3.1 Uniqueness and its apparent exceptions

As mentioned in the introduction, Copy Theory explains the displacement property of language by assuming that only one member of a chain receives pronunciation. Call this general property of chains Uniqueness.⁹

In a Late Insertion model as the one adopted here, Uniqueness may be regarded as the result of a natural tension between (i) economy-related considerations on the application of Vocabulary Insertion and (ii) the general conditions governing the recoverability of information. That is, the most economical way of pronouncing a chain is applying Vocabulary Insertion to only one of its members.¹⁰

Even though Uniqueness states a crucial property of movement dependencies under Copy Theory, it is usually regarded as a false generalization. This is because some constructions exhibit more than one overt copy. One of these cases is wh-copying, a phenomenon that has been attested in German, Hindi, Romani, and other languages.¹¹ Sentences involving wh-copying as (22) contain more than one overt occurrence of the same wh-pronoun, despite the fact that they seem to have the same meaning as a regular long distance wh-question (cf. (23)).

Given the semantic similarity between these sentences, it has become standard to assume that they have the same syntactic structure. In particular, the wh-copying pattern is typically analyzed as involving the overt realization of a copy of the wh-pronoun that has been generated through successive cyclic movement and occupies the specifier position of an embedded complementizer. The relevant representation for the sentence in (22) is sketched in (24).

Under Indexical-S (cf. (3)), the three copies of the wh-pronoun wen must necessarily form a single chain CH = {wenⁱ, wenⁱ, wenⁱ}. Given that two members of this chain receive pronunciation, wh-copying must be analyzed as an exception to the Uniqueness property.

Nunes (2004) offers a general account of cases involving pronunciation of more than one copy per chain. His system incorporates the following three main assumptions.

According to Nunes, whenever there is a case of multiple copy pronunciation it is because one of the copies has been morphologically reanalyzed as part of a bigger word through an application of Fusion (Halle and Marantz 1993),¹² an operation that combines two terminal nodes into one. For convenience, I adopt Embick’s (2010) definition of this operation, which explicitly states that the features of two syntactic terminals merge into a single set.

Regarding a structure like (24), Nunes proposes that the intermediate copy of wen and the embedded complementizer C_DECL undergo Fusion and form a single terminal node [wen+C_DECL]. Given that Chain Reduction applies to comply with the LCA (cf. (25b)), and the LCA “does not see” the internal structure of words (cf. (25c)), Chain Reduction is not required to delete the copy of wen inside [wen+C_DECL]. Therefore, only the lowest copy of wen undergoes Chain Reduction, and the doubling pattern is obtained.

The reanalysis-based account of wh-copying allows deriving two defining properties of the construction. First, given that (by assumption) this morphological reanalysis always affects an embedded complementizer, it follows that a pronoun in its base position cannot be spelled-out in wh-copying constructions. This prediction is borne out. Consider the sentences in (27) and (28). The unacceptability of (28) is due to the presence of an overt occurrence of wen within the VP of the embedded clause.

Second, given that the morphological reanalysis is based on an application of Fusion, a PF operation targeting terminal nodes, it follows that there cannot be cases of multiple copy pronunciation involving full wh-phrases. This prediction also seems to be true. In (29), for example, the wh-phrase welchen Mann ‘which man’ cannot be repeated.

The account of wh-copying based on morphological reanalysis can be straightforwardly implemented under the Inclusion-S system with two conceptual advantages: (i) there is no need to treat the phenomenon as an exception to the Uniqueness principle in (21), and (ii) the explanation does not rely on any specific theory of linearization (e.g., the LCA). Consider once again the representation in (24), repeated for convenience in (30a), this time including the featural content of the occurrences of wen (cf. (30b)). Basically, wen³ receives accusative Case in-situ, wen² is a copy of wen³ generated through successive cyclic movement, and wen¹ values its ω-feature.

