Syntax 8:1, April 2005, 2343

ON ELIMINATING D-STRUCTURE:
THE CASE OF BINOMINAL EACH
Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein
Abstract. This paper provides a minimalist analysis of the binominal each phenomenon.
The analysis incorporates key ideas behind Sar and Stowells (1988) seminal paper but
avoids the complications that this approach entails. Our proposal provides one more
empirical argument for movement into h-position, sideward movement, the primacy of
movement over binding in matters of construal, and the virtues of a very derivational view
of syntax. It is also consistent with a framework that dispenses with LF movement entirely.

1. Introduction: The Status of D-Structure

Chomsky (1993) argues that minimalist reasoning leads to excluding a level
like D-structure from UG. The argument can be schematized as follows:
(1)

a.
b.

c.

d.

The faculty of language (FL) generates objects that pair sounds and
meaning.
Thus, FL objects must interface at least with the interpretive components that ascribe a sound and meaning to each generated object.
By assumption, interfacing takes place through levels of representation.1 Call the interface level for sound PF (Phonetic Form) and the
interface level for meaning LF (Logical Form). Both PF and LF
follow from virtual conceptual necessity.
Given the necessity of the interface levels LF and PF, minimalist
reasoning suggests that UG has no more than these. In fact, minimalist reasoning leads to the conclusion that grammar-internal levels
should be eliminated, leaving only interface levels like LF and PF.
If so, D-Structure (DS), a phrase marker formed by phrase structure
operations and lexical insertion and that feeds movement operations,
should not exist.

This reasoning imposes potentially strong restrictions on the organization of

UG. In particular, we should not expect to nd it necessary to advert to DS for
the statement of grammatical generalizations and conditions. In current
parlance, all such generalizations should reect Bare Output Conditions,
requirements imposed on grammatical objects in virtue of their receiving a
sound and a meaning. Thus, we do not expect to nd generalizations that
exploit the properties of grammar-internal levels like DS (or Surface
1

This is by no means a necessary conclusion. It could be that UG is not organized into levels, in
which case the grammar will still interface with AP and CI but not necessarily via levels. Epstein,
Groat, Kawashima, and Kitahara (1998), Uriagereka (1999), and Chomsky (2000, 2001) explore
this possibility. For present purposes, we keep to the more traditional assumption of interface
levels, which by and large seem well motivated empirically.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350
Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

24 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

Structure). Put another way, such generalizations are, at best, an empirical
challenge to the Minimalist Program and at worst an argument against its
viability. In this paper, we consider one such empirical challenge and explore
its implications for the Minimalist Program (MP).
2. The Properties of Binominal Each2
The challenge we want to consider centers around the distribution of
binominal each (BE), exemplied in (2).3
(2)

a. The men read one book each.

b. The men read one book apiece.

As discussed extensively in Burzio 1986 and Sar and Stowell 1988 (S&S),
the phrase containing each in (2) (one book each) (henceforth the BE phrase)
must be licensed by an appropriate plural antecedent for the sentence to be
acceptable. (The same requirement holds for apiece phrases.4)
The problem posed by BE for the MP is that the evidence suggests that the
licensing of BE holds at DS. In fact, as discussed in this section, if we assume
that BE phrases must be locally bound at DS (i.e., they are DS anaphors), we
derive virtually all of their salient properties.
Consider rst the salient properties of BE.
2.1 BEs Require Antecedents
That BE requires an antecedent is illustrated by the unacceptability of (3).
(3)

*Three men each/apiece have arrived at Penn Station.

This contrasts with (4), an instance of Q-oat.

(4)

Three men have each arrived at Penn Station.

The generalization illustrated by (2) and (3) is that BEs only occur in clauses
with multiple nominals, one of which is plural. This follows if one assumes
2
The reader should note that we focus exclusively on properties of English binominal each in
this paper. We leave a crosslinguistic investigation for future research. For work on binominal each
in other languages, see Gil 1982, and Zimmermann 2002, which draws in part on Choe 1987 (on
Korean) and Link 1998 (on German).
3
The name comes from Sar and Stowell 1988. Our discussion heavily leans on this earlier
analysis. We steal shamelessly from their earlier efforts. Their work, in turn, was based on a prior
analysis and discussion in Burzio 1986, where the BEs were rst extensively discussed.
4
Very often in this paper we exemplify core generalization by means of apiece. We do so for
two reasons. First, the apiece data is often clearer than the each facts (for reasons that we do not
understand). Second, there is little temptation to analyze apiece as a quantier rather than an
adverb. The fact that BEs with apiece have all the same properties as those with each suggests that
whatever is going on here should not be traced to the QP status of each.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 25

(i) that BEs are constituents of some nominal argument, for example, the each
phrase is part of the object nominal one book each in (2); and (ii) that BEs are
anaphoric and hence require antecedents.
There are various interesting restrictions on the kind of phrase that can host
BEs.5 The central one is that the host of BE must be indenite.
(5)

a.
b.

The boys read (one/two/many/several) books each/apiece.

*The boys read the/all/most books each.

2.2 The Antecedent Must C-Command the BE

Consider the sentences in (6).
(6)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

*Three men each/apiece read the books.

The men read three books each/apiece.
(?)John talked to/with the men about three books each/apiece.
*John talked to three men each/apiece about the books.
*John talked beside the men about three books each/apiece.

The contrast between (6a) and (6b) follows on the assumption that the subject
asymmetrically c-commands the object in simple transitive clauses. To
accommodate the contrast in (6c,d) we need to assume that the prepositions
that accompany indirect objects and commitatives do not block binding. This
seems necessary even in simple cases of reciprocal binding.
(7)

John talked to/with the men about each other.

