positions
(60) shows that definite descriptions are in principle allowed in prop-
erty positions—and thus have (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3)-meanings—but it does not reveal what kinds of definite des-
criptions are allowed.

(60) a. A: What shall we dig up this year?

Existentials

B: Well, there are the peonies.
(McNally 1998:366)

b. Megan painted the house Anna’s favorite color.
C. Irene called the cat that dumb nickname.
d. Erika became the best kind of teacher.

Change-of-color verbs
Naming verbs
Predicate nominals

I present three arguments that definites in property positions are necessarily weak definites. El
arguments are based on interpretive properties of weak and strong definites noted by F. Schwarz
(2009). To illustrate the properties, I use German examples, where the morphosyntactic distinction
(ver (56)) can be tracked alongside the interpretation.

The first argument is based on discourse anaphoric uses of strong definites: a saber, that a
strong definite can refer back to a previously mentioned indefinite in contexts where uniqueness
is not satisfied. Starting with a German baseline, (61) shows that the definite dem Zimmer can
refer back to the indefinite eines der Zimmer, but only if it is a strong definite, as reflected in
the inability of the determiner to contract with the preposition. The partitive form of the indefinite
crucially indicates the presence of several rooms in the situation. De este modo, en (61) the uniqueness

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

requirement of the weak definite is not satisfied, yielding infelicity. The strong definite, sobre el
other hand, is able to convey that the intended referent is the indefinite in the preceding sentence,
because it is anaphoric.

(61) Bei

der Gutshausbesichtigung hat mich eines der

Zimmer besonders
the.GEN rooms
especially
Jahr 1810 eine Nacht (cid:9)#im

uno

has me

supposedly has Goethe in.theWEAK year 1810 a
(cid:10) Zimmer verbracht.

during the mansion.tour
beeindruckt. Angeblich hat Goethe im
impressed
in dem
in theSTRONG room
‘One of the rooms especially impressed me during the mansion tour. Supposedly Goethe
spent a night in the room in 1810.’
(F. Schwarz 2009:30)

in.theWEAK

spent

night

(62) sets up a parallel configuration in English. The definite the color is able to refer back to the
indefinite one of the colors. As with the German example in (61), the partitive form of the in-
definite in (62) indicates that there are several colors in the situation. De este modo, the definite does not
involve a uniqueness interpretation; bastante, it is anaphoric.

(62) Blanche picked out one of the colors for the living room, but Dorothy thought that

the color was too dark.

Morphosyntactically, the definite in (62) is ambiguous between weak and strong, since English
does not morphosyntactically distinguish the two. Sin embargo, given the felicity of the definite in
this particular context, where a weak definite’s uniqueness requirement would not be satisfied,
it must be the case that it is a strong definite; this matches up with its anaphoric interpretation.
Fundamentalmente, in the same context, a definite description in a property position is infelicitous, as il-
lustrated in (63) with a change-of-color verb.

(63) #Blanche picked out one of the colors for the living room, and Dorothy painted the

habitación [the color]prop-pos.

The infelicity of (63) indicates that the definite description in the property position cannot be a
strong definite; de lo contrario, it would have a felicitous reading, como (62) does. Bastante, it can only be
a weak definite. The uniqueness requirement of weak definites is not satisfied in this context,
thereby yielding infelicity. (64)–(66) show that the same contrast holds for the other property
positions as well.30

(64) Susan saw one of the congresswomen walk into the room.

Existentials

a. So, (al menos) the congresswoman was at the cabinet meeting.
b. #So, in the cabinet meeting, había (al menos) [the congresswoman]prop-pos.

30 (64), (70), y (74) are so-called list existentials, which are already somewhat marked independently (McNally
1992, 1997). A definite description is allowed in a list existential, but only on a weak-definite reading: Who was in the
cabinet meeting? Well, there was the congresswoman. This example is felicitous only on a weak-definite reading, y
it implies that the meeting had only one congresswoman.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(65) My mother liked one of the names in the baby book.

Naming verbs

a. My grandmother had wanted to give the name to my uncle.
b. #My grandmother had wanted to call my uncle [el nombre]prop-pos.

(66) Anna decided on one of the types of doctor to become.

Predicate nominals

a. The type (of doctor) made a lot of money.
b. #And she became [the type (of doctor)]prop-pos.

The second argument involves covarying interpretations in which a strong definite covaries
with an indefinite in a quantificational sentence.31 For example, in the German baseline in (67)
the strong definite dem Buch covaries with the indefinite ein Buch u¨ber Topinambur for each
library. Eso es, for library a, they both pick out book a′; for library b, they both pick out book
b′; etcétera. As reflected in the inability of the determiner to contract with the preposition, a
weak definite does not allow the same covarying interpretation.