Narrow syntax generates this phrase marker and delivers it to the interfaces for interpretation. At LF, Inclusion-S generates the chain CH_LF = {wen¹, wen², wen³} since (i) wen¹ c-commands wen², and wen² c-commands wen³, (ii) the set of values of wen¹ contains the values of wen² (i.e., {ACC, …} ⊆ {ACC, Q, …}), and the values of wen² contain the values of wen³ (i.e., {ACC, …} ⊆ {ACC, …}), and (iii) there are no potential interveners. The chain CH_LF determines that this movement dependency is semantically interpreted as regular long distance wh-movement.

Nevertheless, something different happens at PF. There, wen² and the embedded complementizer are reanalyzed as a single terminal node through an application of Fusion. According to (26), Fusion combines the features of wen² and its neighbor complementizer C_DECL into a single syntactic terminal [wen²+C_DECL]. Suppose that C_DECL has, at least, a categorial value {C}. Therefore, the new node carries the Case and left-peripheral features corresponding to wen² and the value corresponding to C_DECL.¹³

According to Inclusion-S, the copies of wen in this representation should form two distinct chains at PF. Since the values of [wen²+C_DECL] contain the values of wen³ (i.e., {ACC, …} ⊆ {ACC, C, …}), these elements form the chain CH_PF2 = {[wen²+C_DECL], wen³}. However, the set of values of wen¹ does not contain the values of [wen²+C_DECL] (i.e., {ACC, C, …} ⊄ {ACC, Q, …}), therefore wen¹ forms a chain of its own CH_PF1 = {wen¹}. Given that wen¹ and [wen²+C_DECL] are heads of distinct chains at PF, both elements receive pronunciation independently, in accordance with Uniqueness in (21).

The account of wh-copying based on Inclusion-S offers an additional empirical advantage over Nunes’ (2004) assumptions in (25).¹⁴ Consider a case where a head Y carrying a feature β moves to a head X carrying a feature α. The resulting structure contains two copies of Y, i.e., Y² in the original base position and Y¹ adjoined to X.

In a standard case of head movement, Y² should not be pronounced. This follows in both proposals from forming the chain CH = {Y¹, Y²) and pronouncing only the head of the chain, as usual.¹⁵

Suppose that Fusion applies to Y¹ and X after head movement. This would form a node [Y¹+X] that carries both features α and β.

According to Nunes’ system, this sequence of operations should yield the pronunciation of both members of the chain CH = {Y¹, Y²}. That is, if Y¹ undergoes Fusion, it becomes inaccessible to the LCA. Therefore, the LCA only “sees” the other member of the chain, i.e., Y². At this point, there is no need to apply Chain Reduction, as the structure is already linearizable.

Under Inclusion-S, Y² should remain silent. This is due to the fact that [Y¹+X] and Y² form the chain CH_PF = {[Y¹+X], Y²} since the set of values of Y² is a subset of the set of values of [Y¹+X] (i.e., {β} ⊆ {α, β}), and, as usual, only the head of the chain receives pronunciation.

This second pattern is the one attested in the literature for every scenario in which head movement feeds Fusion. For instance, Julien (2002) sketches an analysis on these lines for fused markers of polarity and tense in Bambara.

If tense and polarity are distinct heads, a transformational derivation must have caused them to end up in a single syntactic terminal. This derivation is the one already sketched in (32) and (33), i.e., the Polarity head moves to Tense, and Fusion combines them. As (34) shows, such a derivation is supposed to proceed in exactly the same way as predicted by Inclusion-S, i.e., the lowest occurrence of the Polarity head must remain silent. As already discussed, this pattern does not follow from Nunes’ system since it predicts multiple copy pronunciation every time a moved element undergoes Fusion.

To sum up, it has been shown that an account of wh-copying based on morphological reanalysis does not require positing any additional assumptions under Inclusion-S. That is, applying Fusion on an intermediate copy entails the formation of more than one chain at PF. Moreover, unlike Nunes’ (2004) system, Inclusion-S predicts the correct pattern of chain pronunciation in cases of head movement feeding Fusion.

