PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
The following full text is a publisher's version.
For additional information about this publication click this link.
http://hdl.handle.net/2066/91334
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2015-01-24 and may be subject to
change.
Gapping
Studies in Generative Grammar
The goal of Studies in Generative Grammar is to publish those texts that are
representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many
studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail
that make them unsuitable for publications in article form.
We hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider
audience than has been hitherto possible.
Jan Koster
Henk van Riemsdijk
AnnekeNeijt
A contribution to
Sentence Grammar
¥
FORIS P U B LIC ATIO NS / D O R D R EC H T
H O L LA N D / C IN N A M IN S O N / USA
Second revised edition 1980
This study has been supported fin a n cia lly by the Netherlands Organization fo r the
Advancement o f Pure Research (grant 30-42),
© 1979 by Foris Publications - Dordrecht.
No p a rt o f this book m ay be translated o r reproduced in any fo rm , by p rin t, p h o to p rin t,
o r any o th e r means, w ith o u t w ritte n permission from th e author.
ISBN 90 70176 12 2
Printed in the Netherlands by Intercontinental Graphics.
to my parents
Acknowledgements
W i t h g r e a t p l e a s u r e I ta k e the o p p o r t u n i t y to e x p r e s s m y
gratitude
feeling
Groot
to
of
those
obligation
Institute,
frie n d s ,
who
supported
X mention
all,
who
contributed
one
thi s
the
partly
way
or
enterprise.
staff
as
of
the
colleagues,
the
other.
v o l v e d w a s A r n o l d E vers, m y s u p e r v i s o r ,
With
Most
a
A.W.
de
partly
as
deeply
in­
the o ne w h o s e f a s c i n ­
a t i n g v i e w s on
l i n g u i s t i c s a r o u s e d m y .interest in the field.
It w a s he w h o
f i r s t set m e on i n v e s t i g a t i n g the G a p p i n g p h e ­
no m e n a ,
and
stimulated
proceedings had
syncratic
approach,
scientious
mored
directions.
me
the
to
start
this
project.
While
the
the ins a n d o u t s of h i s i d i o ­
final
participation,
Schultink,
made
me
to p u t up w i t h
result
and
his
Indispensable
o w e s a lot
very
were
liberal
the
to h i s c o n ­
and g o o d - h u ­
comments
of
Henk
the p r o m o t e r of t h i s thes i s , w h o s e c a r e f u l r e a d i n g
aware
of m a n y d e f e c t s ,
and
the d i s c u s s i o n s ,
varying
in i n t e n s i t y a n d s u b j e c t , b u t all m o s t f r u i t f u l , w i t h M a r i a n ­
ne
Elsakkers,
Ger
Steven Krauwer,
len en W i m
the
many
de
Kees
Haan,
he
Huybregts,
Geert
Koefoed,
Ste v e n s ,
Louis des T o m b e , Mieke Tro m m e ­
To W i m
in p a r t i c u l a r I am i n d e b t e d f o r
Zonneveld.
hours
Riny
spent
helping
me
reach
the
finish
and
produce a readable version.
M a n y t h a n k s I owe to l i n g u i s t s o u t s i d e the A.W. de G r o o t
Institute:
David
committee,
Jan Koster,
improved
an
comments
on N e i j t
hurst were
Lightfoot,
earlier
English examples.
version.
(1978b).
so k i n d as
third
and Frans
member
Zwarts.
Hans
den
of my dissertation
T h e i r comment's m u c h
Besten
gave
useful
Bi l l D o t s o n S m i t h a n d J a m e s P a n k ­
to gi v e t h e i r n a t i v e j u d g e m e n t s on the
•?
viii
The
members
of
the
research group
m e t a b o l i s m of the U n i v e r s i t y H o s p i t a l
cially
Sijmen
Duursma,
Wilma Weerens,
were
Janthony
so k i n d as
f o r c a l c i u m a n d bone
at R.U. U t r e c h t , e s p e ­
Haymakers,
J a n R o e l o f s , a nd
to o f f e r me t h e i r h o s p i t a l i t y
a n d s h a r e w i t h m e the m e r i t s of m o d e r n t y p e w r i t i n g .
Special
Piet.
Their
thanks
faith
and
love
go
to
my
and dear support made
parents
this
and
Jan
and
study possible
in the f i r s t place.
Anneke Neijt
Utrecht
Introduction
Traditionally,
are
a
major
reductions
point
of
in
departure
coordinate
for
the
g r a m m a r a n d the n a t u r e of g r a m m a t i c a l rules.
mational
used
analysis of language,
from
the
mational
variables
1957,
outset
rules
an d
35).
Due
theoretical
restructuring
to
constraints,
notion
of
coordinate
towards
of
existence
of t r a nsfor­
f o r the n e c e s s i t y of
(cf. C h o m s k y
coordinations,
for
mirror
the
first
image
further
time,
r ules,
such
as
t r a n s d e ri -
a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d a p p l i c a t i o n o f rules,
recoverability
a p p e a r e d for the s a m e r e a son.
in
sentence
In the t r a n s f o r ­
as f o r s t r i n g s
study
appeared
operations,
and
the
to a r g u e
as w e l l
the
vational
the
to m o t i v a t e
proposals
of
reduction p henomena have been
especially
for c a t e g o r i e s
constructions
study
of
deletion.
Others
dis­
The p r e s e n t s t u d y o f r e d u c t i o n s
constructions
maintains
the t h e o r y of g r a m m a r .
this
orientation
It b r i n g s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
o f the c o n j u n c t i o n r e d u c t i o n rul e of G a p p i n g to b e a r u p o n the
general
principles
t hat
constrain
the
notion
of
transfor­
m a t ion.
The
tion
starting-point
between
initial
of the f i r s t
chapter
and non-initial
is the d i s t i n c ­
coordination,
which
is
u s e d to i l l u s t r a t e a r e m a r k a b l e s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
English
an d
D u t c h . As
Dutch
are
their
reduction
centrates
cl u s i o n s .
Backward
fr o m
shown
on
to
regards
bear
nonphrasal
First,
in
the
main
striking
The
of
i ssue,
the
Reduction,
English
resemblance
remainder
conjunction,
reduction
Conjunction
reduction
a
phenomena.
the
of
in
first conjunct,
turns
other conjuncts,
out
vis-à-vis
chapter
resulting
to
be
and
1 con­
two
con­
so-called
different
c a p t u r e d by G a p p i n g .
X
The
latter
former
made
in
tion,
is
clearly
almost
belongs
certainly
recent
to s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r ,
doe s
analyses
not.
between
Lef t P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n ,
abandoned.
The
sum
of
Second,
Forward
the
whereas
the
distinction
Conjunction
Reduc­
Conjunct Movement and Gapping
these
phenomena
can
be
shown
to
discussions
of
r e s u l t f r o m a g e n e r a l i z e d rule of G a p p i n g .
The
second
Gapping.
The
chapter’
’s u r v e y s
notion
some
of recoverability
recent
is u s e d
to a r g u e
that
t here is n o n e e d f o r t his r ule to r e f e r to s p e c i f i c c o n s t i t u ­
ents .
The
t h i r d c h a p t e r shows,
standing
allo w s ,
that
the
as c a r e f u l l y as c u r r e n t u n d e r ­
variable
between
the
G a p p i n g is s e n s i t i v e to the I s l a n d C o n s t r a i n t s .
re
is no
a priori
constraints
trivial
on
reason
to e x p e c t
movements,
WH-movement.
restrictions
This
from
implies
general
that G a pping
it t u r n s o u t t h a t
parallelism between
the s c o p e
tha t
an y
remnants
should obey
there
is a n o n ­
of G a p p i n g a n d t h a t of
attempt
principles
of
Although the­
such
to
derive
as
s h o u l d a p p l y b o t h to m o v e m e n t r u l e s a n d to G a p p i n g .
these
Subjacency
A revised
n o t i o n of S u b j a c e n c y is p r o p o s e d to o b t a i n this r esult.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VII
INTRODUCTION
IX
C H A P T E R 1: TH E S Y N T A X O F C O O R D I N A T I O N
1. P h r a s a l c o n j u n c t i o n :
1
i n i t i a l vs. n o n - i n i t i a l
coordination
•
1
1.1. V P s t r u c t u r e s a n d u n d e r l y i n g S O V
7
1.2. S s t r u c t u r e s
13
2. C o o r d i n a t i o n o f n o n c o n s t i t u e n t s
2.1. G a p p i n g
16
.
18
2.1.1. M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n c y
19
2.1.2. V a r i a b l e s as t a r g e t s f o r d e l e t i o n
or interpretation
19
2.1.3. M u l t i p l e t a r g e t d e l e t i o n
22
2.1.4.
Island sensitivity
23
2.1.5.
The d o m a i n s o f G a p p i n g
24
2.1.6.
2.1.7.
The C o o r d i n a t e S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t
and across-the-board applications
30
Conclusion:
37
the f o r m u l a t i o n o f G a p p i n g
2.2. B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n
39
2.2.1. M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n c y
40
2.2.2. The t a r g e t of B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n
Reduction
41
2.2.3. One t a r g e t d e l e t i o n
42
2.2.4.
Island sensitivity
43
2.2.5.
The d o m a i n s o f B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n
Reduction
'
45
xii
3. L i m i t a t i o n s in d e s c r i p t i v e d e v i c e s
47
3.1. P h r a s a l c o n j u n c t i o n vs. r e s t r u c t u r i n g /
relabeling
47
3.2. F o r w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n
3.3.
50
Left Peripheral Deletion
57
3.4. C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t
62
F o o t n o t e s to c h a p t e r 1
66
C H A P T E R 2: T HE R U L E OF G A P P I N G
73
1. E a r l i e r r u l e s o f G a p p i n g
73
1.1. H a n k a m e r ' s U n a c c e p t a b i l i t y
73
1.2. S t i l l i n g s 1975
1.3. L a n g e n d o e n 1975
76
.
1.4. K u n o 1976
81
82
2. D e s c r i p t i v e a d e q u a c y
2.1. The d o m a i n o f the rule
85
87
2.2. The r e m n a n t s
89
2.3. The g a p s
93
2.4. C o n s e q u e n c e s for the f o r m u l a t i o n o f G a p p i n g
95
3. R e c o v e r a b i l i t y
97
F o o t n o t e s to c h a p t e r 2
107
C H A P T E R 3: C O N S T R A I N T S
109
1, C o n s t r a i n i n g the r e m n a n t s
110
1.1, M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n c y
110
1.2, F i e n g o ' s H e a d C o n d i t i o n r e f o r m u l a t e d a s a
Maximization Principle
113
1.3, V a r i a t i o n s o n A - o v e r - A
116
1.4, S a g v e r s u s H a n k a m e r
122
1.5, C o n c l u s i o n
128
2. C o n s t r a i n t s on the g a p s
2.1. O b s e r v a t i o n s
129
129
2.1.1.
Similarities between mov e m e n t and
deletion
129
2.1.2.
The
133
(Complex) N P C o n s t r a i n t
BS>
xiii
2.2.
2.1.3.
The W H - i s l a n d C o n s t r a i n t
2.1.4.
The S e n t e n t i a l S u b j e c t C o n s t r a i n t
139
2.1.5.
The T e n s e d S C o n d i t i o n
141
E f f e c t s o n the t h e o r y
2.2.1.
-
137
2.2.2.
2.2. 3.
149
Subjacency
149
Binding Conditions
154
The B o u n d i n g C o n d i t i o n ( K o s t e r 1978 b )
162
2.2.4. A p r o p o s a l by Z w a r t s (1978)
167
2.2.5.
174
Subjacency reformulated
2.2 . 5 . 1 . P a r a m e t e r s o f S u b j a c e n c y
175
T he c h o i c e of c y c l i c n o d e s
175
The n u m b e r of c y c l i c n o d e s
177
T he p o s i t i o n o f the c y c l i c
boundaries
'
2.2.5.2.
Strict Subjacency
2.2 . 5 . 3 .
The i n t e r a c t i o n o f G a p p i n g
and WH-movement
178
180
185
3. C o n c l u s i o n s
188
F o o t n o t e s to c h a p t e r 3
191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
195
INDEX
203
CHAPTER 1.
The Syntax of Coordination
T h i s c h a p t e r s u p p o r t s the e x i s t e n c e of s o m e c o o r d i n a t i o n
rules
and
denies
the
existence
considers
coordination
so-called
"initial"
s ented.
This
of
and
of
o t h ers.
constituents.
"non-initialH
description
is
shown
Th e
A
first
description
coordination
to
part
giv e
is
of
pre­
substance
to
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d d i s t i n c t i o n s w i t h i n S- an d V P - s t r u c t u r e s . The
second
part
rules
of
claimed
Gapping
to
dinations.
t io n
considers
an
third
Hypothesis
reviews
and
give
The
coordination
and
nonconstituents.
Backward
Conjunction
exhaustive
description
part
the
reconsiders
Phrasal
the p r e v i o u s l y p r o p o s e d
Reduction,
of
The
Reduction
of
suc h
the S e n t e n c e
are
coor­
Conjunc­
Conjunction Hypothesis,
and
r u les o f F o r w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n
Le f t P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n a n d C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t .
is s h o w n that
It
t h ese r u l e s are s u p e r f l u o u s g i v e n the p r o p o s e d
f o r m u l a t i o n o f the rule of G apping.
1. P H R A S A L C O N J U N C T I O N :
I N I T I A L VS. N O N - I N I T I A L C O O R D I N A T I O N 1
Superficially,
called
initial
the
difference
and non-initial
in the n u m b e r of c o o r d i n a t o r s :
conjunct
dination,
is
(Throughout
w ill
be
preceded
the
by
a coordinator;
this
monograph,
semantic
parallels
e x a m p l e s w i l l be c l e a r e v e n
Dutch
before.
In
t h ose
is not.
the
in
what
is
here
is a d i f f e r e n c e
in i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
leftmost conjunct
not transparent,
between
coordination
English
mo s t
in n o n - i n i t i a l
Compare
a nd
cases.
eac h
coor­
(1) a n d (2).
Dutch
Often,
examples
the
Dutch
to t h ose w h o n e v e r s a w a w o r d of
cases
where
the
Dutch
examples
a li t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n w i l l be g i v e n . )
are
- 2 -
(1) I n i tial C o o r d i n a t i o n
a.
b o t h J o h n a n d Bob a n d Bill
en J a n en B o b e n Bill
b.
e i t h e r J o h n or Bob or Bill
of J a n o f Bob of Bill
(2) M o n - i n i t i a l C o o r d i n a t i o n
a.
J o h n (and) Bob a n d Bill
Jan (en) Bob en Bill
b.
J o h n (or) B ob or Bill
J a n (of) B ob of Bill
In i t i a l
c o o r d i n a t i o n s c a n be f o r m e d
by- c o o r d i n a t o r s such as:
(in E n g l i s h : )
(in Du t c h : )
both
e n ... en ...
... a nd ...
e i t h e r ... o r ...
o f ... o f
neither
noch
Non-initial
... n or ...
...
... n o c h
...
c o o r d i n a t i o n s c a n be f o r m e d b y c o o r d i n a t o r s such
as a n d , o r , n o r in E n g l i s h a nd en, of, n o c h in Dutch.
There
of
initial
English
is an i n t e r e s t i n g
vs.
and
non-initial
Dutch
allow
difference
in
the d i s t r i b u t i o n s
coordinations.
non-initial
In
m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n s as well as for m a j o r p h r a s e s ,
(4),
whereas
initial
coordination
general
coordinations
is
p r o j e c t i o n s o f the l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y only,
allowed
cf.
cf.
for
a. N P : a small bu s or a b i g c a r
ee n k l e i n e b us o f een g r o t e a u t o
b. P P : on o ur p l a t e s n o r in o u r c u p s
op onze b o r d e n n o c h in o n z e k o p j e s
e r g r o o d en e rg b l a u w
both
non­
(3) a n d
maximal
(5) and (6).
(3) N o n - i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the m a j o r p h r a s e
c. AP: v e r y r ed a n d v e r y blue
for
- 3 -
d. VP:
t h a t he w i l l e at a n d w i l l d r i n k
dat hi j zal e t e n en zal d r i n k e n
(4) M o n - i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y
a. N;
a small bus or c ar
e en k l e i n e b us o f auto
b. P:
rig h t a b o v e or b e n e a t h that l i t t l e ch e s t
v l a k b o v e n o f o n d e r dat k l e i n e k a s t j e
c. A:
v e r y red a n d blue
e r g r o o d en b l a u w
d. V:
t h a t he w i l l e at a n d d r i n k
dat hij zal e t e n en d r i n k e n
(5) I n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the m a j o r p h r a s e
a, N P : e i t h e r a small b us o r a b i g car
o f e en k l e i n e b us o f e e n g r o t e a u t o
b, PP: n e i t h e r on o u r p l a t e s n o r in o u r c u p s
.
n o c h op o n z e b o r d e n n o c h in o n z e k o p j e s
c. A P : n e i t h e r v e r y r ed n o r v e r y b l u e
noch erg rood noch erg blauw
d. VP: that he n e i t h e r d id eat n o r w i l l eat
dat hij n o c h h e e f t g e g e t e n n o c h zal e t e n
(6) I n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y
(with the a p p a r e n t e x c e p t i o n o f the E n g l i s h ve r b )
a. N:
a small e i t h e r bus o r c a r
* e e n k l e i n e of b u s o f auto
b. P: * ri g h t e i t h e r a b o v e or b e n e a t h t h a t l i t t l e ch e s t
* v l a k of b o v e n of o n d e r dat k l e i n e k a s t j e
c. A: * v e r y b o t h r ed a n d blue
* e rg zowel r o o d a l s b l a u w
d. V:
that he will b o t h eat a n d d r i n k
d at hij zal e n e t e n en d r i n k e n
This
regularity
lexical
appears
categories
such
to
as
be
f a l s i f i e d by c o o r d i n a t i o n s of
(7)
and
(8),
for
which
super­
*
- 4 -
ficially
both
non-initial
and
initial
coordination
is g r a m ­
matical .
(7) N o n - i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n of the l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y
a. N:
s o n g s an d s t o r i e s abou t g h o s t s
l i e d e r e n en v e r h a l e n o v e r s p o k e n
b. P:
in o r on the chest
in o f op de kast
c. A:
g r e e n o r red w i t h w h i t e d o t s
g r o e n o f r ood m e t w i t t e s t i p p e n
d. V:
tha t he c a l l e d n o r w r o t e to h i s l o v e r
dat hi j b e l d e n o c h s c h r e e f n a a r z i j n l i e f j e
(8) ( A p p a r e n t ) i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the l e x i c a l
categorie
a. N:
b o t h s o n g s and s t o r i e s a b o u t g h o s t s
e n l i e d e r e n en v e r h a l e n o v e r s p o k e n
b. P:
•
e i t h e r in o r on the chest
of in o f op de kast
c. A:
e i t h e r g r e e n or red w i t h w h i t e d o t s
of g r o e n o f r o o d met w i t t e s t i p p e n
d. V:
that he n e i t h e r c a l l e d n o r w r o t e to h i s l o v e r
dat hij n o c h b e l d e n o c h s c h r e e f n a a r zijn l i e f j e
It is d i f f i c u l t to a c c o u n t for the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (6) if
one
assumes
generated
fore,
as
tha t
the
coordinations
initial coordinations
it s e e m s m o r e
reasonable
in
o f N,
to d e r i v e
(8)
are
directly
P, A a n d V.
(8) t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ­
a l l y as i n d i c a t e d in (9).
(9) a. NP: b o t h s o n g s
and s t o r i e s a b o u t
ghosts
en l i e d e r e n
spoken
There­
en v e r h a l e n o v e r
b. PP: e i t h e r in fM é / é V ié é t o r on the c h e s t
of in ié / V ié -é i o f op de kast
c. A P : e i t h e r g r e e n '¿¿.fit
or r e d w i t h
w h i t e d ots
of g r o e n
of r o o d m et w i t t e
stippen
H
d. VP: t h a t he n e i t h e r c a l l e d f - it / V it é / t é f é f n o r
w r o t e to h i s l o v e r
dat hij n o e h b e l d e
noch
s c h r e e f n a a r z i j n liefj e
No
such
'final
part'
deletion
could
have
generated
the
s e n t e n c e s o f (6) f r o m i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f m a j o r p h r a s e s ,
since in the e x a m p l e s o f (6) the c o o r d i n a t e d n o d e s t h e m s e l v e s
are
final.
richer
Under
underlying
coordination
ions
of
ture,
the
assumption
structure,
obeys
that
the
(8)
derives
distribution
a well-defined
pattern:
bu t
nonmaximal
projections
may
of
maximal
a c a t e g o r y m a y f u n c t i o n as c o n j u n c t s
from
in i t i a l
project­
in d e e p
not.
The
a
struc­
apparent
e x c e p t i o n o f V in E n g l i s h in (6) will be d i s c u s s e d below.
In
view
specific
of
the
advantage
g r a m m a t i c a l ity
to
be
d e r i v a t i o n of n o n - i n i t i a l
sume
that
non-initial
gained
of
from
conjunctions.
coordinations
(4),
the
are
t here
is
no
transformational
I will
therefore as­
generated
directly
( c f . s e c t i o n 3.1.).
The
resulting
distribution
of
initial
and
non-initial
c o o r d i n a t i o n s m a y be s u m m a r i z e d b y the p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e rule
s c h e m a t a (10) a n d (11)
(C s t a n d s f o r c o o r d i n a t o r ) :
(10) N o n - i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n
X ------> X
(C X ) n , fo r a n y c h o i c e 2 of X
(11) I n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n
X ------ s»C
X
(C
X)n , where
X
is
an
abbreviation
of
"m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n o f a c a t e g o r y " .
These
rule
schemata
s t r u c t u r e rules,
abbreviate
infinite
as in (10') a n d ( 1 1 ’):
sets
of
phrase
•
- 6
X --- > X
X ----> X
c X
c X c X
X ----> X c X c X c X
etc .
c X c X
c X c X c X
c X c Xt X C X
X --- »
X --- >
X ----- >
etc .
Th e r e
does
is
one
not
p r o p e r t y of i n i t i a l
follow
briefly
here,
further
study.
from the
schema
although
its
Compare
the
coordination
in
(11).
I will
explanation
English
w ill
and
( 1 2 ):
in D u t c h
describe
have
Dutch
that
to
it
await
examples
in
'
(12) a.
The o r i g i n o f e i t h e r h e a v e n o r e a r t h is unk n o w n .
*He t o n t s t a a n v a n o f de h e m e l of de a a r d e is
onbekend.
b.
'
N e a r e i t h e r the i n s t i t u t e or the c h u r c h is a
lunch r o o m .
*
Bij o f he t i n s t i t u u t of de k e r k is een
cafetari a .
c.
The a n s w e r s bot h of M a r y a nd of J o h n s u r p r i s e d
him.
*
De a n t w o o r d e n en v a n M a r i e en v a n J a n v e r r a s t e n
hem.
In E n g l i s h m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n s ,
cal
position,
D utch,
on
dominated
form
only maximal
by
possible
coordination.
S
or
VP
These
are
constituents
of
coordinators
seems
to
behave
speakers
of
matical :
are
(cf. H a n k a m e r 1973,
pair
a l s . ..,
most
initial
the o t h e r hand,
major constituents
One
in no m a t t e r w h i c h h i e r a r c h i ­
grammatical
Dutch,
l ike
the
in
the
coordinations.
In
projections directly
conjuncts
usually
of
a
i nitial
referred
to as
18).
Dutch,
English
following
the
pair
zowel...
coordinators.
examples
are
For
gram­
(13) a. De a n t w o o r d e n zo w e l v a n M a r i e als v a n Jan
v e r r a s t e n hem,
(The a n s w e r s b o t h of M a r i e a n d o f J o h n
s u r p r i s e d him)
b. Hij spr a k m et zov/el J a n als Piet.
(He sp o k e to b o t h J o h n a n d P e t e r )
Observe
that
expressed
rules
by
being
Dutch
phrase
of
fact
major
structure
position
examples
w h ic h , h o w e v e r ,
The
notion
context-free,
hierarchical
the
the
of
in
rule
there
the
(12)
constituency
(11):
is n o
inp u t
pose
phrase
way
node.
a
cannot
to
structure
refer
This
problem,
to
implies
a
be
the
that
solution
of
c a n n o t be o f f e r e d here.
that
in i t i a l
coordination
appears
in
major
p h r a s e s e x c l u s i v e l y c a n a l s o be u s e d as a d i a g n o s t i c m e a n s of
determining phrasal constituency.
In p a r t i c u l a r ,
this m e c h a n ­
ism c an be e m p l o y e d t o w a r d s the d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t D u t c h w o r d
order
is
underlyingly
below,
in s e c t i o n
1.1.,
V P - s t r u c t u r e s . In
SOV.
This
point
will
be
developed
in a c o m p a r i s o n o f D u t c h a n d E n g l i s h
section
1.2.
I wil l
then
briefly
compare
Dutch and English S - s t r u c t u r e s .
1.1. VP S T R U C T U R E S A N D U N D E R L Y I N G S O V
In
Dutch
subordinate
clau s e s ,
all
verbs
are
final,
a l t h o u g h t h e y m a y be f o l l o w e d by S- or P P - c o n s t i t u e n t s , as in
(14) :
(14) a.
..., dat hij t u l p e n zal p l a n t e n
(that he t u l i p s will p l a n t )
b,
dat hij t u l p e n zal p l a n t e n in z i j n v o o r t u i n
(that he t u l i p s w i l l p l a n t in h i s f r o n t g a r d e n )
c.
...,
dat hij de t u l p e n zal planter, d i e hij h e e f t
gekregen
(that he the t u l i p s w i l l p l a n t w h i c h he h a s got)
f
- 8 -
In m a i n c l a u s e s ,
finite verbs usua l l y obtain second position.
All n o n - f i n i t e v e r b s o b e y the p a t t e r n o b s e r v e d in (14).
(15) a. Hij zal t u l p e n p l a n t e n .
(He w i l l t u l i p s p l a n t )
b . Hij zal t u l p e n p l a n t e n in z i j n v o o r t u i n .
(He w i l l t u l i p s p l a n t in his fr o n t g a r d e n )
c. Hij zal de t u l p e n p l a n t e n die hij heeft g e k r e g e n .
(He w i l l the t u l i p s p l a n t w h i c h he h a s got)
Thus,
disregarding
Dutch
subordinate
extraposition
of
S-
and
clauses display SOV word
PP-constituents,
ord e r , w h i l e m a i n
c l a u s e s h a v e S Y O order.
No t
unexpectedly,
the r e
h as
been
some
debate
recently
a m o n g l i n g u i s t s c o n c e r n e d w i t h D u t c h s y n t a x w h e t h e r to d e r i v e
the s u b o r d i n a t e
derive
the
clauses
main
f r o m S VO o r d e r b y V - p o s t p o s i n g or to
clause
from
an
SOV
order
by
V - p r e posing.
S u r v e y s o f the r e s p e c t i v e a r g u m e n t s p r o a n d c o n are p r e s e n t e d
in K o s t e r
(1975)
underlying
a nd T h i e r s c h
order.
coordination
(1978).
basis
of
They both
the
behavior
take
of
c a n be c o n s t r u c t e d f o r the
3
VP-phrase,
clauses
in i t i a l
not w i t h i n
coordination
the v e r b a l
complex
is p o s s i b l e
itself,
(16) a nd (16'):
(16)
S O V as
i n i tial
The a r g u m e n t r u n s as f o l l o w s .
In s u b o r d i n a t e
the
the
in D u t c h a n a r g u m e n t
same p o s i t i o n .
on
On
a. O m d a t J a n en
[ypde r o z e n snoeit]
en
[ypde t u l p e n p l a n t ] ,...
(Because J a n b o t h the r o s e s p r u n e s a n d
the t u l i p s pl a n t s ,
b. O m d a t J a n en
...)
[ypde r o z e n zal s n o eien]
en
[ypde t u l p e n zal p l a n t e n ] , . . .
( B e c a u s e J a n b o t h the r o s e s w i l l p r u n e a n d
the t u l i p s w i l l plant,
...)
cf.
r
- 9 -
(16') O m d a t J a n de r o z e n zal e n
[^.planten]
en
■
[ysnoeien] , ...
(B e c a u s e Ja n the r oses will b o t h p l a n t a n d
p r u n e , ..,)
P r o j e c t i o n s o f V in s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s t hus o b e y the g e n e r a l
pattern
of
init i a l
coordinations,
coordinations:
VPs
may
form
i nitial
bu t Vs m a y not.
N o w c o n s i d e r m a i n c l a u s e v a r i a n t s of (16):
(17) a.
*
J a n en s n o e i t de r o z e n en p l a n t de t ulpen.
(Jan b o t h p r u n e s the r o s e s a n d p l a n t s the tulips)
b.
*
Ja n en zal de r o z e n s n o e i e n en zal de
t u l p e n pl a n t e n .
(Jan b o t h w i l l
the r o s e s p r u n e a n d w i l l the
t u l i p s plant)
(17') J a n zal en de r o z e n s n o e i e n en de t u l p e n p l a n t e n ,
(Jan w i l l b o t h the r o s e s p r u n e a n d the t u l i p s p l a n t )
From
the c r i t e r i a for
t ion
1
(plus
it
nonfinite
whereas
be
follows
i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n d e v e l o p e d in s e c ­
that
in
v erb)
are
(17)
finite
no t
together
object NP plus nonfinite verb
anticipated
is
the
verb
if
(18)
fit
to c a r r y i n i t i a l
plus
object
NP
one
constituent,
in (17')
are. T h i s c an
surface
structure
of
main
and
there
clauses.
VP
is
is
no
a phrase
constituent
daughters
of
VP
to
under
m a t i c a l l y of (17), vs.
unite
one
the
label.
coordination,
finite
This
verb
explains
and
the
the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f (17').
other
ungram­
m
- 10 -
Compare
(18)
with
(18'). A s s h o w n b y (16),
the
structure
of s u b o r d i n a t e
clauses
in s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s all v e r b s are
u n i t e d u n d e r VP.
(18' )
D u t c h V P - s t r u e t u r e in s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e s
Structures
(18)
which moves
and
(18')
presuppose
the f i n i t e v e r b
a
Verb
Fronting
rule
out of the V P , i n m a i n c l a u s e s as
follows:
( 18" )
Verb Fronting
Thus
the
SOV-structure
of
subordinate
clauses
underlies
the
s u p e r f i c i a l SVO o r d e r o f m a i n c l a uses.
By c o n t r a s t ,
which
verb
and
if one a s s u m e s
object
ar e
an u n d e r l y i n g S V O o rder,
members
e x p l a n a t i o n s follow.
Examples
of
VP
(see
(19)),
in
no
'
(17) w ill h ave to be e x c l u d e d b y the ad hoc s t i p u l a ­
t i o n that Dutch,
quite unlike English,
r e q u i r e s the i m m e d i a t e
- 11 -
c o n t i g u i t y of the V P - d o m i n a t e d V and the l e f t m o s t c o n s t i t u e n t
o f the s e n t e n c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
it r e m a i n s a m y s t e r y w h y (17')
is g r a m m a t i c a l .
Given underlying
with
an
initial
rule of V e r b
the
finite
the
verbs
will
be
main clauses
d e r i v e d b y the
in an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d m a n n e r , w h e r e b y
of
all*’c o n j u n c t s
are
moved
out
of
the
T h i s is s c h e m a t i z e d in (20):
the a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d m o v e m e n t
finite
obligatory
coordination of VPs
Fronting
coordination.
Obviously,
S O V w o r d - o r d e r f o r Dutch,
verbs
rule,
are
i d e ntical.
there
Sinc e
is p o s s i b l e
Verb
o n l y if
Fronting
is no m a i n c l a u s e v a r i a n t
4
of
is
an
(21)
in
w h i c h the f i n i t e v e r b s differ:
(21)
..., dat J a n of wint of v e r l i e s t .
(...,
(22)
*
that J a n e i t h e r w i n s or loses)
J a n of w i n t of verliest.
(Jan e i t h e r w i n s or loses)
In E n g l i s h ,
ordinate
the
clauses
distribution of verbs
obeys
SVO-order
in m a i n a n d s u b ­
throughout,
and
initial
c o o r d i n a t i o n of v e r b a l p h r a s e s d i s p l a y s i d e n t i c a l p a t t e r n s in
main
as
well
as
subordinate
clauses
(see
Dougherty
865-7):
(23) a. J o h n n e i t h e r did eat nor will eat.
b.
...,
that J o h n n e i t h e r d i d eat n o r w i l l eat.
1970,
I
- 12 -
(24) a, J o h n b o t h ate soup a n d d r a n k beer.
b.
These
..., that J o h n b o t h ate soup a n d d r a n k beer.
examples
suggest
that A u x a n d VP are t o g e t h e r one c o n ­
stituent.
It f o l l o w s that the s e n t e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e in E n g l i s h
is
in
(25),
than
(26),
as
1977,
48).
as
as p r o p o s e d b y D o u g h e r t y
proposed
by,
e.g.,
(1971,
Jackendoff
315),
(1972,
rather
76;
and
(26)
(25)
NP
VP.
AUX
Furthermore,
NP
the
hitherto
anomalous
AUX
initial
VP
coordinations
s uch as
(27) a. J o h n w i l l b o t h p r u n e the r o s e s a n d p l a n t the
tulips.
b. J o h n d i d n e i t h e r w i n nor lose.
which
disobey
its
Aux
the
internal
the p a t t e r n o f
constituent
structure
of VPs
(29), p r o p o s e d b y S ag (1976,
Only
if b o t h VP s
examples
of
dinations,
(27)
but
in
(28)
obey
this
(6),
suggest
that a VP w i t h o u t
m a y f u n c t i o n as a m a x i m a l
the
can
is
(28)
rather
phrase.
Thus,
than structure
264):
are c a l l e d m a x i m a l p r o j e c t i o n s ,
general
hardly
be
pattern
of
taken
into
initial
account
the
coor­
as
a
s e r i o u s s o l u tion.
Under
this
a n a l y s i s o f E n g l i s h a n d D u t c h VP s t r u c t u r e s ,
the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of the c o m p a r a b l e c o o r d i n a t i o n s in (30) is
e x p l a i n e d d i f f e r e n t l y in b o t h lan g u a g e s .
r
- 13 -
(30) J o h n wi l l b o t h s i n g a song and d a n c e a jig.
( D o u g h e r t y 1970,
865)
Ja n zal en een li e d z i n g e n en e e n t a n g o d a n sen.