Indirect objects and commitatives are argument-like adjuncts (quasiarguments) in that they are typically thought to be generated lower than
those headed by other prepositions (like before/after). In many languages they
affect the morphology of the verb and they readily allow for preposition
stranding, as shown in (8).
(8)

a.
b.

Which men did John talk to/with t about Bill?

*Which men did John read my book before/after?

It is plausible that these prepositions function more like Case-markers than like
true PPs. If this is so, then the men can bind the BEs in (6c) but not in (6d,e).
2.3 BE Must Be Locally Bound
The plural antecedent of BE cannot be in a different domain than BE. If we
assume that being in the same minimal clause puts two expressions in the same
5

See S&S for a fuller description than the one we provide here.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

26 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

domain (see Lasnik 2002 and already Postal 1974 for discussion of clausemate
conditions), we account for the unacceptability of the examples in (9).
(9)

a.

*The men expect/believe/said that three books each/apiece are

exciting.
b. *The men want/expect/believe Bill to be reading three books
each/apiece.

The BE in both examples is in the embedded clause and its antecedent, the men,
is in the matrix. Consequently, BE cannot be locally bound and thereby licensed.
So far none of the requirements listed in this section require the assumption
that the licensing of BEs be at DS (though they are consistent with it). The
explanations would remain the same if we assumed that the binding
requirement was an LF condition. However, two additional sets of data
support the assumption that BEs are DS-anaphors.
2.4 ECM Contexts
The rst set of facts shows that BEs are not licensed when in the subject
position of nonnite clauses. As is well known, subjects of nonnite clauses
act with respect to binding as if they occupied the next higher clause. Thus,
ECM subjects can be bound by an antecedent in the next higher clause and
pronouns must be obviative with respect to elements in this clause.
(10)

a.
b.
c.

John believes/expects/wants himself1/*him1 to be in great demand.

John considers himself intelligent.
The boys made/saw each other leave.

This follows if we assume that the ECM subject actually raises to the clause of
its case checker/assigner in overt syntax or LF (see Postal 1974 and Lasnik &
Saito 1991). If so, then movement renders the ECM subject a part of the upper
clause.
With this in mind, consider the following BE data.6
(11) a.
b.
c.

*The men wanted/expected/believed one eld each/apiece to be

reserved.
*The girls considered one boy each/apiece insufferable.
*The boys made/let one ball each/apiece bounce.

The sentences in (11) show that BEs are not acceptable as ECM subjects. This
follows if BE is not part of the same clause as its antecedent at the point where
6

Some examples sound better than others. Consider (i).

(i)

??The mathematicians proved three numbers each/apiece to be prime.

We return to this matter in note 18.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 27

it must be licensed. This in turn follows if we assume that this licensing is a
DS condition, applying prior to any movement operations. In short, if we
assume that BEs are DS anaphors, whereas regular anaphors are licensed at
a later point in the derivation (say, LF), then the contrast between (10) and (11)
immediately follows.
2.5 C-Command Again
BEs are acceptable in a variety of constructions in which they asymmetrically
c-command their antecedents in overt syntax. This is due to movement of the
BE phrase.
(12)

a.
b.

One interpreter each/apiece1 was assigned to the diplomats t1.

One book each/apiece1 appears to have been given to the boys t1.

(13)

a.
b.

How many books each/apiece1 did the boys read t1?

One book each/apiece1 is what they want to read t1.7

(14)

One book each/apiece1 is easy for the boys to read t1.

(12) involves A-movement operations, (13) involves A-movement, and (14)

is a tough-construction. All are acceptable, and all involve displacement of an
expression from a position in which it would be c-commanded by its
antecedent. The standard minimalist approach to such data is to assume that
the displaced element can reconstruct to these positions at LF. More
specically, it is assumed that reconstruction is the product of the copy theory
of movement. A copy occupies the launch position and, at LF, it can be used
for binding purposes. If we assume that the traces in (12)(14) are copies of
the moved expressions and we assume that reconstruction may obtain at LF
for all kinds of movement, then the acceptability of BEs in these cases is
accounted for.
However, one can get the same results simply by assuming that BEs are
licensed prior to movement (i.e., at DS). All that reconstruction accomplishes
in these cases is to recover the base conguration of expressions.
Consequently, the assumption that BEs are licensed at DS sufces to explain
the data in (12)(14). DS licensing is forced if A-movement (in contrast to
7

Note that the (i) is also acceptable.

(i) One book each/apiece is the assignment that they requested.

These sorts of cleft sentences display all the connectedness effects found in standard reconstruction
cases. As such, we assume that they too would be formed via movement (see Kim 1998 and Boeckx
1999 for possible analyses). Note, moreover, that if reconstruction is relevant here, then cleft and
tough-constructions like (14) cannot be formed via null-operator movement (see Hornstein 2001
and Kiguchi 2002 for independent arguments that this is the case for tough-constructions). The
reason is that null operators will not provide an opportunity for reconstruction. We need an actual
copy, and given current assumptions, only movement of the actual expression will sufce.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

28 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

A-movement) does not license reconstruction (see Chomsky 1993 and Lasnik
1999).
The facts in sections 2.4. and 2.5 support a DS licensing condition for BEs.
More precisely, as it stands, a binding approach to BE licensing is empirically
inadequate unless it holds at DS. If we assume that BEs are licensed like all
other anaphors at LF under possible reconstruction, then we need to explain
why it is that they must reconstruct all the way down to their base positions, in
contrast with more standard anaphors. In other words, an LF-based analysis of
BEs of the type the MP would support can track the facts but cannot explain
them. This is the challenge for the MP that we would like to address.
3. Some Problems for a DS-Binding Analysis
The problem outlined above rests on two premises: (i) that BEs are licensed by
some form of binding, in effect principle A; and (ii) that the binding of BEs
must apply at DS. S&S provide two arguments against a binding approach to
BEs, which we review briey here.
First, as we already noted, the application of principle A to BEs is not the same
as the one that applies to reexives and reciprocals. In particular, the fact that
ECM BEs are illicit whereas ECM reexives are not implies that the former must
be bound at DS while the latter need not be (cf. the contrast in (10) and (11)). One
can stipulate this difference and so accommodate the data, but it greatly
complicates the binding theory to do so. It not only requires that we apply the
binding theory at both DS and LF (which could be achieved by taking Condition
A to be an anywhere condition along the lines of Belletti & Rizzi 1988 and
Lebeaux 1994), it also forces us to specify which elements are licensed at which
level. All things being equal, this is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
Second, S&S note that there are cases in which one can license BEs in the
absence of c-command, at least at DS. Consider (15).
(15)

a.
b.