3.2 Partial Copying and chain formation

While there is certain consensus that the proper analysis of wh-copying constructions involves a movement dependency in narrow syntax, there is a much bigger controversy around the pattern exemplified in (35). The obvious difference between this pattern and the one discussed in the previous section is that in this case both wh-pronouns are not the same.

This phenomenon is known as wh-scope marking or what-construction. However, I adopt Barbiers et al.’s (2010) terminology and refer to it as non-identical wh-doubling.

There are two main types of analysis for this phenomenon. The first one postulates that there is a direct dependency between both wh-elements. According to McDaniel (1989), the wh-element was ‘what’ is an expletive associated to the wh-pronoun wen ‘who’. At LF, the wh-pronoun replaces the expletive, so the resulting semantic representation is identical to one involving regular long distance wh-movement.

According to the second type of analysis, the wh-element in the matrix clause is related to the whole embedded CP, so there is only an indirect dependency between both wh-elements. Dayal (1994; 2000) proposes that was is a wh-pronoun functioning as the object of the matrix verb, while the embedded CP is an adjunct. Since was is a clausal pronoun, it can refer to the whole embedded CP, which allows explaining the semantics of the construction.

Consider now the patterns of non-identical wh-doubling in Dutch varieties reported by Barbiers et al. (2010). These sentences show three different pronouns participating in the construction: (i) the neuter pronoun wat ‘what’, (ii) non-neuter pronoun wie ‘who’, and (iii) the relative pronoun die.

The sentences in (36), (37) and (38) display the orders in which the pronouns can appear in these constructions, i.e., wat must precede wie or die, and wie must precede die. As shown in (39), any other order is ruled out.

What is particularly interesting about these data is that offering a unified account for them in terms of any of the theoretical alternatives in the literature seems quite difficult. In principle, positing that the left-peripheral wh-pronouns in (36), (37), and (38) are expletives, in line with McDaniel (1989), does not seem to constitute a satisfactory analysis. If both was ‘what’ and wie ‘who’ are expletives, the restriction on their distribution remains unexplained, i.e., why would wat co-appear with wie (cf. (36)) and die (cf. (38)) while wie can co-appear only with die (cf. (37))? On the other hand, it does not seem possible either to posit that a wh-pronoun like wie ‘who’ in (37) refers to a clause, in line with Dayal (1994; 2000).

Barbiers et al. (2010) advance an account of these puzzling patterns based on two main ingredients. First, they provide an analysis of the pronouns wat, wie and die according to which they are layers of a nominal structure. Since wat can appear in a number of syntactic contexts, the authors analyze it as a very impoverished pronominal form corresponding to the most embedded layer in the structure. It is basically an indefinite numeral that carries a quantificational Q-feature. The pronoun wie is assumed to contain the properties of wat (i.e., the Q-feature) plus φ-features. Finally, die contains the properties of wie (i.e., the Q-feature and φ-features) plus a definiteness D-feature. The structure is sketched in (40).

The second ingredient of the analysis is an operation that allows creating movement dependencies in which only a subpart of a constituent moves. Barbiers et al. (2010) call this operation Partial Copying. Consider as an example the derivation in (41). In (41a), the structure K contains an occurrence of the pronoun die; in (41b), Partial Copying targets the intermediate layer of this pronoun and creates a new copy of it, which corresponds to the pronoun wie; finally, wie merges into the structure K in (41c).

For convenience, I reformulate the analysis in (40) and the Partial Copying operation in (41) in more traditional terms. That is, I propose that the pronouns wat, wie and die can be analyzed as sets of features as in (42). Activity features as <κ,∅> or <ω,∅> are omitted for simplicity.