For E n g l i s h ,
sing a song
their
the a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d a b o v e c l a i m s tha t the V P s
and
d a n c e a jig
derivation,
are
whereas
for
maximal
Dutch,
phrases
it
is
throughout
claimed
that
een l i e d z i n g e n a n d een t a n g o d a n s e n a re V P s o u t of w h i c h the
finite
verb
description
implies
a
(z a l )
of
crucial
o n l y one verb,
VP and
Dutch
has
the
prediction.
it wi l l
to c o n s t r u e
(cf.
been
(31b)
removed
seemingly
be
across-the-board.
parallel
structures
Thi s
in
(30)
If the u n d e r l y i n g VP c o n t a i n s
possible
to p r e p o s e it out of its
a n i n i t i a l V P - c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h o u t a V in
and
(d) ) . S i m i l a r
cases
in
(31a) a n d ( c )) are c l a i m e d to be u n g r a m m a t i c a l .
English
(cf.
The f a c t s are
e x a c t l y as p r e d i c t e d .
(31) a.
Jo h n g a v e b o t h M a r y an a p p l e a n d P e t e r a pear.
b.
c.
J a n g a f en M a r i e een a p p e l en P i e t e e n peer.
*
J o h n ga v e e i t h e r an a p p l e to M a r y or a p e a r
to P e t e r
d.
Jan g a f of e e n a p p e l a a n M a r i e of e e n p e e r
aan Piet.
1.2. S S T R U C T U R E S
As
may
form
argued
above,
initial
maximal
p r o j e c t i o n s of N,
coordinations.
c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f S:
A,
Let us n o w c o n s i d e r
P,
and V
i n i tial
-
/
x
(32) a.
*
14 -
.
He r e g r e t s the f act e i t h e r t h a t S u s a n m u s t leave
f or A f r i c a or tha t M a r y m u s t l eave f o r E urope.
Hij b e t r e u r t h e t f e i t of dat S u s a n n a a r A f r i k a
g a a t of dat M a r y n a a r E u r o p a gaat.
(He r e g r e t s the f act e i t h e r that S u s a n to A f r i c a
g o e s or t hat M a r y to E u r o p e g o e s . )
b.
*
I am l o o k i n g for s o m e o n e e i t h e r w h o l i v e s n e a r b y
o r w h o still g o e s to scho o l .
*
Ik z o e k i e m a n d of die dic h t bij w o o n t of die
n o g op s c h o o l zit.
(I l o o k for s o m e o n e e i t h e r w h o n e a r b y l i v e s
o r w h o s t i l l to s c h o o l goes)
c.
*
The d i f f i c u l t y e i t h e r f o r P e t e r to b u y f o o d
or f o r J o h n to c o o k d i n n e r is n o t o b v i o u s .
H e t b e z w a a r o f om e t e n te k o p e n of om e t e n
te k o k e n rnaakt g e e n indruk.
(The d i f f i c u l t y e i t h e r f o r f o o d to b u y or
f o r f o o d to c o o k m a k e s n o i m p r e s s i o n )
(33) a.
He r e g r e t s the f a c t that e i t h e r S u s a n m u s t leave
f o r A f r i c a o r M a r y m u s t l e a v e for E u r o p e .
Hi j b e t r e u r t he t f e i t dat of S u s a n n a a r A f r i k a
g a a t of M a r y n a a r E u r o p a gaat.
b.
I am l o o k i n g for s o m e o n e w h o e i t h e r l i v e s n e a r by
or still g o e s to school.
Ik z o e k i e m a n d die of dic h t bíj w o o n t of n o g op
s c h o o l zit.
c,
o
'The d i f f i c u l t y fo r e i t h e r P e t e r to b u y f o o d or
J o h n to c o o k d i n n e r is no t obv i o u s .
H e t b e z w a a r om en e t e n te k o p e n en e t e n te k o k e n
rnaakt g e e n indruk.
Minor
projections
coordinations,
of
S as in
an d m a x i m a l
(33),
form grammatical
projections
of
S
as
in
in i t i a l
(32),
do
- 15 -
not.
According
izers
are
to
related
are
related
are
inseparable
t e nces.
be
some
to
to n o uns.
Thus
an
in i t i a l
opposite
(32)
in
the
theory,
same
complement­
way
determiners
It s h o u l d f o l l o w that c o m p l e m e n t i z e r s
from
the
e x p e cted:
version of X-bar
sentences
coordination
of
bare
pattern of grammaticalities
sen­
is to
is to be as g r a m m a t i c a l as e i t h e r the b o y s
or the g i r l s , a nd
(33)
as ’u n g r a m m a t i c a l
as
the e i t h e r b o y s
or g i r l s .
Apart
f r o m this,
er al
reasons.
First,
tion
between
S
and
(32)
and
observe
S'.
(33)
that
This
are i n t e r e s t i n g f o r s e v ­
they confirm
distinction
is
the d i s t i n c ­
motivated
for
E n g l i s h s e n t e n c e s by the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s in B r e s n a n (1974,
618):
-
(34) a. I c a n tell y o u w h e n
, b u t I c a n ' t tell
y o u w h y he left me.
Ik k an je v e r t e l l e n w a n n e e r
maar
ik k a n je n i e t v e r t e l l e n w a a r o m hij me v e r l i e t .
b.
I've b e e n w o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r
b ut w o u l d n ' t p o s i t i v e l y w a n t to s t a t e that, y o u r
t h e o r y is correct,
Ik v r o e g m e wel af o f
I i i i i i f , /i &, maar
I
ik k on niet b e v e s t i g e n dat j o u w t h e o r i e jui s t is.
The type
of deletion displayed
Conjunction
constituent
Reduction.
only
In
in
(34) is a c a s e of B a c k w a r d
English,
this
rule
deletes
(see s e c t i o n 2 .2..SL. b e l o w ) , -and c o n s e q u e n t ­
ly, the e x a m p l e s in (34) p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e f o r s t r u c t u r e
(35)
one
(35):
_,S'
comp"
In Dutch,
B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n is not r e s t r i c t e d so
as to d e l e t e s t r i n g s w h i c h t o g e t h e r are one c o n s t i t u e n t only.
Therefore,
motivate
the
Dutch
examples
of
(34)
cannot
the c o n s t i t u e n c y of the s h a d e d s t r i n g .
be
used
to
The e x a m p l e s
- 16 -
in
(33)
show,
however,
r e l e v a n t to Dutch,
determining
following
structure
(35)
is
in
some
way­
as well.
Furthermore,
in
tha t
the
the
examples
observed
categorial
suggest
distinction
status
that
of
might
main
declaratives
be
helpful
clauses.
The
are S, w h e r e a s
q u e s t i o n s are S ’:
(36) a.
E i t h e r it r a i n s or the s u n is shini n g .
Of h e t r e g e n t of de z o n s c h i j n t .
b.
E i t h e r y o u w i n o r y o u los e
( D o u g h e r t y 1971, 315)
Of je w i n t of je verli e s t .
(37) a. * E i t h e r doe s it r a i n or is the s u n s h i n i n g ?
* 0 f r e g e n t h e t of s c h i j n t de zon?
b.
E i t h e r w h o w i n s or w h o l o s e s ?
*
However,
beyond
O f w i e w i n t of w i e v e r l i e s t ?
the
the
implications
scope
of
the
of
these
present
observations
stud y ,
and
lie
will
well
no t
be
f u r t h e r p u r s u e d here.
2. C O O R D I N A T I O N S O F N O N C O N S T I T U E N T S
In
general
coordinations
cannot
the
be
of
phrase
structure
constituents.
generated
coordinations.
unless
Here
the
The
rules
can
following
shaded parts
(38)
and
(39)
generate
only
sentences
thus
are
i n c l u d e d in
incorporate
bas e
c o n j u n c t i o n s o f S:
(38) M a x s a i d that J o h n a t e an a p p l e a n d P e t e r
a pear.
M a x zei dat J a n e e n a p pel at e n P i e t e e n p e e r
(39) M a x s a i d that J o h n b o u g h t
I
,
a n d P e t e r ate
an apple.
M a x zei dat J a n een a p pel
en P e t e r e e n p e e r at.
r
_
(38)
is
an
instance
of
17
_
forward
reduction:
junct f o l l o w s the full c o n j u n c t ,
ward
reduction:
the
reduced
the
reduced
con­
(39) is an i n s t a n c e of b a c k ­
conjunct precedes
the full
con­
junct ,
The f a c t s of c o o r d i n a t i o n r e d u c t i o n c o n t r i b u t e to one of
the
earliest
(see
arguments
Chomsky,
worked
out
1957,
since,
fo r
underlying
3 5 ^ ff.).
an d
the
Several
most
syntactic
structures
proposals
interesting
of
have
been
these
are
b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e d in (40):
(40) R O S S & L A K O F F (see R o s s 1967)
1. F o r w a rd C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n a n d B a c k w a r d
Conjunction Reduction
(rules o f l e f t p e r i p h e r a l
a nd r ight p e r i p h e r a l deletion,' f o r m u l a t e d
t o g e t h e r as one m i r r o r - i m a g e rule)
2. G a p p i n g
( d e l e t e s verbs, b a c k w a r d in s o m e l a n g u a g e s
and f o r w a r d in o t h e r s ;
the d i r e c t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d
b y the s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n o f the v e r b )
TAI
,
(1969)
A rule of D e l e t i o n only, w h i c h a p p l i e s f o r w a r d
and backward;
the d i r e c t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d b y the
s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n o f the d e l e t i o n site,
HANKAMER
(1971)
1* D e l e t i o n , a g e n e r a l f o r w a r d d e l e t i n g rule, w h i c h
e f f e c t u a t e s i n t e r n a l an d p e r i p h e r a l d e l e t i o n .
2, D e l a y , right p e r i p h e r a l d e l e t i o n .
S A G (1976)
1. G a p p i n g , f o r w a r d d e l e t i o n o f i n t e r n a l a n d
r i g h t p e r i p h e r a l parts.
2. R i g h t M o d e R a i s i n g , a r i g h t p e r i p h e r a l d e l e t i o n ,
s i m i l a r to B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n .
3. Left P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n , s i m i l a r to F o r w a r d
Conjunction Reduction.
In
this
tio n
c h a p t e r we w i l l
reduction
rules:
s h o w the n e c e s s i t y of t w o c o o r d i n a ­
a
forward
deletion
rule
(Gapping,
I
- 18 -
e x e m p l i f i e d in
Conjunction
be
and a backward
Reduction,
presented
another
(38)),
to
that
the
exemplified
these
extent
rules
that
it
in
differ
is
of
2.1.,
Gapping.
but
subsection
deals
of
Section
with
2.1.
2.2.
Backward
and
2.2.
is
(39)).
(Backward
Arguments
drastically
completely
c o l l a p s e them into one rule schema.
rule
deletion rule
will
from
one
impossible
to
S e c t i o n 2.1. c o n c e r n s the
structured
analogously
Conjunction
concentrates
Reduction.
on
a
to
Each
difference
b e t w e e n G a p p i n g and B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n .
T h i s p r e c e d e s the d i s c u s s i o n o f s e c t i o n 3, w h e r e it wi l l
be
argued
exhaust
th e s e
that
the
rules,
Gapping
number
no
of
and
Backward
Conjunction
coordination reduction
further
rules
are
involved
Reduction
rules.
in the
Next
to
coordina­
ti o n r e d u c t i o n p h e n o m e n o n .
2.1, G A P P I N G
In
this
section
I will
discuss
the f o l l o w i n g t h e o r e t i c ­
a l l y m o s t i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the rule of G apping:
(a) its r e m n a n t s are m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s ;
(b) it is a v a r i a b l e - c h a n g i n g rule;
(c) it is a m u l t i p l e - t a r g e t rule;
(d) the rule is i s l a n d - s e n s i t i v e ;
(e) its d o m a i n s are S',
S, and VP;
(f) a n d the rule m a y a p p l y a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d .
A
(preliminary)
formulation
e n d of t h i s section.
of
Gapping
is
presented
at
the
I
- 19 -
2.1.1. M A J O R C O N S T I T U E N C Y
C o n s i d e r the s e n t e n c e s in (41).
(41) C h a r l e y w r i t e s w i t h a p e n c i l a nd J o h n
w i t h a pen.
a pen.
l i i t p s l i l pen.
*
K a r e l schrij ft me t e e n p o t l o o d en J o h n
met e e n pen.
* é ’t i ï t i i f t / t i é t
e e n pen.
pen.
h ft/ M t M i i
These
examples
s h o w t hat G a p p i n g d o e s not d e l e t e s u b p a r t s of
major constituents
( H a n k a m e r 1973,
18).
2.1.2. V A R I A B L E S AS T A R G E T S FO R D E L E T I O N O R
INTERPRETATION
It is g e n e r a l l y a s s u m e d
change
constituents
function
call
as
this
section
it
only,
contexts
principle
wil l
be
an d
(see,
the
that
Obviously,
is
transformational
a
true
the
rule,
1976,
that
only
Let us
In
of Gapping
is e i t h e r
or
may
312).
condition'.
r ule
consequence
r u l e s can
variables
Chomsky
'constituent
variables.
no t
transformational
that
e.g.,
shown
the
that
this
deletes
that G a p p i n g
transformational
r u l e s are n o t c o n s t r a i n e d so as to c h a n g e c o n s t i t u e n t s only.
From
the
constituent
string deleted by Gapping
grammatical
gapped
condition
f o r m s one
variants
of
(42)
e nce of the c i r c l e d V P - n o d e s in (43);
it
follows
constituent.
that
the
The v a r i o u s
t h e r e b y s h o w the
exist­
?
- 20
(42) I w a n t to try to b e g i n to w r i t e a n o v e l a n d
you
to t r y to b e g i n to w r i t e a play,
isHit11<j>! t f i
to b e g i n to w r i t e a play.
to w r i t e a play.
I iii-iht ! H I t t i ! t i ¡ M t H I M I ' k f i t i a play.
(Ross 1970,
250)
Apart from Gapping, however,
any
known
rule
incompatible
in s t a n c e
Gapping,
of
with
proposed
VP-deletion,
this
rul e
structure
grammar.
(43) is u n s u p p o r t e d b y
Moreover,
analyses
this
o f the VP.
a rul e no t a v a i l a b l e
optionally
results
in
structure
is
C o n s i d e r for
in D u t c h .
J u s t as
different
output
strings:
( 4 4 ) i w a n t to try to begin- to w r i t e a n o v e l ,
but you
don't
wa n t to m i u m m i u i u m i é - i u a i .
w a n t to t r y to M i U I U l i i H U I A / M M t .
wa n t to t r y to b e g i n to it f f t i !
V P - d e l e t i o n thus
of (45):
s h o w s the
existence
.
of the c i r c l e d V P - n o d e s
I
-
21
want
The c o m b i n a t i o n o f (45) a n d (43) le a d s to the f o l l o w i n g p a r a ­
doxical
are
constituent
shown
to
structure,
exist
by
in
Gapping,
which
a nd
the
the
A-constituents
B-constituents
are
s h o w n to e x i s t b y V P - d e l e t i o n :
(46) y o u do n ' t
[R
[
L
[.
L
want].
B1 A4 A3 A2 A 1
[g b e g i n ] A
to
to
L
try]
1
[g write] A
to
2
2
a novel]
B4 B3 B 2 B 1
(or, o m i t t i n g some b r a c k e t s : )
[A w a n t to
If
Gapping
were
c o u l d no l o n g e r be
ce.
It
is
interprets
t h is
shown
variable,
a
constituent
one,
generally
are
chapter
that
the
Stillings
constituent
Gapping
However,
interpreted
2,
deleting
A a novel]
rule,
B„
VP-deletion
o b v i o u s l y an u n a c c e p t a b l e c o n s e q u e n ­
agreed
non-constituents.
position
in
[g t ry to b e g i n to write]
in
the
various
assumes
variable,
either
consequences
ways.
that
should
deletes
a
be
or
of
As
will
be
new
kind
of
added
to
the
ff
- 22 -
inventory
of
descriptive
means
transformational
rules.
Fiengo
transformational
rule,
but
a
available
assumes
ru l e
discussed
assume
for
that
in
the
deletion
chapter
2:
expressing
that G a p p i n g
of
is no t a
interpretation,
a p p l i e s to n o n - c o n s t i t u e n t s . A n d o t h e r s
be
for
which
(whose p r o p o s a l s will
H a n k a m e r , L a n g e n d o e n , and
constituent
condition
transformations.
All
simply
authors
does
Sag),
not
hol d
therefore
agree
that a le s s r e s t r i c t e d t h e o r y s h o u l d be d e v e l o p e d in o r d e r to
c o v e r the G a p p i n g data.
2 .1.3. M U L T I P L E T A R G E T D E L E T I O N
Gapping
sentences,
cf.
deletes
discontiguous
parts
of
coordinated
(47):
(47) a. B e t s y b e l i e v e d P e t e r to be sexy, a n d A l a n
B a r b a r a t<t/i>4 / é ii- f ■ (Sag 1976, 223)
b. Ti m e w a n t e d U d a l l to get the n o m i n a t i o n ,
Newsweek
Carter f
(Sag 1976,
4
/
¿
i
an d
t
•
223)
c. o m d a t K a r e l v o o r g e s t e l d heef't m o s s e l e n te
b e s t e l l e n en H a r r i e
oesters
til'éiitittiii(since K a r e l p r o p o s e d has m u s s e l s to o r d e r a nd
Harrie
oysters H /
d. o m d a t K a r e l v a n p l a n is e e n b o o t te k o p e n en
Harrie
een kampeerauto U l U i U -
(since K a r e l p l a n s has a b o a t to b u y a n d H a r r i e
a camper
These
examples
strings.
show
It f o l l o w s
accepted constraint,
that
Gapping
deletes
th a t G a p p i n g v i o l a t e s
the
constraint
discontiguous
a second generally
tha t o n l y on e t a r g e t m a y
be i n v o l v e d in a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l rule.
2.1.4.
that
the
ISLAND SENSITIVITY
The
key
the
variable
first
various
observation
to n o t i c e
island
constrain
(48)
this
and
the
rule
of
is i s l a n d s e n s i t i v e .
(1971,
constraints
deletion
his examples,
regarding
deleted
20;
"Gapping also
demonstrated
movement
Gapping
in
is
H a n k a m e r was
Ross
transformations"),
obeys
the
(1967)
to
although
g i v e n h e r e in (48) are e x t r e m e l y u n f o r t u n a t e .
a. C o o r d i n a t e S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t :
A l f o n s e c o o k e d the rice, a n d H a r r y
and
ate t he beans.
b . Sentential Subject Constraint :
ÿ
A l f o n s e a te the rice, a nd that H a r r y
the b e a n s is fant a s t i c .
c . C o m p l e x NP C o n s t r a i n t :
* A l f o n s e a te the rice,
fact that H a r r y
These
the
examples
island
cas es)
do
no t
conditions,
disappears.
remnants
of
What
Gapping
a nd I w a s s t u n n e d b y the
the beans.
show
that
since
the
variables
deleted
o n l y one c o n s t i t u e n t
these
examples
do
show
is
s h o u l d be m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s ,
obey
(V in all
that
the
a n d it is
this c o n d i t i o n on the r e m n a n t s w h i c h e x c l u d e s (48). F r o m this
point
of
why
Hankamer
v e s t i g a t e the m a t t e r m o r e t h o r o u g h l y .
-
The
view
one
understands
Island Constraints
variables.
Since
Gapping
themselves restrict
deletes
variables,
did
not
in­
the s c o p e of
it
is
to
e x p e c t e d that these v a r i a b l e s t h e m s e l v e s are c o n s t r a i n e d .
be
The
r e l e v a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n s are t h e r e f o r e :
(49) a.
Coordinate Structure C o n straint:
A l f o n s e c o o k e d the rice a n d the b e a n s a n d H a r r y
“M i / t i i é / W « i
the p o t a t o e s .
A l f o n s k o o k t e de r i j s t e n de b o n e n en H a r r y
K<ié lk t é / $ £ / t i i & t /4ii de a a r d a p p e l s .
f
- 24 -
b.
Sentential Subject C o n s t r a i n t :
T hat A l f o n s e a t e the rice is f a n t a s t i c a n d i W #
Harry
the b e a n s H I
■
* D a t A l f o n s r i j s t at is p r a c h t i g e n
Harry bonen
c . C o m p l e x NP C o n s t r a i n t :
*
A l f o n s e d i s c u s s e d the q u e s t i o n of w h i c h r i c e we
w o u l d eat a n d H a r r y
1
(o f)
which beans
A l f o n s b e s p r a k de v r a a g w e l k e r i j s t we z o u d e n
e t e n en H a r r y
$
welke bonen
4
U tiii ■
yM/
T h i s d e m o n s t r a t e s that the v a r i a b l e i n v o l v e d in G a p p i n g is in
line w i t h the v a r i a b l e of o t h e r rule s o f s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r .
i m p l i e s t h a t G a p ping,
of language,
b e l o n g s to the core of g r a m m a r .
is o f the u t m o s t
differs
2.1.1.
is
in
from
a n d 2.1.2.
a variable
the
Gapping
alleged
Gapping
2.1.5.
on
rules
The
This observation
in o t h e r r e s p e c t s G a p p i n g
sentence
grammar.
rule
than one
The
is
of
t a r g e t m a y be
crucial
of sentence grammar,
may
conditions
a rule
of
that m o r e
rules
phenomena
as
since
sections
a l r e a d y r e v e a l e d that the t a r g e t o f G a p p i n g
an d
rule.
conditions
importance,
other
It
fa r f r o m b e i n g an a d d i t i o n a l p e c u l a r i t y
on
of
give
insight
these,
sentence
in
rules.
grammar
relevance
since
the
status
Further
will
the
involved
to
the
s t u d y of
of
problems
some
for
be p r e s e n t e d in
a n d 2.1.6.
2.1.5.
Gapping
THE D O M A I N S O F G A P P I N G
applies
s h o w n in (50),
(51),
to c o o r d i n a t i o n s
of S 1, S a n d VP, as is
a n d (52), r e s p e c t i v e l y ;
f
- 25 -
(50) a. Who w a n t s to i n v i t e P e t e r a n d w h o
/ t$ I
M ary?
Wi e wil P e t e r u i t n o d i g e n en wie i t f t M a r i e
b.
It is no t c l e a r w h i c h b o o k s are c h o s e n by Mary,
and which books
b y Max.
I
Het is n i e t d u i d e l i j k w e l k e b o e k e n d o o r M a r i e
g e k o z e n z í j n en w e l k e b o e k e n d o o r M a x
iï& t i.
(51) a. E i t h e r J o h n k i s s e d M a r y or M a r y lk f i é é é P eter.
Of Jan heeft Marie gezoend of Marie
¿ ¿ ¿ ¿ M i-
Peter
'
(E i t h e r J a n ha s M a r i e k i s s e d o r M a r i e )Ké4 P e t e r
U U U )
b. The f act that e i t h e r J o h n w e n t to E u r o p e or P e t e r
to S o u t h Africa,
M M
b o t h e r e d h i m a lot. '
H e t f e i t dat o f J a n n a a r E u r o p a z o u g a a n o f
Peter naar Zuid A f rika
zat h e m e r g dwars.
(52) a. J o h n e i t h e r g a v e a b o o k to M a r y or
t
a bunch
o f f l o w e r s to h e r s i s t e r s .
J o h n h e e f t of e e n b o e k a a n M a r y g e g e v e n o f e e n b os
bloemen aan haar zusjes U é é i M .
b. J o h n b o t h t r i e d to p u t h i s c a r in the g a r a g e and
t t u a m
u t
h i s bike in the barn.
J a n p r o b e e r d e zowel z i j n a u t o in de g a r a g e te
z e t t e n als z i j n f i e t s in het s c h u u r t j e t ü
The i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t o r s in (51) an d (52) i n d i c a t e t h a t these
examples
in fact
are c o o r d i n a t i o n s
of S in the f o r m e r a n d VP
in the latter.
In n o n - i n i t i a l
coordinations
is
to
the
impossible
Gapping:
b o t h VP
of G a p p i n g :
determine
domain
of
s u c h as (53),
it
application
of
an d S c o o r d i n a t i o n s m a y h a v e b e e n the input
!
26 -
-
(53) J o h n t r i e d to tell M a r y that she w a s r i g h t a n d
M a x tha t he w a s w r o n g
t<i>/ t 4 t t
tttii-1t< t> It< ktt M a x
that he w a s wrong.
M a x tha t he w a s wrong.
fU titt
J a n p r o b e e r d e Jo te v e r t e l l e n da t ze gelijk h a d en
It m i g h t
(53)
I
Ko
I
Ko t i H i f t i t t i t i da t hi] ongelijk had.
I
Ko t i H a - t i t t i i i dat hij ongelijk had.
be
concluded
indicate
th a t
unconstrained,
since
th ese
sentences.
mechanisms
that
the
be
th i s
derivations
in
sentence has
(53).
is
derivations
are
lo g i c a l form.
As
V
On
underlying
of
to
the
only
represented
hand,
de e p
in
tha t
of
the
fact
case
of
overly
additional
two
structures
differently
is
is a v a i l a b l e to
follow
restrict
other
several
forms
Gapping
interpretation
it w o u l d
problematic
three
that
an
and several
these
at
the
t he
different
level
of
T h i s p o i n t r e m a i n s to be shown, h o w e v e r .
shown
deletes
might
various
invented
unambiguous
derivations
the
formulation
o n l y one
From
should
lirfi dat hi] ongelijk had.
by
(50),
(51)
and
(52),
Gapping
in c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f S ' , S or VP.
lead
one
coordinations
coordinations
to
of
expect
NPs,
of APs,
however,
cannot
Gapping
in
NPs
be
P
and
th a t
in
Q
to
This observation
will
coordinations
in
maintained.
see m s
Gapping
delete
of
coordinations
Of
preferably
N
in
PPs,; A
in
o f QPs.
these possibilities,
occur.
(This
rule
a p p l i e s m o r e f r e e l y in E n g l i s h t h a n in D u t c h ,
of
This,
only
N-Gapping
as s h o w n by the
u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (54b).)
(54)
NP:
a.
One dog w i t h fiv e legs, a n o t h e r
liver, a n d a t h i r d
with a cow's
w i t h n o head.
E e n h o n d m e t v i j f poten,
een tweede $0$$ met een
k o e i e l e v e r , en een d e r d e Wfisi z o n d e r kop.
f.
27
R o m e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n o f C a r t h a g e a n d the H u n ' s
f i i & t t ' i i t o f Rome.
* R o m e s v e r n i e t i g i n g v a n C a r t h a g o en H a n n i b a l s
v a n Rome.
PP:
* S e v e r a l inches, ab o v e the g r o u n d a n d s e v e r a l feet
s e a level.
* E n k e l e c e n t i m e t e r s b o v e n de g r o n d en e n k e l e
meters
*
zee n iveau.
-
, < /
A w e e k ago, or a m o n t h ¿g0, he left f o r NY.
E e n w e e k geleden,
of ee n m a a n d g<£lé<Aéé, v e r t r o k
hij n a a r NY.
-
AP:
* A five y e a r y o u n g e r or 10 y e a r
sister.
*
E e n v i j f j a a r j o n g e r of 10 j a a r
zusje.
•X*
■
f.
He ran a f ew s e c o n d s f a s t e r or a f e w m i n u t e s
to h i s house.
»
Hij liep e n k e l e s e c o n d e n o f e n k e l e m i n u t e n
n a a r huis.
g.
*
QP:
Bill d r a n k m u c h too m u c h or a l i t t l e b i t fbiItfvhi'ih
wine .
if.
W i m d r o n k v e e l te v e e l o f e e n b e e t j e t ü f é i t
wijn.
h.
*
J o h n b o u g h t a l i t t l e b i t m o r e o r a lot
•
* Jan kocht een beetje meer of een heleboel ih é if .
It
m a y be w o r t h w h i l e
tail.
The
rule
of
to c o n s i d e r G a p p i n g
N-Gapping
differs
d i s c u s s e d a b o v e in s e v e r a l re s p e c t s .
to
coordinations
only
similarly constrained:
(see
2.1.5.
in N P s
from
in s o m e
the
de­
V-Gapping
First, V - G a p p i n g a p p l i e s
above),
N-Gapping
is not
?
- 28
•
(55) a. A f t e r the dog w i t h a c o w ' s li v e r died, he w a n t e d
to b uy one I I I
w i t h f i v e legs,
T o e n de h o n d m e t ee n k o e i e l e v e r g e s t o r v e n was,
w i l d e hi j er e e n 1 1 I I m et v i j f p o t e n k o p e n .
(When the dog w i t h a c o w ' s li v e r d i e d had,
w a n t e d he th<=re one //// w i t h f i v e legs buy)
b. A d og w i t h f i v e legs w i l l w i n f r o m one I I I
with
two tails.
E e n h o n d m et v i j f p o t e n zal w i n n e n v a n e e n /////
me t twee s t a a rten.
Observe
that
d og
h o n d ■ In
or
absent
N
this
need
is n o t
not
be
a
case
a
linguistic
present.
V-Gapping
c a n n o t do w i t h o u t a full
(56)
necessarily
N-Gapping,
of d e l e t i o n of
antecedent
on
the
of
other
the
hand
linguistic antecedent.
( D i s c u s s i n g d o gs:)
My f a t h e r once b o u g h t one w i t h five legs.
M i j n v a d e r k o c h t e r e e n s e en m e t v i j f poten.
(5?)
(J o h n s h o w s that he c a n p e e l a p p l e s : )
L o o k at m e ! "i st u m n
K i j k eens!
Second,
2 .1.1.).
however,
*Ik
pears!
A peren
!
V - G a p p i n g d e l e t e s true v a r i a b l e s
If
N-Gapping
deletes
more
(as s h o w n in s e c t i o n
than
a
single
N
or
N' ,
the o u t p u t is u n g r a m m a t i c a l :
(58) a.
*KP e t e r ' s s t o r y ab o u t the e x p l a n a t i o n o f these
sentences,
and Max's m n i A n u n u i m t u m u
of these p h r a s e s .
*
E en v e r h a a l v a n P e t e r o v e r de v e r k l a r i n g v a n d e z e
zinnen,
en
van deze zinsdelen.
v a n Jan
1
'
- 29 -
*
b.
R o m e ' s hope of the d e s t r u c t i o n of C a r t h a g e a n d
Carthage's
*
of Rome.
14>t I P h i I
De h o o p v a n R o m e op de v e r n i e t i g i n g v a n C a r t h a g o
en
/t^izS^izS v a n C a r t h a g o 4>i>/
van R o m e .
*
c.
R o m e ' s attempt, to d e s t r o y C a r t h a g e a n d C a r t h a g e ' s
Af-f-i'slit / t<t /
*
Rome.
De p o g i n g v a n R o m e C a r t h a g o te v e r w o e s t e n en
? M / ] Z v a n
(In Dutch,
N-Gapping
independent
reasons;
Carthago Rome t i /
after
a
genitive
therefore,
.
NP
is
examples
impossible
with
an
for
agentive
p o s t n o m i n a l PP are g i v e n . ) The u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (58) sh o w s
it to be u n l i k e l y that N - G a p p i n g
can be f o r m u l a t e d as a rule
of v a r i a b l e de l e t i o n .
Fina l l y ,
N-Gapping
se e m s
to be m o s t
a c c e p t a b l e in those
c a s e s w h e r e the N d e l e t e d r e s e m b l e s V. Thus,
compare
(59) and
(60) :
(59)
The doll w i t h b l u e eyes of J o h n ' s and
w i t h c u r l i n g h a i r of P e t e r ' s ,
...
De p op m et b l a u w e o g e n v a n J a n en
k r u l l e n v a n Peter,
(60)
met
...
The r e v i e w of J o h n ' s b o o k b y Max,
of J o h n ' s a r t i c l e b y Susan,
and
...
De k r i t i e k v a n M a x op Jans b o e k en ^
v
a
n
H a r r y op Jans a r t i k e l , ...
F u r t h e r s t u d y m i g h t r e v e a l that G a p p i n g of " n o m i n a l " n o u n s is
d i f f e r e n t f r o m G a p p i n g of " v e r b a l " nou n s .
Many
uncertainties
remain
regarding
the
analysis
of
N-Gapping,
b ut the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n N - G a p -
ping
V-Gapping
and
collapsed
into
ping
cour t )
tout
one.
suggest
The
applies
that
domains
are VP,
these
rules
cannot
in w h i c h V - G a p p i n g
S,
and
o b s e r v a t i o n in n e e d of an e x p l a n a t i o n .
S'
only.
be
(or G a p ­
This
is an
?
- 30 -
2.1.6. T H E C O O R D I N A T E S T R U C T U R E C O N S T R A I N T A N D A C R O S S THE-BOARD APPLICATIONS
The
Coordinate
prohibits movement
contained
in
a conjunct.
c a n n o t be moved,
(63)
Structure
Constraint
of a c o n j u n c t ,
Thus,
(R o s s
1967,
89)
a n d m o v e m e n t o f an e l e m e n t
a p p l e s in b o t h
(61)
and
(62)
as s h o w n by (63) a n d (64) r e s p e c t i v e l y ;
W h i c h a p p l e s d o e s J o h n eat a n d d r i n k m i l k ?
W e l k e a p p e l s e e t J a n en d r i n k t m e l k ?
(64) * W h i c h a p p l e s does J o h n eat a n d p e a r s ?
*
W e l k e a p p e l s eet J a n en p e r e n ?
In o r d e r
ment
to c o v e r the
rule,
altered
the
slightly.
rule
Coordinate
First
of Gapp i n g , w h i c h Is n o t a
Structure
observe
that
Constraint
Gapping
move­
must
sets
be
itself
a p a r t f r o m o t h e r rules o f s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r in that it a p p l i e s
to " c o j a c e n t "
and
the
dination :
structures
deletee
ar e
in
(Koster
1978b,
different
216).
conjuncts
The a n t e c e d e n t
of
the
coor­
r
No
other
r ule
of s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r
relates
the
two p o s i t i o n s
l i n k e d by the l o w e r arrow. One m i g h t c o n c l u d e that G a p p i n g in
this
From
respect
another
Coordinate
It
violates
point
appears
that
of
Coordinate
view,
that
by
Gapping
Structure
however,
Structure Constraint
c o n t a i n a p ar t
ly,
the
Gapping
remnants
may
the
not
obeys
the
just as m u c h as W H - m o v e m e n t .
variables
deleted
o f the c o o r d i n a t e d s t r u c t u r e ,
the
Constraint.
be
a
may
n ot
or a l t e r n a t i v e ­
conjunct
or
an
element
c o n t a i n e d in a con j u n c t :
(66)
J o h n e a t s p e a r s an d d r i n k s m i l k a n d P e t e r
ii- t i
apples
■
# J a n eet p e r e n en d r i n k t m e l k en P e t e r
appels
(67) * J o h n e a t s b a n a n a s a n d p e a r s a n d P e t e r
J a n eet b a n a n e n en p e r e n en P e t e r i i t
apples
a p p e l s ¿pi
i>4 f i t '
T h i s s u g g e s t s tha t two p a r t s o f the rule o f G a p p i n g s h o u l d be
clearly
distinguished:
on e
relating
s e n t e n c e a n d the g a p p e d s e n t e n c e ,
the o t h e r
p art
obeys
relating
the
the
complete
anteceding
as i l l u s t r a t e d b y (65), and
r e m n a n t s o f the rule. O n l y the l a t t e r
the C o o r d i n a t e S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t ,
cf.