(67) In jeder Bibliothek, die ein Buch u¨ ber Topinambur hat, sehe ich (cid:9)#im

that a

(cid:10) Buch nach, transmisión exterior

book about topinambur

has look I
man Topinambur grillen kann.

in every library
in dem
in theSTRONG book PRT whether one topinambur grill
‘In every library that has a book about topinambur, I check in the book whether one
can grill topinambur.’
(F. Schwarz 2009:33)

in.theWEAK

poder

In the situations being quantified over, there may be more than one book about topinambur in
each library and, por extensión, in each situation. De este modo, en (67) the weak definite is infelicitous
because its uniqueness requirement is not satisfied. The strong definite, por otro lado, is able
to achieve the covarying interpretation in (67) by virtue of its anaphoricity (for the specifics, ver
F. Schwarz 2009:253–276). Turning to English, en (68) the definite the color is able to covary
with the indefinite a color, even though the situations being quantified over may contain more than
one color and thus would not satisfy uniqueness. De nuevo, the definite in (68) is morphosyntactically
ambiguous, but its felicity in the particular context reveals that it must be a strong definite.

(68) Every time Blanche picks out a color for the bathroom, Dorothy complains that the

color is too bright.

In the same context, a definite description in a property position is infelicitous, as shown in (69)
with a change-of-color verb. This infelicity indicates that the definite in (69) can only be a weak
definite and that its uniqueness requirement is not being satisfied.

(69) #Every time Blanche picks out a color for the bathroom, Dorothy has to paint the room

[the color]prop-pos.

31 There are also covarying interpretations involving weak definites—namely, donkey sentences—which are not

discussed here for reasons of space.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

(70)–(72) show that the same contrast holds for the other property positions as well.

(70) In every hotel room with an ugly lamp, . . .

the lamp is on the dresser.

a.
b. #hay [the lamp]prop-pos on the dresser.

Existentials

(71) Every time that my mom found a new puppy name, . . .

Naming verbs

a. my dad vetoed the name.
b. #she nicknamed the family dog [el nombre]prop-pos.

(72) In every store with a rare type of plant, . . .

Predicate nominals

a. my aunt bought the rare type.
b. #my aunt bought a plant that was [the rare type]prop-pos.

While the previous two arguments focused on strong definites not being permitted in property
positions, the third argument involves the inverse: showing that weak definites can indeed occur
in property positions. There are special contexts that independently require a weak definite, cual
are called bridging contexts. In a bridging context, there is a part-whole relation between a definite
description and the individuals and events in the preceding discourse, which is sufficient to satisfy
unicidad. As shown in (73), bridging contexts in German require a weak definite.

(73) Der Ku¨ hlschrank war so groß, dass der Ku¨rbis

problemlos
that the pumpkin without.a.problem in.theWEAK

(cid:9)im

was so big

the fridge
#in dem
in theSTRONG crisper

(cid:10) Gemu¨ sefach untergebracht werden konnte.

stowed

ser

podría

‘The fridge was so big that the pumpkin could easily be stowed in the crisper.’
(F. Schwarz 2009:52)

Discussion of why bridging contexts require weak definites and how the uniqueness requirement
is satisfied in them can be found in F. Schwarz 2009:212–236.32 (74) y (75) show that bridging
contexts allow definite descriptions with existential constructions and change-of-color verbs, re-
spectively. This compatibility explicitly shows that property positions allow weak definites. Es
not clear (to me) how to go about constructing part-whole relations for names and predicate
nominals—and (75) with change-of-color verbs is already pushing it—so they are not tested.

(74) Weak definite in existential constructions
A: What did you like about the fridge?
B: Well, había [the spacious vegetable crisper]prop-pos.

32 F. Schwarz (2009) observes that there is another kind of bridging context that instead requires a strong definite
and involves a producer-product relation. A similar contrast appears to hold in property positions as well (i). Sin embargo,
I leave exploring this contrast for future research.

(i) A: What did the critic not like about the play?
B: #Well, there was the author who is a snob.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(75) Weak definite with change-of-color verbs

(At the paint store, color palettes contain an accent color and two matching colors.)
Rose went to the store and picked out the color palette for the bathroom. The next
mañana, she painted the south-facing wall [the accent color]prop-pos.

En suma, we have seen that in contexts that require a strong definite, definites in property
positions are infelicitous, and in contexts that require a weak definite, they are felicitous. I take
this pattern to indicate that property positions prohibit strong definites, and thus that all definites
in property positions are weak definites, in support of the claim in (59).33

5.2.2 Generalized-Quantifier Positions Testing the claim in (59) for GQ positions is less
straightforward than it is for property positions. Because there are no expressions that obviously
denote functions taking a GQ as argument, there are not as readily available GQ positions as
there are property positions—at least as far as we know. Sin embargo, there is one instance in which
a DP would necessarily have to be type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3): when it conjoins with another expression that
itself must be (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3). Conjoining two expressions requires that both expressions be the same
semantic type (Partee and Rooth 1983). There is a certain class of GQs—called “strong,” but
unrelated to strong definites—that cannot have their type lowered to e or (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), such as every
NP and most NPs (Partee 1986). To conjoin with a GQ of this class, the other DP needs to be
tipo (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3) to match it, either by being born as such or by having its type lifted.34 This con-
figuration is schematized in (76).