Accordingly, Partial Copying should be understood as an instance of the Copy operation targeting a proper subset of the features of a constituent, i.e., feature movement in the sense of Hiemstra (1986), Cheng (2000) and Sabel (2000).¹⁶ In these terms, a derivation like (41) involves (i) a structure K containing a node with the set of features {Q, φ, D, …} corresponding to die as in (43a), (ii) copying from this node the subset of features {Q, φ, …} as in (43b), and (iii) merging this newly generated set into the main structure K as in (43c).

Given that the sets of features {Q, φ, …} and {Q, φ, D, …} satisfy the Vocabulary Insertion rules of wie and die, respectively, the relevant nodes are spelled-out as sketched in (44).

Consider now the analysis of (36). The relevant movement dependency involves two steps. First, the wh-pronoun wie occupying the complement position of the embedded verb moves through successive cyclic movement to embedded Spec,C. Then, Partial Copying applies to the highest occurrence of wie, moving the set of features corresponding to the wh-pronoun wat to the left periphery of the sentence.

The same kind of derivation applies to the sentences in (37) and (38), as represented in (46) and (47), respectively. In (46), the wh-pronoun wie is generated by applying Partial Copying to the copy of die in the periphery of the embedded clause. In (47), Partial Copying generates the pronoun wat from the features of die. The only difference between these two constructions is that φ-features are not copied in the latter case.

This type of analysis allows deriving the restrictions on the distribution of wh-pronouns shown in (39). The unacceptable patterns involve a richer pronoun in a higher position that could not have been generated by copying features from the previous one. Since these representations cannot be derived by applying copy operations, they are predicted to be ungrammatical.

While Barbiers et al. (2010) offer an elegant account of the distribution of wh-pronouns in non-identical wh-doubling constructions, their proposal has some flaws that result from their implicit adoption of Indexical-S. According to Indexical-S, partial copies should form chains with their original counterparts. Therefore, despite being distinct lexical items because of the features they carry, the wh-pronouns in (36), (37) and (38) should be regarded as “wh-elements belonging to a single chain that is established in overt syntax” (Barbiers et al. 2010: 25). The chains corresponding to these three sentences are sketched in (49), (50) and (51), respectively.

Under standard assumptions, these chains should behave exactly in the same way as any chain CH = {XPⁱ, XPⁱ, XPⁱ} consisting of three occurrences of the same constituent. This prediction is not borne out. As discussed, chains are supposed to comply with the Uniqueness property in (21) while, on the contrary, non-identical wh-doubling involves pronouncing two wh-elements. To derive this pattern from a single chain, Barbiers et al. adopt Nunes’ (2004) account of multiple copy pronunciation (cf. (25)). That is, they propose that the patterns of chain pronunciation in (36), (37) and (38) follow from an intermediate wh-pronoun being reanalyzed as part of an embedded complementizer.

In principle, this solution seems attractive as Dutch also displays wh-copying patterns.

However, there is an additional property distinguishing non-identical wh-doubling from a regular wh-movement dependency. Moving a wh-pronoun across negation is perfectly possible in Dutch (cf. (53)), while non-identical wh-doubling in the same context is unacceptable (cf. (54)). This asymmetry is unexpected if both sentences involve a non-trivial chain connecting a thematic position in the embedded clause with the specifier position of the matrix clause.

Barbiers et al. do not offer an explanation for the contrast between (53) and (54). Instead, they point out that negation also creates an intervention effect in wh-copying constructions in both Dutch (cf. (55)) and German (cf. (56)). As discussed in the previous section, the standard assumption is that wh-copying is a phonological variant of regular long distance wh-movement. Therefore, negation is not supposed to produce any effect in these constructions.

Since there seems to be no unified analysis allowing to explain negative intervention effects in all these cases, the authors conclude that the contrast between (53) and (54) is not evidence enough to reject an account of non-identical wh-doubling according to which both overt wh-pronouns are members of the same chain.

It must be noticed, however, that many German speakers accept without problem sentences like (57), where wh-copying across negation is attested.