(66) and
(67). M o r e wil l be sai d a b o u t this d i s t i n c t i o n in c h a p t e r 2.
Ross
Coordinate
(1967,
board phenomena.
out
of
9)
Structure
a class of
Constraint,
the
'e x c e p t i o n s '
so-called
to the
across-the-
It t urns out that a c o n s t i t u e n t m a y be m o v e d
a conjunct
other conjuncts
mentions
in c a s e p a r a l l e l c o n s t i t u e n t s m o v e
as w ell.
See
(68)
t ions i n v o l v e d in the m o v e m e n t ) :
out of
(the a r r o w s l i n k the p o s i ­
32 -
(68) I t ' s p o t a t o e s t h a t J o h n l i k e s , a n d M a r y h a t e s
;
(G r o s u 1972,
220)
D a t is l e t s w a t K a r e l w e l : lust en M a r i e n i e t
A _____________ I
It
is
clear
that
the
t h e - b o a r d fa shion:
rule
of G a p p i n g a p p l i e s
lust.
in an a c r o s s -
it r e d u c e s a c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h an i n f i n i t e
n u m b e r o f c o n j u n c t s , u n d e r i d e n t i t y w i t h the f i r s t co n j u n c t :
(69) a. J o h n eats apples, P e t e r
banan a s ,
M a r y ié - ü
a nd Bill ié - té grapes.
J a n eet a p pels,
banan e n ,
pears,
Piet
peren,
..., en W i m
Marie
druiven.
b. J o h n likes p o t a t o e s a nd M a r y
ItV - ié
p o t a t o e s an d J o h n
bea n s ,
or Mary
beans.
Jan h o u d t v a n a a r d a p p e l s en M a r i e J v a n
bonen,
o f M a r i e W v M # v a n b o n e n en J a n |10yl(dli v a n
aardappels.
The
examples
nation
of
(66),
the
the-board
(67),
Coordinate
application
well.
of
(69)
indicate
Structure
rules
is
that
Constraint
relevant
to
the
and
combi­
across-
Gapping
as
'
There
plain
are
both
the-board
and
and
the
two
a t t e m p t s in the
Coordinate
application
Williams
(1978).
of
recent
Structure
syntactic
Schachter
literature
Constraint
rules:
and
Schachter
rephrases
the
to e x ­
across(1977)
Coordinate
S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t as a C o o r d i n a t e C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i t i o n ,
a
s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e c o n s t r a i n t r e q u i r i n g that
"the c o n s t i t u e n t s o f a c o o r d i n a t e s t r u c t u r e m u s t b e l o n g to
the
same
syntactic
category
and
have
the
same
semantic
f u n c t i o n ”.
Thus,
(70)
function,
is r u l e d o ut b y l a c k o f p a r a l l e l i s m o f s y n t a c t i c
and (71) is r u l e d out f or s e m a n t i c r e a s o n s :
r
- 33 -
(70)
*
It's o d d for J o h n to be b u s y a n d that H e l e n is idle
now.
*
Ik w i s t n i e t of hij k w a m en dat zij w e g b l e e f .
(I k n e w n ot w h e t h e r he c a m e a n d that she s t a y e d
a w a y .)
(71)
J o h n ate w i t h hi^_ m o t h e r a n d w i t h g o o d a p p e t i t e .
J a n at m e t z i j n m o e d e r en m e t v e e l s m a a k .
Schächter claims
that t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n c o v e r s
Structure
Constraint
ceptions.
The
underlying
rule application
and
thus
obey
untouched
problem
the
is
how
with
idea
to
the
th a t
by
are
Constituent
syntactic
Coordinate
and
ex­
across-the-board
still parallel
Condition.
Left
crucial notion of parallelism.
define
Schächter's
the C o o r d i n a t e
across-the-board
conjuncts
Coordinate
is
the
is
coordinate
the
however
Therefore,
together
semantic
Constituent
The
sameness.
Condition
can
be s e e n as a r e s t a t e m e n t o f the p r o b l e m at best.
Williams
the-board
torized
rule
(1978)
gives
a
applications.
simultaneously,
as
formalized
Coordinate
illustrated
account
of
structures
in
(72),
acrossare
fac-
a structure
to w h i c h the rule of W H - m o v e m e n t is a p p l i c a b l e :
(72) C O M P
[John saw
who] s
[Bill hit
wh o ] s
1
2
and
4
3
A p p l i c a t i o n o f W H - m o v e m e n t to this f a c t o r i z a t i o n y i e l d s
(73),
A c o p y of w h o is p l a c e d in C O M P a n d f a c t o r 3 is d e l e t e d :
(73) C O M P
[John sa w
who
[Bill hit
Williams'
proposal
factor contained
board
implies
*
}s
*
Is
that
in a c o o r d i n a t e
application,
sin c e
torized simultaneously.
a nd
the
only
structure
coordinate
way
to
change
a
is b y a c r o s s - t h e -
structures
m u s t be
fac-
r
- 34 -
Furthermore,
the
32)
Williams
factorization
5
the
. In
effect,
ol d
result:
of
Coordinate
must
Structure
separate
condition
(Williams
on the n o t i o n
Constraint
of a c o n j u n c t
apply
a
structures
this constraint
movement
conjunct
proposes
coordinate
across-the-board,
'factor'
yield
or an e l e m e n t
t he
contained
or e l s e
on
1978,
and
s ame
in a
the o u t p u t
is
ungrammatical.
This
nomena
ingeneous
in
terms
a dds
to Ross'
to r s
count
of
account
of the c o o r d i n a t e
factorization
of structural
analysis a mechanism
as
"parallel".
It
structure phe­
descriptions
that s p e c i f i e s w h i c h f a c ­
predicts
t hat
object-who
and
m o r e e m b e d d e d s u b j e c t - w h o are p a r a l l e l in (74), w h i l e o b j e c t who
and
equally
embedded
subject-who
in
(75)
are not paral­
lel:
(74) a. I k n o w the m a n w h o J o h n l i k e s a n d we h o p e w i l l
win.
b. C O M P
%
(75) a.
b.
For some
is
not
[John l i k e s
who] s
[we h o p e
[who
and
will win]g]g
I k n o w a m a n w h o Bil l s a w a n d l i k e s M ary.
COMP
f\
reason,
[Bill s a w
w h o ]s
[who
the
reproducible
difference
in
Dut c h ,
an d
likes Mary]g
illustrated
neither
in
in (74) a n d (75)
relative
clauses,
n o r in W H - q u e s t i o n s :
'
(74') a. *Ik ken de m a n d i e h i j a a r d i g v i n d t e n w i j h o p e n
da t zal w i n n e n .
■
(I k n o w the m a n w h o he l i k e s a n d w e h o p e t hat
wi l l win)
b. * W i e v i n d t hij a a r d i g e n h o p e n zij d a t zal
winnen?
(Who d o e s he l ike a n d h o p e t h e y t h a t w i l l
w in?)
F
- 35 -}f
(75') a.
Ik k e n de m a n d i e hij a a r d i g v i n d t e n h a a r zag.
(I k n o w the m a n w h o he l i k e s a n d h e r saw)
#
Wie v i n d t hij a a r d i g e n z a g h a a r ?
(Who d o e s he like a n d saw he r ? )
Observe
that
surface
filter
the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of
prohibiting
(74')
e m p t y N Ps
is n o t due to the
a f t e r d a t , as
s h o w n by
(74").
(74") a. Ik ke n de m a n d i e wij h o p e n d a t zal w i n n e n .
(I k n o w the m a n w h o we h o p e t h a t w i l l win)
b. Wie h o p e n zij d a t zal w i n n e n ?
(Who hope t h e y that will w i n ? ) ”
See Mali-ng and' Z a e n e n
(1978)
a nd
the r e f e r e n c e s c i t e d •there.
The u n i v e r s a l i t y W i l l i a m s c l a i m s f or h i s d e f i n i t i o n of f a c t o r
is thus c h a l l e n g e d .
For u n c l e a r r e a s o n s D u t c h d i f f e r s in this
r e s p e c t f r o m E ngli s h .
O ne fin a l p r o b l e m for the n o t i o n o f s i m u l t a n e o u s f a c t o r ­
i z a t i o n is w o r t h p o i n t i n g
out.
C o n s i d e r s e n t e n c e s such as in
(76), s t r u c t u r e d as in (77).
(76) a. J o h n gave the b o o k to M a r y a n d ) < / $ & / 4
the r e c o r d to Sue, or JóV ufi/ié-fi the b o o k to Sue
and
the r e c o r d to Mary.
J a n g a f h e t b o e k a a n M a r y en f & i i /
Sue,
of
de p l a a t a a n
h e t b o e k a a n Sue en ï M / m
de p l a a t a a n Mary.
b. J o h n i n v i t e d Sue a n d M a x
id Sue a n d J o h n %
Ma r y ,
\
J o h n v r o e g S u s a n en M a x i t a t
S u s a n en J o h n
Marie.
or M a x
Mary.
Marie,
of Max
f
-
In
(76),
an
element
of
36 -
S4 ,
Sg ,
and
Sg
is
deleted
under
i d e n t i t y w i t h an e l e m e n t of Sg. O b s e r v e t h a t t h i s d e l e t i o n is
possible
parts.
only
The
if
S 2 , S 4 , Sg,
and
Sg
d e l e t i o n is not p o s s i b l e
a n d S 4 are
identical
all
contain
identical
in case o n l y p a r t s of
to p a r t s of Sg a n d S g r e s p e c t i v e l y (see
(78) ):
(78) a.
*
J o h n gave the b o o k to M a r y a n d he h a n d e d the
r e c o r d to Sue,
or M U M
the b o o k to Sue a n d
the r e c o r d to Mary.
*
J o h n g a f h e t b o e k a a n M a r y en hij o v e r h a n d i g d e
de p l a a t a a n Sue, of
h e t b o e k a a n Sue
en
p l a a t a a n Mary.
b. * J o h n s aw Sue a n d M a x i n v i t e d Mary,
Sue a n d J o h n
or M a x
Mary.
J a n z ag S u s a n en M a x v r o e g Mari e ,
of Max
S u s a n en J a n i r f i i t Marie.
In o r d e r to d e r i v e
that
and X 2
in
(76) a nd e x c l u d e
(79)
are
(78), W i l l i a m s s t i p u l a t e s
identical,
w h e r e a s X 1 a n d X~ in
(80) are not:
(79)
X,
[„ J o h n g a v e
...
[q J o h n g a v e
X,
...
6
L
'
(80)
X,
„ J o h n gave
2
0
0
[„ J o h n g a v e
X 2=
6
[Q he h a n d e d
„ he h a n d e d
4
8
-
8
...
F
- 37 -
This
implies
prior
that a d e f i n i t i o n o f i d e n t i t y n e e d s to r e f e r to
application
W il l i a m s '
relates
account
the
the-board
of
Ga p p i n g ,
is
interesting,
Coordinate
w h i c h is a p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m .
however,
Structure
r ul e a p p l i c a t i o n
in
that
Constraint
and
in an e x p l i c i t way.
it
cor­
across-
Further study
m i g h t s olve the p r o b l e m s n o t i c e d above.
2.1.7. C O N C L U S I O N :
T H E F O R M U L A T I O N OF G A P P I N G
The p r e s e n t l y m o s t
of
Gapping
was
important characteristic
pointed
out
r ule of s e n t e n c e gr a m m a r .
has been
410)
section
o f the rule
2.1.4.:
Gapping
is a
In the rec e n t l i t e r a t u r e t h i s p o i n t
the s u b j e c t of s ome debate. H a n k a m e r a n d Sag (1976,
suggest
Sag’
s
in
that
statement
Gapping
is
(1976,
192)
indeed
apply
a rul e
to
of
t his
discourse,
effect
although
is w o r d e d
m ore
carefully:
"Gapping
ca n
in
discourse,
at
least
some­
times .
(3.1.7.) S p e a k e r A: J o r g e is p e e l i n g an apple.
S p e a k e r B: A n d I van 0 a n o range.
It's
not
like
this.
to be
is
at all clear,
ho w e v e r ,
The d i s c o u r s e
a p e c u l i a r cas e
actually
a
in
what
(3.1.7.)
to m a k e
of e x a m p l e s
s e e m s to s o m e p e o p l e
of two p e o p l e c o l l a b o r a t i n g on w h a t
single
sent e n c e ,
in
which
case
Gapping
s h o u l d p e r h a p s be r e s t r i c t e d to si n g l e s e n t e n c e s . A l t e r n a ­
tively,
discourse
one
might
grammar,
argue
bu t
begin with conjunctions,
like
( 3 . 1.7.)
that
that
Gapping
s in c e
is
Gapped
a
rule
clauses
of
must
it is o n l y in p e c u l i a r s i t u a t i o n s
that G a p p i n g ca n a p p l y i n t e r s e n t e n t i a l l y ."6
It a p p e a r s to me t hat this p r o b l e m c o n c e r n i n g the st a t u s
of
the
rule
formulation
of
of
Gapping
the
rule.
is
in
fact
closely
In p a r t i c u l a r :
it
related
has
been
to
the
agreed
u n a n i m o u s l y that in the rul e of G a p p i n g b o t h the full a n d the
?
- 38 -
reduced
conjunct
s h o u l d be m e n t i o n e d .
ive f o r m u l a t i o n o f the rule,
In t his
jand, or)
A
w2
B
1
2
3
4
5
6
W1
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
w
ents,
T h i s y i e l d s an e x t e n s ­
as in (81);
1
formula,
one
W3
W is a true v a r i a b l e
constituent,
variables
or zero),
To m y k n o w l e d g e ,
peculiar
rule
r ules o f s e n t e n c e
conjuncts
there
are
B'
10
W3
11
8
0
10
0
2
(a s t r i n g of c o n s t i t u ­
of
a
of
fo r
coordination.
identity
presumably
sentence
on the
to
Furthermore,
grammar.
There
(81) is a
are
no
other
to the i n t e r i o r of the
Observe
that
the
antecedent
s t r u c t u r a l c h a n g e s of the rule,
and parallelism.
related
in S a g ' s (3.1.7) is a
is n o o t h e r rule of s e n t e n c e
grammar which apply
string has no bearing
except
9
(one c o n s t i t u e n t or zero).
g r a m m a r w h i c h s p r e a d s a c r o s s s p eake r s .
very
W
8
and A a n d B are c o n s t i t u e n t
To t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n the d i s c o u r s e
problem.
A1
semantics,
But
these
n ot
to
two
notions
sy n t a x .
Thus,
t here s e e m s to be no s y n t a c t i c m o t i v a t i o n to m e n t i o n the full
anteceding
s e ntence.
On
tion of Gapping would
(76)
(some
of
them
the c o n t r a r y ,
run i n t o
repeated
the
extensive formula­
t r o u b l e w i t h e x a m p l e s such as
here
for
convenience
in
(82)).
O b s e r v e that the d o m a i n o f (81) c a n n e v e r be d e f i n e d so as to
include
(82)
(82), bu t to e x c l u d e
(83):7
J o h n i n v i t e d Sue a n d M a x
M ary,
or M a x
Sue a n d J o h n f s j i i i t i f i Mary.
J o h n v r o e g S u s a n en M a x
S u s a n en J o h n
Ma r i e ,
of M a x
M arie.
(83) * J o h n i n v i t e d Sue a n d M a x t ' é ' f i t i é M ary,
t r f i i i t é i Sue a n d J o h n
J o h n v r o e g S u s a n en M a x i r f é é i Ma r i e ,
ffié i
or M a x
i n v i t e d Mary.
S u s a n en J o h n v r o e g M arie.
of M a x
F
- 39 -
For
t hese
r e a sons,
the
extensive
formulation of Gapping must
be r e j e c t e d an d we p o s t u l a t e a s m a l l - s c a l e f o r m u l a t i o n in i ts
a
place;
(84) G a p p i n g
W.
1
1
While
A
5
adequacy
at
==>
will
h ave
l east
grammar
Fo r
constituent,
The
is
one
0
2
to
be
clear
0
4
0
demonstrated,
point
in
its
this
favor
a
very
Ways
(the
between
2
will
observed
2.1,4.
constituent
(cf.
that- f a c t o r s
1-5
De
Haan
are
one
as no s u r p r i s e h o w e v e r ,
and
3,
be
formulation
the
in
rule
2.1.1.
so
(the
of
the
as
to
remnants
that
r ule
meet
are
are
S',
S
an d VP)
Furthermore,
string
discussed.
in
major
will
and
be d i s c u s s e d
chapter
an d the
It
will
of
the
(the rule o b e y s I s l a n d C o n s t r a i n t s )
domains
wil l
come
constrain
the a n t e c e d i n g
(84)
single
implies
unconstrained
to
constituents),
chapters
a
this
a d e s i r a b l e result.
characteristics
2,1.5.
form
(84)
observation
a
Ga p p i n g .
by
W„
V, ,O
it t r i g g e r s the c o n v e n t i o n t hat the f a c t o r s o f a rule
74),
(84)
4
has
sentence
1977,
3
it s
priori:
B
d
2
formulation
of
W0
2
the
in
relation
deleted string omitted
be
claimed
that
this
r e l a t i o n c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d in s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r .
2.2. B A C K W A R D C O N J U N C T I O N R E D U C T I O N
It c a n be
rule
of
juncts
which
the rul e
are
s h o w n in at
Backward
precede
of G a p p i n g
serious
enough
l e a s t five s e p a r a t e w a y s t h a t the
Conjunction
the
final
(a f o r w a r d
to
prohibit
t hey ca n be l a i d ou t as f o l lows.
Reduction
(reduction
conjunct)
re d u c t i o n ) .
a
collapse
is
in
con­
different
from
These differences
of
the pair,
and
E
- 40 -
2.2.1. M A J O R C O N S T I T U E N C Y
The g a p p i n g e x a m p l e s in
the p a r a l l e l
backward
tical.
indicates
This
(85)
are u n g r a m m a t i c a l , w h e r e a s
reduction examples
that
Gapping,
in
but
(86) are g r a m m a ­
not
Backward
Con­
j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n l e a v e s m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s b e h ind.
(85) a. * J o h n is c o n f i d e n t of a s u c c e s s f u l o u t i n g a n d
Peter H
d e p e n d e n t on £ /& $ ¿ i é é é t ' k t /
* J a n is vol h o o p op e e n g o e d e a f l o o p en P e t e r
Ü
b.
a f h a n k e l i j k v a n é é iï/ É é é é é / é - t té<t>i> •
J o h n c a m e up w i t h e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h a t p r o p o s a l
an d M a x ÊéiAé / $ ■
$ a r g u m e n t s in s u p p o r t of
Jan leverde bewij z e n tegen dat v o o rstel en Peter
lé té M é
(86) a.
argumenten voor i.& .tlir M t& tit ■
J o h n is c o n f i d e n t of
tiM t ,
M/
a n d P e t e r is d e p e n d e n t o n a s u c c e s s f u l
o u t i n g at the track,
(Ross 1967)
J a n is vol h o o p op
en P e t e r is a f h a n k e l i j k v a n e e n
goe d e a f l o o p v a n de o n d e r n e m i n g ,
b.
J o h n came up w i t h e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t
a n d P e t e r a d d u c e d .arguments in s u p p o r t o f that
proposal.
Jan leverde bewijzen tegen
en Peter
v o e r d e a r g u m e n t e n a a n v o o r dat v o o r s t e l .
It
w as
should
shown
be
in
major
(41)
above
constituents.
that
(86)
the
remnants
shows
that
of
Gapping
there
such restriction on Backward Conjunction Reduction.
is no
- 41 -
2.2.2.
The
T HE T A R G E T OF B A C K W A R D C O N J U N C T I O N R E D U C T I O N
English
u s e d as a test
tal
(1974,
rule
of
Backward
Conjunction
for constituency by Hankamer
125)
a nd
English
the
rule
Consider
(87) an d (88)
Bresnan
deletes
(1974).
one
It
single
( B r e s n a n 1974,
Reduction
(1971, 96),
appears
fi n a l
is
Pos­
that
in
constituent.
615):
(87) He t r i e d to p e r s u a d e t h e m
but
he c o u l d n ' t c o n v i n c e t h e m that he w a s right.
(88) a. * H e t r i e d to p e r s u a d e $$. 4$/t
f
t
&
, but
t
he c o u l d n ' t c o n v i n c e t h e m that he w a s right.
b. * H e t r i e d to p e r s u a d e t ^ s h i I I P h & t l ' s h < i l ' b & &
H i U , b ut he c o u l d n ' t
c o n v i n c e the s t u d e n t s
that he w a s right.
F or t h i s r eason,
B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n in E n g l i s h is
c o n s i d e r e d as a R i g h t N o d e R a i s i n g b y the l i n g u i s t s m e n t i o n e d
above.
The
effects
p r e s e n t e d in (89)
of
this
raising
( M a l i n g 1972,
are
schematically
re­
103):
(89)
The
particular
by
the
structural
argument
that
change
it
of
(89) m i g h t
automatically
be b a c k e d up
accounts
for
the
i n t o n a t i o n a l b r e a k b e f o r e the r a i s e d node.
The
fact
that B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n
is a r u l e w h i c h d e l e t e s (or moves)
Backward
Conjunction
variables)
In
analyzed
and
Gapping
(which
deletes
c a n n o t be c o l l a p s e d to one r u l e in E n g l i s h .
Dutc h ,
as
Reduction
in E n g l i s h
a c o n s t i t u e n t i m p l i e s that
Backward
Conjunction
a m o v e m e n t rule,
m a y be dele t e d .
Reduction
cannot
be
si n c e m o r e t h a n o n e c o n s t i t u e n t
C o n s i d e r the e x a m p l e s in (90),
in w h i c h
(res­
- 42 -
pectively)
PP
plus
S',
NP
plus
V
plus adverbial
S',
a n d NP
p l u s PP are deleted:
(90) a. Hij h e e f t n i e t o p e n l i j k v e r t e l d
m a a r hij h e e f t wel d u i d e l i j k g e m a a k t
a a n h e n da t hij origelijk had,
(He h a s n o t pufcilicly tol d ti> / itt é ti/ iÏÏè - t/%<£
but he h a s (adv.) c l e a r m a d e to t h e m
that he w r o n g h a d - b e e n )
b. He t is de g e w o o n t e dat ik v o o r h e m
tééifitiiï/i'éé f/'fié /Ü éé ïrtrté iï en hij
v o o r mij de k a a r t e n
s c h u d t v o o r we b e g i n n e n .
(It is the c u s t o m that I for h i m
a n d he f o r me the c a r d s s h u f f l e s
u n u iM / m m
b e f o r e we start)
c. Je k u n t e e n b e r o e p d o e n op u a n m
u t u m
i
H H - / &i i / 9 M M
of g e b r u i k m a k e n
v a n di e i n f o r m a t i e bij h e t b e a n t w o o r d e n v a n die
M t !M
vraag.
(You ca n a n a p p e a l m a k e to f V k i f / X t t ^ f ^ t i - 4 ^ / W
o r u s e m a k e of that
i n f o r m a t i o n in a n s w e r i n g that q u e s t i o n )
For
this
cannot
remains
reason,
be
to
languages
the
considered
be
are
deletion
a
explained,
different
process
Right
of
on
Node
course,
this
illustrated
in
Raising
in
why
the
rules
since
in
point,
(90)
D utch.
in
all
It
both
other
r e s p e c t s t h e y are v e r y s i m ilar.
2.2.3. O N E T A R G E T D E L E T I O N
Gapping
tences
(cf.
deletes discontiguous parts
of c o o r d i n a t e d
(91)).
Reduction
Backward
Conjunction
sen­
is d i f f e ­
r ent f r o m G a p p i n g in that it does no t d e l e t e d i s c o n t i g u o u s l y :
- 43 -
(91) a.
A r izona elected Goldwater Senator,
Pennsylvania
and
Schweiker
( J a c k e n d o f f 1971,
~
24)
A r i z o n a k o o s G o l d w a t e r tot p r e s i d e n t en
Pennsylvania t ié é
b.
Sch w e i k e r U t H H i i U U .
M a x w r i t e s p&.et ry in the b a t h r o o m a n d S c h w a r z
r a d i c a l p a m p h l e t s jiyi/
M a x s c h r i j f t p o e z i e in de b a d k a m e r e n S c h w a r z
é itifïiît
c.
p a m f l e t t e n iii/ 4 i/ Î> & ( z W s W .
J a c k b e g g e d E l s i e to g e t m a r r i e d a n d W i l f r e d
Phoebe
M U M
J an v r o e g E l s i e m e t h e m te t r o u w e n e n W i l f r e d
if M i
Phoebe
(92) a, ^ A r i z o n a 4 t 4 4 t é $ G o l d w a t e r $44-&t<tt, a n d
Pennsylvania elected Schweiker Senator.
^Arizona
G o l d w a t e r t<t>t j H i i i M t t
en
’
P e n n s y l v a n i a k o o s S c h w e i k e r tot p r e s i d e n t .
b. * M a x i t f f i é é p o e t r y i r h
I t t y
i and Schwarz
w r i t e s r a d i c a l p a m p h l e t s in the b a t h r o o m .
Max u u t m
poezie
en Schwarz
s c h r í j f t p a m f l e t t e n in de b a d k a m e r .
c. * J a c k
E l s i e t4 ! A i t ! th ê .ttt4 4 a n d W i l f r e d
b e g g e d P h o e b e to get m a r r i e d .
J a n f t 4 4 i E l s i e tfr4t/iTMort/t i /
en Wilfred
v r o e g P h o e b e m e t h e m te t r o uwen.
2.2.4.
ISLAND SENSITIVITY
Unlike
Gappi n g ,
island-sensitive.
ture C o n s t r a i n t
Backward
It p r e s u m a b l y
in E n g l i s h
Conjunction
obeys
the
Reduction
Coordinate
is
not
Struc­
(see t he u n g r a m m a t i c a l e x a m p l e in
(93a)), b u t it v i o l a t e s the S e n t e n t i a l S u b j e c t a n d C o m p l e x NP
Constraints :
- 44 -
(93) a.
Coordinate Structure Constraint:
* A l f o n s e c o o k e d the b e a n s
and Harry
c o o k e d the p o t a t o e s an d the rice.
A l f o n s k o o k t e b o n e n é ji/ t i i i t
en Harrie kookte
a a r d a p p e l s e n rijst.
b.
Sentential Sübgect C o n s t r a i n t :
That A l f o n s e c o o k e d t t y é / t ï i i a n d t h a t H a r r y ate
the rice is f a n t a s t i c .
Dat A l f o n s de r i j s t ¡zSjié .t en dat H a r r y de
a a r d a p p e l s o p a t is f a n t a s t i s c h .
c.
C o m p l e x NP C o n s t r a i n t :
A l f o n s e d i s c u s s e d the q u e s t i o n o f w h i c h rice
i
i
a n d M a r y d i s c u s s e d the q u e s t i o n
é
o f w h i c h b e a n s we w o u l d eat.
A l f o n s b e s p r a k de v r a a g w e l k e rijst
•if-it en H a r r y b e s p r a k de v r a a g w e l k e
b o n e n we
z o u d e n eten.
Th e s e c o m p a r a t i v e l y u n r e s t r i c t e d a p p l i c a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l ­
ities
allowed
other
embeddings
to
Backward
Conjunction
as
First
we l l .
Reduction
observe
a p p l i e s to t o p m o s t c o o r d i n a t e d s e n t e n c e s .
in
S 2 under
identity
with
S ^ , b ut
not
w i t h Sg in a s t r u c t u r e s u c h as (94):
The f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s i l l u s t r a t e this:
that
surface
Gapping
in
only
G a p p i n g is p o s s i b l e
in
under
identity
- 45 -
(95)
S u s a n s a i d that h e r b r o t h e r w a s ill a n d M a r y
that h e r s i s t e r w a s ill.
ié - i i
S u s a n zei dat h a a r b r o e r t j e z i e k w a s en M a r i e
dat h a a r z u sje z i e k was.
té i
(96)
S u s a n s a i d that h e r b r o t h e r w a s ill a n d M a r y
s a i d that h e r s i s t e r i i & i / i t t ■
S u s a n zei d a t h a a r b r o e r t j e z i e k w a s en M a r i e
zei dat h a a r zus j e
Backward
Conjunction
.
Reduction
on
the
other
hand
deletes
e l e m e n t s w h i c h are c o n j u n c t - f i n a l , w h e t h e r e m b e d d e d or not:
(97)
Susan
that h e r b r o t h e r w a s ' i l l a n d M a r y s a i d
tha t h e r s i s t e r was ill.
* Susan H f
dat h a a r b r o e r t j e z i e k w a s en M a r i e zei
dat h a a r z u sje z i e k was.
(98)
S u s a n s a i d that h e r b r o t h e r i t é , é / t ït a n d M a r y sai d
tha t h e r s i s t e r w a s ill.
S u s a n zei dat h a a r b r o e r t j e
en M a r i e zei
dat h a a r z u sje z i e k was.
In
this
leled
by
s u c h as
respect,
any
"late
Backward
ru l e
of
stylistic
Conjunction
sentence
R e d u c t i o n is u n p a r a l ­
grammar.
Only
housekeeping rule"
a description
s e e m s to a p p r o a c h
its c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
2.2.5.
T H E D O M A I N S OF B A C K W A R D C O N J U N C T I O N R E D U C T I O N
Backward
Conjunction
Reduction
a p p l i c a t i o n to a s p e c i f i c d o main:
of all s o r t s o f c o n s t i t u e n t s .
is
not
restricted
in
it a p p l i e s to c o o r d i n a t i o n s
46 -
(99)
VP:
a. I a m c o n f i d e n t of
an d d e p e n d e n t on a s u c c e s s f u l o u t i n g at the track,
Ik v e r t r o u w op
en b e n a f h a n k e l i j k v a n een g o e d e a f l o o p v a n de
onderneming. .
NP:
b. J o h n i n t e r v i e w e d p e o p l e w h o like
an d p e o p l e w h o d i s l i k e p o t a t o e s .
Ja n o n d e r v r o e g m e n s e n di e wel
f.é 'ié é é en m e n s e n di e n i e t v a n a a r d a p p e l s
PP:
h ouden.
-
c. J o h n w a s s t a n d i n g o n a n e w
tab l e . -
■
.
o r on an old
■
J a n s t o n d op e e n n i e u w U t é ï t ê i o f op e e n o u d
taf e l t j e .
.
d. J o h n j u m p e d o v e r t h r e e ¿ é t é t o r o v e r f o u r g a t e s .
Ja n s p r o n g o v e r d rie yi4)£iéé o f o v e r v i e r he k j e s .
Furthermore,
there are no r e s t r i c t i o n s o n the c a t e g o r y o f the
d e l e t e d el e m e n t :
and
examples
throughout
thi s
in (99) N or N P is d e l e t e d ,
of
deletion
section.
of
other
in (98) V P s are,
categories
a re
given
F r o m t h i s a n d the o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s
between Gapping and Backward Conjunction Reduction enumerated
above
it
Backward
follows
that
the
two
Conjunction' Reduction
rules
is
an
cannot
be
collapsed.
e x t r e m e l y a w k w a r d rule
in that it v i o l a t e s n e a r l y e v e r y v i a b l e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t .
In
the
absence
of
a
sufficiently
developed
theory
of
t hese
p h e n o m e n a we w i l l leave the r ule at t his u n d e v e l o p e d stage.
- 47
3. L I M I T A T I O N S IN D E S C R I P T I V E D E V I C E S
Having
shown
and Backward
the
independence
Conjunction
of
Reduction,
the
rules
we will
of
Gapping
in t h i s s e c t i o n
s u b s t a n t i a t e the c l a i m m a d e in the i n t r o d u c t i o n to this c h a p ­
ter,
in
that
a
these
rules
description
compare
the
of
are
the
Sentence
Conjunction
Conjunction
Hypothesis,
junction
to be p r e f e r r e d .
rules
is
of
Forward
only transformations
coordination phenomena.
Hypothesis
and will
conclude
S econd,
Conjunction
D e l e t i o n a nd C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t
required
Fir s t ,
we
will
and the P h r a s a l
that p h r a s a l
we w i l l
Reduction,
argue
Left
con­
that
the
Peripheral
are u n n e c e s s a r y o r i n a d e q u a t e
d e s c r i p t i o n s of the c o o r d i n a t i o n p h e n o m e n a .
'
3.1. P H R A S A L C O N J U N C T I O N vs. R E S T R U C T U R I N G / R E L A B E L I N G
Generative
grammar has
its d e s c r i p t i v e
devi c e s .
cal
rules;
redundancy
overlap
with
a l w a y s k n o w n a c e r t a i n w e a l t h in
Transformations
structure
rewriting
rules;
exist next
preserving
rule
to l e x i ­
transformations
ordering
overlaps
with
o u t p u t f i l t e r s a nd b o t h o b l i g a t o r y t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s a n d i n t e r ­
preting
rules
available
the
have
are
filtering
distinguished
distinctions
dancy
a
rules),
a
ef f e c t .
priori
transformations
is
always
it
of
gross
coverage
(cf.
between
not
clear
o f f e r a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i o n in
state
Though
affairs
of
gives
data
a
as
Wasow
and
that
devices
(1977)
lexical
the
is
edge
of
to
distinctions
the w a r n i n g
very
for
redun­
the case u n d e r stu d y .
specific
such
the
little
This
that
i n t erest,
si n ce the l a t t e r is l i k e l y to i l l u s t r a t e m e r e l y t h a t the rule
system
makes
only few a priori
claims
about
the
d a t a a n d is
v a g u e e n o u g h to e n u m e r a t e the d a t a in s o m e f a s hion.
In the g r a m m a r of c o o r d i n a t i o n we
the fi r s t
face t h i s p r o b l e m for
time as the c h o i c e b e t w e e n the P h r a s a l C o n j u n c t i o n
H y p o t h e s i s a nd the S e n t e n c e C o n j u n c t i o n H y p o t h e s i s
1970-1971).
latter
An underlying
hypothesis
(Tai
(Dougherty
a s s u m p t i o n o f the d e f e n d e r s o f the
1969;
Hankamer
1971;
Stockwell,
48 -
Schachter
rules
and
cannot
conjunction
reduction
manner
Partee
be
to
junctions
restricted
may
phrasal
at
is,
that
with
coordination
if
o ne
be g e n e r a t e d in the base,
rules
tha t
1973)
dispensed
no
in
be
extra
suc h
formulated
conjunctions
a
costs.
w'ay
in
The
that
base
only
and thus
such
derive
an
from
rules
t he
reduction
assumes
phrasal
that such
unrestricted
sentence
con­
may
then
be
S-label
will
be
a l l o w e d to g e n e r a t e c o n j u n c t i o n s .
