It is well known that in sluicing constructions wh -dependencies can cross certain projections that are otherwise barriers to movement (Ross 1969, Chomsky 1972). This fact would follow under the assumption that the relevant barriers are somehow deactivated when phonologically deleted (“island repair”). The problem, however, is that another form of phonological deletion (VP-ellipsis; VPE) seems to be impossible in certain contexts where sluicing allows for island repair (Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey 1995, Merchant 2001). Nevertheless, we argue against the conclusion that island repair is a special property of sluicing. The argument is based on two observations. First, the difference between sluicing and VPE seems too broad to warrant the conclusion that island repair is the distinguishing factor (Lasnik 2001). Second, the conclusion is directly refuted by other VPE environments where island repair is possible (Kennedy and Merchant 2000; Fox, in preparation). The argument leaves us with a puzzle that we attempt to resolve while still maintaining the null hypothesis that VPE and sluicing involve the same operation of deletion, differing only in the size of the deleted constituent. Our proposed resolution capitalizes on a special property of the relevant sluicing contexts—namely, the presence of an indefinite NP in the antecedent clause in a position parallel to that of a trace in the elided clause. We argue that given the parallelism conditions on ellipsis, this fact prevents the wh -phrase in the elided clause from undergoing successive-cyclic movement. The remaining option (one-fell-swoop movement) requires the deletion of all barriers, including those that would otherwise be circumvented via an intermediate landing site. Such deletion occurs in sluicing but not in VPE, which targets a smaller constituent.

Antecedent-contained deletion poses a problem for theories of ellipsis, a problem that, according to much literature, is solved by Quantifier Raising. The solution, however, conflicts with the copy theory of movement. This article resolves this new conflict with the aid of a theory of extraposition and covert movement proposed by Fox and Nissenbaum (1999), together with certain assumptions about the structure of relative clauses and the way chains are interpreted. The resolution makes various new predictions and accounts for a range of otherwise puzzling facts.

This article investigates interactions between the scope of QPs and the restrictions imposed by binding theory. It presents new evidence that Condition C applies at (and only at) LF and demonstrates that this condition can serve as a powerful tool for distinguishing among various claims regarding the nature of LF and the inventory of semantic mechanisms. The conclusions reached are these: (1) Scope reconstruction is represented in the syntax (semantic type-shifting operations are very limited). (2) Ā-chains have the following properties: (a) Scope reconstruction results from deleting the head of the chain and interpreting a copy at the tail. (b) Non-scope-reconstruction results from interpreting the head of the chain with a copy of the restrictor at the tail (unless this option is impossible, as in antecedent-contained deletion, in which case the copy is changed to a variable as in standard notations). (c) VP adjunction is an intermediate landing site. (3) A-chains are different in a way that at the moment requires a stipulative distinction.

This article argues that children's difficulty with passive constructions is related to properties of the by -phrase. Specifically, we argue that children are in full control of all aspects of the passive construction except for the ability to transmit the external θ-role of the predicate to the by -phrase; we thus reject Borer and Wexler's (1987) claim regarding the maturation of A-chains. Our conclusion is dictated by the results of an experiment we conducted, and supported by data already present in the literature.