The only way to account for the otherwise contradictory contrast between (56) and (57) is assuming that there are two alternative derivations allowing to generate wh-copying patterns, one that is sensitive to negative intervention and one that is not.

I propose that the derivation that is not sensitive to negative intervention is the one discussed in the previous section, i.e., these are regular wh-movement dependencies in which an intermediate copy is morphologically reanalyzed as part of an embedded complementizer at PF.

On the other hand, I argue that non-identical wh-doubling constructions and cases of wh-copying that are sensitive to negative intervention can be analyzed in a unified way by combining (i) a derivation based on Partial Copying and (ii) the Inclusion-S system. As already discussed, Partial Copying allows explaining in an elegant way the distribution of wh-pronouns in non-identical wh-doubling constructions. However, under Indexical-S, the operation does not derive straightforwardly (i) the fact that two members of the same chain receive pronunciation and (ii) the negative intervention effect. I contend that these properties find a principled explanation under Inclusion-S.

Consider again the structure in (45), which corresponds to the sentence in (36). This representation is generated in narrow syntax and delivered to the interfaces, where chain formation is calculated according to Inclusion-S in (14) and its associated conditions in (15). At PF, wie² and wie³ form a chain CH_PF2 = {wie², wie³} as they carry the same features (i.e., {Q, φ, …} ⊆ {Q, φ, …}); however, since the features of wie² are not a subset of the features of wat¹ (i.e., {Q, φ, …} ⊄ {Q, …}), wat¹ forms a trivial chain of its own CH_PF1 = {wat¹}. At LF, chain formation works in exactly the same way, i.e., wie² and wie³ form a chain CH_LF2 = {wie², wie³} while wat¹ forms the trivial chain CH_LF1 = {wat¹}. These results are summarized in (58).

In more explicit terms, Inclusion-S predicts that constituents that are transformationally related through Partial Copying must form distinct chains. That is, this system states that two constituents α and β are non-distinct if (i) α c-commands β and (ii) α contains the information encoded in β. However, Partial Copying systematically creates configurations where the features of the c-commanding element are contained in the lower constituent. Therefore, partial copies are always computed as distinct elements at the interfaces. This is attested once again in the derivations in (46) and (47), which correspond to the sentences in (37) and (38), respectively. In the former, the features of die² are not a subset of the features of wie¹ (i.e., {Q, φ, D…} ⊄ {Q, φ, …}), so they form two separate chains as shown in (59). In the latter, the features of die² are not a subset of the features of wat¹ (i.e., {Q, φ, D…} ⊄ {Q, …}), so they form two chains at each interface as shown in (60).

Extending Partial Copying to capture wh-copying patterns is conceptually simple.¹⁷ Assume a feature {F} that is common to wat, wie and die. Assume also that the Vocabulary Insertion rules for these pronouns do not refer to {F}, i.e., their corresponding syntactic terminals receive the same phonological exponent no matter {F} is present or not. Now, consider the derivation in (61). First, the whole set of features {Q, φ, F, …} corresponding to the wh-pronoun wie moves from the complement position of the embedded verb to embedded Spec,C through successive cyclic movement. Then, Partial Copying applies to this set neglecting its {F} feature, so the set {Q, φ, …} is generated and merged into matrix Spec,C. Since this newly formed set of features also corresponds to the phonological exponent wie, a third occurrence of this pronoun is generated in the structure.

Once again, applying Partial Copying entails forming more than one chain at the interfaces, i.e., the features of wie² are not a subset of the features of wie¹ (i.e., {Q, φ, F…} ⊄ {Q, φ, …}).

Given that CH_PF1 and CH_PF2 in (58), (59), (60) and (62) are separate chains at PF, both of them should receive pronunciation independently according to Uniqueness (cf. (21)). That is, there is no need to assume that a morphological reanalysis operation applies in these cases. Instead, Partial Copying entails doubling under Inclusion-S.