A s e r i o u s d r a w b a c k o f the S e n t e n c e
sis
is,
however,
that
transformations
Conjunction Hypothe­
need
to
be
equipped
i n e v i t a b l y w i t h the p o w e r of r e s t r u c t u r i n g a n d r e l a b e l i n g ,
order
to
(101)
(Tai 1969,
derive
NP
the
for
instance
f r o m i ts u n d e r l y i n g f o r m
43):
NP
James
The
(100)
John
c ame
d e f e n d e r s o f the Phra:sal C o n j u n c t i o n H y p o t h e s i s ,
other
hand,
a rgue
t hat p h r a s a l
deep s t r u c t u r e anyway, e.g.
(102) a.
conjunction
on
is n e e d e d in
in v i e w of s e n t e n c e s s u c h as:
John forms a curious pair and Mary forms
a c u r i o u s pair,
Ja n v o r m t e e n b i j z o n d e r p a a r en M a r i e v o r m t
e e n b i j z o n d e r paar.
b.
in
J o h n an d M a r y f o r m a c u r i o u s pair.
Ja n en M a r i e v o r m e n een b i j z o n d e r paar.
_ 49 -
U n d e r the
are
assumption that phrasal coordination constructions
generated
(Dougherty
1968)
di r e c t l y ,
1 9 7 0-1971,
Blom
transformational
Phrasal
Conjunction
structuring
ruled
out
and
a
they
propose
1975)
relabeling
in
of
any
strongly
limit
completely
abolish
(Dik
reduction
rules.
The
coordination
Hypothesis
priori
or
to
suggests
at
coordinate
generative
least
that
structures
grammar
can
of
a
re­
be
human
language.
If we
we will
and
assume
do here,
Gapping
are
phrasal
c o n j u n c t i o n f o r all
categories
as
the r u l e s of B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n
necessary,
as
argued
above,
for
sentences
su ch as:
(103) J o h n a te
a n d P e t e r d r a n k a lot.
J a n at
en P e t e r d r o n k v e e l .
(104) J o h n d r a n k w h i s k y a n d P e t e r
gin.
Jan dronk whisky en Peter
O n the o t h e r hand,
gin.
if we a s s u m e the r u l e s o f B a c k w a r d C o n j u n ­
c t i o n R e d u c t i o n a n d Gappi n g , p h r a s a l c o n j u n c t i o n is n e c e s s a r y
as
well
parallel
for
sentences
such
as
(105)
and
(107),
since
the
Backward Conjunction Reduction and Gapping examples
are u n g r a m m a t i c a l
(105)
(cf.
(106) a nd (108)).
H e tri e d to p e r s u a d e a n d c o n v i n c e t h e m t h a t he
w a s right.
(106)
H e t r i e d to p e r s u a d e
, and
he t r i e d to c o n v i n c e t h e m that he w a s right.
(107)
J o h n ate f r e s h m e a t a n d v e g e t a b l e s .
J a n at v e r s e v l e e s w a r e n en g r o e n t e s .
(108)
*
J o h n ate f r e s h m e a t a n d P e t e r
<
ft v e g e t a b l e s .
J a n at v e r s e v l e e s w a r e n en P e t e r
In
one
hand
some
and
inst a n c e s ,
however,
phrasal
Backward
Conjunction
groentes.
c o n j u n c t i o n o n the
Reduction
and
Gapping
on
- 50 the o t h e r ove r l a p .
Consider
(109):
(109) J o h n sent a b u n c h of f l o w e r s a nd a pie to Mary.
J a n z o n d een bos b l o e m e n en e en taa r t a a n Marie.
This
sentence
in the base,
derives either from phrasal
c o n j u n c t i o n of N Ps
or f r o m a ‘
'“
c o n j u n c t i o n o f V P s (or Ss) by G a p p i n g
and B ackward Conjunction Reduction:
(110) J o h n sent a b u n c h of f l o w e r s
and i O i f
a pie to Mary.
J a n z o n d een bos b l o e m e n
en
e e n t a art a a n Marie.
T h i s o v e r l a p mu s t be c o n s i d e r e d as a w e a k n e s s in the p r e s e n t
theory.
In the r e m a i n d e r
iate
our
claim
ti o n
are
the
show
that
junction
fluous
that
of t h i s
secti o n ,
o n l y two c o o r d i n a t i o n
coordination
Reduction
in o r d e r to s u b s t a n t ­
Gapping and Backward Conjunction Reduc­
and
reduction
Left
in an a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t
r e d u c t i o n rules,
rules
Peripheral
suc h
we will
as F o r w a r d C o n ­
Deletion
are
super­
of c o o r d i n a t i o n r e d u c t i o n p h e ­
nomena.
3.2. F O R W A R D C O N J U N C T I O N . R E D U C T I O N
Forward
Conjunction
Reduction
is
formulated
as
the
m i r r o r image of B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n by R o s s (1967,
220). B o t h r u les are c o l l a p s e d into one C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n
rule as in (1 1 1 ) :
- 51 -
Conjunction Reduction
(111)
a.
[X
[and -
b.
-
A] H"]
1
2
3
[1
2
0] B #
[and 1
2#
- s -x] B
2
3
Condition;
n
B
==> (OPT)
3]
0
1
(OPT)
A
\
B
B
all o c c u r r e n c e s o f A are i d e n t i c a l .
R o s s adds the f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n :
"T h i s
notation
coordinate
number
should
node
of
be
the
interpreted
category
of c o n j u n c t s w h i c h
e a c h of w h i c h e i t h e r ends
c a t e g o r y A, w h e r e all
of
th e s e
occurrences
B,
are a l s o
to m e a n
which
that
in any
dominates
any
of the c a t e g o r y B, a n d
or b e g i n s w i t h a c o n s t i t u e n t of
o c c u r r e n c e s o f A are i d e n t i c a l ,
o f A are s u p e r i m p o s e d ,
all
and adjoined
to the c o n j o i n e d n o d e B."
For
Backward
Conjunction
i l l u s t r a t e d b y (89)
Reduction,
the e f f e c t s
o f t h i s are
( r e p e a t e d h e r e for c o n v e n i e n c e ) .
( 112)
In c o n t r a s t w i t h B a c k w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n ,
Conjunction
Reduction
cannot
be
shown
to
Forward
introduce
coor­
d i n a t i o n s of s t r i n g s that are not one c o n s t i t u e n t .
In
fact,
constrained
generated
in
by
coordinations
strings
phrase
of
Ross'
such
Forward
a way
phrase
of
structure
constituents,
constituents).
structure
Conjunction
that
rule
c f . (113) a n d (113 ' ) :
i ts
rules
but
Examples
schema
turn
Reduction
product
(which
not
which
out
might
to
may
must
produce
coordinations
do
be
not
be
have been
fit
of
the
ungrammatical,
- 52 -
(113) a. The U n i v e r s i t y ' s s t u d e n t s are i n t e l l i g e n t a n d
f é/ét'A'Ai'sM é
freedom.
(are) c o m m i t t e d to
(Ross 1967)
De u n i v e r s i t a i r e s t u d e n t e n z i j n i n t e l l i g e n t en
(zijn) g e h e c h t a a n hun
vrijheid.
^
b. He s e l l s b o o k s about f l o w e r s and
poetry.
Hij v e r k o o p t b o e k e n o v e r b l o e m e n en
o v e r poezie.
c. He se l l s old b o o k s and tfié /
clothes.
Hij v e r k o o p t oude b o e k e n en %f. ¿
¡
/
/ étié-é
kleren.
d. The old c a r s a nd
/ </>t\i b i k e s
of
P e t e r all are
f or sale.
De oude a u t o ' s en é é / i w i
f i e t s e n v a n P e t e r zijn
a l l e m a a l te koop.
.
.
*
(113') a.
The U n i v e r s i t y ' s s t u d e n t s are i n t e l l i g e n t a n d
/y s r f i f f f faculty
*
freedom.
De u n i v e r s i t a i r e s t u d e n t e n z i j n i n t e l l i g e n t en
$
b.
*
is c o m m i t t e d to
.
4
f a c u l t e i t is g e h e c h t
aan z i j n v r i j h e i d .
B o o k s about f l o w e r s are w o n d e r f u l a n d
p o e t r y are dull.
*
B o e k e n o v e r b l o e m e n z i j n p r a c h t i g en
p o e z i e z i j n saai.
c.
*
O l d b o o k s are for s a l e in A m s t e r d a m a n d f>l$
c l o t h e s are f or s a l e in The Hague.
*
Oude b o e k e n z i j n te k o o p in A m s t e r d a m en
k l e r e n z i j n te koop in D e n Haag.
53 -
d.
The old c a r s o f P e t e r a n d %$<£/<(>%$, b i k e s o f J o a n
all are f o r sale.
De oude a u t o ' s v a n P i e t e n $
van Jannie zijn allemaal
It
follows
that
the
rul^e
cannot
be
4
/
fietsen'
te koop.
shown
to
be
necessary,
s in c e c o o r d i n a t i o n s of c o n s t i t u e n t s c a n be g e n e r a t e d by p h r a ­
se
structure
rules
di r e c t l y ,
i.e.
its
structure
preserving
p r o p e r t y s u g g e s t s that F o r w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n d o e s not
e x i s t at a l l .
S e n t e n c e s w i t h i nitial c o o r d i n a t i o n s f o r m the s e c o n d set
of o b s e r v a t i o n s by w h i c h F o r w a r d C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n b e c o m ­
es
implausible.
initial
to
exclude
conjunct
are
them.
is
deleted
t his
The
rule
coordinations,
In
indexed
by
deletion
thus
these
by
Forward
is
turns
and
o ut
to .be
s h o u l d be
structures,
a coordinator.
inapplicable
complicated
the
in
in i t i a l
of
When frontal
Conjunction Reduction,
visible
start
to
so as
each
elements
the e f f e c t
coordination,
and
of
the
r e s u l t is an u n g r a m m a t i c a l s e n t ence.
T h i s c o m p l i c a t i o n is in fact n e c e s s a r y u n d e r b o t h v a r i ­
a nts
of
rule
c an
Forward
be
Conjunction
analyzed
Reduction
either
as
a
imaginable.
(such as in R o s s ’ f o r m u l a t i o n c i t e d a b o v e ) ,
in place.
(114)
assumptions:
are
a nd
(115)
in
both
or as a r e d u c t i o n
coordination,
cases,
in
in i t i a l
the o u t p u t
strings
coordination,
are n o t :
(114)
the
rule
s h o w the e f f e c t of t h e s e d i f f e r e n t
in n o n - i n i t i a l
identical
Thus,
raising-and-deletion
non-initial coordination
local
filters
or
local
rules
lokale
filters
of
lokale
regels
they
- 54 i r e d u c t i o n in p l a c e =^>
NP
AP
N
local
filters
or
l o kale
filters
of
rules
regels
:raising a n d d e l e t i o n = ^ >
AP
NP,
AP
local t i i é t
N
C
^
AP
NI\
N
f i l t e r s or t é i é l r u l e s
l o k a l e té ^ é - ïé f i l t e r s o f t é ^ k é li r e g e l s
(115)
initial coordination
e i t h e r local
of
f i l t e r s or
lokale filters of
local
rules
lokale
regels
:r e d u c t i o n in p l a c e
e i t h e r local f i l t e r s or t ü à ï
of
lokale filters of
rules
regels
:rai s i n g a n d d e l e t i o n = = >
local e i t h e r U i A t
f i l t e r s or ï é i & t
lokale
f i l t e r s o f î é '¿ '¿ t é r e g e l s
of
rules
- 55 -
In i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n ,
Reduction
quire
result
in
additional
both variants of Forward Conjunction
ungrammatical
explanation
in
outputs.
a
These
grammar
facts
with
re­
Forward
C o n j u n c t i o n R e d u c t i o n , b u t f o l l o w f r o m a g r a m m a r w i t h o u t it.
Th e r e
junction
which
is
one
p r o b l e m for a t h e o r y w i t h o u t
Reduction,
deserves
and
with
mentioning-:
( D o u g h e r t y 1970,
conjunction
coordination
VP a nd a d e r i v e d s t r u c t u r e VP
(116)
phrasal
853).
Forward Con­
of
a deep
i n s tead,
structure
a p p e a r s to be g r a m m a t i c a l ,
cf.
S u c h s e n t e n c e s c a n be d e r i v e d by
Forward Conjunction Reduction,
b ut not by p h r a s a l c o n j u n c t i o n
in the base.
(116) a. J o h n w as h u n t i n g li o n s and w a s f r i g h t e n e d
by snakes.
'
Ja n m a a k t e jacht op l e e u w e n en w e r d b a n g g e m a a k t
d o o r slangen.
b. M a r y w as n e i t h e r a n x i o u s to p l e a s e n o r fun to
squeeze.
Marie
was
en
niet
geneigd
om
aardig
te
zijn
en
n i e t leuk o m mee te praten.
(Mary w a s b o t h not i n c l i n e d f o r k i n d to be a n d
n o t f un for w i t h to talk)
c. F e w w r i t e r s are b o t h e x p l i c i t a n d e a s y to read.
M a a r w e i n i g s c h r i j v e r s z i j n zowel e x p l i c i e t als
g e m a k k e l i j k om te lezen.
d. C u r v a l n e i t h e r h it J u l i e n o r w a s p u n c h e d
by Ad o n i s .
..., dat C u r v a l n o c h J u l i a g e s l a g e n heeft,
noch
d oor A d o n i s g e d u w d werd.
T he s e e x a m p l e s a p p e a r to c o n s t i t u t e a n i n s u r m o u n t a b l e p r o b l e m
for
a
theory
VPs
in
(116)
Passive
and
Dougherty
which
without
does
n ot
base-generate
It-replacement. Ways-out
(1970)
and V e r g n a u d
a p r i n c i p l e d account.
directly
all
the
the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s like
(1974),
have
been
sketched
by
b u t b o t h f a i l to offer
- 56 -
Dougherty
(1970,
865) a s s u m e s that the d e e p s t r u c t u r e of
s e n t e n c e s suc h as (116) l o o k s like
(117):
(117)
hit J u l i e
Passive
applies
to
S^, w h i c h
results
Substitution Transformation yields
in
(118).
Thereafter a
(119):
(118)
NP
Curvai
was p u n c h e d by A d o n i s
hit J u l i e
A l t h o u g h o b s c u r e d by s e v e r a l
a delta-VP
analyses
was punched by Adonis
tricks,
in d e e p .s t r u c t u r e , this
which
make
u se
of
s u c h as the a d d i t i o n of
a n a l y s i s is e q u i v a l e n t to
relabeling
and
restructuring
rules.
Vergnaud
(1974,
51)
accounts
for
(116)
rule
of S u b j e c t D e l e t i o n or I n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
t his
rule
h as
no
implications
beyond
by p o s t u l a t i n g a
To m y k n o w l e d g e ,
(116)
and
therefore
s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as an ad h o c s o l u t i o n to the p r o b l e m .
A n a d d i t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t y for b o t h D o u g h e r t y a n d V e r g n a u d
- 57 -
is
that
along
are
in
some
with
to be
instances
the
subject.
expected
V P s in (116),
3.3.
of
(116)
auxiliaries
Therefore,
from
more
are
promising
deleted
solutions
t h e o r i e s w h i c h b a s e - g e n e r a t e all the
cf. K o s t e r ( 1 9 7 8 b ) . ^
LEFT PERIPHERAL ‘
DELETION
Consider
(120):
(120) J o h n gave a b o o k to M a r y a n d a b u n c h of f l o w e r s
to Sue.
Since
this
rules
directly
do n ot
that
sentence
form
it
is
cannot
be g e n e r a t e d
by p h r a s e
structure
(a b o o k to M a r y a n d a b u n c h of f l o w e r s to Sue
one
constituent)
derived
from
a
it
seems
fuller
reasonable
underlying
to
form
assume
such
as
(121) b y G a p p i n g :
(121) J o h n gave a b o o k to M a r y a n d
a bunch
o f f l o w e r s to Sue.
This
assumption,
(1976,
s u ch
however,
20 3 - 2 0 9 ) .
as
Sag
(121):
Left
d o e s n ot p r e s e n t
closely
factorization,
constructions
a
Peripheral
Forward
rejected
specific
Deletion.
Conjunction
constituents
introduction
factorization
explicitly
rule
time,
Sag
cases
Unfortunately,
of
to
the
his
n ew
a
conjunct
rule,
Sag
of
Gapping.
c an
be
prevented
as
(121).
The
fixing
up
an
existing
he
Due
to
with
complex
this
from
with
deletes
Along
a more
two-step
rule
it
only.
gives
rule
Gapping
such
of
Reduction:
new
generating
procedure
i n t r o d u c i n g a n e w rule (Left P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n )
s a me
by
for
a f o r m u l a t i o n o f the rule, w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y
resembles
leftperipheral
the
is
introduces
and,
a more
of
at the
complex
f a c t o r i z a t i o n is c l e a r l y s u s p i c i o u s .
Sag
such
as
presents
five
(121)
means
by
arguments
of
f or
Gapping.
not
deriving
The
conclusion
sentences
of
our
r e v i e w will be that S a g ' s a r g u m e n t s are t o o m a r g i n a l to y i e l d
- 58 -
sufficient
support
for
Left
Peripheral
Deletion
as
a
rule
d i f f e r e n t f r o m Gapping,
S a g ' s first a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n s the p h e n o m e n o n o f p r e p o s i ­
t i o n d e l e t i o n . He o f f e r s the
following examples,
in o r d e r to
s h o w that L e f t P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n d e l e t e s v e r b p l u s p r e p o s i ­
tion, b ut G a p p i n g d o e s not:
*>,
(122) a. M y m o t h e r m e t w i t h the p r i n c i p a l o n T h u r s d a y and
the d e a n o n F r i d a y
ifif / M f W t / M i / is i M
(Sag's
( 3 . 2 . 7 . a) )
b. M y s i s t e r sp o k e to Mrs. W i m b l e on F r i d a y a n d
irii / sii i 14 1 / i i><t>11 / 1 & the d e a n o n S a t u r d a y
(Sag's
(3.2.7.b ) )
(123) a. * J o h n s p o k e to H a rry,
a n d Bill
Mike.
(S a g 's ( 3 . 2 . 5 . a ) )
b.
*
J o h n w a s h a p p y w i t h h is g i r l f r i e n d ,
her boyfriend
Crucially,
and Betsy
(Sag ' s ( 3 . 2 . 5 . b ) )
if the p r e p o s i t i o n in (122) is d e l e t e d b y Gapping,
it is n ot c l e a r w h y G a p p i n g m a y n o t d e l e t e the p r e p o s i t i o n in
(123).
Therefore,
Sag
assumes that
(122)
is d e r i v e d b y Left
Peripheral Deletion.
At
ment
are
first blush
towards
n ot
the
this
generated
by
stylistically
suggested
by
see M i l s a r k
the
(1974,
It
the
constructions
should
(quite u n l i k e
ma r k e d .
colons
a reasonably structured argu­
that
Gapp i n g .
t h a t th e s e c o n s t r u c t i o n s
t ime
se e m s
conclusion
in
They
(124)
added,
(122)
however,
(121)) are at the same
permit
(for
be
in
a
other
list
list
reading
phenomena
209)):
(124) a. My m o t h e r m e t with:
the p r i n c i p a l o n T h u r s d a y ,
a n d the d e a n o n Friday.
b. My s i s t e r s p o k e to: Mrs. W i m b l e on F r i d a y ,
and
the d e a n o n S a t u r d a y .
c . ' J o h n w a s h a p p y with: h i s b o y f r i e n d o n Friday,
an d hi s g i r l f r i e n d o n Sa t u r d a y .
as
- 59 -
Thus,
it is not c l e a r w h e t h e r s u c h p h e n o m e n a fall w i t h i n
the p r o p e r
d o m a i n o f gramm a r .
licence"
granted
be
as
used
to
T h e y m a y b e l o n g to the " p o etic
a d m e n a n d as
arguments
in
(which not n e c e s s a r i l y
su c h
support
receives
s h o u l d p r e f e r a b l y not
of
the
a list
claim
reading)
that
(121)
c a n n o t be an
i n s t a n c e of Gapping.
The
second
(m a a r in Du t c h ) .
argument’
’
-centers
Compare
(125) % * S a n d y ate the b agels,
creamcheese.
around
the
c o o r d i n a t o r but
(125) a nd (126).
but Betsy
the
(Sag's (3.2.8 . ) )
% S a n d y at de koek j e s ,
m a a r B e t s y $.t de s m e e r k a a s .
(126) B e t s y gave the b a g e l s to T o m m y , -but
c r e a m c h e e s e to Mike.
(Sag's
the
( 3 . 2 . 9 . a))
B e t s y g af de k o e k j e s a an To m m i e , m a a r
de
s m e e r k a a s aan Mike.
D e l e t i o n of a l e f t p e r i p h e r a l c o n s t i t u e n t
(126),
b ut
(125).
These
ripheral
deletion
underlying
the
(contrast
an
d o e s not.
form
of
examples
seems
are
constituent
illustrate
to c o o r d i n a t i o n s
Observe,
(125)
to be
internal
purportedly
Deletion applies
while Gapping
when
of
examples
is g r a m m a t i c a l ,
is
however,
awkward
selected
important
as
slightly
cf.
is
not,
cf.
that
Left
Pe­
conjoined
by b u t ,
that the u n r e d u c e d
well.
Furthermore,
more
felicitously
f or a c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h but),
the i n t e r n a l G a p p i n g is g r a m m a t i c a l :
(127) a. Some p e o p l e like b agels,
but others X SW
creamcheese.
S o m m i g e n h o u d e n v a n k o e k j e s , m a a r a n d e r e n ft(zSy
van s m e e r k a a s .
b. Some p e o p l e go by car, but o t h e r s ¿(zS by bike.
S o m m i g e n g a a n m et de auto, m a a r a n d e r e n
de fiets.
met
- 60 -
T h i s i m p l i e s that a p r o p e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the peculiarities of
b u t is n o t i l l u m i n a t e d b y a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n L e f t P e r i p h e ­
ral D e l e t i o n a n d Gapping.
As
a
third
argument,
Sag a d d u c e s
the f o l l o w i n g u n g r a m ­
m a t i c a l i n s t a n c e s of G a p ping.
■
if
.
T h a t A l a n w a s l ate a n n o y e d B etsy,
(128) a.
and
that S a n d y w a s lat e
B ernie.
*
Fo r us to a p p o i n t A l a n w o u l d i n f u r i a t e B etsy,
b.
and for us to a p p o i n t S a n d y
Bernie.
He c l a i m s t h a t
"t h e s e
has
'
(p. 206)
examples
escaped
.
illustrate
notice
in
a
the
constraint
literature,
on
Gapping
namely:
that
"Gapping
cannot apply after a sentential subject.""
S a g p r e s e n t s n o m o t i v a t i o n fo r t his r u l e - s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n ,
and
it
seems
difficult
f e a t u r e s of G a p p i n g .
To i l l u s t r a t e
are
different
which
relate
it
to
any
of
the
other
t hat G a p p i n g a n d L e f t P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n
rules,
peripheral
to
10
Sa g the n c o m p a r e s
deletion
ha s
applied
(128)
with
before
a
(129),
in
sentential
object.
(129) a. I p r o v e d that the s k y is b l u e last T u e s d a y ,
and
1 that the e a r t h is r o u n d l a s t W e d n e s d a y .
b. I p r e f e r for y o u to get the job w h e n I'm drunk,
and
f o r B e t s y to get the job w h e n I'm
sober.
He
concluded
different,
t hat
since
Gapping
one
and
a n d no t
Left
the
Peripheral
other
is
Deletion
are
i n f u e n c e d b y the
p r e s e n c e of a s e n t e n t i a l phrase.
Sag's
Observe
(130),
observations
t hat G a p p i n g m a y
in
thi s
area
are
not
comp l e t e .
a p p l y a f t e r a s e n t e n t i a l s u b j e c t in
the p a s s i v e v a r i a n t s of (129):
_
61
-
(130) a. That the sky is b l u e h as b e e n p r o v e d last
Tues d a y ,
and that the e a r t h is r o u n d
last W e d n e s d a y .
b. Fo r y o u to get the job is p r e f e r r e d by me w h e n
I'm drunk-, a n d for B e t s y to get the job
w h e n I 'm s o b e r .
T h i s s u g g e s t s that the e x p l a n a t i o n o f (128)
w h e t h e r o r n o t the s u b j e c t s are s e n t e n c e s .
explanation
relevance
relates
of which
to
the
rule
to G a p p i n g
of
*
*
Focus
Assignment,
the
is s h o w n in S a g ' s s e c t i o n 3.5,
T h e n (128) m i g h t be c o m p a r e d w i t h
(131)
is n o t r e l a t e d to
It m a y be t h a t the
(131):
.
a n d that p a i n t i n g ,
T h a t book, C h a r l e s has b oug h t ,
P e t e r )/i£$/
■
’
D at b o e k h e e f t K a r e l g e k o c h t , en d a t s c h i l d e r i j
Peter
One
may
Gapping
cally
entertain
is
the
hypothesis
incompatible
marked
with
sentences,
tha t
the
focus
pattern
of
the f o c u s p a t t e r n o f s t y l i s t i ­
such
as
(128)
and
(131)
(but
not
(130)). T h i s c a u s e s some G a p p i n g s to be l o w in a c c e p t a b i l i t y .
S u c h e x a m p l e s ca n n o t ,
therefore,
be u s e d
to s u b s t a n t i a t e the
c l a i m that L e f t P e r i p h e r a l D e l e t i o n a n d G a p p i n g a r e d i f f e r e n t
rules.
-
The f o u r t h a r g u m e n t r u n s as f o l l o w s
(p. 207):
"A f o u r t h d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n these t w o p r o c e s s e s ,
to
me,
can
e arl i e r ,
(This
by
a
in
Is
left
that
the
disparity
in
to
this
to
be
Most
intonations.
clauses
must
speakers
it s e e m s
As
in
we
noted
general
however,
do
be
not
in c a s e s o f l e f t - p e r i p h e r a l e l l i p s i s .
the
has
intonational
at w o r k h e r e . "
their
Gapped
pause.
such pauses
possible
within
heard
remnants
separated
require
be
highly
reader
some
to
verify.)
It's
of
course
independent explanation
s y s t e m ) , but
suggestive
(say
I take t h i s p r o s o d i c
that two processes
are
- 62 -
This
ive.
place
a r g ument,
It m a y well
of
the
as
S ag s u g g e s t s
turn o ut
gap.
In
that
that
is by no m e a n s c o n c l u s ­
intonation
case
the
is r e l a t e d
prosodic
to the
differences
c a n n o t be u s e d as p a r a m e t e r s for d i f f e r e n t rules.
The
fifth
Peripheral
observed
Deletion
difference
relates
to
between
the
G a p p i n g a n d Left
coordinator
as w e l l a s .
The a r g u m e n t c r u c i a l l y d e f e n d s on the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t G a p p i n g
a p p l i e s to c o o r d i n a t i o n s of S only.
(132)
(132)
Thus,
*
It r u n s as f o l l o w s .
s h o w s that as well as c a n n o t c o n j o i n s e n t e n c e s :
To m is h a p p y as well as D i c k is sad.
the g r a m m a t i c a l
sentence
ing f o r m w i t h c o o r d i n a t e d VPs,
(133)
has
to h a v e an u n d e r l y ­
a n d n o t w i t h c o o r d i n a t e d Ss:
(133) I spo k e to B e t s y on F r i d a y as well as
to Sa n d y
on S a t u rday.
If G a p p i n g a p p l i e s to c o n j u n c t i o n s o f S only,
a case of r e d u c t i o n by Gapping.
support his hypothesis
However,
(133) c a n n o t be
Sag does not further
that G a p p i n g a p p l i e s
to c o o r d i n a t i o n s
of S only. H e n c e this a r g u m e n t is w i t h o u t force.
This
concludes
tion. C l e a r l y ,
ingly
lead
the
discussion
of
Left Peripheral
Dele­
the a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d by S a g do n o t c o n v i n c ­
to
the
conclusion
that
two
different
forward
r e d u c t i o n ru l e s s h o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d in the g r a m m a r .
3.4.
CONJUNCT MOVEMENT
Conjunct
Movement
as
proposed
by e.g.
Ross
(1967,
d e r i v e s (134) f r o m the u n d e r l y i n g f o r m (135):
(134) D i d y o u tell J o h n a b o u t our p l a n s or P e t e r ?
H e b je J an v a n o n z e p l a n n e n v e r t e l d o f P e t e r ?
(Have y o u J an o f our p l a n s t o l d or P e t e r ? )
244)
- 63 -
(135) D i d y o u tell J o h n or P e t e r a b o u t o u r p l a n s ?
Heb je J a n o f P e t e r v a n o n z e p l a n n e n v e r t e l d ?
(Have y o u J an o r P e t e r of o ur p l a n s told ? )
It
is
difficult
Conjunct
to
Movement
capture
in
a ny
the
structural
satisfying
is g e n e r a t e d b y p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e
way.
rule
description
of
If
NP-coordination
(136),
the c o r r e s p o n d ­
ing s t r u c t u r e is (137):
(136) N P --- > NP
C
NP
(137)
NP
(137)
h as
NP
C
to be
restructured
into
(138) if C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t
is to m o v e a c o n s t i t u e n t r a t h e r t h a n a s t r i n g (cf. R o s s 1967,
92, a nd P a a r d e k o o p e r 1971,
In
spite
of
this
360):
restructuring,
Conjunct
Movement
r e f e r to the i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the m o v e d item,
c o n s t i t u e n t s c o n t a i n i n g a c o o r d i n a t o r can move.
should
be
formulated
with
a 'm i x e d
term,
[C
X2
]x2
is
already
a
the
as in (139):
Y
l
This
to
The rule thus
specifying
I n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the c o n s t i t u e n t i n v o l v e d ,
(139)
needs
s i n c e only
^
serious
drawback
for
a potential
r u l e of
Conjunct M o v e m e n t .
Observe,
derive
G a pp i n g .
from
however,
a
more
that
fully
Conjunct
specified
(134) t h e n d e r i v e s f r o m (140):
Movement
examples
underlying
form
can
by
- 64 -
(140) D i d y o u tell J o h n a b o u t y o u r p l a n s o r did y o u tell
Peter about your plans?
H e b je J a n v a n je p l a n n e n v e r t e l d of h e b je P e t e r
v a n je p l a n n e n v e r t e l d ?
If c o n j u n c t m o v e m e n t s t r u c t u r e s are d e r i v e d b y G a p p i n g ,
is
for
no n e e d
f or the
reference
over,
it
Movement
to
intermediate move
the
turns
out
follow
from
internal
that
from
structure
certain
a Gapping
(137)
as
in
constraints
analysis.
First
to
(138)
(139).
on
there
or
More­
Conjunct
observe
that
there is n o C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t o f verbs:
(141) a.
T h a t d r e s s ha s b e e n d e s i g n e d b y m y g r a n d m a and
made.
•X"
Die jurk is o n t w o r p e n d o o r m i j n o m a en g e m a a k t .
*
b.
He e i t h e r told P e t e r not to c o m e or w r o t e .
*
Hij h e e f t P e t e r of v e r t e l d dat hij n i e t h o e f d e
te k o m e n o f g e s c h r e v e n .
(He h a s P e t e r e i t h e r t o l d that he n o t h a d to
c o m e or w r i t t e n )
U n d e r the C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t a n a l y s i s ,
(141) w o u l d d e r i v e f r o m
(142):
(142) a. That d r e s s has b e e n d e s i g n e d a n d m a d e b y my
grandma.
D ie jurk is o n t w o r p e n en g e m a a k t d o o r m i j n oma.
b. He e i t h e r t o l d or w r o t e P e t e r n o t to come.
Hij h e e f t P e t e r of v e r t e l d
of g e s c h r e v e n d a t hij
n i e t h o e f d e te komen.
a n d a c o n d i t i o n s h o u l d be a d d e d to C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t in o r d e r
to
block
ho w e v e r ,
the
rule
for
verbal
constituents.
f o l l o w s a u t o m a t i c a l l y from G a p p i n g :
d e l e t e s at least the verb.
This
fact,
this r u l e a l w a y s
- 65 Second,
observe
(143) a.
(1 4 3 ):
J o h n is ill a nd Peter.
.
J a n is ziek en Piet.
b.
*
*
J o h n are ill a nd Peter.
'
J a n z i j n z i e k "en Peter.
C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t d e r i v e s (143) f r o m
(144) a.
.
(144):
J o h n a n d P e t e r is ill.
*
b.
J a n en P e t e r is ziek.
J o h n a n d P e t e r are ill.
-
J a n en P e t e r z i j n ziek.
A g r e e m e n t thus s h o u l d be o r d e r e d b e f o r e C o n j u n c t M o v e m e n t . No
s
such ordering
to w h i c h
is d i c t a t e d b y the
(143) p a r a l l e l s
(145) a.
Gapping analysis,
according
(145).
J o h n is ill a nd P e t e r
J a n is ziek en P e t e r i é / i i é Ji.
b.
J o h n are ill a n d P e t e r $.)(•£/ i t t •
J a n z i j n z i e k en P e t e r
Third,
observe
that
Conjunct
/ i,i- i Ji.
Movement
sentences which contain a negation:
(146)
J o h n a n d M a r y d i d n ' t w i n a prize.
J a n en M a r i e w o n n e n g e e n p r i j s .
(Jan a n d M a r i e w o n no priz e )
(147)
*
*
J o h n d i d n ' t w i n a p r i z e a n d Mary.
J a n w o n g e e n p r i j s en Marie.
(Jan w o n no p r i z e a n d Mari e )
cannot
apply
to
- 66 -
How
such
a d e r i v a t i o n s h o u l d be
excluded under
Movement assumption remains unclear.
the
Conjunct
In the G a p p i n g a n a l y s i s ,
(147) is u n g r a m m a t i c a l for the s ame r e a s o n (148) is:
(148)
*
J o h n d i d n ' t w i n the car, a n d M a r y jdi ( d p i / t h e
free trip.
*
It
is
"
J a n w o n de a u t o n i e t e n M a r i e
a
general
feature
deletion
rules),
that
entails
that
of
Gapping
negative
purported
de v a k a n t i e r e l s
(and p r e s u m a b l y
particles
Conjunct
of
all
n e v e r de l e t e .