(76) [&P GQ(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) y

(cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3)](cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3)

The claim in (59) predicts that only weak definites may conjoin with GQs, because strong definites
cannot occur in higher-type positions.

According to this prediction, in a context requiring a strong definite, a definite description
conjoined with a GQ should be infelicitous, because the uniqueness requirement of a weak definite
is not satisfied in the context. This prediction is tested in (77) using covarying interpretations,
which require a strong definite (ver (67)). En (77a), the book can covary with the indefinite when
it stands on its own and is not conjoined with anything. Por lo tanto, the book can in principle be
a strong definite in this position. Sin embargo, en (77b), when the book is conjoined with every
encyclopedia, the sentence becomes degraded.

33 Además, if we adopt Elbourne’s (2005) proposal that pronouns are definite descriptions, we have a straightfor-
ward account of Postal’s (1994) observation that property positions prohibit pronouns like it: these pronouns are strong
definites and thus cannot occur in property positions (see footnote 12).

(i) a. *There is [él]prop-pos in the pantry.

Existential constructions
Change-of-color verbs
Naming verbs
Predicate nominals
34 In the same vein as Partee (1986), I use the terms lift and lower without a commitment to where type shifting

b. *Megan painted the house [él]prop-pos.
C. *Irene called the cat [él]prop-pos.
d. *Erika became [él]prop-pos.

happens in the grammar.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

(77) In every library with a book about topinambur . . .
I checked in the book to see if it can be grilled.

a.
b. ??I checked in the book and every encyclopedia to see if it can be grilled.

The only difference between these two sentences is the semantic type of the book: en (77a), es
type e, and in (77b), it is type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3). I contend that the unacceptability of (77b) is due to
infelicity: the book in (77b) must be a weak definite, since it is conjoined with a GQ (76), y
its uniqueness requirement is not being satisfied in the context.

En cambio, in bridging contexts, which require a weak definite (ver (73)), the prediction is
that a definite should be able to conjoin with a GQ, because weak definites can freely occur in
higher-type positions. This prediction is also borne out, as shown in (78).

(78) The town was so big that the church (and every municipal building) was impossible

to find.

Assuming that (76) is a bona fide GQ position, as I have claimed, these two arguments

support the claim in (59) that strong definites cannot occur in higher-type positions.

5.3 Discusión

We have now arrived at two generalizations about what is prohibited in higher-type positions;
these are repeated in (79).

(79) a. Higher-type positions prohibit traces (and thus require reconstruction).

b. Higher-type positions prohibit strong definite descriptions.

((cid:3) (51))
((cid:3) (59))

What these two generalizations reveal is that traces and strong definites form a natural class.
This state of affairs is precisely what one expects under traces-as-definites. Eso es, the reason
that traces are prohibited in higher-type positions is that (a) strong definites are prohibited in
higher-type positions and (b) traces are strong definites. Por lo tanto, (79a) can be subsumed under
(79b). I take this parallel as a compelling argument in favor of the theory of traces-as-definites.
Como resultado, the TIC then is part of a more general constraint on definite descriptions, a saber,
one that (presumably) allows strong definites to only range over individual semantic types. El
question that follows is why strong definites are subject to such a constraint, and weak definites are
no. Put differently, why are weak definites type-flexible, but strong definites not? This question is
beyond the scope of this article, but one important point worth mentioning here is that it is unlikely
that the constraint is semantic, eso es, coming directly from the meaning of strong definites. El
only difference in meaning between weak and strong definites is that the latter are anaphoric (F.
Schwarz 2009). Anaphoricity itself is perfectly fine in higher-type positions. In the strong-definite
examples in section 5.2, the infelicitous cases with the NP in higher-type positions become accept-
capaz, with the intended anaphoric interpretation, if the is replaced with that, as illustrated in (80)
y (81).

(80) Every time Blanche picks out a color for the bathroom, Dorothy has to paint the room
(cf. (69))

[that color](cid:2)mi,t(cid:3).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

(81) In every library with a book about topinambur, I checked in [that book and every
(cf. (77b))

encyclopedia](cid:2)(cid:2)mi,t(cid:3),t(cid:3) to see if it can be grilled.

En (80) y (81), that NP is able to achieve the anaphoric interpretation that a strong definite is
no. It is not entirely clear where that NP fits within the weak/strong-definite distinction, pero (80)
y (81) nevertheless show that anaphoricity alone cannot be what is behind the type restriction
on strong definites (and traces).

Bastante, it must be something else about strong definites. There is a growing body of work
showing that weak and strong definites differ syntactically—in particular, that strong definites
contain additional structure that weak definites do not (p.ej, Simonenko 2014, cheng, Heycock,
and Zamparelli 2017, Patel-Grosz and Grosz 2017, Hanink 2018). I find this a promising direction
for explaining this type restriction on strong definites (es decir., as an underlyingly syntactic phenome-
non), but I leave pursuing this to future research.