John proved the prisoners guilty with one accusation each/apiece.

Bob made/let Sam and Tom leave on two occasions each/apiece.

The relevant reading of these sentences is the one in which the PP headed by
with modies the matrix verb. Under this reading, the PP is situated in the
matrix clause and so is not c-commanded by the small clause subject (the
prisoners, Sam and Tom) at DS. The BEs are, however, c-commanded by LF if
ECM subjects must raise to the matrix for case reasons (see Lasnik & Saito
1991). Thus, examples like (15) are problematic if one assumes that BEs are
licensed at DS via anaphoric binding.8
8
S&S were working under the GB assumption that ECM subjects do not raise to the domain of
their Case checker and so concluded that there was no c-command in such cases. Subsequent
research (see Lasnik & Saito 1991), however, has shown that a return to Postals (1974) analysis of
ECM as subject-to-object raising is superior.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 29

There is a third argument, not provided by S&S, against a DS-binding
approach given conventional approaches to control. As (16) shows, it is
perfectly acceptable to license BEs under control.
(16)

a.
b.

Mary persuaded the men to bring one book each/apiece.

*The men persuaded Mary to bring one book each/apiece.

If we assume that PRO is licensed after DS, a necessary assumption given

sentences like (17), then it becomes difcult to account for the facts in
(16).9
(17)

John1 wants PRO1 to appear to be believed to have been arrested t1.

The three arguments in this section suggest that an account like the one we
seemed to be led to in section 2 is not adequate. S&S offer an alternative
analysis, which we review in section 4. We point out problems for their
analysis in section 5 and propose an alternative in section 6. Section 7 is the
conclusion.
4. Sar and Stowell 1988:10 LF Movement
The conclusion we can draw from sections 2 and 3 is that a binding approach is
empirically problematic. What then accounts for the distribution and interpretation of BEs? S&S propose to rethink the basic facts in terms of LF movement
rather than binding.11 Their analysis rests on the following assumptions.
(18)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

BEs have a dyadic argument structure.

The complement of the BE is an empty category (EC) bound by the
plural antecedent.
BE is adjoined to an indenite nominal generated inside VP.
At LF, the each/apiece head and its complement move out of the
nominal.
This LF movement is required so as to allow A-binding of the EC
complement.
This A-binding is subject to locality of a generalized binding
variety.
Movement is possible from reconstruction sites.

If control is accounted for in terms of A-movement (Hornstein 1999, 2001; Manzini &
Roussou 2000; ONeil 1997; Kayne 2002), this argument is neutralized. However, to get off the
ground, a movement approach to control must dispense with notions like DS.
10
Our focus on S&S should not imply that S&Ss analysis is the only one worth considering.
We decided to concentrate on S&S because we think that its spirit can be easily accommodated to
the Minimalist Program, as we will show.
11
S&S conclude that a binding approach is inadequate. They do not fully discuss the notion that
BEs are DS anaphors. Thus, our discussionin particular, our emphasis on the role of DSis a
reconstruction of their paper.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

30 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

It is possible to visualize S&S analysis by considering the phrase markers in
(19) and (20).
(19)

The men read [NP [NP two books] each/apiece EC]

(20)

[TP The men1 [TP [apiece EC1]2 [TP t1 read [two books t2]]]]

(19) represents the underlying structure. The each/apiece phrase is an adjunct

to the nominal that it modies. Observe the EC complement of each/apiece.
This expression must be bound at LF to be licensed as a variable. S&S assume
that this expression is an A-anaphor in the sense of Aoun 1985 and must be
locally bound. They assume that this binding is blocked when the EC is within
the nominal headed by two books. To make EC accessible to binding, the
each/apiece phrase moves out of the nominal by a QR-like operation and
adjoins to TP. The subject then can also adjoin to TP via something like QR
and binds the EC, thereby licensing it.
(18) handles the simple cases of BE. If one assumes that LF movement is
subject to island conditions, then the ECM facts in section 2.4, illustrated here
by (21), follow as Subject Condition violations.
(21)

a. *The men wanted/believed one eld each/apiece to be unreserved.

b. [TP The men1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP t1 wanted/believed
[TP [one eld t2] to be unreserved]]]]

In (21) the each-phrase moves out of an embedded subject on its way to matrix TP.
There is one more assumption that S&S need to accommodate all of the relevant
data. They need to assume that it is possible to move from reconstructed
positions. This is required to handle the facts in section 2.5. Recall that it is
possible to have subject BEs so long as these are derived subjects formed by
raising or passive. We have just observed that S&S prevent LF movement out of
subjects to explain the ECM facts. This leaves cases like (22) a problem.
(22)

One interpreter each/apiece was assigned to the diplomats.