Movement
examples
This
can
be
d e s c r i b e d b y (and t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n e x p l a i n e d b y c o n s t r a i n t s
on)
Gapping,
coordinate
an d that
structures
there
is no n e e d
into
(138).
f o r r e s t r u c t u r i n g of
Notice
finally
t hat
the
p r o p o s e d a n a l y s i s of the s o - c a l l e d c o n j u n c t m o v e m e n t e x a m p l e s
as
cases
remnant.
of
Gapping
This
goes
against
(1976)
and
Zwarts
leaves
tw o
rem n a n t s .
assumption,
we
may
and conclude
that,
tion,
the
it
is
implies
(1978),
recent
who
Since
grant
that
this
r ule
may
proposals
suggest
t hat
leave
one
e.g.
Sag
by,
Gapping
always
t h e y o f f e r n o r a t i o n a l e f o r t his
the
rule
the
licence
allowed
here
together with Backward Conjunction Reduc­
only
rul e
of
coordination
r e d u c t i o n in the
grammar.
F O O T N O T E S TO C H A P T E R 1
1. F o r the D u t c h o b s e r v a t i o n s in this s e c t i o n I am o b l i g e d to
Paardekooper
2. It
seems
reasonable
projections
only, e.g.
(1971,
of
365).
to
lexical
restrict
X
categories
in
(10)
(N,
A,
a nd
P,
V,
in v i e w o f the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of (i).
(11)
to
and
Q)
- 67
(i) He is e a t i n g a p p l e s a n d or n o r pea r s .
*
Hi j eet a p p e l s en o f n o c h per e n .
C o o r d i n a t o r s are n o n l e x i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ,
( c f . C h o m s k y 1965,
3. T h i s
argument
wa s
and published
mentation
212,
fn.9).
presented
in Z o n n e v e l d
can
be
and cannot conjoin
at
the
(1978).
construed
f or
TIN
The
meeting
of
1976,
same l i n e o f a r g u ­
German,
and
perhaps
for
o t h e r E u r o p e a n V e r b - s c r a m b l i n g l a n g u a g e s as wel l .
4. M a n a s t e r - R a m e r
pro
and
con
Dutch
and
Neijt
(1978).
context
(1978),
SOV
or
G e rman,
a
as
review
an
argument
sin c e
of previous
arguments
the u n d e r l y i n g w o r d o r d e r
presents
This
as well,
in
SVO
alleged counterargument
is
Neijt
relevant
(1978)
in
the
for
to
present
is a p r e - p u b l i c a t i o n
o f s e c t i o n 1.1. o f t h i s chap t e r .
Manaster-Ramer calls attention
to the
following example
(p. 260):
/
%
(i)
*
J a n en lacht e n huilt.
(John b o t h l a u g h s a n d cries)
an d c o n t i n u e s as follows:
" N e i j t 1s
huiit
has
account
a re
suggested
constituent
Vs.
But
won't
constituents.
that
types
the
work
because
Neijt
the r i g h t
to
lacht
and
communication)
c o n d i t i o n a l l o w s o n l y some
conjo i n ,
grammatlcality
clearly
(personal
of
specifically
(12)
makes
ible.
(12) J a n zal e n l a c h e n en huil e n .
'John w i l l b o t h l a u g h a n d cry.'
V P s but not
that
imposs­
_
68 -
W i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g a n a n a l y s i s o f D u t c h c o n j u n c t i o n s here
(see
Manaster-Ramer
(forthcoming)).
I am
surely
justi­
f i e d in r e j e c t i n g N e i j t ' s a r g u m e n t as u n c o m p e l l i n g ."
As M a n a s t e r - R a m e r notices,
able:
t wo a s s u m p t i o n s are i m a g i n e -
the c o o r d i n a t i o n en l acht en h u i l t is e i t h e r a c o o r ­
d i n a t i o n of Vs, or a c o o r d i n a t i o n o f VPs. If it is a c o o r *•=1_
d i n a t i o n o f Vs, n o t h i n g f o l l o w s f r o m my a n a l y s i s . It is
impossible,
tion
1.
of
however,
t h a t en l a c h t en h u i l t is a c o o r d i n a ­
Vs in v i e w o f the a r g u m e n t s
Furthermore,
VP-adverbs,
in
that
case
such as h a r d
it
presented
cannot
('lo u d l y ' )
be
cannot
in s e c t i o n
explained
why
be p l a c e d o u t ­
side o f the i n i t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n :
(ii)
*
..., om d a t J a n h a r d en la c h t en hui l t .
(..., b e c a u s e J o h n l o u d l y b o t h l a u g h s a n d cries)
O n the
of
o t h e r hand,
VPs,
the
ter-Ramer
if en la c h t e n h u i l t
pattern
follows
of
quite
is a c o o r d i n a t i o n
grammaticalness
naturally.
Verb
by
Manas-
Preposing
cited
is i m ­
p o s s i b l e in (i), w h i c h is s t r u c t u r e d r o u g h l y as (iii).
;i i i )
Ja n
lac h t
E n l a c h t a nd en h u i l t
therefore
fronts
cannot
verbs,
be
n ot
n ot p o s s i b l e either;
do n ot f o r m one V - n o d e t o g e t h e r a n d
fronted
VPs).
(v):
is
possible
(cf.
in
one
swoop
Across-the-board
(Verb
Fronting
movement
is
the V - n o d e s are d i f f e r e n t .
In (12), on the o t h e r hand,
zal
huilt
(i v ) ),
a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d m o v e m e n t of
and
this
application
yields
- 69 -
(iv)
Ja n
zal
lachen
zal
huilen
(v)
NP
J an
Therefore,
sentence
I
do
not
challenges
se e
SOV
how
as
the
the
grammaticality
underlying
word
of
this
order
of
Dutch.
5. T h i s c o n d i t i o n o f W i l l i a m s '
a f a c t o r as f o l lows:
d e f i n e s the w e l l - f o r m e d n e s s of
"If F is a f a c t o r a n d C a c o o r d i n a t e
structure containing conjuncts
. . .C , t h e n f o r F to be a
w e l l - f o r m e d f a c t o r the f o l l o w i n g m u s t hold:
„[ £ F a n d
„] £
i
i
that L £ F a n d
Li
6. W i l l i a m s
(1977,
F,
then
for
all
presents
(i)
i,
if f or any i1,
it m u s t be
the
case
r ] £ F.
1
102)
in o r d e r
to i l l u s t r a t e
that G a p p i n g c a n n o t a p p l y a c r o s s s e n t e n c e s in a d i s c o u r s e .
(i) A:
B:
D i d Sa m go to the s t o r e ?
*
No, Bill
Some comments
First,
observe
are
to the s u p e r m a r k e t .
in order,
however,
tha t G a p p i n g c a n n o t
which undermine
apply
of an i n t e r r o g a t i v e a n d a d e c l a r a t i v e s e n t e n c e :
(ii)
D i d Sa m go to the store a n d Bill i i i t t
to the s u p e r m a r k e t .
(i).
to c o o r d i n a t i o n s
- 70 -
Second,
(i)
the
is
introduction
clearly
relevant
of
the
negative
particle
to
the
application
of
No
in
Gapping:
(iii) is d e f i n i t e l y b e t t e r t h a n (i):
(iii) A: S a m wen t to the store,
B:
If
the
(And) Bill vMjii! to the s u p e r m a r k e t .
gapped
sentence
negative particle,
is
outside
of
the
scope
of
the
G a p p i n g is p e r f e c t :
(iv) A: D i d Sam go to the s t o r e ?
B: No.
A: J2^0 Bill ¿gS to the s u p e r m a r k e t ?
B: Yes.
7. T h i s c l a i m c a n be c l a r i f i e d as fol l o w s .
In o r d e r
to d e r i v e
(82),
let us a s s u m e
that
the e x t e n ­
sive f o r m u l a t i o n o f G a p p i n g a p p l i e s i t e r a t i v e l y f r o m right
to left:
!i )
[[[NP V NP]
and
[NP V NP]]
or
[[NP V NP]
\ .....
1
st
application:
application:
The
second and
erate
the
[NP V NP]]]
/
-V'
'U'
2n d a p p l i c a t i o n :
\____________
3
and
» ________________________»I
'V'
t h ird a p p l i c a t i o n s c o m b i n e d ,
ungrammatical
(83),
and
t h ere
however,
is
no
gen­
non-adhoc
w a y to b l o c k this c o m b i n a t i o n o f a p p l i c a t i o n s .
Alternatively,
one m a y a s s u m e
the f o l l o w i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s :
that
(82)
is g e n e r a t e d by
- 71 -
( ii )
[[[ NP V NP]
a nd
[NP V NP]]
or
[[NP V NP]
\ ________________________________ U______ /
1
st
and
[NP V NP])]
"
"
'U'
application:
2nci a p p l i c a t i o n :
3^ application:
In
this
yield
no
case,
the
fir s t
the u n g r a m m a t i c a l
non-adhoc
cations
(in
(1978),
cf.
way
to
fact
and
(83),
exclude
this
th i r d
is
a
applications
a nd a g a i n
this
th e r e s e e m s to be
combination
problem
combined
noticed
of
by
appli­
Williams
(79) a nd (80) above).
O b s e r v e that the s e c o n d a p p l i c a t i o n in (i) a n d the t h i r d
application
in
(ii)
applications yield
(iii)
are
(iii),
the
# [[[John i n v i t e d Sue]
or
[[Max
problematic
ones:
another ungrammatical
Sue]
and
and
th e s e
sentence:
[Max i n v i t e d Mary]]
[John i n v i t e d Mary]]]
In v i e w of th e s e p r o b l e m s of r u l e a p p l i c a t i o n the e x t e n s i ­
ve f o r m u l a t i o n of G a p p i n g c a n n o t be m o t i v a t e d b y s e n t e n c e s
s u c h as:
(iv)
*
J o h n i n v i t e d Sue, P e t e r k i s s e d Mary,
Max
and
Betsy.
sin ce if (i v ) c a n n o t be g e n e r a t e d b e c a u s e of the s t r u c t u r ­
al
description
of
the
rule,
(82)
(ii)) c a n n o t be g e n e r a t e d either.
cation
of
the m i s s i n g
part
(cf.
structures
Therefore,
of g a p p e d
(i)
and
the i d e n t i f i ­
sentences
is a p r o ­
b l e m not to be s o l v e d by the f o r m u l a t i o n o f the rule.
- 72 -
8. Cf.
Sag
(1976,
115),
who advocates
a small-scale
formula
of VP-deletion.
9. F r o m
this
.
analysis
interpretive
ru l e s
applicability.
follows
as
that
transformations
regards
Transformations need
t h e - b o a r d fashion,
(i)
it
differ
and
across-the-board
to a p p l y
in an a c r o s s
cf.:
What,
did H a r r y e a t e. a n d Bill d r i n k e,?
______ ____ / 1______ __________
ƒ!
( i i ) What, did H a r r y eat e. a n d Bill d r i n k b e e r ?
* 1
::__________ / x
I n t e r p r e t i v e rul e s such as P a s s i v e a n d I t - r e p l a c e m e n t n e e d
not a p p l y in an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d fashion,
cf.:
(iii) C u r v a l . hit J u l i e a n d w a s p u n c h e d e. b y A d o n i s .
1__________________________________ / x
(iv)
The
F e w w r i t e r s , are b o t h e x p l i c i t a n d e a s y to r e a d e.
^
1____________________________________ _______ / 1
latter
thus
p r e t i v e rules,
resemble
clear-cut
instances
of
inter­
such as R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n :
(v) John, f ed the dog a n d w a s h e d h i m s e l f . .
\J:___________________________________ /
1
10. H o w e v e r ,
1973,
376).
cf.
the
Predicate
Deletion
Constraint
(Kuno
C H A P T E R 2.
The Rule of Gapping
This
section
chapter
is
reconsiders
subdivided
the
(1975).
three parts.
formulation
fo r E n g l i s h b y H a n k a m e r
doen
into
(1973),
Partly with
of
the
Stillings
the a i d of K u n o
rule
The
of
fi r s t
Gapping
(1975) a n d L a n g e n (1976),
it w i l l
be
f o u n d that n o n e
of these t h r e e p r o p o s a l s a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n s
the
of
phenomenon
Gapping
in
English.
Th e
second
c o n c e r n s o u r o w n f o r m u l a t i o n o f the rule of- G a p p i n g .
will
receive
specific
restrictions.
required
only.
on
tion.
follow
This
the
a very general
will
basis
from
is
claimed
independently
with
th a t
The rule
little
or
no
the
restrictions
motivated
constraints
be d e m o n s t r a t e d p a r t l y in the t h i r d s e c t i o n
of
Following
It
formulation,
section
the
Sag
requirement
(1976),
of
it w i l l
recoverability
be
argued
of
th a t
dele­
several
f e a t u r e s o f G a p p i n g are p r e d i c t a b l e g i v e n a p r e c i s e f o r m u l a ­
t i o n o f the n o t i o n o f "ide n t i t y " .
1. E A R L I E R R U L E S OF G A P P I N G
1.1. H A N K A M E R « S U N A C C E P T A B I L I T Y
The
unclear
precise
in
formulation
Hankamer
(1971).
o f the
However,
ru l e
o f G a p p i n g is left
in H a n k a m e r
(1973,
18)
the a u t h o r p r e s e n t s the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a t i o n :
(1) G a p p i n g
N P X A Z a n d NP X B Z ---- 5» N P X A Z a n d NP B
w h e r e A a n d B are n o n i d e n t i c a l m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s .
This
rule
r efers,
formula
is p o s s i b l y due to Ross,
to w h o m H a n k a m e r
t h o u g h the n o t i o n o f " m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n c y "
is c e r t a i n ­
- 74 -
ly due
to H a n k a m e r .
It is d e f i n e d as ( H a n k a m e r 1973,
18, fn.
2) :
"A
'major
constituent
ately
q
constituent'
of
a
given
sentence
Sq
is
a
e i t h e r i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d by S Q or i m m e d i ­
dominated
by
VP,
which
is i m m e d i a t e l y
d o m i n a t e d by
ii
0’
Let us r e f e r to the c o n d i t i o n that the r e m n a n t s o f G a p p i n g be
major
constituents
as
condition
functions
rem n a n t s .
It p r e v e n t s
the
as
Major
an
(1)
Constituent
effective
Condition.
constraint
This
on p o s s i b l e
f r o m d e l e t i n g m o r e t h a n a l l o w e d in
(2), f o r i n stance:
(2) J o h n t o o k B i l l ' s r e d s h o e s an d
Max
I
K B i l l ' s blu e hat.
‘
4 blu e hat.
I
The
f ocu s
hat.
o f H a n k a m e r 1s a r t i c l e
(1973,
29)
is the
fol­
lowing No-Ambiguity Condition:
(3) The N o - A m b i g u i t y C o n d i t i o n
A n y a p p l i c a t i o n o f G a p p i n g w h i c h w o u l d y i e l d an
o u t p u t s t r u c t u r e i d e n t i c a l to a s t r u c t u r e d e r i v a b l e
b y G a p p i n g f r o m a n o t h e r s o u r c e , b u t w i t h the "gap"
at the l eft e x t r e m i t y
[of the g a p p e d c o n j u n c t ]
is
di s a l l o w e d .
As
pointed
out
by H a n k a m e r ,
transderivational
derive
strings
the N o - A m b i g u i t y C o n d i t i o n is a
constraint.
such
as
(4),
Because
the
c l u d e s the s u p e r f i c i a l l y i d e n t i c a l ,
it
is
possible
but d i f f e r e n t l y s t r u c t u r ­
ed s t r i n g s in (5).
(4) a.
B ill e x p e c t s H a r r y to f i n d the w a y to the party,
and ¥>ift /
b.
to
No-Ambiguity Condition ex­
Sue to f i n d the w a y home.
J a c k w a n t s M i k e to w a s h h i m s e l f and
^ A r n i e to s have h i m s e l f .
75 -
_
c.
M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to get los t a n d
Walt
d.
I r a ti>/ &£t /
.
M a x w a n t e d to put the e g g p l a n t o n the table,
an d
H / M t H a r v e y in the sink.
(5) a.
Bill e x p e c t s H a r r y to f i n d the w a y to the part y ,
a n d Sue
to f i n d the w a y home.
b. * J a c k w a n t s M i k e to w a s h h i m s e l f ,
Arnie
a nd
to s h ave h i m s e l f .
c. * M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to get lost,
Wa l t
Ira t<b
d. * M a x w a n t e d to p u t the e g g p l a n t on the table,
Harvey
an d
t H W t i H i t / t4>$t ■
an d
! t t i I H M t M t in the sink.
! t<t 1
Th e N o - A m b i g u i t y C o n d i t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s an i n t r i g u i n g set of
d a t a in a r e v e a l i n g way.
accept
th i s
devices
s u c h as e.g.
f i l t e r s vs.
vs.
they
T h i s is n o t s u f f i c i e n t ,
transderivational
rule
global
r ule types,
in
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s vs.
ordering and
formulations
involve
condition
general
of
rule
the
r e w r i t i n g r u les,
obligatoriness,
rule conditions,
simplifications
a n d if, m o r e o v e r ,
however,
grammar.
are
in the
to
New
or
or t r a c e s
a c c e p t e d if
format of other
e a c h s p e c i m e n o f the n e w d e v i c e
is i n d e p e n d e n t l y m o t i v a t e d by s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h m o r e tha n
one rule or p r i n c i p l e .
T h e s e h e a v y r e s t r i c t i o n s o n n e w d e v i c e s a re j u s t i f i e d as
long
as
one
takes
learnability
controlled
by
of
linguistics
natural
an
underlying
less fre e w h e e l i n g
ciated
coherence
as
an
language,
attempt
i.e.
reality
as
rather
to e x p l a i n
an
than
the
enterprise
a more
or
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f an i n t u i t i v e l y a p p r e ­
between
linguistic
data.
Stillings
(1975)
a n d L a n g e n d o e n (1975) a t t e m p t to r e f o r m u l a t e the N o - A m b i g u i t y
Condition
however,
in
more
acceptable
terms.
Both
a n d it s e e m s i n s t r u c t i v e to s h o w why.
attempts
fail,
_
76 -
1.2. S T I L L I N G S 1975
As n o t e d above,
t hat
led
Stillings
Hankamer
(1975)
ungrammatical
it is the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
to
makes
propose
the
sentences
the
observation
of
(5)
t hat
moment
the
initial
f o r m u l a t i o n of G a p ping,
subject
As
gap
in
the
a
NP
( d i s r e g a r d i n g for
a
more
(6)
restricted
(p. 257):
--
NP V * C
2
NP),
Condition.
contained
she t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e s
(6) G a p p i n g
1
the
originally
c o n s t i t u e n t , w h e r e a s the g a p in (4) di d n o t
a
(4) a n d (5)
No-Ambiguity
{AND, OR}
3
NP V* C
4
4
5
5
7
.
0
In thi s rule, C is a c o n s t i t u e n t v a r i a b l e ,
d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s
(p. 252):
'
"Multiple
be
occurrences
expanded
t hey
occur
of
the
constituent
variable
C must
in the sam e w a y w h e n the r ule s c h e m a in w h i c h
is
expanded
into
one
of
the
rules
which
it
a b b r e v i a t e s ."
By
this
definition,
rule
(5)
is an a b b r e v i a t i o n o f the
l o w i n g set of rules:
(7) a. N P V * S
{AND, O R }
4
NP V * S
0
b. N P V* NP
{AND, OR}
NP V * NP
c. N P V* P P
{AND, OR}
N P V * PP
etc.
4
fol­
- 77 -
If C is n ot e x p a n d e d twice in the sam e way,
application
of
Gapping
is
ungrammatical
the r e s u l t of the
as
can
be
observed
from (8):1
(8) a,
F r e d e a t s at A r b y ' s ,
an d m y b r o t h e r - i n - l a w
i i - t i p i c k l e d beets.
b. * P r i c k l y p e a r s g r o w s lowly, a n d A s i a t i c D a y f l o w e r s
in L e v e r e t t ,
The
notation
variable
which
(used
contains
allowed
253),
to
V * in
f o r the
verbs
delete
a
(6)
represents
fi r s t
only.
set
time
The
of
a p a r t i c u l a r type
in B r e s n a n 1971,
rule
adjacent
of
Gapping
verbs
of
266), one
is
thereby
(Stillings
1975,
cf.:
(9)
Abodeefa
attempted
to
learn
steen" and Miles
to
play
"Klactoveedsed-
to l e a r n to p l a y " K o k o " .
to p l a y "Koko".
I m m u á i u n u u / u / i u í "Koko".
By
this
evades
restriction
the
on
the
derivation of
contents
of
the
(5.), a n d o b v i a t e s
gap,
Stillings
the n e e d f o r the
No-Ambiguity Condition.
Th e r e
are
o t h e r t h a n V,
preverbal
cases
where
s u c h as:
adverbs
(cf.
p o s t v e r b a l c l i t i c s (cf.
the
the
gap
involves
constituents
i n f i n i t i v e p a r t i c l e to (cf.
(10),.
Jackendoff
1971,
(11), J a c k e n d o f f 1971,
(9));
23);
and
24), as in:
(10) a. S i m o n q u i c k l y d r o p p e d the g o l d a n d J a c k
(hMiW /
the di a m o n d s .
b. M a x s o m e t i m e s b e a t s h i s w i f e a n d T e d
I M & t i h i s dog.
(11) P a u l S c h a c h t e r h a s i n f o r m e d me that the b a s i c o r d e r
in T a g a l o g a nd r e l a t e d l a n g u a g e s is VOS;
Ives Goddard
/ íi/ytúfú’i fi/ti't that the u n m a r k e d o r d e r in A l g o n k i a n
is OVS;
an d G u y C a r d e n f í é i i W f W i á # ( ¿ / W
o r d e r in A l e u t is OSV.
t h a t the b a s i c
H ere,
Stillings
assumes
restructuring
i nto
not mention AUX-V restructuring explicitly,
(12).
(She
does
b u t it is in line
w i t h he r a p p r o a c h of n o n - V G a p p i n g in g e n e r a l . )
This
assumption
successfully
predicts
m e n t i o n e d h a v e to be p a r t of the gap,
t hat
the
elements
just like V, and c a n n o t
b e l o n g to the set of p o s s i b l e remnants:
(9')
*
A b o d e e f a a t t e m p t e d to l e a r n to p l a y " K l a c t o v e e d s e d st e e n " and M i l e s
(10') a.
u t m n a u 1 e a r n to p l a y "Koko"
I I t i k t i h J p l a y "Koko"
S i m o n q u i c k l y d r o p p e d the g o l d a n d J a c k s u d d e n l y
the diam o n d s .
b.
*
'
Max sometimes beats his wife and Ted frequently
hi s dog.
(11')
Paul S c h a c h t e r ha s i n f o r m e d me t h a t the b a s i c o r d e r
in T a g a l o g a n d r e l a t e d l a n g u a g e s is VOS;
Goddard
Ives
tha t the u n m a r k e d o r d e r
in A l g o n k i a n is OVS;
and Guy Carden $$$/
me that the b a s i c o r d e r in A l e u t is OSV.
Less
promising
full
PP,
candidates
although
( J a c k e n d o f f 1971,
such
24),
f o r ' r e s t r u c t u r i n g are
restructuring
is
full NP and
required
for
(13)
s t r u c t u r e d as in (14):
(13) a. J o h n w r i t e s p o e t r y in the g a r d e n ,
and Max
in the b a thr o o m .
b, C h a r l i e w e n t i n t o the b e d r o o m at 5:30,
■
at 5:31.
and L o l a
_ 79 -
The
restructuring
approach
breaks
down
definitely
in
cases where Gapping involves constituents not adjacent
those
to the
verb:
(15) a. J a c k b e g g e d E l s i e to get m a r r i e d ,
and Wil f r e d
Phoebe
b.
I l e a r n e d to ride last week,
and Bill
Mi-iiW'k to r ow W i t !
c. I t o l d Sue a b o u t the party,
a n d Bill
M U Martha
d. Joe c o v e r e d the f l o o r w i t h red p a i n t ,
and Alice
the w a l l s u w t u i u n t .
e. Joe p a i n t e d h i s b o a t red, a n d A l i c e
h e r c a r f O..
f. H a n k hi t a h o m e run o n T h u r s d a y ,
Ifiit a s i n g l e
In
order
to
generate
the
rule
of
"Truncation",
these
sentences,
deleting
ents. The rule is left u n f o r m u l a t e d .
(15)
are
derived
and Maris
■
from
Stillings
conjunct
introduces
fi n a l
constitu­
The r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e s in
their, full u n d e r l y i n g
forms via
(16),
the T r u n c a t i o n stage:
(16) a.
J a c k b e g g e d E l s i e to get m a r r i e d ,
and Wilfred
b e g g e d P h o e b e t</>
I l e a r n e d to ride l a s t week,
,
and Bill learned
to ro w
c.
I told Sue a b o u t the party ,
Martha
d.
*
Joe c o v e r e d the f l o o r w i t h r e d p a i n t ,
c o v e r e d the w a l l s
e.
a n d B i l l told
.
*
and Alice
.
Joe p a i n t e d h i s boat red, a n d A l i c e p a i n t e d
her car f U .
f.
H a n k hi t a h o m e ru n o n T h u r s d a y , a n d M a r i s hit
a single
.
- 80 -
Ho w e v e r ,
for
as
(16d)
obligatory
(15e)
are
Truncation
tively
of
and
real
examples
does
no t
interesting
these
(16e)
show,
constituents.
cases,
Truncation
This
of
implies
multiple
but
that
is t h a t
the
impossible
(15d)
gapping,
c o v e r all i n s t a n c e s o f
conclusion
is
that
and
and
(15).
that
A compara­
it d o e s n o t c o v e r any
rule
of
Gapping
must
be
f o r m u l a t e d so as to d e r i v e the w h o l e set in (15).
In f a v o r of h e r a n a l y s i s S t i l l i n g s
presents
(17), a set
of m u l t i p l e ga p e x a m p l e s w h i c h m u s t d e f i n i t e l y be excl u d e d :
(17) a.
A1 w a s c l e a r l y i n t e n t on t e l l i n g A l i c e to b u y the
lettuce and Alfred
Jim U l U i l i U l l i t i U i .
b.
N a n c y t h o u g h t M i k e f o o l i s h f o r e v e n t a l k i n g to
Sally and Cindy
Alfonse
t<t>t! iii iy
U lU M /U /U U f.
c. * J o h n a s k e d G e o r g e to be the one to i n f o r m M a r y
of Ellington's death and Fred
d.
Sam
The b o x c e r t a i n l y c o n t a i n e d t h u m b t a c k s b e f o r e
M a r t y s p i l l e d t h e m a n d the c a r t o n
pins
e.
*
I p l a n to t a l k to M a r y a w e e k f r o m n e x t T u e s d a y
an d J o h n i>t m / u / t m
tM i M i ,
f.
*
to F r e d
-
A r t h u r p u t h i s b o a c o n s t r i c t o r U n d e r the m a t t r e s s
at 80 W. W a r r e n a n d Be r n i e $
plywood
/ 1$4
/ 0 0 / ¥ Uy&f Mi i ■
These
examples
Hankamer
cussed
in
are
(1971),
no t
excluded
an d S a g
section
2).
(1976)
However,
e x c l u d e d in S t i l l i n g s 1 f r a m e w o r k .
by
the
Gapping
analyses
of
(whose p r o p o s a l w i l l be d i s ­
it
is
not clear how
In p a r t i c u l a r ,
(17)
is
she p r e s e n t s
no r e a s o n w h y T r u n c a t i o n c a n n o t
a p p l y to it. In c h a p t e r 3 it
will
in
be
shown
that
f o r m u l a t i o n of G a pping,
(17)
is
fact
irrelevant
to
the
but p e r t a i n s to the s c o p e of r u l e s in
- 81 -
g e neral.
This
strengthens
the
conclusion
that
(15) are ca s e s
of m u l t i p l e Gapping.
1.3.
L A N G E N D O E N 1975
Just
as
Stillings
alternative
to
(1’
975),
Hankamer's
Langendoen
(1975)
transderivational
p r e s e n t s an
constraint
by
m e a n s of a d i r e c t r e s t r i c t i o n o n the gap:
(18) The n o n l e f t - p e r i p h e r a l N P c o n d i t i o n
C o o r d i n a t i o n D e l e t i o n c a n n o t a p p l y so as to
d e l e t e n o n l e f t - p e r i p h e r a l s t r i n g s that c o n t a i n N P .
No
doubt
an a t t r a c t i v e
feature
predicts
ungrammatical
gappings
ripheral
gap.
si nce
either
contains
a
The
NP.
left-peripheral,
(20')
examples
the
internal
in
g ap
condition
irrespective
(19)
or
cases
and
the
where
(20)
left-pe­
are
excluded
gap
are
the
r e d u c t i o n is g r a m m a t i c a l ,
deleted
cf.
NPs
(19') and
113 - 4).
yi&ii/ S u s a n
and
yesterday.
M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to see Mary,
and
b.
*
W a l t f<j>I
Ira
m/tfi&tf.
M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to see Mary,
a nd
W a l t t<t>
I
11<!>I
(19') M a x sent S a l l y the m e s s e n g e r l a s t week,
yi&t-/
Susan yesterday.
Walt
same
examples
as S t i l l i n g s '
ing-cum-restructuring-and-Truncation
1971,
24):
(cf.,
and
Ira.
The N o n l e f t - p e r i p h e r a l NP C o n d i t i o n runs a g r o u n d ,
the
Ira.
and
(20') M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to see Mary,
precisely
it
a
all
those
M a x sent S a l l y the m e s s e n g e r l a s t week,
(20) a.
is t h a t
of
right-peripheral
In
( L a n g e n d o e n 1975,
(19)
of this
however,
on
a n a l y s i s of Ga p p again,
Jackendoff
- 82 -
(21) a. J o h n w r i t e s p o e t r y in the g a r d e n a n d M a x
in the b a t h r o o m .
D . A r i z o n a e l e c t e d G o l d w a t e r S e n a t o r and
Pennsylvania
Schweiker $
$ \ .
c. J o h n g ave M a r y a n i c k e l and S u s a n
Harvey
•
F o r t h e s e p h e n o m e n a t here does no t s e e m to be a s o l u t i o n that
doe s
not
meet
the
problems
discussed
in
the
preceding
section.
Moreover,
is
acceptable
Gr a m m a r .
As
although
its
L a n g e n d o e n 's
o nly
such,
if
it
the
isolated
Nonleft-peripheral
is
taken
condition
character
as
a part
is
-hard
NP
Condition
of
Universal
to
criticize,
d oe s c e r t a i n l y n o t c o u n t
in
f a v o r o f it.
1.4. K U N O 1976
Kuno
amples
section
(1976)
to
1.1.
parallels
presents
H a n k a m e r 's
in
All
these
Dutch
a
set
of
No-Ambiguity
interesting
Condition
counterexamples
(cf.
Kuno
(1976,
have
306)
counterex­
discussed
in
straightforward
for
the
English
e x a m p l e s ):
(22) My b r o t h e r v i s i t e d J a p a n in 1960,
and my sister
i U i t U i i U U in 1961.
Mi jn b r o e r b e z o c h t J a p a n in 1 9 6 0 en mi jn zus
in 1961.
(23) H a r r y t o l d this s t o r y to h i s m o t h e r ,
a n d T om
tshii! i t i i i to h i s father.
H a r r i e v e r t e l d e dit v e r h a a l a an z i j n m o e d e r en Tom
i i t t £t 44 / i t t H i M a a n
z l j n v ader.
T h e s e s e n t e n c e s are g r a m m a t i c a l , a l t h o u g h v a r i a n t s e x i s t w i t h
a
left
peripheral
a n o m a l o u s ):
gap
(w h i c h
fo r
(23)
are
semantically
- 83 -
(22')
M y b r o t h e r v i s i t e d J a p a n in 196 0 and
my s i s t e r in 1961 .
M i j n b r o e r b e z o c h t J a p a n in 196 0 en
$
(23')
i
m i j n z u s in 1961.
l
H a r r y to l d this s t ory to h i s m o t h e r ,
and
y a t t i ! t i t i - T o m »to h i s father.
H a r r y v e r t e l d e dit v e r h a a l a an z i j n m o e d e r en
T o m a a n z i j n v a der.
w t u m t u w
Moreover,
that
factors
Kuno's most
important
outside
syntax
of
observations make
may
influence
m a t i c a l i t y j u d g m e n t s o n s e n t e n c e s of thi s type.
the
lexical
content
crucial role
(25),
and
of
the
NPs
the
gram-
F o r i n s t ance,
seems
to
play
a
(p.307). C o m p a r e the a- a n d b - i n s t a n c e s o f (24),
(26),
which
parallel
a n d (5) above.
(24) a.
involved
clear
Hankamer's
basic
set
in
(4)
.
J o h n b e l i e v e s M a r y to be g u i l t y ,
and Tom
to be i nnoce n t .
b.
O f the p e o p l e p o lled,
to be gu i l t y ,
8 0 % b e l i e v e the P r e s i d e n t
and 20%
IMi
(to be) innocent.
(i r r e p r o d u c a b l e in D u t c h )
(25) a.
J a c k a s k e d Mik e to w a s h hi m s e l f ,
a n d Sue
M U * / M M to s h a v e h i m s e l f .
J a c k v r o e g M i k e z i c h z e l f te w a s s e n en Sue
z i c h z e l f te scher e n .
b.
5 0 % of h i s c o n s t i t u e n t s a s k e d the S e n a t o r
to v o t e for the bill,
a n d 2 5%
to v o t e a g a i n s t it.
'50% v r o e g h e t k a m e r l i d v o o r de w e t te s t e m m e n
en 2 5 %
ertegen
(50% a s k e d the s e n a t o r f o r the bil l
a n d 2 5 % &.4M4- /
'¡hto vot e
there-against
- 84 -
(26) a.
*•
M a x w a n t e d T e d to p e r s u a d e A l e x to see M a r y
and Walt
Ira M
I
tii/^iti,
9
'Max w i l d e T ed A l e x l a t e n o v e r h a l e n o m M a r y
op te z o e k e n en W a l t i i f t t i
Ira
M in u u iu m tiiw iu iu iM ii.
(Max w a n t e d T e d A l e x let p e r s u a d e f o r M a r y
u p to l o o k a nd W a l t
Ira
u tu m iu tm tiiM iu iu it.)
b.
S o m e R e p u b l i c a n s want F o r d to r u n f o r the
P r e s i d e n c y in 1976,
a n d o t h e r s iii-iif R e a g a n
U ltU ltM ltM I'tU M M M ilU llM l.