En suma, this section has argued that strong definites are prohibited in higher-type positions,
just as traces are. This parallelism receives a straightforward explanation if traces are themselves
strong definites, as the theory of traces-as-definites asserts. Note that in the remainder of this
artículo, I will continue to refer to “the TIC” for the sake of consistency, even though the constraint
generalizes from traces to (todo) strong definites.

6 Functional Questions

Constituent questions may have functional readings (Engdahl 1980, 1986, Groenendijk and Stok-
hof 1984). For illustration, consider (82). The wh-phrase in (82) does not range over pictures;
bastante, it ranges over picture-valued functions. Por ejemplo, a possible answer to (82) is a function
that when given a woman, returns her first picture—which roughly corresponds to the response
Her first picture.

(82) [Which picture of herself2]1 does no woman2 like

Building on Engdahl 1980, 1986, Heim (2019) argues that (82) denotes the set of propositions
en (83) (aquí, simplified and ignoring intensionality).

(83) {pag : ∃ f [∀y[WOMAN( y)

PIC-OF( F ( y))( y)]^p (cid:6) ∃x[WOMAN(X)^x likes f (X)]]}

(cid:2)

wh-var

characterizes f

trace

The interrogative component of the wh-phrase in (82) corresponds to the existentially bound
variable f in (83); let us refer to this as the wh-variable. En (83), f is a function of type (cid:2)mi, mi(cid:3)
such that for every woman, it returns a picture of that woman. The different answers to (82) son
functions that satisfy this criterion: Por ejemplo, her first picture, her prom picture. In the wh-
phrase’s thematic position, there is function-argument structure: the functional wh-variable f takes
as argument x, which is itself bound by no woman.

At first glance, it might appear that functional questions are problematic for the TIC because
the wh-phrase ranges over functions, which are of higher semantic types, and the TIC bans
higher-type traces. Sin embargo, it is important here to distinguish between the wh-variable (es decir., el

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

interrogative component) and the trace of the wh-phrase, because they are not one and the same.
In simple cases, como (84a), it is conceivable to conflate the two, because they are the same semantic
tipo. Considerar, aunque, a how many–question like (84b): the wh-variable ranges over degrees
(type d), but the wh-phrase as a whole is type e. If the wh-phrase in (84b) were to map onto a
trace, that trace would be type e, not type d. In the same spirit, in a how-question like (84C), el
wh-variable is type d, but the wh-phrase itself must reconstruct (mira la sección 4.2); it does not map
onto a trace of type d.

(84) a. What1 did Alex eat

b. [How many cookies]1 did Alex eat
C. [How tall]1 is Alex

wh-var: mi, wh-phrase: mi
wh-var: d, wh-phrase: mi
wh-var: d, wh-phrase: (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) o (cid:2)s, t(cid:3)

What cases like (84b) y (84C) reveal is that there is no systematic relation between the wh-
variable’s type and the overall wh-phrase. Fundamentalmente, the type of the trace will always depend on
the wh-phrase as a whole—that is, what actually moves—not the wh-variable.35

Functional questions involve wh-variables of higher semantic types (p.ej., tipo (cid:2)mi, mi(cid:3) o (cid:2)mi,
(cid:2)mi, mi(cid:3)(cid:3)). The TIC, aunque, is not a constraint on variables; it is a constraint on traces. Por lo tanto,
it is unproblematic for the TIC that functional questions involve higher-type wh-variables. En
addition, it turns out that independently, the wh-phrase in functional questions must reconstruct
because it contains a bound variable (Romero 1998, Heim 2019). Como consecuencia, functional ques-
tions do not even have trace representations that could violate the TIC in the first place.

There remains the issue of how the function-argument structure is introduced into the meaning
en (83). According to Heim (2019), it involves covert pronouns in the wh-phrase and is unrelated
to the wh-movement itself. For discussion, see Heim 2019; aquí, I note that Heim’s analysis is
fully compatible with the proposals in this article (see footnote 4).

7 Conclusion and Outlook

This article has argued that traces may only range over individual semantic types, a principle I have
called the Trace Interpretation Constraint (TIC). Under the TIC, movement is tightly restricted in
that it has only two possible semantic representations: an individual-type trace and reconstruction.
I showed that the TIC provides a unified account of a variety of seemingly unrelated restrictions
on movement and its interpretation. I then used the TIC to further probe the underlying nature
of traces. I observed that definite descriptions cannot occur in positions requiring expressions of
higher types, a restriction that parallels the TIC. I took this parallel as an argument in support of
the theory that traces are bound definite descriptions (p.ej., Sauerland 1998, 2004, Fox 2002).

The remainder of this article is devoted to two tasks: Primero, sección 7.1 compares the TIC
with previous proposals concerning possible traces. Segundo, sección 7.2 outlines several questions
that arise from the worldview of possible traces according to the TIC.