The LF in (22), shown in (23), is illicit as the each-phrase has moved from the
subject.
(23)

[TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP [one interpreter t2] was
assigned t2 to t1]]]

To nesse this problem, S&S assume that one can reconstruct the derived
subject to its object position and move from there. The correct LF, therefore, is
(24), with the LF movement taking place from the underlying object position.
(24)

[TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP t1 was assigned [one
interpreter t2] to t1]]]

Why the reconstruction possibility is blocked in (21) is unclear.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 31

5. Some Problems for Sar and Stowell 1988
There are some problems with the details, though not the spirit, of S&Ss
analysis if translated into a more contemporary minimalist idiom. Take rst the
idea that movement is possible from reconstructed positions. Reconstruction is
currently understood as ultimately due to the copy theory of movement. Traces
are actually copies of displaced elements. Lets assume that this is so. Then the
correct structure of (24) is (25).
(25)

[TP The diplomats1 [TP [each/apiece EC]2 [TP [one interpreter

each/apiece EC] was assigned [one interpreter [each/apiece EC]2]
to [the diplomats]1]]]

Note that the movement has taken place from the second copy and so should
not violate the Subject Condition. The problem is that there is evidence that
such movement is not generally licit. If it were, we would expect to nd no
Subject Condition effects even for overt movement. Consider (26).
(26)

*What2 does John believe [[books about t2]1 to have been burned t1?

Overt movement from a derived subject is illicit, presumably due to the

Subject Condition or whatever principle underlies it. However, what would
prevent movement from the copy in the object position along the same lines as
(26)? One way of ruling out such a derivation is to assume that NP movement
does not leave a trace/copy, as Lasnik (1999) has suggested. If so, the option
of so moving is unavailable. However, this would also block the derivation in
(25). Another option is to trace the unacceptability of (26) with movement
from the object to a violation of chain uniformity (see Takahashi 1994, Collins
1994). However, this too would apply to (25) to block LF movement from the
reconstructed object. In other words, if reconstruction is understood in terms
of the copy theory, as it is currently so understood, then the S&S assumption
that movement from reconstructed positions is possible is problematic.
Second, A-binding, which is crucial to license the EC in (25) has no clear
status in minimalism (see Boeckx 2001, 2003a on this point). And the driving
force for QR is far from clear, hence at variance with a strict reading of Last Resort
and the minimalist tenet that movement is driven to check off formal features.
Third, even if QR is assumed, it is not clear that it can act as desired in (25).
Note that QR acts to make the EC complement of each/apiece bindable by the
diplomats. In effect, QR acts to widen the binding domain of the EC.
However, in this regard BEs once again contrast with other anaphors
embedded within quanticational expressions. Chomsky (1993) extensively
discusses the relevant sorts of cases. (See already Chomsky 1981.)
(27)

a.
b.
c.
d.

*John1 said that Mary likes every book about himself2.

John1 said that books about himself1, Mary likes.
*Which man knows which woman likes which picture of himself?
John1 knows which picture of himself2 Mary likes.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

32 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

If QR can move an entire quanticational DP, then we expect that (27a,b) and
(27c,d) should be on a par if binding holds at LF. For example, QR should
move every book about himself in (27a) and adjoin it to IP. This would make
the LF of (27a) analogous to the overt structure of (27b). The fact that there is
a contrast in potential binding of the reexives in these structures can be
reconciled, but only if we assume that QR moves only the quanticational
element, leaving the rest of the DP behind. Similarly for wh-raising in (27c,d).
However, if we were to assume this, then we could not move the EC
complement of each/apiece out if its containing DP at LF and thus it would
remain unbindable at LF. These problems suggest that we try to execute the
basic idea in S&S a different way, a task we turn to in the next section.
6. Overt Movement in BEs and Derivational Licensing
The S&S analysis involves three main assumptions, given in (28ac).
Additionally, S&S (p. 430 (10)) specify an interpretation for BEs in (28d).
(28)

a.
b.
c.
d.

BEs are binary predicates with internal nominal arguments.

BEs are adjuncts that modify (are predicated of) the nominal
(S&Ss D[istributing]-NP) they are next to in overt syntax.
The complement position of the BE is anaphorically related to an
antecedent (S&Ss R[ange]-NP)that licenses it.
The individuals in the set denoted by the R-NP are exhaustively mapped onto sets denoted by the D-NP such that no two
R-individuals are mapped onto the same D-set.

We adopt these assumptions, but provide a different implementation of S&Ss

basic ideas. Specically, we propose to analyze (29) as in (30).
(29)

The men read one book each/apiece.

(30)

[TP [The men]1 T0 [vP t0t [VP read [NP [NP one book] [BE-P each/apiece t1]]]]]

The overt syntax structure in (30) is achieved by assuming that the R-NP the
men begins its derivational life as a complement of each/apiece, which in turns
heads the BE phrase. This phrase is adjoined to and modies the D-NP one
book (see (28b)). The D-NP and R-NP are interpretively related to one another
along the lines of (28) in this conguration. The anaphoric dependence in
(28c) translates as a structural dependence akin to the relation assumed to hold
between a clitic and its double in clitic-doubling structures (Kayne 1972,
Torrego 1986, Uriagereka 1995) and between a resumptive pronoun and its
antecedent (Boeckx 2001, 2003a)12 and indeed between an anaphor and its
antecedent (Kayne 2002, Zwart 2002).
12
A doubling structure has also been suggested to capture the relationship between an anaphor
and its antecedent (Kayne 2002, Zwart 2002). We do not adopt this analysis for anaphors, for
reasons developed in Hornstein 2004, and Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2004. (We favor a view
that takes anaphors to be [possibly morphologically modied] copies of their antecedents.)