Consider now the LF chains CH_LF1 and CH_LF2 in (58), (59), (60) and (62). In each of these cases, the trivial chain CH_LF1 lacks a thematic interpretation, but its only member satisfies the formal requirements of the interrogative complementizer, i.e., it functions as an expletive. On the other hand, the chain CH_LF2 does receive a θ-role as one of its members occupies a thematic position; however, none of the wh-elements pertaining to CH_LF2 is in a spec-head configuration with C_INT. Since there is no overt syntactic relation between CH_LF2 and the interrogative C-domain, this chain must be interpreted by appealing to the mechanisms that allow licensing wh-in-situ.

As usually assumed (e.g., Lasnik & Saito 1992; Beck 1996; 2006; Pesetsky 2000; Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002; i.a.), in-situ wh-phrases in, for example, multiple wh-questions must be licensed by establishing a covert dependency with the interrogative C-domain.¹⁸ The German sentence in (63), for instance, is supposed to involve an abstract relation linking the wh-pronoun wo ‘where’ and the interrogative complementizer C_INT that is represented in (64).

In a similar fashion, the head of each of the wh-chains CH_LF2 in (58), (59), (60) and (62) must be licensed by establishing a covert dependency with the interrogative complementizer in the matrix clause. In the representation in (65), for instance, this relation holds between C_INT and wie².

As Beck (1996) points out, this type of dependency may be disrupted by an intervening negative element. As shown in (66), the presence of niet ‘not’ in between the interrogative complementizer C_INT and wie² prevents the licensing of the wh-chain CH_LF2 = {wie², wie³}.

The effect in (66) belongs to a natural class of phenomena together with instances of intervention triggered by negation and some other quantificational elements at LF. For instance, the multiple wh-question in (63) is acceptable as long as there is no negative element as niemand ‘nobody’ between wo ‘where’ and the left periphery of the sentence (cf. (67a)). Negation, however, does not disrupt overt movement, so wo can move over niemand as in (67b), yielding an acceptable result.

Similar intervention patterns are attested in many languages. For instance, French allows moving a wh-pronoun to the left periphery (cf. (68a)) or interpreting it in-situ (cf. (68b)).

However, applying overt wh-movement seems to be the only available option if a negative element appears between the wh-pronoun and the left periphery.

Discussing potential accounts of LF intervention effects goes beyond the aims of this paper. My purpose is simply to show that adopting Inclusion-S together with Partial Copying yields configurations in which one of the resulting chains must be licensed through covert dependencies, and that independent phenomena for which these covert dependencies are originally postulated display the same type of negative intervention.

In sum, the distribution patterns of wh-pronouns in non-identical wh-doubling constructions in Dutch is elegantly explained by appealing to Partial Copying, as proposed by Barbiers et al. (2010). However, if Indexical-S is adopted (i) additional assumptions are required to explain the doubling pattern, and (ii) the asymmetry between non-identical wh-doubling and regular wh-movement regarding negative intervention remains mysterious. Under Inclusion-S, on the contrary, both traits follow straightforwardly from partial copies forming separate chains at the interfaces.

3.3 There is no need for Late Merger

Reconstruction has been an important source of evidence for Copy Theory. Assuming that movement involves two (or more) occurrences of the same constituent allows explaining the unacceptability of sentences like (70) as violations of Condition C.

There are, however, some cases that do not follow straightforwardly from Copy Theory. For instance, if the complement CP that Cosmo is a genius in (70) were replaced by an adjunct CP also containing the R-expression Cosmo, the sentence would become acceptable.

According to Lebeaux (1988), cases as (71) do not involve true violations of Condition C. I will refer to his approach as the Lebeauxian Approach to Anti-Reconstruction (LATAR).

LATAR involves assuming that the adjunct containing the violating R-expression appears only in the overt member of the chain. Since the pronoun does not c-command the R-expression it binds, no violation of Condition C may arise.