35 It is sometimes assumed that the wh-phrase must move in order to bind the wh-variable. Sin embargo, as the wh-
variable’s type is not generally related to the wh-phrase, this cannot be the case. There are various solutions to this
problema, all of which are compatible with the claims in this article; see footnote 4.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

7.1 Comparison with Previous Proposals

7.1.1 Arroyo 1996 and Fox 1999 The TIC prohibits higher-type traces by imposing a constraint
directly on traces. Fox (1999) proposes a more indirect way of blocking higher-type traces. Él
suggests that “the semantic type of a trace is determined to be the lowest type compatible with
the syntactic environment” (Fox 1999:180), an idea that he attributes to Beck (1996). Let us call
this proposal Lowest Compatible Type (LCT). LCT is designed to block GQ traces, and the logic
is as follows: (a) argument positions are compatible with expressions of both type e and type (cid:2)(cid:2)mi,
t(cid:3), t(cid:3); (b) e is a lower type than (cid:2)(cid:2)mi, t(cid:3), t(cid:3); y (C) de este modo, traces in argument positions may only
be type e. The upshot of LCT is that it tries to derive the prohibition on higher-type traces from
factors external to traces, a saber, their syntactic environment. Sin embargo, LCT faces two problems.
The first problem is conceptual: the lowest compatible type for a trace position cannot be
determined in a strictly local manner. Computing the lowest compatible type requires knowing
which semantic-composition rule will be used to interpret the position’s parent, which in turn
requires knowing the types of its children, which includes the trace—resulting in a circularity
problema. Overcoming this problem requires comparing possible semantic derivations—that is,
transderivationality, whose status is controversial.

The second problem is empirical. LCT does not in fact derive a total ban on higher-type
traces. Consider property traces. In a position that requires a property-denoting DP, the lowest
compatible type is (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3). According to LCT, a trace of type (cid:2)mi, t(cid:3) should therefore be possible
in property positions. Sin embargo, as argued in section 3, property traces are unavailable in the
gramática. The TIC does not face this problem, because it does not depend on the syntactic
environment of the trace, and thus it is more restrictive. A similar argument can be made for
movement of VPs and APs (mira la sección 4.2).

7.1.2 Chierchia 1984 Chierchia (1984) argues that functors (es decir., maps between categories) hacer
not enter into anaphoric processes, a constraint that he calls No Functor Anaphora. Fundamentalmente, en
his property-theoretic semantics properties are not functors, even in their predicative forms. Ellos
are taken as basic, roughly on par with individuals. With respect to pro-forms and ellipsis, No
Functor Anaphora seems to be on the right track. In addition to pronouns, there are pro-forms
and elliptical processes for APs, VPs, and NPs (85), all of which presumably denote properties
(modulo predicate-internal subjects).

(85) a. Waterproof1 phones are nice, but such1 phones are expensive.

b. Whenever the baby sleeps1, the mother does so1 too.
C. Whenever the baby sleeps1, the mother does (cid:6)1 también.
d. Sophia stole Dorothy’s hat1, but not Rose’s (cid:6)1.

AP pro-form
VP pro-form
VP-ellipsis
NP-ellipsis

Al mismo tiempo, there do not seem to be pro-forms and elliptical processes for determiners,
prepositions, complementizers, conectivos, etcétera, which is precisely what No Functor Anaph-
ora predicts. Sin embargo, if we understand No Functor Anaphora as applying to traces, then it would
face an immediate problem because it would permit property traces, since in Chierchia’s semantics,
properties are not functors. De este modo, it fails to predict that DPs in property positions obligatorily

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

reconstruct. Por esta razón, No Functor Anaphora is empirically too permissive with respect to
traces—though it may be correct for anaphors.

7.1.3 METRO. Landman 2006 METRO. Landman (2006) proposes the No Higher-Type Variables (NHTV)
constraint in (86). Note that for Landman, the domain of type e is multisorted and includes de-
grees, situations, veces, kinds, etcétera.

(86) No Higher-Type Variables

Variables in the LFs of natural languages are of type e.
(METRO. Landman 2006:1)

Building on Chierchia 1984, the arguments for NHTV come from subjecting to closer scrutiny
the putative cases of property anaphora, like those in (85). Landman argues that it is possible to
recast these anaphora either as variables over kinds or as deletion of fully articulated syntactic
estructura. With respect to movement, Landman is noncommittal about whether NHTV applies to
traces (see M. Landman 2006:cap. 3). Además, given the arguments that traces are definite
descriptions and not just variables (mira la sección 5), it is unclear whether NHTV could apply to
traces. This point is especially relevant under Landman’s own definition of variable: “those LF
objects that receive their denotation solely from an assignment function” (METRO. Landman 2006:2;
énfasis añadido). These points notwithstanding, if NHTV were to apply to traces, then it would
subsume the TIC.

Sin embargo, there is an independent argument against NHTV: functional questions. As dis-
cussed in section 6, functional questions involve wh-variables of higher semantic types, como
types (cid:2)mi, mi(cid:3) y (cid:2)mi, (cid:2)mi, mi(cid:3)(cid:3). These functional variables are not the types of objects that can be
(variables over) kinds, nor can they be replaced with deletion of syntactic structure. De este modo, es
unclear how NHTV would extend to functional questions. Por otro lado, functional questions
are entirely unproblematic for the TIC because the TIC is a constraint on traces, not on variables.