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 33

The surface form of (29) results from moving the R-NP rst to Spec,vP13
and then to Spec,TP. The rst movement endows the R-NP with a h-role and
the second movement relates to Case.
The primary differences between this analysis and the one in S&S are that
here the relation between the R-NP and complement position of the BE is
mediated by movement rather than binding and this movement is overt. This
implementation leans on the conjecture advanced in Hornstein 2001 that
movement is preferred to binding.
Several assumptions that lie behind this implementation require discussion.
First, we crucially rely on the possibility of movement into thematic positions.
The licit character of such an operation has now been motivated both
empirically and conceptually for a wide range of constructions. We refer the
reader to Boskovic 1994; Boskovic and Takahashi 1998; Hornstein 1999, 2001;
Hornstein and Motomura 2002; Lasnik 1999; Boeckx 1998; Nunes 1995, 2004;
Kiguchi 2002; Rodrigues 2003; and Grohmann 2003, among others.
Second, movement out of adjuncts is licit in well-dened contexts. In
particular, Boeckx (2001, 2003a) argues in detail that movement out of
adjuncts is possible so long as no agreement relation involving the moving
element takes place.14 Because moving into a h-position plausibly does not
involve any agreement relation, movement out of the adjunct BE-phrase is
licit.15 That movement out of an adjunct phrase contained inside an NP is
possible is in fact assumed by everybody who takes nouns like book to lack
h-assigning possibilities. Accordingly, movement of who out of the about
phrase in (31) is in fact movement out of an adjunct.16
(31)

Who1 did you read [NP a book about t1]?

With so much as background, lets quickly consider the facts concerning BEs
reviewed at the outset and see how they follow given this proposal.
The rst fact is that BEs require antecedents. In particular, if a sentence
contains a nominal and a BE, then it must contain at least one other nominal as
well. We illustrated this (following S&S) by contrasting BEs with clauses
involving oated quantiers.
(32)

a. The men have

b. The men have
c. The men have
d. *The men have
e. *The/three men

each eaten one pie.

eaten one pie each.
each eaten.
eaten/arrived each.
apiece have eaten/arrived.17

13
Locality conditions such as Minimality/Shortest Move are observed, as the R-NP and D-NP
are plausibly equidistant from Spec,vP.
14
See also Hornstein 2001 and Nunes 1995, 2001, 2004.
15
Let us note that several authors have independently argued that adjuncts contained inside VP
are porous; see Uriagereka 1988 and Landau 1999, among others.
16
See Yoshida 2003 for a related point.
17
We include subjects with numeral quantiers. As S&S note, the R-NP typically has this form.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

34 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

Note that (32a,b) are tolerably good paraphrases. However, though one can
nd oated each without overt objects, this is not possible for BEs. Neither
(32d) nor (32e) is acceptable. The reason can be traced to the fact that BEs
require two nominal arguments and (32d,e) have but one.18 Thus, in (32d)
there is nothing for the BE to adjoin to and Full Interpretation rules this
sentence out. As for (32e), it cannot have an internal argument. For, were it to
have one, it would have no place to move into the thematic domain. It would
then lack a h-role. Consider the derivation of (32e) with arrive.
(33)

[Three men apiece DP] have arrived [[three men] apiece DP]

(33) assumes that there is some DP in the complement position of the BE. It
needs a h-role to be licensed.19 But three men apiece DP occupies the only
thematic position, so there is no way for it to get one. Another derivational
option is (34).
(34)

[Three men apiece t1] have arrived [[three men]1 apiece t1]

Here we move three men from the complement position of apiece and
promote it in a kind of relativization strategy. This too leads to
unacceptability, given the interpretive requirements of BEs outlined in (28).
As S&S observe, (28) requires that no two R-individuals map to the same set.
However, given the derivation in (34), there is only one set, that provided by
the moved three men. As such, the requirement in (28) cannot be met and the
sentence is thus interpretive gibberish. As these are the only two possible
derivations for the sentence, its unacceptability follows.20
The second fact that our analysis captures is that the R-NP cannot be an
external argument. For example, sentences like (35), with a derivation like
(36), are unacceptable. (The sentence has the intended interpretation in which
the books is the R-NP and three men apiece the D-NP.)
(35)

*Three men apiece/each read the books.

(36)

[[Three men apiece t1] T0 [[three men apiece t1][read [the books]]]]

"j

Under (36), the book moves from the complement of apiece to the internal
argument position of read, thereby getting a h-role. Three men apiece then
raises to Spec,TP for Case-checking purposes. The problem is that the rst
movement involves lowering in overt syntax, and this is prohibited. Lowering
18
A reviewer wonders how adjoined material like the each phrase can function as a predicate
taking the element it is adjoined to as its argument. We refer the reader to Hornstein and
Uriagereka 2002 and Boeckx 2003b for discussion of how quantiers function as predicates at LF
via a mechanism of reprojection.
19
More exactly, we assume that it needs a verbal/h-role. Even if it has some interpretive role
in virtue of being the complement of apiece, we assume this is not enough. We follow Baker 2003
in taking adjectives (/adjuncts) to be unable to assign h-roles of their own.
20
S&S note that there may also be a Case Filter violation here.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 35

(in overt syntax) can be ruled out in various ways given current minimalist
assumptions. For example, the indicated operation violates the Extension
Condition.21
The third feature of BEs captured by our analysis is that the R-NP must be
locally related to the D-NP. This is illustrated in (37).
(37)

a. *The men believed that three books each were exciting.

b. *The men believe Bill to be reading one book apiece.

The derivations of these sentences violate generally accepted conditions on

movement, as the derivations in (38) indicate.
(38)

a. The men believed [that [three books each the men] were exciting]

"j
b. The men believed Bill to be reading one book apiece the men.

"j
(38a) moves the men out of a subject of an embedded nite clause, whereas
in (38b) we move the nominal the men over an intervening c-commanding
nominal Bill in violation of minimality. Both movements are illicit and so the
derivations are blocked.22
Our analysis is also able to derive the reconstruction cases that turned out
to be problematic for S&S.23 Take, for example, (39).
(39) How many books each did the boys read?
(39) has the derivation in (40).