Sommige Republikeinen willen Ford lijsttrekker
l a t e n w o r d e n en a n d e r e n i i f t t i v i R e a g a n
U m tU tU t/IH H /M U M .
(Some R e p u b l i c a n s w a n t F o r d c a n d i d a t e
let be a n d o t h e r s iii-iit R e a g a n
u m .u u iu tm .)
In the same vein,
ents
containing
if the c o n t e x t c l e a r l y s h o w s that c o n s t i t u ­
old
information
have
been
gapp e d ,
c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h n ew i n f o r m a t i o n are l e f t b e h i n d ,
is
grammatical
irrespective
of
the
lexical
whereas
the o u t p u t
content
of
the
NPs. K u n o (p . 308) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h i s by p r e s e n t i n g a qu e s t i o n ,
w h i c h p r e c e d e s the g a p p e d a nswer:
(27) a. Q : W i t h w h a t did J o h n a n d B i l l h i t Ma r y ?
A: J o h n h it M a r y w i t h a s t i c k and B i l l
n t i w i w i t h a belt.
Q: W a a r m e e s l o e g e n J a n en Bill M a r i e ?
( W h e r e w i t h hit J a n a n d B i l l M a r i e ? )
A: J a n s l o e g M a r i e m e t e e n s t o k e n Bill
m e t e e n riem.
b. Q: W h e r e d id M a x a n d H a r v e y w a n t to p u t the
eggplant?
A: M a x w a n t e d to put the e g g p l a n t on the ta b l e a n d
Harvey
t<i>/i>M/
in the sink.
- 85 -
(27) b . (c o n t .)
Q: W a a r w i l d e n Max eri H a r r y de k o m k o m m e r p l a n t
neerzetten?
(Where w a n t e d M ax a n d H a r r y the e g g p l a n t
(t o ) p u t ? )
A: M ax w i l d e de k o m k o m m e r p l a n t op t a f e l z e t t e n en
Harry i iftM / M / f M t M M t i l i - M
op h e t a a n r e c h t
M itU U U .
(Max w a n t e d the e g g p l a n t on table
Harry
The
implication
vered
for
by
in
the
of
Kuno's
o b s e r v a t i o n is that
N o - A m b i g u i t y C o n d i t i o n are n o t
s yntax.
(to) p u t a n d
in the s i n k
The
alternatives
presented
the
facts c o ­
to be a c c o u n t e d
by
Stillings
and
L a n g e n d o e n are s y n t a c t i c a l l y s u p e r f l u o u s . A l t h o u g h it is e a s y
to be
be
wise
that
catch
after
the
up
the event,
devices
with
the
the g e n e r a l
proposed
facts
by
conclusion seems
Stillings
presented
and
to
Langendoen
by
Hankamer,
but
lack
that
" [m]odern
linguist­
c o ncerned- w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n a l
adequacy"
i n d e p e n d e n t s u p p o r t in a s t r i k i n g way.
2. D E S C R I P T I V E A D E Q U A C Y
Chomsky's criticism
ics
has
been
disguises
a
largely
significant
study
of
by
Saussure
De
distributional
and
(1964,
problem.
phenomena
Bloomfield
struction of categories,
29)
was
Let
us
along
suppose
the
directed
lines
toward
to
since
be
largely
this c o u l d
adequacy.
valued
as
the
the
con­
e a c h o f w h i c h c o u l d be c h e c k e d m o r e
or less d i r e c t l y by its o wn set of o b s e r v a t i o n s .
had
that
suggested
concerned
with
Such studies
observational
ade q u a c y ,
be s e e n as a d i r e c t m e a s u r e f o r d e s c r i p t i v e
The c l o s e n e s s to o b s e r v a t i o n a l
a hallmark
of s c i e n t i f i c
reality was probably
"certainty",
a safeguard
a g a i n s t not d i r e c t l y c o n t r o l l a b l e s p e c u l a t i o n .
Th e s e
very
into d i s r e p u t e .
virtues
caused
this
type
of
study
to
fall
T a x o n o m i e s of o b s e r v a t i o n s w i t h o u t u n e x p e c t e d
- 86 -
implications,
incapable
m a t i c a l p a t t e r n s w ere
which
the
ten c e s
fluent
he
tical
ha s
speaker
no t
notions
to
anticipate
the
ju d g e s
heard
should
the
before.
have
a
influ e n c e .
ed".
The
In
no t
be
diversity
brief,
set-up
completely
of
grammaticality
By
these
harmless
gram­
of
they
an d o u t l o o k o f
different
be
sen­
gramma­
each
Grammatical notions
implications,
should
of
standards
generalizations,
r e d u c i b l e to its o w n set of o b s e r v a t i o n s .
would
variety
i n a d e q u a t e to p o r t r a y the c o m p e t e n c e by
d ue
to
m utual
"independently motivat­
the C h o m s k y a n a p p r o a c h
that any a t t e m p t
is so
to see it as a c o n t i n ­
u a t i o n of " A m e r i c a n " l i n g u i s t i c s s e e m s a m e n t a l e x e r c i s e of a
doubtful
kind,
certain
crucial
And,
deemed
to m i s s
the m a j o r p o i n t a n d to m i s t a k e
characteristics
fo r
additional
if e v e n u n d i s p u t a b l y c l e a r o b s e r v a t i o n s c a n o f f e r only a
t e n t a t i v e c h e c k on c a t e g o r i e s and rules,
new
properties.
hallmark
of
motivation",
T he
linguistic
soundness,
it is c l e a r t h a t the
that
is:
"independent
is i n d i s p e n s a b l e .
relevance
of any s p e c i f i c p r o p o s a l
is t e n t a t i v e a n d
o n l y i n t u i t i v e l y a p p r e c i a t e d as " r e v e a l i n g " or " s i g n i f i c a n t " .
This
is
a
phenomena
general
pr o b l e m ,
as well.
It
which
is n o t
derived
by
phrasal
conjunction,
are
be
assumed
(for
to
respect
to G a p ping,
that S t i l l i n g s
the
exists
a priori
or h o w m a n y
relevance
see c h a p t e r
for
1).
the
Gapping
c l e a r w h a t s h o u l d be
of
reduction
these
rules
rules
with
It is w o r t h i l l u s t r a t i n g
(1975) an d S a g (1976) w e r e w e l l - a w a r e of this.
S t i l l i n g s a d m i t s of h e r rule (p. 270) that
"w h i l e
it
which
are
above
,
doe s
not
generate
grammatical,
at
least
it
e.g.,
all
of
the
sentences
generates
only
gapped
(Al-6)
sentences
i.e.
grammatical
(16)
gapped
s e n t e n c e s ."
Th i s
view
contrasts
as f o l l o w s
"The
(1976,
Sag's,
who
summarizes his position
279):
proposed analysis overgenerates
we h a v e argued,
Bo t h p o s i t i o n s
to c l a i m
naturally
claims
with
that
imply further hypotheses.
the g a p p e d
from
t hat
considerably,
the
which,
is a d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t , "
some
other
incorrect
Stillings
is f o r c e d
s e n t e n c e s n o t g e n e r a t e d w ill f o l l o w
independently
g a p s w h i c h his
motivated
rule.
Sag
r ule g e n e r a t e s
are
- 87 -
filtered
oases,
ou t
th e r e
by
independently
is n o a p r o i r i
motivated
principles.
In b o t h
o b s e r v a t i o n a l a d e q u a c y to d e c i d e
the q u e s t i o n .
We
will
tion",
i.e.
little
or
filtered
follow
the
no
specific
o ut
semantic
here
by
component.
A
approach.
dependent
motivation".
lation
of
the
preference
syntactic
rule
whose
description
It
is
We
of
rule
component,
components
"modular"
of o v e r g e n e r a t i o n ,
of
information,
another
interaction of rule
rule-specific
Sag's
preference
that
overproduction
in
most
will
particular
results
is s o m e t i m e s
a
from
form
through Sag's
h o w e v e r , w i t h d e t e r m i n e d rigor.
rule
of
Gapping
information
to
be
whatsoever.
the
proposed
of
"in­
strategy
The f o r m u ­
contains
Restrictions
are
no
seen
to f o l l o w f r o m s e m a n t i c c o n d i t i o n s a l o n g the l i n e s o f Sag,
from
syntactic
chapter
conditions
3 below).
that
To m o t i v a t e
are
o ur
not
is
the
i n d i c a t e d as the
promising
carry
"overgenera­
schemata with
rule-specific
formulation
of
the
or
(cf.
rule,
t h r e e a s p e c t s o f p r e v i o u s l y p r o p o s e d f o r m u l a t i o n s of the rule
of G a p p i n g w i l l be d i s c u s s e d here:
(i)
the d o m a i n o f the rule;
(ii)
the s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the r e m n a n t s ;
(iii)
the n u m b e r of gaps.
These
aspects
will
be d i s c u s s e d
in the
and
following
3 sections
in the o r d e r given.
2.1.
O ne
T H E D O M A I N O F T H E RULE
of
the
domain of Gapping
m a ins,
cf.
most
important
is that
the
observations
as
regards
the
rule c a n a p p l y in e m b e d d e d do­
the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s
(Sag 1976,
267):
(28) a. Bill said that B e t s y p l a y e d s h o r t s t o p ,
and Alan
isté-'iiû 1st base.
B i l l zei dat B e t s y k o r t e s t o p z o u z i j n en A l a n
eerste honkman
(Bill s a i d that B e t s y s h o r t stop w o u l d be a n d A l a n
fi r s t b a s e v M v l W / W . )
- 88 -
b. That A l a n p l a y e d 1st b a s e a n d B e t s y
p s h o r t s t o p ,
is n o t s u r p r i s i n g ,
D at A l a n e e r s t e h o n k m a n w a s en B e t s y k o r t e stop
, v e r b a a s t me niets.
(That A l a n first b a s e w a s and B e t s y s h o r t stop
, su r p r i s e s > m e n o t h i n g . )
Sag
(1976)
assumes
that
level
of
(28),
end-variables
shallow
W4 )
Sa g
deletion
structure.
should
s c r i p t i o n o f the rule.
and
all
For
be
Gapping
added
Together with
introduces
rules
to
apply
then
the
after
to
the
apply
structural
to
de­
these e nd-variables
S-brackets.
The
rule
of
(W^
Gapping
f o l l o w i n g f r o m this is (29).
(29) G a p p i n g
(Sag 1976,
278)
W 3 - [ 3X 2 - W i - ( X 2 ) * ~ W 2 ] - {and,or} - [gX 2 - W ;L- (X 2 )*- W 2] - W 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
10
9
11=^
0
11
In
this rule, W is a true v a r i a b l e (any n u m b e r o f c o n s t i t u p
ents) a nd X a b b r e v i a t e s f o r c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h t w o bars, thus
N 2 (= N P ), P 2 ( = P P ) , A 2 (= A P ), a n d V 2 (=VP)
(cf. B r e s n a n 1976
for the f o r m u l a t i o n of r u l e s w i t h v a r i a b l e c o n s t i t u e n t s ) .
The
s ta r s o v e r t e r m s 4 a nd 9 i n d i c a t e that the t e r m s m a y c o n t a i n
2
a n a r b i t r a r y n u m b e r of X - c o n s t i t u e n t s .
S ag d o e s n o t e x p l a i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n of S - b r a c k e t s , but
their
the
effect
u se
a voi d e d ,
is
of
evid e n t .
brackets
Since
in
it
is
generally
transformational
agreed
rules
that
must
be
t h e y s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a s u b j e c t of f u r t h e r st u d y
r a t h e r t h a n a s o l u t i o n to the prob l e m .
Moreover,
apply
VP
to
as we l l .
more
as
shown
coordinations
F or
the
sophisticated
provided.
structural
projections
This
can
in c h a p t e r 1,
o f S, b ut
rule
to
be
done
by
of
(S',
S,
and.VP).
the
adding
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the rule,
of V
and
obs e r v a t i o n a l l y adequate,
specification
be
not only does Gapping
to c o o r d i n a t i o n s o f S'
where
domain
should
V 1- b r a c k e t s
to
a
be
the
V 1 a b b r e v i a t e s for
It e x c l u d e s the d e r i v a t i o n
- 89 -
of
(30),
in w h i c h
Gapping
applies
to
a
c o o r d i n a t i o n of N P s
(cf. c h a p t e r 1, s e c t i o n 2.1.5.).
(30) * T h e t h i r d a t t e m p t to b e g i n to w r i t e a n o v e l and
the f o u r t h
! t é IMÎi-'él t4>! i i t i t i a play,
...
* D e d e r d e p o g i n g om te b e g i n n e n een n o v e l l e te
s c h r i j v e n en de v i e r d e
e e n t o n e e l s t u k tilii'S h i'tiii'sh ,
...
(The t h i r d a t t e m p t fo r to b e g i n a n o v e l
to
w r i t e a n d the f o u r t h é - t t i é t t / t é t / t é / ï i é é i i i
a play t é/ y i f t f é ,
O n the
level
of e x p l a n a t o r y a d e q u a c y ,
ti o n is s u s p i c i o u s .
to n e g a t i v e
■■■)
however,
this d e s c r i p ­
The l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g c h i l d has n o a c c e s s
d a t a suc h as
(30).
Of course,
c i f i c a t i o n c a n be c l a i m e d to be innate,
the V 1 - d o m a i n s p e ­
X p r e f e r to l e a v e the
d o m a i n u n s p e c i f i e d in the e x p e c t a t i o n that r e s t r i c t i o n s on it
are to be
I will
explained by independent constraints.
propose
In s e c t i o n 3
to d e r i v e s u c h a c o n s t r a i n t f r o m r e s t r i c t i o n s
o n L o g i c a l Form. A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y is to d e r i v e it f r o m the
syntactic
Major
Constituent
Condition
to
be
discussed
in
c h a p t e r 3.
2.2.
THE REMNANTS
The r u l e s o f G a p p i n g p r e s e n t e d by H a n k a m e r a n d S t i l l i n g s
e x p r e s s two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the r e m n a n t s ;
restrict
the n u m b e r of t h e i r r e mnan t s ,
of c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y f u n c t i o n as
may
be
number
a
first remnant.
of
remnants
this
restriction
(cf.
(31)),
is
The
allowed;
correct
f irst,
the r ules
and second;
all k i n d s
second remnants,
first restriction
the
for
upper
limit
English
it is n o t in o t h e r s (cf.
an d it d oes n o t h o l d in D u t c h at all:
(32))
in
b ut o n l y N P
specifies
is
two.
some
the
Though
instances
(Sag 1976,
196-7),
- 90 -
(31) a.
*
A l a n gav e S a n d y a book,
and Peter
ü - f i Betsy a magazine.
A l a n g a f S a n d y eert b o e k en P e t e r
H f Betsy een tijdschrift.
b.
*
A l a n t o l d H a r r y th a t the s k y w a s f a l l i n g a n d S a m
B e t s y that C h i c k e n L i t t l e w a s right.
A l a n v e r t e l d e H a r r y dat de l u c h t n a a r b e n e d e n
k w a m en S a m - f i f t é t é i B e t s y da t C h i c k e n L i t t l e
g e l i j k had.
( A l a n t o l d H a r r y th a t the sky d o w n - b e l o w
c a m e a n d S a m jt<t>té B e t s y that C h i c k e n L i t t l e
r i g h t w a s .)
c.
*
A r i z o n a e l e c t e d G o l d w a t e r S e n a t o r a nd
Massachussetts
McCormack Congressman.
A r i z o n a k o o s G o l d w a t e r in de s e n a a t en
M a s s a c h u s s e t t s yL&ó£ M c C o r m a c k in h e t c o n g r e s .
( A r i z o n a e l e c t e d G o l d w a t e r in the s e n a t e a n d
Massachussetts
(32) a.
1 M c C o r m a c k in the c o n g r e s s )
Pe^ter t a l k e d to h i s b o s s o n T u e s d a y ,
and Betsy
to h e r s u p e r v i s o r o n W e d n e s d a y .
P i e t h e e f t d i n s d a g m e t z i j n b a a s g e s p r o k e n en
Betsy
w o e nsdag met haar w e r kleider
(Piet h a s T u e s d a y to H i s b o s s t a l k e d a n d
Betsy
W e d n e s d a y to h e r s u p e r v i s o r
'
u i n t .)
b.
J o h n t a l k e d to h i s s u p e r v i s o r a b o u t h i s t h e sis,
a n d E r i c h t &t Mi 1 to the d e a n a b o u t d e p a r t m e n t a l
politics.
John heeft met zijn werkleider over zijn p r o e f ­
s c h r i f t g e s p r o k e n en E r i k Jh é i t t m e t de d e k a a n
over instituutszaken
•
91 -
It s e e m s
that
remnants
are a c c e p t a b l e
of
the
VP.
in E n g l i s h g a p p e d s e n t e n c e s w i t h m o r e t h a n two
Sag
only
considers
if
this
the
t h i r d r e m n a n t is o u t s i d e
restriction
unimportant
(p.
278) :
"Much
of
A.H.N.]
the
can
overgeneration
be
ruled
out
by
of
a
thi s
rule
surface
|i.e.
(29),
constraint
of
the
s or t i l l u s t r a t e d in (3.4.53)
(3.4.53)
where
V
# [s X 2 [V 1
C* stands
(VP)).
As
siderably
tences
for
any
sequence
previously
among
like
X 2 - C*] ] ,
speakers.
(3.4.54),
of c o n s t i t u e n t s
mentioned,
Th u s
judgements
som e
whose Gapped
people
(within
vary
con­
accept
sen­
r i g h t c o n j u n c t h a s the
structure: L N 2 [ . N 2 S 2 ] ] .
b
yl
( 3.4.54) %Ja n i s t o l d A l a n that he w a s c r a z y ,
and Betsy
P e t e r t h a t he s h o u l d go to tak e a bath.
O u r G a p p i n g r u l e g e n e r a t e s such s e n t e n c e s .
tal
variation
surface
natural
is
handled
constraints.
way
by
This,
to h a n d l e w h a t
The i d i o l e c -
positing
slightly
I
claim,
would
different
is
a
very
s e e m to be c o m p l e t e l y i d i o s y n ­
c r a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s in a c c e p t a b i l i t y j u d g e m e n t s . "
L et
us
assume
that
thi s
is
correct.
Then
the
difference
b e t w e e n E n g l i s h a n d D u t c h with, r e s p e c t
to the G a p p i n g p h e n o ­
mena
the
observed
(3.4.53)
in
(31)
are
reduced
to
fact
tha t
filter
is p a r t of the g r a m m a r o f E n g l i s h (at l e ast for som e
speakers),
b u t a b s e n t f r o m the g r a m m a r o f Dutch.
Secondly,
the
rules
of
Hankamer
and
Stillings
specify
the f i r s t r e m n a n t of G a p p i n g as N P . T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n a r b i t r a ­
r il y
narrows
that
the c h o i c e
the
s c ope
of
the
rule.
of the f i r s t r e m n a n t
c h o i c e of the s e c o n d r emnant,
Sag
c f .:
(33) a. At our house, we p l a y p o k e r ,
at B e t s y ' s house,
(1976,
265)
shows
is just as f r e e as the
and
b r i dge.
- 92 -
(33) a.
(oont.)
Bij ons s p e l e n we poker,
bij B e t s y
en
b r i dge .
(At o u r ('s) p l a y we po k e r ,
at B e t s y
and
( 1s) i t & H M b r i d g e . )
b. Y e s t e r d a y we v e n t to the m o v i e s ,
and
last T h u r s d a y , iii/itiiif to the c ircus.
G i s t e r e n g i n g e n we n a a r de f i l m en
vorige week donderdag
$4 n a a r h e t ci r c u s .
( Y e s t e r d a y w e n t we to the m o v i e s and
last w e e k T h u r s d a y 'fiiis.t fii<i to the c i r c u s . )
O n e ' s c h o i c e o f r e m n a n t s is, h o w e v e r ,
particular,
(34)
n o t c o m p l e t e l y free.
V 2 m a y not be l e f t b e h i n d (Sag 1976,
*0n T u e s d a y ,
Sa m m ust h ave s e e m e d ha p p y ,
In
266):
and
o n W e d n e s d a y , tf.i m u s t h a v e s e e m e d sad.
Sa g c o n c l u d e s that the s e c o n d X
"must
be
restricted
would
presumably
be
so
?
t hat
done
in h is rule
it
cannot
2
analyze
by means of syntactic
V . T his
feat u r e s ,
bu t we w ill no t p u r s u e t h a t m a t t e r h e r e . "
It
seems,
however,
t hat
features only obscures
ing.
It
cannot
be
a
solution
in
terms
of
syntactic
a fundamental problem regarding Gapp­
accidental
t hat
Gapping
always
deletes
verbs.
2
By s t a t i n g tha t the r e m n a n t s o f G a p p i n g a re X - c o n s t i t u ­
ents,
Sag e x c l u d e s s e n t e n c e s suc h as (Sag 1976,
(35)
275-6):
*Did B e t s y e a t the p e a c h e s or d i d H a r r y
the g r a p e s ?
Heeft Betsy p e r ziken gegeten of heeft Harrie
druiven
(36)
*Betsy s a i d that A l a n w e n t to the b a l l g a m e a n d
that B e t s y itiiit to the m o v ie s .
*Be t s y zei dat A l a n n a a r de v o e t b a l w e d s t r i j d g i n g
e n dat M a r y n a a r de f i l m i i t é ’
- 93 -
In ge n e r a l , o n l y m a j o r p h r a s e s m a y f u n c t i o n as G a p p i n g rem2
nants. O b s e r v e h o w e v e r , t h a t the X - r e s t r i c t i o n on G a p p i n g
runs i nto t r o u b l e w i t h s e n t e n c e s such as (37):
(37) a. Bil l s a w Harry,
( L a s n i k 1972,
not H a r r y
Bill.
90)
Bill za g Harrie, m a a r H a r r i e 04, B i l l niet.
(Bill saw Harry, bu t H a r r y
Bill not)
b. Bill k o m t wel, e n H a r r i e Ksitfit niet.
(Bill c o m e s d e f i n i t e l y ,
Bill d o e s come,
and Harry
not;
an d H a r r y d o e s n o t c o m e . )
N o t , n i e t a n d wel
(the r e v e r s e of n o t , u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d in
o
E n g l i s h b y a f o r m of "to do") c a n n o t be X - c o n s t i t u e n t s . T h e y
form
a
special
Therefore,
2
class,
apart
f rom
the
projections
of
X.
the X - r e s t r i c t i o n o n G a p p i n g c a n n o t be m a i n t a i n ­
ed. S a g ' s o b s e r v a t i o n that X 1- c o n s t i t u e n t s c a n n o t be r e m n a n t s
of G a p p i n g ho l d s .
not
that
e m e r g i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , h o w e v e r , does
?
o n l y X - c o n s t i t u e n t s c a n f u n c t i o n as
f o r G a p ping,
b u t r a t h e r t hat n o n m a x i m a l i z e d c o n s t i ­
seem
to
remnants
be
The
t u e n t s m a y n e v e r f u n c t i o n as r e m n a n t .
principles
of
Universal
Grammar,
s t a t e d in the r u l e of G a p p i n g .
T h i s s h o u l d f o l l o w from
an d
therefore
n e e d s n o t be
We w i l l r e t u r n to the p r o b l e m
o f r e s t r i c t i n g the shape of the r e m n a n t s in c h a p t e r 3.
2.3.
In
THE G A P S
several
structural
descriptions
of
Gapping
recently
p r o p o s e d the n u m b e r o f d e l e t i o n s i t e s is s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d .
The
rules
contain
one
proposed
gap
by
only,
Fiengo
(1974)
and
Stillings
those proposed by Hankamer
(1975)
(1973)
a nd
Sag (1976) c o n t a i n two: an i n t e r n a l one a n d a r i g h t p e r i p h e r a l
one.
but
Most examples with more
nevertheless
internal
gaps
t here
(38),
are
t h a n on e g ap o b e y t h i s pat t e r n ,
examples
or e v e n w i t h
with
leftperipheral
three gaps
and
(39). T h o u g h the
- 94 -
latter
appear
far-fetched,
the
gapping
schema
itself
is
p r o b a b l y no t the p l a c e to e x p r e s s t he s e j u d g e m e n t s .
(38)
T h e r e h a s b e e n s ome f l o u r a d d e d to the s a u c e b y
Peter and
/$&$/$$<£$■ some w a t e r
t<t/ M i /
b y John.
E r is m e e l bij de s aus g e d a a n d o o r P i e t en
m u
water u a u i u M i m & u
d o o r Jan.
(There is flour to the s a u c e a d d e d b y P i e t a n d
m t a u
(39)
water
/ M i / 4 Mi 4 /
b y Jan.)
'There ha s b een som e f l o u r a d d e d to the s a u c e b y
me an d f i f i i f i / W i i * -
som e w a t e r ¡¿00#$ to the soup
-
E r is d o o r P e t e r mee l bij de s a u s g e d a a n en
door Jan M i t
bij de s o e p
(There is b y P e t e r f l o u r to the sauce a d d e d a n d
t $ 4 t i f i $ by Jan
In Dutch,
the
distribution
tively unrestricted,
to the s o u p &.<ji<fri<fr.
of adverbial phrases
.
is c o m p a r a ­
an d c o n s e q u e n t l y e x a m p l e s w i t h m o r e t h a n
one i n t e r n a l gap are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e :
(40) M a r i e h e e f t in de k o f f i e p a u z e e e n a f s p r a a k g e m a a k t
me t h a a r v r i e n d i n n e n en K a r e l
i i t t in de l u n c h p a u z e
met zijn vrienden.
(Marie h a s d u r i n g the c o f f e e b r e a k a d a t e m a d e w i t h
h e r g i r l f r i e n d s an d K a r e l yi&i d u r i n g l u n c h t i m e
with his friends.)
In p r i n c i p l e ,
an
infinite
number
of
gaps
is
possible.
T his
n u m b e r is p r e s u m a b l y r e s t r i c t e d o n l y b y the f i x e d c a p a c i t y of
human
working
memory,
and
stylistic
traditions.
It s u g g e s t s
t hat one s h o u l d no t a i m to s p e c i f y the n u m b e r or the p l a c e of
the g a p s in the rule of G a p p i n g itself.
- OS
2.4. C O N S E Q U E N C E S F O R TH E F O R M U L A T I O N OF G A P P I N G
A
rule
of
discussed will
Gapping
which
h a v e a sim p l e
the one p r o p o s e d
covers
all
structural
examples
hitherto
description,
s u c h as
in c h a p t e r 1 (un d e r (84), r e p e a t e d h e r e f or
c o n v e n i e n c e ):
(41) G a p p i n g
A
¥1
1
This
W2
2
3
ion between
5
=7*
makes
no
0
specific
2
0
claims
4
0
about
the domain,
o r the g a p s o f the rule, e x c e p t f o r a d i s t i n c t ­
"t r u e " v a r i a b l e s
(A a n d B) . The
of
W3
4
formulation
the r e m n a n t s ,
B
remnants
r ule
(no
(W)
and
"constituent" variables
is r e s t r i c t e d w i t h r e s p e c t to the n u m b e r
m ore
than
two)
and
the
number
of
gaps
(no
m o r e t h a n three). A f o r m u l a w h i c h d r o p s t h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n as
w e l l w o u l d be:
(42) G a p p i n g
(final v e r s i o n )
"D e l e t e "
The
rule
is s i m i l a r to C h o m s k y ' s
"Move <*. " for m o v e m e n t r u l e s
1978,
as
(C h o m s k y
between
follow
tru e
4).
Fo r
Gapping
variables
axiomatically,
an d
in
in
(42)
constituent
the
same
way
the
difference
variables
as
the
should
axiom
for
m o v e m e n t r u l e s p r e d i c t s that o n l y c o n s t i t u e n t s c a n be moved.
Of
solved
course,
by
grammatical
hand,
ings
the
one
gapped
as
rule
well.
constraints
t his
formula
in
can
"Del e t e " :
it g e n e r a t e s
it
(42)
of v i e w
that
derives
the
problem
trivially
be g e n e r a t e d .
on v a r i a b l e s ,
perspective
learnability point
all-and-only
as
Consequently
is
Gapping
the
does not generate
trivially,
motivated
from
of
Gapping
sentences
proposed
exclusively:
gappings
half
formulating
O n the o t h e r
grammatical
all
independently
a n d d omain.
the
somewhat
its
significance.
rul e
gapp-
ungrammatical
requires
remnants
is
all
It
impecunious
From
is q u i t e a t t r a c t i v e :
a
the
- 96 -
child
only
displays
needs
(42),
a point
of m e t h o d
rule-specific
ward
to
that
the
ripheral
NP
relevance,
su c h
for
or
not
the
language
c o n t e x t it h o l d s as
s h o u l d n o t be c l u t t e r e d up w i t h
as
devices.
t h os e
Condition,
Straightfor­
assembled
by
S ag
by
Hankamer
under
the
Lef t
a n d by L a n g e n d o e n u n d e r the N o n L e f t - p e ­
Condition,
and,
whether
the p r e s e n t
or n o t a t i o n a l
No-Ambiguity
Peripheral Deletion,
in
(42)
conditions
counterexamples
under
learn
Therefore,
have
tha t
in
fac t
reason,
only
should
little
lea v e
systematic
one u n w i l l i n g
to giv e up the u n a d o r n e d v e r s i o n o f (42),
Even
then,
formulating
"Coindex".
G ap p i n g .
some c o m m e n t s are
Gapping
The
as
choice
"Delete",
relates
G a p p i n g is c l a i m e d
in o r d e r on
a n d n o t as
to
o ur
the c h o i c e
of
"Interpret",
or
modular
approach
r e l a t i n g the a n t e c e d i n g s t r i n g a n d the g a p p e d stri n g ,
other
restricting
the
of
to be g o v e r n e d by two rules: one
extent
of
the
gap.
The
a n d the
difference
b e t w e e n these two r u l e s is d i s p l a y e d b y the a r r o w s in (43).
As argued above
( c h a p t e r 1, s e c t i o n 2 . 1 . 7 . )
the
the
gapped
part
of
and
sentence
anteceding
grammar.
string
More
wil l
r e l a t i o n in s e c t i o n 3 of t h i s c h a p t e r .
relating
gap,
the r e m n ants,
a n d thus
as
chapter
3,
where
to
constrained
be
formulating
(42),
this rule and movement
a l ike.
It
is
no
r u les
commonly
s e nse
insofar
referred
as
it
said
about
be
thi s
the rule
of G a p p i n g
is
discussed
in
rules will
obvious
shows
considered
the e x t e n t of the
This part
a n d its p r o p e r t i e s will
this p a r t of G a p p i n g as
makes
be
be
In c o n t r a s t ,
specifying
is a r ul e of s e n t e n c e g r a m m a r .
formalized
the rule r e l a t i n g
cannot
from
be s h o w n
(43)
that
"Coindex" or "Interpret"
no
resemblance
to
the
to as r u l e s o f c o i n d e x i n g or i n t e r ­
- 97 -
pretation.
One m a y
further
speculate
deletes terminal elements,
stamps"
to
strings
content
(by a n o p t i o n a l
to roe t h a t
this
about
whether
(42)
actually
or w h e t h e r it just g i v e s " a p p r o v a l
of c o n s t i t u e n t s w h i c h received no lexical
rule of lexical
insertion).
It s e e m s
d i s t i n c t i o n c a n n o t be s h o w n to be m e a n i n g f u l
at p r e s e n t .
3. R E C O V E R A B I L I T Y
Lees
(1960,
two s t r i n g s
the
75)
observes
that
is an i n s u f f i c i e n t
underscored
constituents
phonological
identity
of
condition for recoverability:
in
(44)
do n o t c o u n t as
ident­
ical, as (45) shows.
(44)
are h a r d to r e s cue.
Drowning_cats
D r o w n i n g c a t s is a g a i n s t the law.
(45)
^ D r o w n i n g cats,
'
w h i c h is a g a i n s t the law,
are
h a r d to rescue.
He
that
concludes
constituents
Ross
of p h r a s e
ab i l i t y .
in
a nd
"it
is n e c e s s a r y
to
specify
that
the two
q u e s t i o n h a v e the sa m e p h r a s e s t r u c t u r e . "
Lakoff
(Lakoff
1968,
54)
showed
that
identity
s t r u c t u r e is an i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r r e c o v e r ­
They
present
arguments
th a t
d e e p and d e r i v e d s t r u c t u r e is r e l e v a n t .
information
from
both
The 'argument that the
level o f d e e p s t r u c t u r e is i n v o l v e d in r e c o v e r a b i l i t y runs as
foll o w s . C o n s i d e r (46):
(46) T he c h i c k e n s are r e a d y to eat.
This
sentence
that
the c h i c k e n s are g o i n g to eat
is
two-way
ambiguous,
g o i n g to be eaten. S i m ilarly,
two-way ambiguous,
nation.
resulting
since
or t h a t
in (47),
it
means
the
c h i c k e n s are
either
the c o n j u n c t s e a c h are
in a f o u r - w a y a m b i g u o u s c o o r d i ­
- 98 -
(47) The c h i c k e n s are rea d y to eat a n d the c h i l d r e n
are r e a d y to eat.
Application
(47),
of
however,
VP-deletion
reduces
the
in
the
number
structure
of
available
underlying
interpreta-
tians to two as in (48).
(48) The c h i c k e n s are rea d y to eat a n d the c h i l d r e n
are 0, too.
T h i s m e a n s e i t h e r t h a t b o t h the c h i c k e n s and the c h i l d r e n are
going
to
eat
structure
whether
or
that
position
or not
both
of
are
going
chickens
and
to be
eaten.
children
The
deep
thus determines
the V P s i n v o l v e d a r e i d e n t i c a l ,
i.e.
recover­
able .
On
the o t h e r hand,
it is c l e a r that the V P s in (48) are
not i d e n t i c a l at the level o f d e e p s t r u c t u r e :
a
subject
or
object
c h i l d r e n , and
the
o n e c o n t a i n s as
other
contains
as
a
s u b j e c t or o b j e c t c h i c k e n s , cf.
b. P R O e a t s
b. P R O e a t s
the c h i c k e n s
the c h i l d r e n
T h i s d i s s i m i l a r i t y d o e s not d i s a p p e a r e a r l i e r t h a n in d e r i v e d
structure.
Within
do
no
the
Lakoff
could
appear
in the d e r i v e d
standard
more
than
theory
claim
that
of
Chomsky
"items
s t r u c t u r e a r e c o m p l e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t to
the q u e s t i o n o f l i n g u i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i d e n t i t y . "
1968,
65).