7.2 Preguntas abiertas

The toolkit for interpreting movement under the TIC is simple: individual-type traces and recon-
estructura. The foremost next task, entonces, is to revisit phenomena that have been analyzed using
the one tool that the TIC does not allow, higher-type traces, in order to see whether these phe-
nomena are amenable to analysis in terms of the TIC’s simpler toolkit. Some phenomena worth
highlighting in this regard are sloppy VP-ellipsis (Hardt 1999, B. Schwarz 2000; cf. Tomioka
2008), verb clusters (Keine and Bhatt 2016), as-parentheticals (Potts 2002a,b; cf. LaCara 2016),
and exceptional-scope indefinites (on some approaches; p.ej., Demirok 2019, Charlow 2020). En
addition to these phenomena, there are several other open questions that arise from the TIC, cual
I discuss below.

7.2.1 Condition A Connectivity Under ordinary circumstances, an anaphor can be bound from
an intermediate landing site, as shown in (87).

(87) a. *Maria2 said [that John liked [the picture of herself2]].
[Which picture of herself2]1 did Maria2 say [

1 that John liked

1]?

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

If DPs in property positions must reconstruct, as argued in section 3, then an anaphor in a DP
moved from a property position should not be able to be bound from an intermediate landing site
because the DP must reconstruct into its base position at LF. Testing this prediction faces two
complications. Primero, it requires using picture-NPs, but out of the four property positions investi-
gated here, only existential constructions allow these kinds of phrases. Por ejemplo, the NPs color
of herself and name of herself do not really make sense, so this prediction cannot be tested with
change-of-color and naming verbs. Segundo, picture-NPs are subject to perspectival effects; bajo
some proposals, they are exempt from binding theory (p.ej., Pollard and Sag 1992, Reinhart and
Reuland 1993). Sin embargo, the kinds of cases that would need to be tested are like those in
(88). The prediction is that (88b) should be ungrammatical because himself cannot be bound by
John in the base position of the wh-phrase. (Note that it is necessary to use how many in (88) a
avoid violating the definiteness restriction on existential pivots.)

(88) a.

[How many pictures of herself2]1 did John say [
ser

1 in the gallery]?

1 that Maria2 wanted there

b. ?[How many pictures of himself3]1 did John3 say [

1 that Maria wanted there

ser

1 in the gallery]?

A pesar de (88b) is slightly degraded, the judgment is very subtle. Given this subtlety and the
complications noted above, I leave exploring this prediction to future research.

7.2.2 Condition C Connectivity Reconstruction is standardly taken to induce Condition C con-
conectividad, because the moved expression is placed back in its launching site at LF, where Condition
C is evaluated (Heycock 1995, Romero 1997, 1998, Fox 1999). This assumption is also a crucial
component of Romero’s and Fox’s argument against GQ traces (mira la sección 2.1). The issue is
that there does not appear to be Condition C connectivity for DPs moved from property positions,
even though property positions force reconstruction (mira la sección 3). Por ejemplo, there is not a
strong contrast between the property position in (89a) and the nonproperty position in (89b) (usando
the same configuration as (9)).

(89) a. [Which of the colors that Alex2 had bought]1 did she2 paint the room
b. [Which of the colors that Alex2 had bought]1 did she2 get rid of

If reconstruction induces Condition C connectivity, entonces (89a) should be ungrammatical, porque
the wh-phrase must reconstruct, y (89b) should be grammatical, on a derivation where the
movement maps onto a trace. Sin embargo, there does not seem to be a difference in acceptability
between the two.

It is clear that there is more to the picture concerning Condition C connectivity and recon-
struction effects. While I leave reconciling these issues to future research, there are two points
worth highlighting here. Primero, the novel arguments against higher-type traces in this article do
not involve Condition C; only the previous argument in the literature from Romero and Fox does.
Por lo tanto, dropping the assumption that reconstruction induces Condition C connectivity does
not discredit the TIC. Segundo, two recent experimental studies have argued that moved DPs do not
exhibit Condition C connectivity (Adger et al. 2017, Bruening and Al Khalaf 2019; cf. Stockwell,

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Meltzer-Asscher, and Sportiche 2021). These studies, while crucial to disentangling the overall
issue of Condition C connectivity, have focused on the argument-adjunct distinction of Lebeaux
efectos (Lebeaux 1990, 2009), and not on the relation with quantifier scope. It would be worthwhile
to adapt their experimental paradigms to further scrutinize the relationship between Condition C
and scope.

7.2.3 ACD, Extraposition, and Property Positions DPs in property positions are able to host
an ellipsis site in an ACD configuration and to be extraposed from, as shown in (90).36

(90) a. Megan painted the house the (mismo) color (yesterday) that Anna did (cid:6).
b. Irene called the cat the (mismo) nickname (yesterday) that Helen did (cid:6).
C. Erika became the (mismo) kind of teacher (yesterday) that Gloria did (cid:6).