#j
(40) [CP [TP the boys T [the boys [read [how many books each the boys]]]]

"
21
There are various other potential violations. Lowering plausibly prevents linearization of
copies if these must be within a chain, as Nunes (1995, 2004) proposes. Additionally, current
Agree-based theories (Chomsky 2000, 2001) require the targets of movement to c-command the
object moved. Either or all of these conditions sufce to prevent overt lowering.
22
Recall that movement across one book does not violate anything, as the BE is adjoined to this
nominal and so minimality does not come into play.
23
Tim Stowell (p.c.) observes that the absence of intermediate-trace reconstruction effects
with BE (unlike with regular anaphors), illustrated in (i), follows from our account, if the Amovement of [the boys] has to precede remnant movement of the wh-phrase and cannot skip over
the intervening subject. (S&S derived (i) in a similar but not identical wayby requiring QR of
each from reconstructed wh-phrase in the original object position [CED] and from the [tensed]
clause-boundedness of QR.)

(i) *How many books eachi did the boysi say the girls bought t?

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

36 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

First, the boys moves from the complement of each to Spec,vP (and then to
Spec,TP), and then the remnant wh-moves to Spec,CP. This basic combination
of movement out of the complement of the BE to a h-position with subsequent
remnant movements of an A or A variety sufce to derive the other examples
involving passive and raising as well.
There is one more set of data left to account for. Recall that BEs cannot be
ECM subjects, despite this being a position in which standard anaphors can be
licensed.
(41)

a. *The men believed one eld each to be unavailable.

b. *The women consider one man apiece ugly.
c. *The boys expected one book apiece to be reviewed in The Times.

S&S accounted for these by assuming that they involved movement out of
embedded subjects at LF, which was illicit. Setting aside the issue of island
violation for covert movement, S&Ss account does not go through since S&S
independently allowed movement from reconstructed positions. However, we
do not assume movement out of a reconstructed position, and all our relevant
movements are overt, so we can appeal to an island effect to rule out (41).
More precisely, we assume that (overt) movement out of an element that has
raised to matrix Spec,AgrOP is disallowed. This is Lasniks (2001) conclusion,
based on cases like (42).24
(42)

a. *?Who1 did you consider [pictures of t1] to be boring?

b. *Who2 did John make [friends of t2] out [t1 to be smart]?
c. ?Who1 did John make out [[friends of t1] to be smart]?

The generalization appears to be that extraction out of an element raised to

either Spec,AgrSP or Spec,AgrOP is barred.25
Supporting evidence for our conclusion comes from the contrast in (43)
(due to Howard Lasnik, p.c.).
(43)

a.
The men threw out three bags each.
b. *?The men threw three bags each out.

As Lasnik (2001) extensively argues (building on earlier work by Johnson

[1991]), the position of the object NP in between a verb and a particle
24
The island status of ECMed subjects is somewhat less clear than that of subjects of nite
clauses (*Who did [pictures of t] impress Bill?) and appears to vary according to which ECM verb
is used. Compare (ia) and (ib).

(i) a. ??Who did John prove [pictures of t] to be illegal?

b. *?Who did John consider [pictures of t] to be ugly?
We do not understand this variation, but we want to relate it to the fact pointed out in footnote 5
that some BEs are acceptable as ECMed subjects.
25
This relates to the idea that agreement freezes a node for extraction, as explored by Boeckx
(2001, 2003a), Uriagereka (1999, 2003), and others.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 37

that form a verbal complex (43b) indicates that Object Shift (movement to
Spec,AgrOP) has taken place. Given our reasoning above, we expect
extraction in such a situation to be ruled out. The expectation is borne out
in (44).
(44)

a.
b.

Who did you pick up [pictures of t]?

*?Who did you pick [pictures of t] up?

That (44) closely parallels (43) supports the proposal that (overt) extraction
out the BE takes place.26
Having accounted for the impossibility of BEs as ECMed subjects/raised
objects, let us now turn to situations in which the R-NP is an ECMed subject,
as in (45).
(45)

a.
b.

John proved the prisoners guilty with one accusation each/apiece.

Bob made/let Sam and Tom leave on two occasions each/apiece.

Given the logic of our analysis, the derivation for, say, (45a) would be as in (46).
(46)

a.
b.
c.

d.

26

Form the adjunct containing the BE:

[with [[one accusation] each the prisoners]]
(Sideward) Move the prisoners to the complement of guilty:
[the prisoners guilty], with [[one accusation] each the prisoners]
Merge prove and the embedded small clause (we ignore overt
Object Shift for Case reasons):
[prove [the prisoners guilty]], with [[one accusation] each the
prisoners]
Merge John with the vP:
[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]], with [[one accusation] each
the prisoners]

A reviewer noted the following acceptable example:

(i) Two women got the prize money and a silver medal each.
This would appear to violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint with two women moving to
Spec,vP from the right conjunct. We believe this example to be somewhat misleading. Structurally
similar cases are considerably less acceptable.
(ii) Two women swallowed a/*?this peanut and a raisin each/apiece.
(iii) Two women broke a/*?this plate and a cup each/apiece.
The only acceptable this-reading of (iii) is one where there are two separate events where one and
the same peanut is swallowed twice. As this is implausible, the sentence is odd. Similarly with (iv).
Why then is (i) acceptable? We suspect that this is due to the fact that two people can each receive
a share of the prize money whereas shares of peanuts and plates are less common.
(iv) Two women got a share of the prize money and a silver medal each.
When the prize is made difcult to share, the oddity resurfaces.
(v) Two women got a/*?the silver dollar and a medal each.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

38 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

e.

f.

Adjoin the PP:

[[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]] with [[one accusation] each
the prisoners]]
Merge T, raise John to Spec,TP, and Spell-Out:
[John T [[John v [prove [the prisoners guilty]]] with [[one accusation] each the prisoners]]

The crucial aspect of this derivation is that we delay the adjunction of the PP
containing BE until the matrix vP is introduced. This is possible if we
capitalize on the possibility of sideward movement (movement across
unconnected subtrees).27 But we want to make sure that the derivation in
(53) hasnt opened the door to unwanted derivations.
In this context, consider again (35), repeated here as (47).
(47)

*Three men apiece read the books.

