Fronted partitives

[nschneid]

• Out of Carnival Royal Caribbean and Norwegian cruises, which is the best and why?

The PP acts as a partitive: which (out) of A and B cruises

p. 903 discusses which + partitive, but not with the partitive fronted.

We agreed to call it a Supplement for now. Seems like too much of a stretch to say there is a gap, considering that fronted partitives seem to have a pragmatic rather than syntactic relationship to their member-referring expression:

• Of John, Mary, and Sue, I have always felt that Mary is the smartest.
• I have always felt that of John, Mary, and Sue, Mary is the smartest.
• Of her friends, I would say that none are qualified for the position.

[BrettRey]

The fact that the object of of has to be definite or a coordination defining the set by listing its members is a strike against the supplement analysis, though this too could simply be pragmatics.
Geoff says, "I think it has to be either PP preposing or PP right-shifting, and in either case I think there has to be a gap."

[nschneid]

"Of John, Mary, and Sue, I have always felt that Mary is the smartest."—where would the gap be?

[nschneid]

Pragmatically it feels related to topicalization.

[BrettRey]

It does seem like topicalization.
The gap would be in the NP Mod-Headed by smartest.

[nschneid]

"Of John, Mary, and Sue, we should hire Mary."

[BrettRey]

Granted, no gap there. But it looks like a long-distance dependency.
Of the three, John says he thinks we should hire Mary.
I think we need a gapped analysis.

[edit, April 2, 2023]
Granted, no gap there. But it looks like a long-distance dependency.
Of the three, John says he thinks we should hire the first GAP.
Here, I think we need a gapped analysis. But with the Mary example, clearly Mary doesn't license a partitive complement, so I admit an adjunct partitive does seem to be possible.

[nschneid]

It seems related to a topic-setting preferatory phrase:

• When it comes to the three candidates, John says he thinks we should hire Mary.

There's a meaning relationship in that "three candidates" sets up an expectation that we may drill down into the set (in this case, focusing on Mary). But it doesn't seem like a syntactic gap. There is no guarantee that any members of the set will be mentioned:

• When it comes to the three candidates, I was pretty disappointed.

"Of" creates a stronger expectation of discussing or at least implying members of the set:

• #Of the three candidates, I was not very impressed.
• #Of the three candidates, the right decision is not obvious.
• Of the three candidates, I am not sure (who should be chosen).
• Of the three candidates, the idea that we should choose Mary is absurd.

Note that in this last one, Mary is the object of a nominal complement clause. This would be an island to WH-movement:

• *Who is the idea that we should choose ___ is absurd?

I think the pragmatics of the fronted partitive construction require that a member of the set receive focus later in the sentence. But I'm not convinced it's syntactically governed in the way that gaps are.

[BrettRey]

In the explicitly partitive fused-head constructions, the head is followed by a complement consisting of of + a partitive oblique, suggesting a particular location for the complement. This seems different from an adjunct that is arguably inherently less anchored in a particular position. Also, "converting" the complement into an adjunct seems wrong.

With extraction, interrogative PP extraction is often the worst, and clearly it doesn't work here, but relative extraction is possible.

1. Some of the books were damaged
2. #Of which books were some GAP damaged?
3. The books, of which some GAP were damaged, have now been moved.

[nschneid]

Yep, those are the "standard" partitive construction, which to me is distinct from the fronted one.

@aryamanarora pointed out that the fronted one is similar to things like

• Between John and Mary, I have a slight preference for Mary.
• Between the two candidates, I have a slight preference for Mary.

The partitive meaning is here as well, only with "between" rather than "of".

[BrettRey]

If one is an adjunct and one a complement, then it seems we should be able to have both at once, but I don't think we can.

With Aryaman's examples, I can't get ?I have a slight preference Between John and Mary for Mary. So I don't find them relevant.

[nschneid]

I'm arguing that the sentence-initial ones are a construction where a sentence can begin with a PP introducing a set, whose members will be commented on later. Agreed that it's odd to move the between-PP later in the sentence. But I think that's true for some of the sentence-initial of examples:

• Of John and Mary, I have a slight preference for Mary.
  *I have a slight preference of John and Mary for Mary.
  *I have a slight preference for Mary of John and Mary. (could be grammatical but under a different reading, clarifying which Mary we're talking about)

If we can't have both sets at once, that could be due to the meaning. That said, this doesn't sound terrible (just a bit redundant):

• Of the three candidates, I am not sure who I prefer of the group.

And they could certainly be combined if one set is a superset of the other:

• Of the ten pieces, I am not sure which I prefer of the Monets (I have a clear favorite among the Rembrandts).

[BrettRey]

I think that the complement is licensed by a fused head specifically, and that anywhere there is a fused head with a fronted partitive, there's a gap. But there certainly do seem to be other cases where a fronted partitive must be an adjunct.

I agree that Of the ten pieces, I am not sure which I prefer of the Monets is not very bad.

[nschneid]

What do you think of:

• Of all the candidates with degrees in chemical engineering, which of them is your favorite?

[BrettRey]

Feels like a resumptive gap fill, like Paul McCartney's "world in which we live in".

[nschneid]

I can't decide if it's resumptive or just a bit redundant (on account of having two prepositions referring to the same partitive relationship).