The availability of ACD and extraposition with property positions is at odds with (a) the arguments
from section 3 that QR cannot target DPs in property positions and (b) the analyses of ACD and
extraposition wherein the host DP must undergo QR (see sections 2.2.1 y 2.2.2). ACD and
extraposition with property positions are thus open problems. See Poole 2017:244–249 for obser-
vations suggesting that what is moving in (90) is potentially a larger constituent that contains the
property position (p.ej., a small clause) and is not the DP in the property position itself.37

7.2.4 Head Movement Head movement has limited semantic effects. For the vast majority of
cases—in particular, moving verbal elements—head movement has no semantic effect. Given
that verbal heads denote functions (p.ej., (cid:2)mi, (cid:2)s, t(cid:3)(cid:3) for intransitive verbs), it follows from the TIC
that these heads would be forced to reconstruct. Primero, a trace of the same semantic type as the
cabeza, which would allow for the head to remain in its landing site at LF, would violate the TIC
and thus is prohibited. Segundo, an individual-type trace, which the TIC does permit, cannot
semantically compose in the base position of a verbal head, because then its arguments would
have nothing with which to compose. De este modo, most cases of head movement would be forced to
reconstruct under the TIC. Lechner (2006, 2007) argues that there are in fact cases where head
movement has a semantic effect. Fundamentalmente, the cases that Lechner raises involve configurations
where the head movement could map onto a trace of type s, which the TIC allows. (The same
holds for the arguments involving ellipsis parallelism raised in Hartman 2011.) This is not to say
that head movement necessarily takes place in the narrow syntax. Sin embargo, if head movement
is a syntactic process, then the TIC could serve to derive its restricted semantic behavior; I leave
working out the details for future research.

36 Notablemente, ACD with existential constructions is ungrammatical (Pesetsky 2000:11–14).
(i) *There will be [everyone that there should (cid:6)] at the party.

(Pesetsky 2000:13)

37 A reviewer raises another possible approach to ACD and extraposition with property positions: higher-type traces
are allowed by the grammar (contra the TIC), but only as a last resort, a saber, when an individual-type trace would not
semantically compose and syntactic reconstruction is blocked. ACD and extraposition would be such cases and thus
would permit property traces as a last resort.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

Referencias

Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall, and Coppe van Urk. 2017. Is there Condition C reconstruction?
In NELS 47: Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, ed. by Andrew
Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff, 1:21–30. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics
Students Association.

Panadero, C. l. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme.

Foundations of Language 6:197–219.

Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Phi-

losophy 4:159–219.

Arroyo, Sigrid. 1996. Wh-constructions and transparent Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, Universita¨t Tu¨-

bingen.

Arroyo, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14:

1–56.

Arroyo, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative

Germanic Linguistics 9:165–208.

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35:1–45.
Bruening, Benjamín, and Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. No argument-adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for

binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55:247–276.

Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting, as revealed by the wh-

questions of Tlingit. Doctoral dissertation, CON.

Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Charlow, Simón. 2020. The scope of alternatives: Indefiniteness and islands. Lingüística y Filosofía

43:427–472.

cheng, Lisa, Caroline Heycock, and Roberto Zamparelli. 2017. Two levels for definiteness. En procedimientos
of GLOW in Asia XI: Volume I, ed. by Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, 79–93. MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics 84. Cambridge, MAMÁ: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Doctoral disserta-

ción, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen

Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. Nueva York: Prensa académica.

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays
in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52.
Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A¯ -dependencies. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Cresti, Diana. 1995. Extraction and reconstruction. Natural Language Semantics 3:79–122.
Demirok, O¨ mer. 2019. Scope theory revisited: Lessons from pied-piping in wh-questions. Doctoral disserta-

ción, CON.

Elbourne, Pablo. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1980. The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad

of Massachusetts Amherst.

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Lingüística y Filosofía 6:5–34.
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fox, danny. 1999. Reconstruction, variable binding, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30:

157–196.

Fox, danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Fox, danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33:

63–96.

Fox, danny. 2003. On logical form. In Minimalist syntax, ed. by Randall Hendrick, 82–123. Oxford: Negro-

Bueno.

Fox, danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In WCCFL 18:
Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Sonya Bird, Andrew
Carnie, Jason Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 132–144. Somerville, MAMÁ: Cascadilla Press.

frampton, John. 1999. The fine structure of wh-movement and the proper formulation of the ECP. El

Linguistic Review 16:43–61.

Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies in the semantics of questions and the pragmatics

of answers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Hanink, Emily. 2018. Structural sources of anaphora and sameness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chi-

cago.

Hardt, Daniel. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Lingüística y Filosofía 22:187–221.
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Lingüístico

Consulta 42:367–388.

Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms., University of Texas, austin.
Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables.
In The representation of (en)definiteness, ed. by Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 21–42. Leva-
puente, MAMÁ: CON prensa.

Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 10, ed. by Brendan Jackson and
Tanya Matthews, 20–64. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/issue
/view/24.

Heim, Irene. 2019. Functional readings without type-shifted noun phrases. In Reconstruction effects in rel-
ative clauses, ed. by Manfred Krifka and Mathias Schenner, 283–302. Berlina: de Gruyter.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26:547–570.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguis-

tic Inquiry 24:103–138.

Keine, Stefan, and Rajesh Bhatt. 2016. Interpreting verb clusters. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

34:1445–1492.

Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing questions. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Kotek, Hadas. 2019. Composing questions. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon,

ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Desorden.

Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event arguments: Foundations and applications, ed. por

Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wo¨llstein-Leisten, 177–212. Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer.

Kroch, Antonio. 1989. Amount quantification, referentiality, and long wh-movement. Ms., Universidad de

Pensilvania.

LaCara, Nicholas. 2016. Anaphora, inversion, and focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts

Amherst.

Landman, fred. 2004. Indefiniteness and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Landman, Meredith. 2006. Variables in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts

Amherst.

larson, Ricardo, and Robert May. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin.

Linguistic Inquiry 21:103–122.

Lebeaux, David. 1990. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. En procedimientos de
NELS 20, ed. by Juli Carter, Rose-Marie De´chaine, Bill Philip, and Tim Sherer, 318–332. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( I M ) P O S S I B L E T R A C E S

Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. by Mara

Frascarelli, 45–70. Berlina: de Gruyter.

Lechner, Winfried. 2007. Interpretive effects of head movement. Ms., University of Athens.
Lechner, Winfried. 2019. A calculus for reconstruction and anti-reconstruction. In Reconstruction effects in
relative clauses, ed. by Manfred Krifka and Mathias Schenner, 113–144. Berlina: de Gruyter.
Matushansky, Ora. 2008. On the linguistic complexity of proper names. Lingüística y Filosofía 31:

573–627.

McNally, Louise. 1992. An interpretation for the English existential construction. Doctoral dissertation, Uni-

versity of California, Santa Cruz.

McNally, Louise. 1997. A semantics for the English existential construction. Nueva York: Garland.
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Lingüística y Filosofía

21:353–392.

moulton, Keir. 2013. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax 16:250–291.
moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46:305–342.
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse
Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick
de Jong, and Martin Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.

Partee, Barbara H., and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, usar,
and interpretation of language, ed. by Rainer Ba¨uerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow,
361–383. Berlina: de Gruyter.

Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Patrick Grosz. 2017. Revisiting pronominal typology. Linguistic Inquiry 48:259–297.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry

23:261–303.

piscina, Ethan. 2017. Movement and the semantic type of traces. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachu-

setts Amherst.

Postal, Pablo. 1994. Contrasting extraction types. Journal of Linguistics 30:159–186.
Potts, cris. 2002a. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5:55–88.
Potts, cris. 2002b. The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

20:623–689.

Príncipe, Ellen. 1981. Topicalization, focus-movement, and Yiddish-movement: A pragmatic differentiation.
In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Danny K.
Alford, Karen Ann Hunold, Monica A. Macaulay, and Jenny Walter, 249–264. berkeley: Universidad
of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Lingüística

and Philosophy 20:335–397.

Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720.
Romero, Maribel. 1997. The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. In WCCFL
16: Proceedings of the 16th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Emily Curtis,
James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 351–366. stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad

of Massachusetts Amherst.

Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad

of Massachusetts Amherst.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

E T H A N P O O L E

Ruys, mi. GRAMO. 2015. A Minimalist condition on semantic reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 46:453–488.
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12:63–127.
Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Topics in ellipsis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de

Massachusetts Amherst.

Simonenko, alejandra. 2014. Grammatical ingredients of definiteness. Doctoral dissertation, McGill Univer-

sity.

Sportiche, Dominique. 2016. Neglect. Ms., UCLA.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2001. Syntactic vs. semantic reconstruction. In Linguistic form and its computation,
ed. by Christian Rohrer, Antje Roßdeutscher, and Hans Kamp, 145–182. stanford, California: CSLI Publica-
ciones.

Stockwell, Ricardo, Aya Meltzer-Asscher, and Dominique Sportiche. 2021. There is reconstruction for Con-
dition C in English questions. In NELS 51: Proceedings of the 51st Meeting of the North East Lin-
guistic Society, ed. by Alessa Farinella and Angelica Hill, 2:205–214. Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association.

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2:285–312.
Takano, Yuji. 1995. Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26:327–340.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2008. A step-by-step guide to VP ellipsis resolution. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. by Kyle

Johnson, 210–228. Cambridge: Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Lingüística y Filosofía 6:423–446.
williams, Edwin. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15:131–153.

Ethan Poole
Department of Linguistics
UCLA

epoole@ucla.edu

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

1
0
1
1
6
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
2
0
4
9
3
2
2

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
4
6
7
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Descargar PDF