The derivation produced in (36) relied on the fact that the books must move
from the subject nominal three men apiece the books. This forces the books to
lower, and as this is not permissible, the derivation is unsuccessful. But what
prevents the derivation in (48)?
(48)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Merge apiece, the, books to make form the BE:

[apiece [the books]]
Move the books sideward to read:
[read the books], [apiece [the books]]
Add v to read the books:
[v [read the books]], [apiece [the books]]
Merge three, men:
[three men], [v [read the books]], [apiece [the books]]
Adjoin the BE to three men:
[[three men] [apiece [the books]]], [v [read the books]]
Merge three men apiece the books with the vP:
[[[three men] [apiece [the books]]] [v [read the books]]]
Finish off the derivation as usual.

So far as we can tell, (48) would render (47) grammatical. The derivation can
be blocked if we require that the BE merge to the nominal it modies as soon
as it is able to do so. Recall that we followed S&S in essentially considering
BEs as headed by transitive predicates. Thus, apiece/each have internal and
external arguments that are satised or discharged via Merge. Lets assume
that once one begins checking or assigning the h-roles of a predicate, that this
must continue until all the h-roles of that predicate are saturated. This has been
independently assumed by Frampton and Gutmann (1999, 2002), who claim
27
Since this possibility has been amply justied empirically and conceptually in Nunes 1995,
2001, 2004, and Hornstein 2001, we simply adopt it here without further justication.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 39

that all unvalued features of the pivot must be satised before the derivation
can proceed to a new application of Select, and also by Collins (2002:46 (6)),
who formulates the following Locus Principle:
(49)

Let X be a lexical item that has one or more probe/selectors. Suppose X

is chosen from the lexical array and introduced into the derivation. The
probe/selectors of X must be satised before any new unsaturated
lexical items are chosen from the lexical array. Call X the locus of the
derivation.

Say that something like the Locus Principle is correct, and say that S&S are
right in thinking that BEs are species of transitive predicates. If so, once we
begin to form the BE, we must nish with it before moving onto something
else. In effect, this will block the movement in (48b) as we have not yet
discharged the external argument of the BE at the point where we move its
complement. Thus, the net effect of assuming (49) is to force the BE into
constituency with the nominal it modies. This will necessarily end by
yielding a structure like (36), which, we have seen, is sufcient to prevent the
derivation of (35).
There is a nal derivation to consider for (47), one in which we build the
whole BE (saturating each/apiece), sideward move the R-NP the books to the
object of read, build up the tree up to v, Merge the entire BE in Spec,vP, and raise
three men to Spec,TP.28 This derivation is excluded as it fails to be linearized.
The books would have to both precede and follow read according to Nuness
(2004) linearization of chains procedure based on Kaynes (1994) LCA.
All in all, an overt movement analysis of the licensing of BE successfully
covers the relevant data. We are further able to explain three additional
properties of BEs.
First, why is it that they follow the D-NP? We can, once again, adopt the
S&S proposal. They note that adjectives with complements must succeed the
nominals they modify. Witness (50).
(50)

a.
b.

*a happy with school boy

a boy happy with school

If BEs have complements, as assumed here, then the same restriction can
account for why they are barred from prenominal positions.
(51)

The men read (*apiece) one book (apiece).

Second, we account for why it is that the complement in a BE is never

phonetically realized. It is an NP-trace and so phonetically null.
28
This is in essence the derivation proposed by Nunes (2004) and Kiguchi (2002) to capture
parasitic gaps inside subjects and PRO-gate effects, respectively. In their case, the derivation is
successful, as wh-movement of the sideward-moved object establishes a c-command relation
among the various copies within the relevant chain, allowing linearization to proceed unhindered.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

40 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

Third, we can explain why BEs adjoin to weak nominals only. As S&S
observe, we do not nd BEs like (52).
(52)

*The men read most books each/the books apiece/every book each.

This follows once we note that movement out of nominals with strong
determiners is generally prohibited.
(53)

*Who did John read most/the books about?

Whatever blocks movement in (53), would carry over to prevent the

complement the men from moving out of the BE in.
To sum up, we have implemented S&Ss analysis of BEs in a slightly
different format. This allows us to cover the same empirical ground that they
do but without some of the problems raised in section 5. Moreover, we can
also explain why, for example, BEs never show overt complements and why
they adjoin to weak nominals.
7. Conclusion
This paper aims to achieve a minimalist goal. As Chomsky (1993)
observes, if we can replicate a result that exploits D-structure conditions in
an account that can dispense with this DS assumption, then all things
being equal, this account is to be preferred on methodological grounds.
However, we can aspire somewhat higher and show that the account that
eschews DS is superior. We have here proposed an account that
accommodates the basic facts as well as some more recondite phenomena;
for example, why the complement of a BE must be null. The proposal
incorporates the general idea behind the S&S analysis but avoids the
complications that this approach entails (e.g., assuming that islands extend
to LF congurations or that one can move out of tails of chains but only
in LF) by implementing the idea in terms of overt movement.
Interestingly, the proposal is consistent with an approach that exploits a
unique phrase marker feeding both AP and CI (thus, dispensing with LF
movement entirely). All of the grammatical work in the proposal rests on
overt movements and requires no covert LF operations. There is no need
to assume any QR operation or A-binding mechanism. There is also no
need to assume that A-movement reconstructs. The proposal, if correct,
supports Chomskys (1995) conjecture (see also Lasnik 1999). In fact, we
eliminate the core case of A-chain reconstruction mentioned by Chomsky
(2001:43, n. 11).
At a general level, the analysis provides one more empirical argument for
movement into h-position, sideward movement, the primacy of movement
over binding in matters of construal, and the virtues of a very derivational
view of syntax.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 41