(1965),
t h a t do n o t
(Lakoff
- 99 -
After
the
F i e n g o 1974,
of
the
introduction
problem
had
been
offer a representation
are
united
of
an d C h o m s k y 1976),
in
a
the
tra c e
standard
in w h i c h
natural
theory
(Chomsky
1973,
it b e c a m e c l e a r t h a t the core
way.
theory's
inability
to
deep and surface information
The
introduction
of
traces
c l e a r s the w a y f or f o u r d i f f e r e n t s h a l l o w s t r u c t u r e s o f (47).
At
this
level,
the c o n j u n c t s o f (47)
receive
two structures
each :
(50) F i r s t c o n j u n c t of ( 4 7 ) :
a. The c h i c k e n s a r e
r e a d y (e )Np
to eat.
i
b. The c h i c k e n s ^ are r e a d y (e )Np to eat
.
(e )Np
.
i
Second conjunct of ( 4 7 ) :
a. The c h i l d r e n , are rea d y
(e).m
1
b.
involved,
ment
(e)M _ to eat
,]
temporarily
the
(e)M _ .
INF .
j
INF
different
indices
of
the
NPs
these s t r u c t u r e s a l l o w for a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d s t a t e ­
of
(50a)
J
The c h i l d r e n , are r e a d y
Disregarding
to eat.
Nr .
recoverability:
(ready
(e )Np
to
the
representations
eat)
an d
(50b)
of
(rea d y
the
VPs
(e )^p
to
in
eat
(e )N P ) are not i d e n t i c a l , a n d t h e r e f o r e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
(48) in w h i c h the c h i l d r e n are g o i n g to eat a n d the c h i c k e n s
are
going
level
of
explain
to
be
shallow
the
eaten
(or v i c e
structure
thus
recoverability
of
versa)
se e m s
does
to
be
VP-deletion
not
exist.
The
r i c h e n o u g h to
as
regards
the
s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g (47).
Sag
(1976,
t han the
level
establish
m ent
121)
shows
that
a
of s h a l l o w s t r u c t u r e
more
sophisticated
level
is n e c e s s a r y in o r d e r to
linguistically significant
redundancy.
Sag's
argu­
is b a s e d o n an i n t r i g u i n g v a r i a n t of the " r e a d y to eat"
examples.
(51) T he c h i c k e n s are r e a d y to eat,
a r e r e a d y to 0, also.
a n d the c h i l d r e n
- 100 -
Unlike
ively
are
(48),
for
t his
that
sentence
reading
going
to
eat.
appearence
of
the
and
chickens
are
is u n a m b i g u o u s .
in w h i c h
There
is
second
going
both
no
way
to
interpretation
to
be
It a l l o w s e x c l u s ­
chickens
eaten)
and
explain
(both
if
d e f i n e d at the l evel o f s h a l l o w s t r u c t u r e ,
children
the
the
dis-
children
recoverability
cf.
is
(52):
(52) The c h i c k e n s ^ are r e a d y (e)Np to eat (e)Np
a. the c h i l d r e n , are r e a d y (e )jjp to eat
and
i
(e )N p .
b. the c h i l d r e n , are r e a d y (e ) ^ p to eat
J
(e )^p .
j
If the u n d e r s c o r e d s t r i n g
in
(52a)
is r e c o v e r a b l e ,
it s h o u l d
f o l l o w t hat the u n d e r s c o r e d s t r i n g in (52b) is r e c o v e r a b l e as
well.
The
level
is c l e a r l y not
of
shallow
the level
structure
(incorporating
at w h i c h the a m b i g u i t y of
the u n a m b i g u i t y of (51) ca n be e x p l a i n e d .
Sag
(p.
98)
traces)
(48) vs.
’
solves
t his p r o b l e m by r e f e r r i n g to a n o t h e r
l evel of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n :
the level of L o g i c a l F o r m ( i n t r o d u c ­
ed by C h o m s k y 1975,
105). At this level all s h a l l o w s t r u c t u r ­
es are t r a n s f o r m e d int o l a m b d a - e x p r e s s i o n s , s u c h as (53).
(53) B e t s y , X x (x l o v e s Peter)
"Betsy loves Peter"
A
logical
f o r m of this
ject-predicate
ing-Peter
"Betsy
type
relation
to
Betsy
in
loves
Peter
and
by
is i n t e n d e d
assigning
(53).
to c a p t u r e
the
Similarly,
Susan
loves
the
sub-
of
lov-
property
the
Peter"
coordination
receives
the
f o l l o w i n g l o g i c a l form:
(54) B e t s y , X x (x l o v e s Pet e r ) & Susan, X y (y l o v e s P eter)
Linguistic
recoverability
so-called
alphabetic
containing
variables
is
now
var i a n c e .
in
defined
Two
corresponding
by
the
notion
expressions
A
positions,
but
and
of
B
ident­
- 101 -
ical
otherwise,
variables
all
variables
that
are
in A
to
bound
be
alphabetic
in A
is
at
recoverable
the
l e vel
of
variants,
in p r e c i s e l y
in B are b o u n d in B,
deletion
expression
said
are
if
the
if
Sag's hypothesis
the
Logical
string
Form
then
is
is
an
deleted
and
all
sam e w a y as
an
alphabetic
v a r i a n t of a n o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n at thi s level.
In
the
phabetic
lo g i c a l
form
variance
(54),
obtains
the f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n o f a l ­
("="
means
"is
an
alphabetic
v a r i a n t of"):
(54') a.
(x l o ves P e t e r ) <
£ (y l o v e s Peter)
b, X x
(x l o v e s P e t e r ) = X y (y l o v e s P e t e r )
c. B e t s y , X x (x l o v e s P e ter )
ji -Susan, X y (y l o v e s
Peter)
In (a),
but
the v a r i a b l e s x a n d y are in c o r r e s p o n d i n g p o s i t i o n s ,
they
differ,
pressions,
In
and
(b),
are b o u n d w i t h i n
they
are
not
bound
x a n d y aga i n di f f e r ,
the
within
but
the
this time they
e x p r e s s i o n s b y the l a m b d a - o p e r a t o r . The
e x p r e s s i o n s in (b) t h e r e f o r e a r e a l p h a b e t i c v a r i a n t s .
Betsy
differs
invariant
in
fr o m
the
Susan,
which
f i r s t place.
alphabetic
variants
variables,
and
ex­
if
these
th e y
renders
In brie f ,
differ
variables
are
the
In (c),
expressions
two e x p r e s s i o n s
only
bound
with
in
respect
the
same
are
to
way
w i t h i n the e x p r e s s i o n s .
This
procedure
allows
Sag
to
explain
the
mysterious
" r eady to eat" e x a m p l e s as foll o w s . On e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the
ambiguous
(47)
( r e p e a t e d h e r e as (55)),
is r e p r e s e n t e d at the
level of L o g i c a l F o r m as (55'):
(55)
The c h i c k e n s are r e a d y to eat a n d the c h i l d r e n
are r e a d y to eat.
( 5 5 1) The c h i c k e n s , X x (x r e a d y
the c h i l d r e n , X w
According
to
these
alphabetic variants,
(x , X y (y e a t ) ) ) &
(w r e a d y ( w , X z (z e a t ) ) )
logical
f o r m s ,X y
(...)
and X z
as are X x (...) a n d X w (,..).
(...)
are
Thus, b o t h
- 102 -
s m a l l a n d lar g e V P - d e l e t i o n is r e c o v e r a b l e ,
a n d (48),
In
r e s u l t i n g in (51)
respectively.
the
second
interpretation,
(55") at the level o f L o g i c a l F o r m
(55)
is
represented
as
(emp t y s u b j e c t s are r e p r e ­
s e n t e d as du m m i e s ) .
(55") The c h i c k e n s ,, X x (x r e a d y ( a , X y
(y e a t x) )) &
the ch i l d r e n , X w (w re a d y (a, X z ( z e a t w ) ))
In
this
logical
variants,
(...),
form, X x
but X z
since
x
(...)
a nd
w
(...)
is
are
not
a nd X w
an
bound
outside
L a r g e V P - d e l e t i o n is r e c o v e r a b l e ,
not.
(...)
are
alphabetic
while
the s e
small
alphabetic
variant
of A y
expressions.
V P - d e l e t i o n is
T h i s e x p l a i n s w h y (51) c a n n o t r e c e i v e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
that the c h i c k e n s and the c h i l d r e n are g o i n g to be eaten,
and
thus the u n a m b i g u i t y of (51) vs. the a m b i g u i t y of (48).
This
presents
is
deletion
is
stru c t u r e .
only
pairs
fi r s t
not
to
Further
ph e n o m e n a ,
not
the
(and
very
strong)
in s u p p o r t of h i s h y p o t h e s i s
be
arguments
at
the
involve
w h i c h i n t e r a c t w i t h de l e t i o n .
in V P - d e l e t i o n ,
as
defined
w e l l . We
will
phenomenon with Gapping
but
argument
Sag
that r e c o v e r a b i l i t y of
level
quantifier
of
shallow
and
fo c u s
T h i s c a n be o b s e r v e d
in G a p p i n g a n d Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r
illustrate
Sag's
analysis
a nd Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r p a i r s ,
of
this
s i n c e the
d e l e t i o n p a t t e r n s c an be r e p r o d u c e d in Dut c h .
Consider
in
this
respect
the
following
1976, 285).
(56)
Q: W h o d o e s B e t s y love?
a. A: B e t s y l o v e s Péter.
b . A : *Bétsy l o v e s Peter.
Q : Van wie houdt Betsy?
(Of w h o m l o v e s Be t s y ? )
a. A: B e t s y h o u d t v a n Péter.
&
b . A : B é tsy h o u d t v a n P e t e r .
(B e t s y lov e s of Pe t e r . )
discourses
(Sag
- 103 -
The
ungrammaticality
of
(56b)
shows
that
the
stress pattern
of an a n s w e r is d i c t a t e d b y the q u e s t i o n asked.
that
stressed
or
focussed
elements
l evel of L o g i c a l F o r m as in (57)
(57)
The
Q: W h o - x
b. A:
{ B e t s y i } c £ (i, X w
logical
Peter
{*a } c a (Betsy, X y
{ P e t e r o } c 6 (Betsy, X z
who
at
the
(y l o v e s a))
(z l o v e s o))
(w l o v e s P e t e r ) )
f o r m of the q u e s t i o n in (57) r e p r e s e n t s the fact
is
one
of
of
the
form
is
Let us a s s u m e
represented
(cf. C h o m s k y 1976, 3 3 ) : ^
a. A:
logical
that
are
one
of
the
set
of
answer
the
set
people
(57a)
of
loved
by
represents
people
loved
Betsy.
the
by
The
fact
B etsy.
that
(57b)
r e f l e c t s the m e a n i n g tha t B e t s y is one o f ’the p e o p l e w h o love
P eter.
By
the
assumption
that
well-formed
Question-Answer
p a i r s share a l p h a b e t i c v a r i a n t s at the level of L o g i c a l Form,
the
ill-formedness of
ed:
the
since
Furthermore,
and
a( . . . )
in
(57)
an d
a ( ...)
hypothesis
are
alphabetic
regarding
not
thus m a y take a n e l l i p t i c a l form,
variants.
recoverability
d e l e t i o n p r e d i c t s that o (...) is r e d u n d a n t h e r e b y .
in (56a)
are
(56a) o n the o t h e r h a n d is a w e l l - f o r m e d
o (...)
Sag's
as an a n s w e r to (56) is p r e d i c t ­
i (...) ,
alphabetic variants.
answer,
(56b)
expressions
of
The a n s w e r
cf:
(56') Q: W h o d oes B e t s y love?
A: Péter.
Q: V a n wi e h o u d t B e t s y ?
(Of w h o m loves B e t s y ? )
A: V a n Peter,
(Of P e t e r . )
Fo r
lowed
multiple
(Sag
1976,
WH-questions, multiple
286),
connecting
abstraction
the l o g i c a l
to the Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r p a i r s in (58).
forms
is
in
al­
(59)
- 104 -
(58) Q: W h o gave the b o o k to w h o m ?
A:
B é t s y gave the b o o k to Péter.
Q: W i e g a f h e t b o e k a a n w i e ?
A: B é t s y ga f h e t b o e k a a n Péter.
(59) Q : W h o-x, w h o - y ,
{x& , y u } c a u (a, X z
(z gave
the b o o k to u))
A:
{fletsy^, P e t e r Q } ,c 1 6
(i, X w (w g a v e the b o o k
too))
(58)
is
(the
underscored
well-formed,
since
the
expressions
in
corresponding
(59))
are
logical
forms
alphabetic
vari­
ants .
S a g u s e s t h i s type of s e t - a b s t r a c t i o n f o r the r e p r e s e n t ­
ation
of
the
particular
t i o n - A n s w e r pairs,
is
substantiated
gapped sentences
accent
patterns
not
only
but In g a p p e d s e n t e n c e s as well.
by
the
depends
fact
that
on a c c e n t
the
in
Qu e s -
This move
well-formedness
of
as m u c h as the w e l l - f o r m ­
e d n e s s of Q u e s t i o n - A n s w e r p a i r s does. C o n s i d e r :
(60)
J o h n k i s s e d S u s a n in the k i t c h e n a n d P é t e r
Mary
•
J o h n k u s t e S u s a n in de k e u k e n en P é t e r
KyMW
(61)
Marie
■
* J 6 h n k i s s e d S u s a n in the k i t c h e n a n d
M a r y In the d i n i n g room.
*Jan k u s t e S u s a n in de k é u k e n en
M a r i e in de é é t k am e r .
At
the
level of Logical
Form,
(60)
and
(61)
are
represented
as foll o w s :
(60')
IJ o h n , S u s a n J c a u (a, X x (x k i s s u in the
1
a’
u > ----- 1— !----- 1------------------kitchen) ) &
(Peter.^, M a r y Q } c
(y k i s s o in the k i t c h e n ) )
I 6 (i , X y
- 105 -
(61')
I1J o h n cl , k i t c h e n U 5
I c a Û (a. A x
(x— k i....
s s -S u s a n in u)
..)
& {Mary^ , d i n i n g r o o m } c î 6 (John, A y
(y k i s s
i ino))
The u n d e r s c o r e d e x p r e s s i o n s in (60') are a l p h a b e t i c v a r i a n t s ,
but
the u n d e r s c o r e d e x p r e s s i o n s
(60) is w e l l - f o r m e d ,
As
provide
Sag
points
entities
ability)
but
out,
the
of which
be
variance.
straction,
it is p o s s i b l e
deletion
the same m e a n s
s am e l e vel
As
the
the
are not.
forms
(an d thu s
established
Given
in
(61')
logical
(un)identity
can
alphabetic
deletion,
in
Therefore,
(61) is not.
the
jus t
the
through
(ir)recover­
the
lambda-notation
to d e f i n e
presented
notion
and
of
set-ab­
the r e c o v e r a b i l i t y of VP
Question-Answer
pairs,
and Gapping by
(the n o t i o n o f a l p h a b e t i c v a r i a n c e ) a n d at the
(the l e vel of L o g i c a l Form).
regards
following
the
analysis
conclusions.
of G a p p i n g ,
the a b o v e
Set-abstraction
of
suggests
constituents
w h i c h c a n be q u e s t i o n e d or a n s w e r e d s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e c o n ­
stituents
are
also
possible
remnants
of Gapping,
r e m n a n t s o f G a p p i n g are s e t - a b s t r a c t e d as w e l l .
ly,
the
d oe s
verb,
not
which
undergo
is n o t
a possible
WH-movement,
and
remnant
cannot
be
since
the
Interesting­
of
Gappi n g ,
a
possible
an swer:
(62)
*Jóhn k i s s e d B e t s y a n d P é t e r h i t
.
J â n z ó é n d e B e t s y en P e t e r s l ô ê g
,
(63) Q:
A:
W h a t d i d J o h n do?
*Kissed.
Q:
A:
Given
W a t d e e d Jan?
*Zóénde.
set-abstraction
explanation
same:
verbs
logical
form
of
do
the
for
both
rules,
u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y of
not
set-abstract,
and
for the g a p p e d s e n t e n c e s
A n s w e r p a i r s in (63).
it
must
be
that
the
(62)
and
(63)
is the
the r e
is
thu s
no
apt
(62) a n d the Q u e s t i o n -
- 106 -
Furthermore,
where
quantifiers
Form:
the
there are,
are
beginning
instance,
the
phrasable
either
t wo
of
S
meanings
as
according
represented
"the r e
a nd
of
to Sag,
at
the
the
two p o s i t i o n s
level
of
beginning
"Some o n e
of
Logical
VP.
hit everyone"
For
(para-
is one p e r s o n w h o h i t e v e r y o n e " ,
or "for all p e o p l e the r e is someone, n o t n e c e s s a r i l y the same
p erson, w h o h it him " ) are r e p r e s e n t e d as (Sag 1976,
107):
(64) a. Ex (x, Ay (Az (y h i t z )))
b. Az (Ex (x, X y (y h i t z )))
If we
assume
straction
as
that
well,
these p o s i t i o n s
it f o l l o w s
that
are a v a i l a b l e
the d o m a i n s
recoverability
of Gapping
and no
the u n d e r s c o r e d e x p r e s s i o n s
other,
can be v e r i f i e d are
in
for s e t - a b ­
at w h i c h the
S',
S and V P ,
(65),
(66)
and
(67) b e i n g a l p h a b e t i c v a r i a n t s .
(65) S ' :
.
W h o - x |x
. apples U ‘
1 c —a--------------------------------u (a, A w (w ate u)) &
'el
w h o - y jyi , p e a r s Q } c i o (i, Az (z ate o))
(66) S:
{J o h n a , a p p l e s u } c a G (a, Ax (x ate u)) &
{ P e t e r j , p e a r s „ ) c I 6 (i, A y (y ate o))
(67) VP;
John, A x ({a p p l e & , M a r y ^ ) c a u (x g a v e a to u))
& ({p e a r i , Sue„ | c l 6 (x g a v e i to o))
In fact,
t h i s p r e d i c t i o n is b o r n e out by the g a p p e d s e n t e n c e s
below.
( 6 5 ’) S ’:
W h o a te a p p l e s a n d w h o
pears?
W i e at a p p e l s en w i e &f. p e r e n ?
(66') S:
■ J o h n ate a p p l e s a nd P e t e r
J a n at a p p e l s en P e t e r
pears.
peren.
- 107 -
(67') VP:
J o h n g ave an a p p l e to M a r y a nd ¿fof# a p e a r to Sue.
J a n g a f e e n a p p e l aa n M a r i e en ¿¿.f e e n p e e r aan
Susan.
Both
an d
the
the
observation
fact
that
it
that
applies
Gapping
in
always deletes verbs
certain
domains now follow
from the d e f i n i t i o n o f r e c o v e r a b i l i t y .
For
the f o r m u l a t i o n o f the
rule o f G a p p i n g t his a c c o u n t
e n t a i l s that the d o m a i n s o f the r ule n e e d n o t be s p e c i f i c a l l y
pr o v i d e d ,
wil l
and
always
fully,
that
belong
assuming
there
to
Sag's
the
is n o
need
deleted
notion
of
to
specify
parts.
t hat
Even
recoverability
more
it
verbs
force­
would
be
t h e o r e t i c a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e to h ave the r ule of G a p p i n g s p e c i f y
its d o m a i n or the v e r b as a de l e t e e ,
g r a n t e d the m a x i m that a
rule o n l y s t a t e s w h a t the t h e o r y c a n n o t e x p l a i n .
F O O T N O T E S TO C H A P T E R 2
1. A m o r e d i f f i c u l t c a s e is (i), w h i c h is n o t e x c l u d e d by the
d e f i n i t i o n of c o n s t i t u e n t v a r i a b l e s ;
(i)
*John ate at h o m e a n d P e t e r
It s e e m s
that
semantic
rather
at noon.
t h a n s y n t a c t i c d e s p a r i t y is
i n v o l v e d here,
2. M y
representation of questions
minor
r e spect.
I assume
r e p r e s e n t e d as q u a n t i f i e r s ,
tuents
as
well.
representation
that
of
deviates
but as
This
produces
(57).
An
Question-Answer
alphabetic variants,
f r o m S a g ' s in one
that W H - constituents
pairs
are n o t only
set-abstracted consti­
the
advantage
somewhat
abundant
of t h i s a c c o u n t
n o w c a n be s a i d
to s h a r e
a n d no t o n l y (as S ag does)
is,
true
alphabetic
- 108 -
variants
of
possible
to
(cf.
r ul e s
56'),
open
sentences.
present
and
an
allows
Th i s
elliptical
the
explains
answer
statement
that
that
to
it
is
a
question
all
deletion
are g o v e r n e d by a r e c o v e r a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n in ter m s
of full a l p h a b e t i c varia n c e .
C H A P T E R 3.
Constraints
In
this
straints
on
chapter
the
we
rule
will
investigate
of G a p p i n g
as
a number
formulated
of
con­
in c h a p t e r
2
a n d r e p e a t e d h e r e for c o n v e n i e n c e :
(1) G a p p i n g
Delete
In
two
separate
on
(i)
the
p a r t s we will
r e m n a n t s o f the
be
concerned with
rule,
and
(ii)
the
constraints
deleted parts
of the rule.
In p a r t 1 we w i l l d i s c u s s a n u m b e r of c o n s t r a i n t s o n the
contents
of
the
remnants
recently
proposed
Hankamer
(1974), C h o m s k y
(1976)
f i n d that H a n k a m e r ' s M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i ­
tion
We w i l l
is
an
strictive
adequate,
means
of
and,
(1973), B r e s n a n
by
(1973), F i e n g o
more
constraining
(1976) a n d Sag
importantly,
the
the
remnants
of
number
of
most
the
re­
rule of
Gapping.
In
part
proposed
by
2
we
Ross
will
Lasnik
(1977),
Chomsky
(1978).
We will
show
arity
recent
between
the
rule
fail
the
Strict
way.
Bach
of
to
while
Horn
(1976),
Koster
(1978b)
out
and
and
and
Zwarts
W H - m o v e m e n t , these
this
parallelism
is p u t f o r w a r d
Constraint
constraints
Chomsky
th e r e e x i s t s a c l e a r s i m i l ­
Gapping
bring
A n ew p r o p o s a l
Subjacency
a
and
(1978),
that,
constraints
revealing
discuss
(1967),
in
in
a
the f o r m . o f
in o r d e r to i n c o r p o r a t e the
G a p p i n g p h e n o m e n a in a n a d e q u a t e a c c o u n t of s e n t e n c e gramm a r .
- 110 -
1. C O N S T R A I N I N G T HE R E M N A N T S
1,1. M A J O R C O N S T I T U E N C Y
In H a n k a m e r
(1973),
the
author
adds
as
a
condition
to
the rule of G a p p i n g that the r e m n a n t s be m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s :
(2) T he M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i t i o n
T he r e m n a n t s of G a p p i n g are M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t s ,
w h e r e m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s are d e f i n e d as f o l lows:
(3) M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t s
A
" m ajor
-
constituent"
constituent
either
immediately
dominated
of
a
given
immediately
by
VP,
which
d o m i n a t e d by S q . ( H a n k a m e r 1973,
To
give
a n example,
stituents,
Hankamer
to
(1971,
calization,
(5)
a
G apping,
is
Sq
a
or
immediately
18 fn.2)
circled nodes of
(4)
are major con­
the n o t i o n o f " M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t " is c l a i m e d by
Hankamer
(5)
is
SQ
by
and the n o n c i r c l e d n o d e s are not;
A s it s hould,
Thus,
the
sentence
dominated
be
relevant
to
other
syntactic
rules
as
well.
79), f or instance, m e n t i o n s the r u l e of T o p i -
b y w h i c h o n l y m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s c a n be pr e p o s e d .
and
(6)
nonmajor
while
Topicalization:
are u n g r a m m a t i c a l
constituent
in
(6)
f o r the
functions
as
a nonmajor constituent
s a m e reason:
a
remnant
in
for
is p r e p o s e d by
ill
(5)
J o h n s a w the q u e e n of E n g l a n d a n d P e t e r
of Hol l a n d .
J o h n h e e f t de k o n i n g i n v a n E n g e l a n d g e z i e n en P e t e r
/ Mt ï i l éi é- v a n N e d e r l a n d
(6)
O f H o l l a n d P e t e r s a w the queen.
ft.
V a n N e d e r l a n d h e e f t P e t e r de k o n i n g i n g e z ien.
In
fact,
the
Hankamer
Major
Constituent
as a c o n s t r a i n t
Condition
is
suggested
by
on the a p p l i c a t i o n of all s y n t a c t i c
rules.
H a n k a m e r (1971 a n d 1973) d o e s n o t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n S'
and
S,
but
daughters
preposed
ing,
if
of
this
S'
distinction
wi l l
be
WH-constituent
forms
a
introduced,
constituents
successful
immediate
as
well:
remnant
a
of Gapp­
cf.:
(7) W h o ate a p p l e s a n d w h o
pears?
W i e at a p p e l s en w i e
Observe
not
is
major
furthermore
equivalent
to
that
the
•
peren?
the
notion
notion
"major
constituent"
are c l a u s e m a t e s if t h e y b e l o n g to the sam e s e n t e n t i a l
Thus,
in
(8),
s t r u c t u r e d as in
are m a j o r c o n s t i t u e n t s ,
is
" c l a u s e m a t e " : t wo c o n s t i t u e n t s
(9),
the
remnants of Gapping
b u t not c l a u s e m a t e s :
(8) J o h n t r i e d to c l i m b M o n t Blan c ,
t t U & l t i > l M o u n t E verest.
(9)
tried
VP
domain.
and Peter
- 112 -
The
Gapping-cum-Major
Constituent
Condition-analysis
m u s t be a u g m e n t e d w i t h a r u l e of N- a n d Ad j - D e l e t i o n . W i t h o u t
s u c h a r u l e the s e n t e n c e s in (10) w o u l d be c o u n t e r e x a m p l e s to
the
Major
genitive
Constituent
NP
Condition
is i m p o s s i b l e
(2).
in Dutch,
(N-Deletion
after
a
cf. the u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y
of (1 0 a ) .)
(10) a.
J o h n to o k B i l l ' s c l o t h e s a nd H a r r y
J o h n ' s 4t<Î>tïk4é •
*
J o h n n a m B i l l s k l e r e n en H a r r y
Johns
b.
S.
J o h n b o u g h t t h ree b o o k s a nd P e t e r
fo u r yséiM-
-
J o h n k o c h t d r i e b o e k e n en P e t e r
Méat vier
c.
.
The f i r s t h o u s e is 50 f e e t d e e p a n d the s e c o n d
house
60 fe e t
.
'
H e t ene h u i s is 5 m e t e r d i e p en h e t a n d e r e h u i s
6 meter
The
sentences
motivated:
in
even
(11)
in
the
■
show
that
absence
th i s
of
a
rule
is
independently
linguistic
antecedent
a d j e c t i v e a n d n o u n d e l e t e in su c h s e n t e n c e s :
(11) a.
H a r r y t o o k J o h n ' s ¡j.lét'Ûi't,.
Harry nam Johns
b.
P e t e r b o u g h t f o u r tyééM •
Peter kocht er vier
c.
The s e c o n d h o u s e is 60 feet
H et a n d e r e h u i s is 6 m e t e r
Under
this
plication
assumption,
of
we are a b l e to m a i n t a i n
the rul e of G a p p i n g
C o n s t i t u e n t Co n d i t i o n .
.
that
the a p ­
is r e s t r i c t e d by the M a j o r
- 113 -
Several
conditions
been
proposed
will
now
r e v i e w these,
as
with
the
predictions
other
than
major
c o n s t r a i n t s o n the
and compare
made
by
constituency
remnants
have
of Gapping.
We
the e m p i r i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s
the
Major
Constituent
Condi­
tion. 1
1.2. F I E N G O ' S H E A D C O N D I T I O N R E F O R M U L A T E D
AS A M A X I M I Z A T I O N P R I N C I P L E
Though
Condition
presented
as
Fiengo
(1974,
of
a r e s t r i c t i o n on the gap,
the shape of the re m n a n t s ,
For
this
reason,
115)
at the
same
time
the H e a d
influences
an d does so in a n I n t e r e s t i n g way.
it is u s e f u l
to r e v i e w
this cond i t i o n here
r a t h e r t h a n in the s e c o n d p a r t of th i s c h a p t e r .
The
concept
daughter
of
daughters
a
"head"
is
defined
constituent
are n o n h e a d s
M
is
as
the
follows:
head
only
(+m),
one
all
other
( - m ) . W h i c h d a u g h t e r will be the h e a d
f o l l o w s f r o m X - b a r theory: V is + m of VP, N is + m of NP, P is
+m
of, PP,
S
is
+m
headless category:
Fiengo
the
formulates
interpretation
question
of
of
S' , etc.
Fiengo
of
the
Head
syntactic
C o n d i t i o n as
structure.
of w h e t h e r G a p p i n g is a r u l e
interpretation,
claims
that
S
is
a
all d a u g h t e r s o f S w i l l be M.
let
us
refer
with
a c o n d i t i o n on
Disregarding
the
of d e l e t i o n o r a rule
the
notion
’
gap'
to
e i t h e r the d e l e t e e or the i n t e r p r e t e e .
(12) H e a d C o n d i t i o n
If the g a p c o n t a i n s -m of M, it c o n t a i n s + m o f M.
By
the
below
in
Head
(cf.
(13),
Condition,
Fiengo
1974,
the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
113,
114)
(13) v e r s u s
(14)
is a c c o u n t e d for. A s sh o w n
+ m c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y be g a p p e d ohne we i t é r é s , a n d -m
c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y be g a p p e d if t h e i r h e a d s are g a p p e d as well.
(14)
is r u l e d out,
si n c e a -m c o n s t i t u e n t
cannot' d e l e t e if its h e a d (V) d o e s not.
(the o b j e c t of VP)
- 114 -
(13) a. P h i l o s o p h e r s loa t h e b i b l i o m a n c y and
mystics
reading.
F i l o s o f e n h a t e n b i b l i o f o b e n en m y s t i c i
bibliofielen.
b. He s o l d the A m a t i to S h e r l o c k y e s t e r d a y a n d
to M y c r o f t the d a y b efore.
u / u u / m / M m
Hij v e r k o c h t de S u n b e a m g i s t e r e n a a n K e e s en
)hii !
(14)
M!
!
v a n d a a g a a n Fre d d i e .
P h i l o s o p h e r s loathe b i b l i o m a n c y and
mystics prefer lifWi i é M Ü •
*Fi l o s o f e n h a t e n b i b l i o f o b e n en
mystici prefereren
As
as
a
well
shown
are
(12),
on
the
Fiengo
gap,
formulates
but
it
the H e a d C o n d i t i o n
could
have
+ m of M,
it c o n t a i n s
of M m a y n o t
remnants
as
f u n c t i o n as a r e m n a n t u n l e s s
w ell.
Given
c a t e g o r y of.
-m
(15)
c a n f u n c t i o n as
are
X-bar
th e o r y ,
in
condition
projections of a
-m
daughters
as
w ell,
t hat
this r e s p e c t
is,
if
X 1 is
a
f u n c t i o n as a r e m n a n t u n l e s s the
2
of X
are r e m n a n t s as well. It
f o l l o w s that the o nly p o s s i b l e r e m n a n t in (15)
that
all n o n h e a d s
t his
a r e m n a n t o n l y if the a c c o m p a n y i n g
remnants
X 1 in turn c a n n o t
accompanying
if a r e m n a n t
(15):
c constituents
remnant,
equally
-m of M. T h i s i m p l i e s that the
prohibits Gapping from producing nonmaximal
X in
been
f o r m u l a t e d as a c o n d i t i o n o n the r e m n a n t s :
contains
head
in
condition
the H e a d C o n d i t i o n
o
is X . O b s e r v e
is s i m i l a r to
w h i c h l o o k s like a v e r s i o n o f the A o v e r A P r i n c i p l e :
(16),
- 115 -
(16) M a x i m i z a t i o n P r i n c i p l e
A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n m a y not a p p l y to X n if X n is
rn
i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d b y X , a n d m ~t/ n.
The
Maximization
Principle
Principle
(Cho m s k y
1973,
differs
235)
from
in
two
Chomsky's
A-over-A
essential
respects.
First, o l d - f a s h i o n e d A - o v e r - A is n o t r e s t r i c t e d to i m m e d i a t e ­
ly
dominating
e.g.
nodes,
2
the c i r c l e d N
a n d thus m a y p r o h i b i t
in s t r u c t u r e
(17)
book
The i n t e r v e n i n g d e t e r m i n e r n o d e
and
former
s e l e c t i o n of
N2
J o h n 's
tion
the
(17).
the
does
projection
nonheads.
Maximization
not
of
apply,
The
Principle
because
a lexical
renders
the
category,
both
(16)
the H e a d C o n d i ­
inapplicable.
determiner,
not
The
being
a
cannot dominate heads and
latter
does not apply , b e c a u s e the d e t e r m i n e r
2
T h e r e f o r e , the u p p e r N d o e s n o t i m m e d i a t e l y
2
the c i r c l e d N . Second, the A - o v e r - A p r i n c i p l e d o e s
node i n t e r v e n e s .
dominate
not
disregard
prohibits
the
the
number
selection
of
bar s ,
of a node
and
therefore
dominated by
never
a n o t h e r node
of the s a m e p r o j e c t i o n type w i t h mor e bars.
It c a n be s h o w n that the M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i t i o n a n d
the H e a d C o n d i t i o n c.q. M a x i m i z a t i o n P r i n c i p l e m a k e d i f f e r e n t
claims
in
instance,
b ut
n ot
by
at
least
are
excluded
the
Head
some
by
cases.
the
Condition,
The
Major
examples
in
Constituent
since
a
+m
part
(18),
of
c o n s t i t u e n t is c o n t a i n e d in the gap.
(18) a.
*Peter was i n v i t e d b y Mar y ,
and Joan
John.
*
P e t e r w e r d u i t g e n o d i g d d o o r Mary,
John.
for
Condition,
en Joan
a major
- 116 -
b.
This
J o h n b o u g h t a litt l e b i t m o r e or a lot
.
*
J a n k o c h t e e n b e e t j e m e e r of e e n h e l e b o e l Mé t -
implies
preferred
that
the
unless
Major Constituent
independently
b r o u g h t up to e x c l u d e
C o n d i t i o n s h o u l d be
motivated
constraints
(18),
are
■
1.3. V A R I A T I O N S O N A - O V E R - A
The
A-over-A
Principle,
defined
in
Chomsky
to
a
(1973,
235)
as
(19)
If
a
transformation
applies
structure
of
the
form
where a
l or - - Ia - - - I
•••!
a c y c l i c node, t h e n it m u s t be so
is
p r e t e d as to a p p l y
inter­
to the m a x i m a l p h r a s e o f 'the type
A.
ca n
be u s e d as a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h
the M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t
some
instances.
applied
An
example
to the a m b i g u o u s
(21a) o r (21b)
forces
the s a m e r e s u l t s
as
C o n d i t i o n - at l e a s t f o r s o m e r u l e s in
is
(20),
( C h o m s k y 1964,
the
which
rule
of
WH-movement,
is s t r u c t u r e d e i t h e r as
44).