More recently, LATAR has been extended to capture phenomena involving A-movement (Takahashi & Hulsey 2009). For instance, the sentence in (74) would be expected to be unacceptable due to a Condition C violation under standard assumptions.

Adapting Lebeaux’s proposal, Takahashi & Hulsey (2009) argue that the complement NP of the determiner the, i.e., the constituent containing the R-expression Cosmo, appears only in the head of the chain.¹⁹

The same kind of analysis may be advanced for sentences such as (76). Here, the grammatical subject is interpreted as the logical subject of the predicate intrusion (i.e., the picture is an intrusion), so this DP must have been generated very low in the structure of the sentence. Notice that (i) the DP the president inside the subject can be correferential with the pronoun him, so him should not be able to c-command the president, but (ii) the quantifier every man can bind the pronoun his inside the subject, so the quantifier must c-command this pronoun.

This deceptive contradiction may be accounted under LATAR. What is generated near the predicate intrusion is a bare possessive determiner that lacks an NP. This element moves through successive cyclic A-movement and reaches a position where it can be bound by every man. Finally, its complement NP appears only in the head of the movement chain.²⁰

If this approach to anti-reconstruction is on the right track, then these movement dependencies involve chains like the ones depicted in (78), in which chain members are not isomorphic constituents.

Compare the way Indexical-S and Inclusion-S generate these chains. Under Indexical-S (cf. (3)), two (or more) constituents form a chain only if they receive the same index through the Copy operation. Therefore, to explain the differences between members of the same chain in (78) it would be necessary (i) generating two (or more) strictly identical copies with the same index, and then (ii) applying an additional operation on the higher copy to introduce the constituent containing the relevant R-expression. Consider the following sample derivation. A constituent αP is generated in a position where it is c-commanded by a pronoun; since αP does not contain an R-expression, Condition C is respected (cf. (79a)). Later in the derivation, αP moves to a position where it c-commands the pronoun; both copies of αP share the same index (cf. (79b)). As a third step, a βP containing an R-expression is inserted into αP as in (79c). At this point, the pronoun and the R-expression can be correferential, and since both occurrences of αP share the same index, they form a chain.

The derivational step in (79c) corresponds to the operations that are called Late Merger (Lebeaux 1988) and Wholesale Late Merger (Takahashi & Hulsey 2009). The difference between them is that Late Merger is supposed to be restricted to adjuncts (i.e., βP in (79c) must be an adjunct), while Wholesale Late Merger extends the empirical domain of the former to complements (i.e., βP in (79c) may be either an adjunct or a complement). In other words, both operations involve merging a constituent countercyclically inside a derived specifier. Thus, it may be concluded that implementing LATAR under Indexical-S implies abandoning strict cyclicity.

As known, cyclicity is a theoretical desideratum in generative syntax since at least Chomsky (1965), and it is encoded in several derivational restrictions, such as the Extension Condition.

Therefore, if an extensionally equivalent and cyclicity-respecting implementation of LATAR is offered, it should be preferred on conceptual grounds.

The definition of Non-Distinctiveness based on Inclusion-S has two important traits that allow offering a cyclic implementation of LATAR. First, Inclusion-S does not require structural isomorphism between chain members; it only states a condition on their morphosyntactic values. Second, Inclusion-S does not require chain members to be related through the Copy operation.

Consider the cases involving anti-reconstruction in A-movement in (74) and (76). The sentence in (74) is repeated for convenience in (81) with a description of the features of the relevant constituents. A bare determiner D^min/max is base-generated low down in the structure inside a small clause. This constituent does not carry a full set of valued φ-features as some of these are only inherently valued in the NP domain (e.g., Number, Gender). After T is merged, the Spec,T position is filled with a base-generated full-DP with a complete set of valued φ-features. This DP agrees with T and receives nominative Case.²¹

The base-generated full-DP and the bare determiner comply with the conditions to form a chain according to Inclusion-S. That is, (i) they are in a c-command relation, (ii) the values of the full-DP contain the values of D^min/max (i.e., {…} ⊆ {NOM, SG, …}), and (iii) there are no potential interveners between them. Therefore, these two elements form the chain in (78b) despite the fact they are not transformationally related.