References
AOUN, J. 1985. A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
BAKER, M. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BELLETTI, A. & L. RIZZI. 1988. Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 6:291352.
BOECKX, C. 1998. Traces of argument structure. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs. [Presented at the University of Texas Conference on Argument Structure (1998). To appear in the Proceedings, Texas Linguistic Forum, Austin,
Tex.]
BOECKX, C. 1999. A strongly derivational view on (pseudo-)clefts. Ms.: University of
Connecticut, Storrs.
BOECKX, C. 2001. Mechanisms of chain formation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs.
BOECKX, C. 2003a. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
BOECKX, C. 2003b. (In)direct binding. Syntax 6:213236.
BOECKX, C., N. HORNSTEIN & J. NUNES. 2004. A movement theory of local
reexives. Ms., Harvard University, University of Maryland, and USPE.
BOSKOVIC, Z. 1994. D-structure, Theta Criterion, and movement into theta-positions.
Linguistic Analysis 24:247286.
BOSKOVIC, Z. & D. TAKAHASHI. 1998. Scrambling and Last Resort. Linguistic
Inquiry 29:347366.
BURZIO, L. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
CHOE, J.-W. 1987. Anti-quantiers and a theory of distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
CHOMSKY, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
CHOMSKY, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The view from
Building 20, ed. K. Hale & S. J. Keyser, 152. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.]
CHOMSKY, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed.
R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
CHOMSKY, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed.
M. Kenstowicz, 150. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
COLLINS, C. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25:4561.
COLLINS, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Explanation and derivation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 6442. Oxford: Blackwell.
EPSTEIN, S. D., E. GROAT, R. KAWASHIMA & H. KITAHARA. 1998. The
derivation of syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FRAMPTON, J. & S. GUTMANN. 1999. Cyclic computation: A computationally
efcient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2:127.
FRAMPTON, J. & S. GUTMANN. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. In Derivation and
explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 90105.
Oxford: Blackwell.
GIL, D. 1982. Distributive numerals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles.
GROHMANN, K. K. 2003. Prolic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
HORNSTEIN, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:6996.
HORNSTEIN, N. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford:
Blackwell.
HORNSTEIN, N. 2004. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. Ms., University of Maryland,
College Park.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

42 Cedric Boeckx and Norbert Hornstein

HORNSTEIN, N. & M. MOTOMURA. 2002. Psych verbs, theta roles, and
reconstruction. In Proceedings of 2002 LSK International Summer Conference. 2:
3958. Seoul: Linguistics Society of Korea.
HORNSTEIN, N. & J. URIAGEREKA. 2002. Reprojections. In Derivation and
explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 106132.
Oxford: Blackwell.
JOHNSON, K. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9:557
636.
KAYNE, R. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Generative studies in
Romance languages, ed. J. Casagrande & B. Saciuk, 70126. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
KAYNE, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
KAYNE, R. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in
the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely, 133166. Oxford:
Blackwell.
KIGUCHI, H. 2002. Syntax unchained. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland,
College Park.
KIM, K. 1998. (Anti-)connectivity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College
Park.
LANDAU, I. 1999. Elements of control. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
LASNIK, H. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, ed. S. D. Epstein &
N. Hornstein, 189215. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
LASNIK, H. 2001. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Objects and other subjects, ed.
W. Davies & S. Dubinsky, 103121. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
LASNIK, H. 2002. Clause-mate conditions revisited. Glot International 6:9496.
LASNIK, H. & M. SAITO. 1991. On the subject of innitives. Papers from the 27th
regional meeting of CLS, ed. L. Dobrin, L. Nichols & R. Rodriguez, 324343.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Reprinted in Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist
analysis, 724. Oxford: Blackwell.].
LEBEAUX, D. 1994. Where does the binding theory apply? Ms., NEC.
LINK, G. 1998. Algebraic semantics. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
MANZINI, M. R. & A. ROUSSOU. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and
control. Lingua 110:409447.
NUNES, J. 1995. The copy theory of movement and the linearization of chains in the
Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
NUNES, J. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:303344.
NUNES, J. 2004. Sideward movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist
Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
ONEIL, J. 1997. Means of control. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
POSTAL, P. M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
RODRIGUES, C. 2003. Thematic chains. Ms., University of Maryland, College
Park.
SAFIR, K. & T. STOWELL. 1988. Binominal each. In Proceedings of NELS 18, ed.
J. Blevins & J. Carter, 246250. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA Publications.
TAKAHASHI, D. 1994. Minimality of movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Connecticut, Storrs.
TORREGO, E. 1986. Determiners and pronouns: A DP analysis of noun phrases in
Spanish. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston.
URIAGEREKA, J. 1988. On government. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
URIAGEREKA, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western
Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26:79123.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005

On Eliminating D-Structure: The Case of Binominal Each 43

URIAGEREKA, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism. ed. S. D. Epstein
and N. Hornstein, 251282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
URIAGEREKA, J. 2003. Spell-Out consequences. Ms., University of Maryland,
College Park.
YOSHIDA, M. 2003. The specicity condition: PF-condition or LF-condition? In
Proceedings of WCCFL 22, 547560. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.
ZIMMERMANN, M. 2002. Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and
semantics of distance-distributivity. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
ZWART, C. J.-W. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely,
269304. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cedric Boeckx
Harvard University
Department of Linguistics
Boylston Hall, Third Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
cboeckx@fas.harvard.edu
Norbert Hornstein
University of Maryland
Department of Linguistics
1401 Marie Mount Hall
College Park, MD 20742-7505
USA
nh10@umail.umd.edu

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005