Consider now the sentence in (76), repeated for convenience in (82). Here, a bare possessive determiner merged low down in the structure undergoes successive cyclic A-movement to a position just below the quantifier every man. There, it gets bound by the quantifier. Later in the derivation, a full-DP is externally merged in the Spec,T position, receiving nominative Case.²²

According to Inclusion-S, the full-DP and the copies of the possessive determiner form the chain in (79c).

The sentence in (71), repeated for convenience in (83), involves an additional derivational step. Here, the DP which argument is externally merged in the complement position of the verb believe, where it receives accusative Case. Almost at the end of the derivation, a new DP which argument that Cosmo made is base-generated in the specifier position of the interrogative complementizer. Since this new DP carries an active ω-feature, it enters in an Agree relation with C_INT. Notice, however, that the DP still lacks a value for its κ-feature.

To value its κ-feature, the higher DP probes the structure for a matching Goal. By hypothesis, it looks for an active element matching both κ and ω-features, so the DP which argument is the closest and only available candidate. Both DPs agree, and the κ-feature in the higher DP is valued, delivering the representation in (84) to the interfaces.

According to Inclusion-S, these two non-transformationally related DPs form the chain in (79a).

As seen, Inclusion-S allows generating non-isomorphic chains without assuming any countercyclical operation. Moreover, the principles restricting this implementation of LATAR are no different from the ones assumed by Takahashi & Hulsey (2009) for Wholesale Late Merger. These authors identify two types of constraint: (i) Agreement/Case, and (ii) semantic interpretability. Regarding the former, it has been already observed that a bare D^min/max does not carry a complete set of φ-features. Therefore, this type of element is unable to value the φ-features of a Probe and receive Case. It follows, then, that a full-DP should be introduced in the derivation as late as in the specifier position of the relevant Case assigner. From this, prediction in (85) follows:

Regarding interpretability, Fox (2002) proposes that Trace Conversion applies at LF to the tail of an A’-movement dependency to obtain a valid operator-variable relation under Copy Theory.

This rule transforms a wh-phrase into a definite description with anaphoric value.²³ The subpart in (86a) introduces a predicate <e,t> that functions as a variable and is interpreted compositionally with a complete nominal predicate, i.e., another <e,t> expression, through Predicate Modification (Heim & Kratzer 1998). Incomplete nominal predicates (i.e., nouns lacking some argument) are not <e,t> expressions, so they are not proper inputs for Trace Conversion. Therefore, the tail of an A’-movement dependency must always contain a noun with all its arguments. Consequently, the statement in (87) follows.

Adopting Trace Conversion also allows ruling an unwanted consequence of base-generating chain members under Inclusion-S. Consider the structure in (88). If a DP as which girl is externally merged in a θ-position, and a different DP which woman is base-generated in Spec,C, they would be expected to form a chain.

This unwanted result is ruled out as the output of applying Trace Conversion would yield the uninterpretable operator-variable dependency in (89). As the pair in (90) shows, lexical identity on the NP is a requisite for a definite expression to receive anaphoric interpretation.²⁴

The unacceptability of (89) shows that there are semantic mechanisms imposing identity conditions on chain members. Importantly, these mechanisms do not seem to depend on any narrow syntactic device (e.g., the Copy operation). Presumably, some other independently motivated principles also introduce constraints on the properties of unpronounced chain members.²⁵

To sum up, Inclusion-S offers a straightforward way of capturing anti-reconstruction effects under LATAR. Moreover, it allows getting rid of countercyclical operations as Late Merger and Wholesale Late Merger, a very welcome result from a conceptual point of view.