(20) I saw the b o y w a l k i n g t o w a r d the r a i l r o a d s t a t i o n .
(21) a. I saw
lwp
l^pthe b o y I
^ w a l k i n g t o w a r d the
r a i l r o a d station]|
b. I saw
l^pthe boyl
IADV Is w a l k i n g t o w a r d the
r a i l r o a d s t a t i o n |]
The
unambiguity
of
(22)
r e v e a l s tha t W H - m o v e m e n t
the b o y in (21b), b ut n ot in (21a):
applies
to
- 117 -
(22) Who did I see walking toward the
■
iroad station'
Both the Major Constituent Condition
.
" a n Q the A - o v e r - A P r i n c i ­
ple are able to a cc ou n t for the mi.»
„
.
„ , , ,
,
N
c o r rect d i s t i n c t i o n s . T h e
d e r i v a t i o n of (.22) from (21a) is exoi,,^
...
,
,
ded by the M a j o r C o n ­
s t i t u e n t Condition, because I,lr,the ■
h™, I .
. NP— - H S ï l is not a m a j o r c o n ­
stituent. The same derivation is p » p i , ^
,
.
J-Uded by the A - o v e r - A
P r i n c i p l e because MDthe boy is dominât-.*-,
NP-------Ufnm a t e d by a n o t h e r N P Since the structural description
^
P ion o f G a p p i n g ( 1 ) l a c k s
c o n s t a n t categories, (19) is i n a p p l i n a M
,
P
able to o u r f o r m u l a t i o n
of Gapping. In Sag (1976, 278), however
*■
„
.
> a formulation of
Gapping
is presented which s p e c i f i c
..
0 the
shape
of
the
r e m n a n t s (cf. (29) in chapter 2); the«»
,
.
.
,
are c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h
two bars (the maximal number of bars i
\
c
.
n Sag's f r a m e w o r k ) ,
b u c h a structural description makes i t­
..
,
p o s s i b l e to i n v o k e
the A - o v e r - A condition, since onlv
0
* ne maximal X
consti­
t u ents m a y function as remnants. FvPr, ^
*
then, h o w e v e r ,
the
A - o v e r - A Principle misapplies unless s n » ^ n
T
,
..
Pecial p r o v i s i o n s a r e
made. In order to see this, consider
,
ucture (23 ) ■
Pet e r
aa
maximal X constituents may fUr,ri~^
"-^ion as r e m n a n t s ,
#t>::will take place .in
no
f f f i t r w i l ! be circled N 2
^
maximal
x2
)
(here
reneated
as
*
’
the
u
n
g
r
a
m
m
a­
r there repeated as (24)) ls excluded b u t
the
’
“’
--the only possible Gapping nn+.
g outcome
(25)
w i 11
Excluded as well.
- 117 -
(22) W h o d i d I see w a l k i n g t o w a r d the r a i l r o a d s t a t i o n ?
B o t h the M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i t i o n a n d the A - o v e r - A P r i n c i ­
ple
are
able
derivation
stituent
to
of
account
(22)
The
Since
constant
the
Gapping.
bars
Such
the
a
A-over-A
made.
Sag
Principle
of
The
the M a j o r C o n ­
a major
by
the
con­
A-over-A
Gapping
misapplies
a
formulation
the
bars
in
makes
it
o nly
the
remnants.
In o r d e r to see this,
lacks
shape
of
of
the
these are c o n s t i t u e n t s w i t h
of
since
as
(1)
to o u r f o r m u l a t i o n
however,
specifies
number
condition,
Even
unless
Sag's
framework) .
possible
maximal
then,
special
consider structure
to
2
X
i nvoke
consti­
however,
the
provisions
are
(23):
S.
Peter
sa w
If o n l y m a x i m a l
deletion
will
constituents
tical
278),
which
description
function
(23)
same
excluded
is i n a p p l i c a b l e
(1976,
maximal
structural
may
is
(29) in c h a p t e r 2):
(the
A-over-A
tuents
is e x c l u d e d by
description
(19)
presented
r e m n a n t s (cf.
two
distinctions.
Ijjpthe b o y | is d o m i n a t e d by a n o t h e r N P .
structural
In
is
correct
l ^ the b o y l is not
derivation
categories,
Gapping
the
(21a)
because
same
Principle because
of
from
Condition,
s tit u e n t .
for
X
2
’
(5)
(here
time
the
of H o l l a n d
c o n s t i t u e n t s m a y f u n c t i o n as r e m n a n t s ,
take
will
-the q u e e n
be
place
(23),
circled N
repeated
only
in
as
2
2
the
a n d V . Thus,
(24))
possible
since
is
Gapping
u n f o r t u n a t e l y be e x c l u d e d as well.
maximal
no
p
X
the u n g r a m m a ­
excluded,
outcome
but
(25)
at
the
will
- 118 -
(24)
J o h n saw the q u e e n o f E n g l a n d a n d P e t e r
I tM I
o f Holland.
■
X*
J o h n he e f t de k o n i n g i n v a n E n g e l a n d g e z i e n en P e t e r
M i t t / M/MM' iii' ifi v a n N e d e r l a n d
(25)
J o h n saw the q u e e n o f E n g l a n d a n d P e t e r
j^vi the q u e e n o f Holland.
J an hee f t de k o n i n g i n v a n E n g e l a n d g e z i e n en P e t e r
M i t t de k o n i n g i n v a n N e d e r l a n d ¿ i t t i t In
order
to come
to g r i p s w i t h
this
situation,
Sag p r o p o s e s
to a l t e r the A - o v e r - A C o n d i t i o n so as to e x c l u d e
(25).
The
ciple,
Bresnan's
By the
not
outcome
shares
of
the
this,
merits
the
of
Immediate
and
is
constrained
choice
by
Domination
narrowly
Relativized A-over-A Principle
l a t t e r the
(24) but not
Prin­
related
(Bresnan
1976,
to
16).
of c o n t e x t p r e d i c a t e s is f r e e (i.e.
the
A-over-A
p r e d i c a t e s m u s t be m a x i m i z e d ,
Principle),
although
while
relative
target
to that c o n ­
text.
By d e f i n i t i o n ,
u n s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s are not p r e d i c a t e s
(cf.
Bresnan
7).
1976,
Since
the
targets
of
variables,, the R e l a t i v i z e d A - o v e r - A p r i n c i p l e ,
on t a rget p r e d i c a t e s ,
The
Immediate
Relativized
twe e n
the
target
notion
Principle
Principle
and context
of
being
are
defined
is i n a p p l i c a b l e .
Domination
A-over-A
Gapping
in
is made
"min i m a l
diverges
that
the
irrelevant,
difference"
(whi c h
from
the
distinction
be­
a n d r e p l a c e d by
in
its
turn
is
b a s e d on the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n v a r i a b l e a n d c o n s t a n t t e r m ) :
1
(26) M i n i m a l d i f f e r e n c e
"...,
two
proper
(Sag 1976,
analyses
237)
differ
minimally
if
e v e r y p r e d i c a t e in the s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n ,
one,
the
value
of
the
b o t h p r o p e r an a l y s e s .
cates,
this m e a n s
differing
proper
that
predicate
Sinc e
variables
in all
an a l y s e s ,
is
the
same
for
except
under
are not p r e d i ­
c a s e s o f two m i n i m a l l y
a
variable
term
will
"cover" a l o n g e r s u b s t r i n g in one t h a n in the o t h er."
- 119 -
To
give
an
example,
according
a n a l y s e s of V P - d e l e t i o n
to t h i s d e f i n i t i o n
ir. (27)
the p r o p e r
are n o t m i n i m a l l y d i f f e r e n t ,
since the r e s p e c t i v e v a l u e s of b o t h A U X and V P d i f fer.
leave
PA
1
W
AUX
VP
PA„
In
St.Louis
VP
AUX
(28),
only
the
constant
term
VP
is
different,
thus P A 1 a nd P A^ are m i n i m a l l y d i f f e r e n t p r o p e r a n a l y s e s .
(28)
bottle wine
PA,
PA„
AUX
AUX
VP
VP
or
drink whisky
and
- 120 -
For m a l l y ,
the
Immediate
Domination
Principle
is
stated
as
follows:
(29) I m m e d i a t e D o m i n a t i o n P r i n c i p l e
G i v e n two p r o p e r analyses,
S
with
respect
to
a
(Sag 1976,
237)
PA^ and P A g , of a s e n t e n c e
transformation
T
which
differ
m i n i m a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t to the v a l u e of s o m e p r e d i c a t e
P in the s t r u c t u r a l
(1)
/P/ p A
d e s c r i p t i o n of T,
(the
value
of
1
P
if
under
P A ^ ) is
some
t e r m i n a l s u b s t r i n g of t ^ ,
an d (2) / P / D ,
is some t e r min a l s u b s t r i n g t 0 ,
a n d (3) t 1 is a n a l y z a b l e as A^ (A^ C V N T ),
an d
(4)
tg is a n a l y z a b l e as
an d (5)
(Ag
v N T ),
c
immediately dominates A g ,
then PA g is an i n a d m i s s a b l e p r o p e r a n a l y s i s o f S with
r e s p e c t to T.
Th i s p r i n c i p l e ca n be p a r a p h r a s e d as f ollows:
(29')
If two p r o p e r ana l y s e s ,
with
respect
.
PA^ and P A g , o f a s e n t e n c e S
to a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
T differ minimally
w i t h r e s p e c t to the v a l u e of s o m e p r e d i c a t e P in the
structural
It
T,
and
PAg
is
follows
cates,
of
d o m i n a t e s p r e d i c a t e Pg of PAg
respect
relevant
description
PA^
to
an
inadmissabl e
proper
predicate
P
of
immediately,
analysis
of
then
S
wi th
to T .
from
(29),
that
predicates
only.
in
Sag's
view
maximization
Since v a r i a b l e s
is
are n ot
predi­
o
it f o l l o w s that fo r G a p p i n g only the r e m n a n t s (X ) are
s u b j e c t to (29).
The
Immediate Domination Principle
A-over-A Condition
A-over-A
(29)
ately
selects
ing) .
the
dominate
variable
in two respects:
Condition
at
selects
the
is d i s t i n c t
given
dominating
two p r e d i c a t e s the
predicate,
t o p m o s t o n l y if b o t h p r e d i c a t e s
e ach
l east
other,
(otherwise
an d
(ii)
a minimal
are
f r o m the
while
(i) i m m e d i ­
adjacent
difference
to
is
one
lack­
- 121 -
This
allowed,
ever,
the
implies
s ince
in
do
no t
the p r o p e r a n a l y s e s
circled
proper
the
that
t hey
VPs
analysis
possible
dominate
2 is
outputs
(27)
proper
minimally.
differ minimally,
e ach o t h e r
allowed.
of
both
differ
analyses
In
are
(28),
how­
and furthermore,
immediately.
Thus,
only
This corresponds precisely
VP-deletion
in
structures
such
to
as
(27) a n d (28), c f . :
(27') a.
P e t e r doe s n o t w a n t to l e a v e St.
Louis, b ut
J o h n n y does,
b.
P e t e r does no t w a n t to l e a v e St.
Louis, b ut
J o h n n y doe s w a n t to.
(28') a.
¥r
P e t e r does no t b o t t l e w i n e a n d d r i n k b eer, but
J o h n n y doe s
b.
(0), an d d r i n k w h i s k y .
P e t e r doe s no t b o t t l e w i n e a nd d r i n k b eer, b ut
J o h n n y does.
(the
In the s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of G a p p i n g ,
2
X
remnants) alternate with variables,
proper
analyses
differ
minimally.
This
the p r e d i c a t e s
and
implies
t hus
that
m o s3tt
a
,2
X
c o n s t i t u e n t c a n n o t f u n c t i o n as a r e m n a n t if it is i m m e d i a t e l y
2
d o m i n a t e d by aann o t h e r X
c o n s t i t u e n t . S a g i l l u s t r a t e s this
point with
(30) a,
(30).
*
J o h n met the v i c e - p r e s i d e n t of IBM,
and Betsy
of X e r o x .
b.
*
J o h n o n t m o e t t e de p r e s i d e n t v a n I B M en B e t s y
v a n Xerox.
He
claims
NP, cf.
( 3 0 ’)
that
the
PP
of Xerox
is
immediately
(30').
NP
the v i c e - p r e s i d e n t
(N2 )
o f 'Xerox
dominated
by
- 122 -
In
this
ca s e
the
Immediate
Domination
Principle
excludes
of X e r o x as a r e m n a n t of Gapping.
1,4.
Sag
ti o n
SAG VERSUS HANKAMER
makes
no
Principle
presents
ta ins
beats
only
different
effort
one
an a d j e c t i v e
the
Major
example
empirical
s k e t c h e d in (32)
to s h o w that
in
claims.
phrase
Immediate
Constituent
which
both
The. e x a m p l e
for which
(Sag 1976,
the
Domina­
Condition.
constraints
is
(31)
He
make
which
con­
S a g c l a i m s the s t r u c t u r e
271):
(31) a. C a r o l w a s h a p p y w i t h h e r O l d s m o b i l e ,
and Margie
upset with her Porsche,
b. C a r o l w a s u p s e t w i t h h e r O l d s m o b i l e ,
iiA i !
upset
A c c o r d i n g to the
p
P
are
correct
dominate
dition
one
phrases
constituent
thus
that
the
with her Porsche
2
Immediate Domination Principle,
both A
remnants,
immediately
anot h e r .
sentence
adjective
and Margie
w i t h h e r Por s c h e .
For
(31b)
is
is
(32).
since
they
do
not
and
H à n k a m e r 1s M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n ­
a
problem,
if
the
With her Porsche
structure
is
not
of
a major
(it is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d b y S or VP,), a n d
Major
Constituent
Condition
incorrectly
predicts
(31b) wi l l be u n g r a m m a t i c a l . O b v i o u s l y , t h i s p r o b l e m c a n
p
that P
in (32) is n o t d o m i n a t e d
be c i r c u m v e n t e d b y a s s u m i n g
by
AP,
but
structure.
urally,
(33)
by
VP.
There
may
(33)
for
insta n c e ,
be
would
arguments
be
favoring
excluded
quite
s i n c e the r e is n o V P in p r e n o m i n a l p o s i t i o n .
T h e s e h a p p y w i t h t h e i r o l d s m o b i l e s girls.
this
nat­
- 123
This
shows
Domination
t hat
(31)
Principle
further examples
as
a point
is
in
favor
unconvincing.
indicative
S ag
of e m p i r i c a l
of
the
does
Immediate
not
present
differences between
the M a j o r C o n s t i t u e n t C o n d i t i o n a n d the I m m e d i a t e D o m i n a t i o n
Principle,
a n d it a p p e a r s
t hat r e l e v a n t
e x a m p l e s are h a r d to
c o m e by.
A cas e
It
ha s
in p o i n t m a y be f o u n d
been
argued
by
Zwarts
in i n t e r n a l
(1976)
that
NP-structure.
NP-internal
PPs
e i t h e r take the p o s i t i o n in (34) o r t h a t in (35).
(34)
(35)
spec
C o r r e s p o n d i n g e x a m p l e s are:
(34') a son o f t h i s w o m a n
e en z o o n v a n d e z e v r o u w
(35') a b o y w i t h red h a i r
e e n j o n g e n me t r o o d h a a r
The
structural
vated
PP s
difference
between
in s e v e r a l w a y s . First,
the
PP
of
(34)
precedes
the r e v e r s e is i m p o s s i b l e
(36)
(34)
and
(35) c a n be m o t i ­
in e x a m p l e s w i t h b o t h k i n d s o f
the P P o f
(35)
(cf. 37):
a son o f t his w o m a n w i t h r ed h a i r
e e n z o o n v a n d e z e v r o u w me t r o o d h a a r
(37)
*a son w i t h re d h a i r o f t hi s w o m a n
*een z o o n m e t r o o d h a a r v a n d e z e v r o u w
(cf.
36),
while
- 124 -
A
second
flexives,
argument
for
the
distinction
and due to B l o m (1977, 394).
is
Consider
based
on
(38) vs.
re­
(39)
(antecedent and anaphor underscored):
(38)
T h e i r l e t t e r s to e a c h o t h e r w e r e e l i g i b l e for
publication.
Hun brieven aan elkaar waren voor publikatie
beste m d .
(39) * T h e i r u n d e r t a k i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r b e c a m e a succes.
* H u n o n d e r n e m i n g m e t e l k a a r w e r d een g r o o t succes.
This
pattern
flexives
can
can
be
be
e x p l a i n e d u n d e r the a s s u m p t i o n
bound
only
by
Daalder and Blom 1975/1976).
structure
by
can
PP.
be
(35),
The
a
superior
In s t r u c t u r e
that r e ­
antecedent
(34),
(see
t h o u g h not in
the s p e c i f i e r is s u p e r i o r to the NP d o m i n a t e d
grammaticality differences
explained
if
(34)
in
(38)
and
of
(38);
is the s t r u c t u r e
(39)
thus
and
(35)
is the s t r u c t u r e of (39).
Argument
a nd
(35)
(1974,
is
three
based
in f a v o r o f the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n (34)
on
anaphoric
relations
as
well.
Vergnaud
34) o b s e r v e s that the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n holds:
(40) D i s j u n c t i o n C o n d i t i o n
If,
in
a
string,
two n o u n
a n a p h o r i c a l l y related,
phrases
NP. a n d N P „ are
1
£
t h e n the s t r i n g m u s t be a n a l y -
zab l e as ... N P ..... N P „.. . o r as
1
This c o n d i t i o n (which,
anaphora
refer
description
are
incidentally,
to b o t h NPs,
always
distinguishing between
. . .NP„,. . .NP, . . . .
2
sin c e
disjoint)
(34)
and
2
1
is r e d u n d a n t if r u l e s o f
the
may
(35).
(a n a p h o r a n d a n t e c e d e n t u n d e r s c o r e d )
terms of a structural
be
used
Consider
as
a test for
(41) a n d (42)
and their c orresponding
structures:
(41)
The s on o f the w o m a n w h o k i l l e d h i m w a s a Nazi.
*De z o o n v a n de v r o u w die h e m d o o d d e w a s e e n N a z i .
- 125 -
(42)
T h e b o y w i t h a c o l l a r that s u i t s h i m is a
designer.
De j o n g e n m e t de trui d ie h e m g o e d s t a a t is een
•o n t w e r p e r .
(42')
'
NP
the b o y
with
a collar that suits
(NPj
■
him
(41)
and
(42)
Disjunction Condition given
The d i f f e r e n c e
the
structural
NP-internal
between
PPs.
w h i l e in (41')
Finally,
Lightfoot.
ed that o ne
1977,
58).
In
(42')
the
c a n be e x p l a i n e d by the
difference
of the
two c i r c l e d N P s are di s j o i n t ,
they a re not.
the o u t l i n e of a f o u r t h a r g u m e n t I owe to D a v i d
It o n l y h o l d s f or E n g l i s h , w h e r e it h a s b e e n a r g u ­
is the p r o n o m i n a l i z e d f o r m o f N'
In
the
examples
(cf. J a c k e n d o f f
under consideration
one-pronomi-
n a l i z a t i o n p r o v i d e s the f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n c e :
(43) a.
*1 m et the s o n o f this w o m a n a n d
y o u m et the one of that woman.
b.
I m e t the b o y w i t h r ed h a i r and
y o u m et the one w i t h b l u e hair.
These
examples
indicate
that
boy
in
(35')
d o m i n a t e d b y N ' , bu t s o n in (34') is not.
is
exhaustively
- 126 -
These
(34)
and
fo u r
arguments
(35),
structures
For
imply
the
motivate
Immediate
that
the
different
structures
Domination Principle
these
P P - n o d e in (34), w h i c h is n ot
2
i m m e d i a t e l y d o m i n a t e d by a n o t h e r X c o n s t i t u e n t , is a c o r r e c t
Gapping remnant,
ately
dominated
false:
both
the
while
by
(44),
the P P - n o d e
N P , is not.
in
(35), w h i c h is i m m e d i ­
This prediction,
which corresponds
to
(34),
however,
is
a n d (45), w h i c h
c o r r e s p o n d s to (35), are u n g r a m m a t i c a l :
(44)
P e t e r m e t the son o f my n i e c e a n d Ma x
! tfakI$<!i\ of my n e i g h b o r ,
*
P e t e r o n t m o e t t e de z o o n v a n mi jn n i c h t en M a x
H iiih v a n mi jn b u u r m a n .
(45) * P e t e r m e t a b o y w i t h red h a i r a n d J o h n
w i t h b l a c k hair.
P e t e r o n t m o e t t e een j o n g e n m et r o o d h a a r en J o h n
met z w a r t haar,
!i i i M
In
Hankamer's
are
excluded:
structure
Major
(35)
a n a l ysis,
on
the
other
hand,
n e i t h e r the P P in s t r u c t u r e
.
these
sentences
(34) n o r the PP in
is a m a j o r 'c o n s t i t u e n t . T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t the
Constituent
Condition
fi t s
the
facts
more
adequately
th a n the I m m e d i a t e D o m i n a t i o n P r i n c i p l e .
E v e n a p a r t f r o m the o b j e c t i o n tha t the I m m e d i a t e D o m i n a ­
ti o n
Principle
stituent
cannot
Condition
in
be
shown
to
empirical
surpass
adequacy,
the
the r e
Major
ar e
Con­
further
p r o b l e m s r e l a t e d to it. O b s e r v e th a t the I m m e d i a t e D o m i n a t i o n
Principle
is
crucially
based
on
the
assumption
tha t
the
s t r u c t u r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f G a p p i n g s p e c i f i e s the r e m n a n t s as
2
?
X
c o n s t i t u e n t s . N o t all r e m n a n t s , h o w e v e r , are X c o n s t i t u ­
ents,
as s h o w n a b o v e
s u c h as
( c h a p t e r 2,
s e c t i o n 2.2.) w i t h e x a m p l e s
:
(46) Bill s a w Harry,
not Harry
Bi l l z a g Ha r r i e , m a a r H a r r i e
Bill.
Bill niet.
- 127 -
In
(46)
not
(met)
is
a grammatical
defect
relates
remnant,
but
not
a X2
constituent.
Another
English,
which
according
to
to
the
Sag
sentential
has
roughly
structure
the
shape
of
of
(47) .
S’
AUX
V'
v" " "
(i7 )
Tp 2 )
The Immediate Domination Principle predicts that X
'
of
S'
and V'
are possible
Gapping
remnants,
daughters
of S
2
and it is hard
and V
2
are
not.
This
2
daughters
?
X
while
is a surprising result
to think of a reason why this should be true.
More seriously,
it appears
to be
in conflict with the facts.
By-phrases, for instance, have been argued to be dominated by
p
(see Williams, 1974). Still, they may perfectly well serve
V
as remnants of Gapping;
(48) The first story was told by Peter and
the second story
by John.
Het eerste verhaal werd verteld door Peter en
het tweede verhaal
Of course,
to
door John.
one could propose
the outcome
of Gapping,
to adapt constituent structures
but
that would be a genuine
case
of putting a cart before the horse.
These
diate
cannot
be
Condition.
some
observations conclude
Domination
shown
Principle.
to
Even worse,
well-motivated
by-phrases.
be
As
superior
our discussion of the Imme­
indicated,
to
the
this
Major
principle
Constituent
it is in conflict with the data, given
structures
with
PP-complements
and
- 128
1,5. CONCLUSION
A comparison of the Head Condition,
the
A-over-A
Principle,
and
the
several versions of
Major Constituent
Condition
reveals that the latter is to be preferred as a constraint on
Gapping.
ent
This
is not meant
Condition
sentence
is
the
grammar
as
to imply that the Major Constitu­
better
well.
constraint
It
is
for
obvious
other
that
rules
e.g.
of
the
preposition stranding phenomena (the key factor In developing
the
Relativized
A-over-A
Condition,
cf.
Bresnan
1976)
still
motivate the Relativized A-over-A Principle and the Immediate
Domination
the
Major
over-A
Principle.
Constituent
Condition
are
grammar.
It remains
izations
as
to
The
conclusion
Condition
valid
and
seems
some
to
be
version
that
of
both
the
A-
constraints' on rules of sentence
to be shown whether interesting general­
their
domains
of
applicability
from the investigation of further facts.
i
will
follow
- 129 -
2. CONSTRAINTS ON THE GAPS
This
point
ping
section will
out
and
consist of three
a number of similarities
other
rules
of
sentence
parts.
between
grammar.
the
First
I will
rule of Gap­
I will
deal with
constraints on variables as proposed by Ross (1967), Bach and
Horn
(1976),
and
Chomsky
recent generalizations
Lasnik
(1977),
Zwarts
(1978)
between Gapping
Strict
over these
Chomsky
fail
(1973).
(1976
to
and
account
Secondly,
I will
constraints
1978),
fully
in Chomsky and
Koster
for
and WH-m o v e m e n t . Finally,
show that
the
(1978b)
and
similarity
I will present the
Subjacency Condition as a generalization
in line with
that proposed by Chomsky (1976) in terms of Subjacency.
A cornerstone
to the present exposition
is the observa­
tion that the following two sentences are ungrammatical:
(49)
John said that Peter was ill and
! tth&t John t f & t/ tit,
Peter
John zei dat Peter ziek was en
Peter jL4f/4.&t John
•
These sentences are excluded neither by the Major Constituent
Condition,
nor
by
any
of
the
alternative
cussed in the first part of this chapter.
me by Riny Huybregts that
S Condition:
remnants
constraints
dis­
It was suggested to
(49) can be explained by the Tensed
of Gapping may not be constituents of
different tensed sentences.
2.1. OBSERVATIONS
2.1.1.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN MOVEMENT AND DELETION
Gapping
were
This will
i
can
originally
be
shown
designed
to obey constraints most
as
constraints
of which
on movement
rules.
be illustrated by a comparison of Gapping and WH-
- 130 movement.
First
consider
the
st ruc t u r a l
W,
CO M P
t______ ^
descriptions
of
the
rules :
(50)
a. W H - m o v e m e n t
Wi
b. G a p p i n g
A
W2
0
Roughly
tion),
crossed
(i.e.
the
by
s tr uc t u r a l
observation
descriptions
arbitrarily
long
for
a
hold s
is
a
make
string
W„
B
W3
J
0
disregarding
WH-movement
A
I
0
second
Tensed
a
string
st r i n g
that
ca n
cru cia l
use
ma y
that
the
be
deleted
of
that
be
Gapping,
long string.
is sh o w n by the f o l l o w i n g examples:
(51)
a.
i. What
d oes J o h n w a n t ?
'
i i . John w a n t s be e r and
Peter
i.
wine.
Wat wil Jan?
i i . J an wil
b i e r en
Peter
b.
wijn.
i. What d oes J o h n w a n t
ii.’ Joh n w a n t s
Peter M t t i / t i / M i
i.
ii.
that.
J a n wil dit p r o b e r e n en
dat
i. W hat does J o h n w an t
ii.
Joh n w a n t s
Peter
i.
ii.
and
Wat wil J a n p r o b e r e n ?
Peter
c.
to try?
to try this,
Wat wil
to try to be gin ?
to try to beg i n
i i /t t i /t
i
this,
and
that.
Ja n p r o b e r e n te b e g i n n e n ?
J an wil dit p r o b e r e n te b egi nne n,
Peter i t f t
ca n
gapped.
be
The
the var ia b l e :
by
W H - c o n s t i t u e n t m a y move ov e r an a r b i t r a r i l y
S Condi­
en
dat 4 i ü i f é i i ! t i t ' i i i S ' é é i i ï -
and
an
a
This
- 131 -
d. i. What does John want to try to begin to write?
ii. John wants to try to begin to write a n o v e l ,
and Peter vWrijt i / t a t t i / i i i i i f i t i
a play.
i.
Wat wil Jan proberen te beginnen te schrijven?
ii. Jan wil proberen te beginnen een novelle te
schrijven en Peter 'Aí XH t W i tir/i! t4 /M & t
een toneelstuk
Kuno
(1976)
Linguistic Inquiry
(53)
which
attributes
the
illustrates
to
discovery
the
an
of
anonymous
the pattern
same point
footnote):
(p.317,
reader
in
(52)
main
-
of
and
text and
.
(52) a. i. John went out to buy beer, and Bill
fried chicken,
ii. This is the fried chicken that Bill went out
to buy.
b. i. John was glad to see Jane,
it$.£!
t<l!
and Bill
Martha,
ii. There were those who Bill was glad to see,
c
and those who he was not.
c. i. John began singing a chanson,
and Bill
a Japanese song,
ii. The song that Bill began singing was a Japanese
song.
d. i. John went out singing a chanson,
and Bill
a Japanese song,
ii. The song that Bill went out singing was
a Japanese song.
- 132 -
(53) a. i.
John came home to find his wife sick,
.
his child
ii.
and Bill
My wife, who I came home to find sick, was
in a lousy mood.
b. i.
*Joh'n must be a fool to have married Jane,
Bill iMkiiIM14~!ti<bt! t
ii.
<
t
>
and
Martha,
*The woman who John was a fool to have married
was Jane.
c. i.
Tom went to Florida to learn to play tennis
and Bill M M / U / t W U A / W U A H I H W H
squa s h .
ii.
What did Tom go to India to become?
79
d. i .''John was upset having received A - for the
course , and Bill
B
9?
i i . ' 'What grade was John upset having received
for the course?
This
tween
les.
indicates
(52)
To
that
and
give
(53)
a
the
explanations
(54),
are
to
be
WH-movement as well,
(54) a. i .
of
the
difference
should have a common basis
last
example,
examples discussed by Stillings
of
.
ruled
out
the
for both ru­
ungrammatical
(1975,
270),
the
be­
multi-gap
(i)-variants
by constraints which hold for
as shown by the (ii)-variants:
A1 was clearly intent on telling Alice to buy
the lettuce and Alfred t u u u m n i u m i u
ii.
u i i n t Jim u / u i / m i u u M t .
#
He asked who Alfred was clearly intent on
telling to buy the lettuce.
b.
i.
*Nancy thought Mike foolish for even talking
to Sally and Cindy
Alfonse t4>$t
n u iu u n tiu iu m .
ii.
I'd like to know who Cindy thought foolish for
even talking to Sally.
- 133 -
c. i.
*John asked George to be the one to inform Mary
Sam t<$/y>4
of Ellington's death and Fred
M 4 / M 4 / t i! iM & i&l'sM .ti ! <t>t/tlltiAttMf i/
ii.
Which friend did he ask to be the one
to inform Mary of Ellington's death?
■ft
d. i.
The box certainly contained thumbtacks before
Marty spilled them and the carton 4 4 tt& tiiti
pins yi4t<t>t4/ift£-tti /
ft.
ii.
They wondered how many pins the carton
certainly contained before Marty spilled them.
i, *1 plan to talk to Mary a week from next
e.
/t i /
Tuesday and John
¿.im titt u iM it n M t u iii.
to Fred
-
To whom does John plan to talk a week from
next Tuesday?
f. i.
Arthur put his boa constrictor under the
mattress at 80 W.Warren and Bernie
plywood 4i^i44t/M4/^4-ttt44/&f,/$0/Yl/yi&ift4rt ■
ii. *He will tell you what Bernie put under the
mattress at 80 W.Warren.
In view
ment
some
of
and
these
Gapping,
well-known
similarities between
we
will
review
constraints
on
in
the
the
rules of WH-movefollowing
WH-movement
in
sections
order
to
establish their value for Gapping.
2.1.2.
The
includes
NP
THE (COMPLEX) NP CONSTRAINT
Constraint
Ross'
Complex
of
Bach
and
Horn
NP
Constraint,
(1976,
accounts
280),
for the
which
fact
that a WH-constituent may not move out of true NPs:
(55) The NP Constraint
No
constituent
that
Is dominated by NP can be moved
or deleted from that NP by a transformational rule.
- 134 -
This constraint overlaps to some extent with
(i)
the
Complex
movement
out
of
filled NP (cf.
(ii)
the
NP Constraint
sentences
which
Subject Condition
(Chomsky
Subjacency
(Chomsky
the
Left
Branch
1973,
Condition
247);
by
a
lexically
250);
it prohibits
it prohibits movement
(59) and (60));
(Ross
prohibits movement out of a determiner
(56)
headed
it prohibits
(58));
1973,
out of picture noun phrases (cf.
(iv)
are
70);
(56) and (57));
movement out of subjects (cf.
(iii)
(Ross 1967,
1967,
(cf,
13,
114);
*Which flowers did John believe the claim that Peter
saw?
Welke bloemen weersprak Jan de bewering dat Peter
gezien had?
(57)
it
(61)):
Which flowers did John believe that Peter saw?
WeIke bloemen geloofde John dat Peter gezien had?
(58) a. *About whom did stories terrify John?
*0ver wie maakten verhalen Jan bang?
b.
About what were books reviewed by Bill?
*
Waarover werden boeken becritiseerd door Bill?
(59) a. *0f whom did Charles lose a picture?
Van wie heeft Charles een foto verloren?
b.
*About what did Bill destroy an article?
Waarover heeft Bill een artikel vernietigd?
(60) a.
Of whom did Charles take a picture?
Van wie heeft Charles een foto genomen?
b.
About what did Bill write an article?
Waarover heeft Bill een artikel geschreven?
(61) *Whose did you find book?
Wiens heb je boek gevonden?
- 135 -
Problematic
the
for
examples
the
in
NP
(60).
preposed
Constraint
Bach
PP
is
and
not
is
Horn
the
grammaticality
claim
dominated
that
sentences
the
by
structure.
The difference between (59) and (60)
in
NP
of
these
in
deep
thus would be
due to a difference of constituent structure:
(60' )
NP
Charles
In
Dutch,
this
a picture
difference
in
of whom
constituent
structure
can
be
easily motivated by the examples in (62) and (63), which show
that NP
and PP in
(60)
are interchangeable,
but NP and PP in
(59) are not:
(62)
a.
*Charles heeft van Jan een foto verloren.
(Charles has of John a picture lost)
b.
Bill heeft over sex een artikel vernietigd.
(Bill has about sex an article destroyed)
(63)
a.
Charles heeft van Jan een foto genomen.
(Charles has of John a picture taken)
b.
Bill heeft over sex een artikel geschreven.
(Bill has about sex an article written)
It
seems
that
differences
in constituent
structure may well
be the cause of whether or not the PP can be questioned.
The
pattern
gapped sentences,
of
(56)
cf.
through
(61)
can
be
reproduced
in
(64) through (69):
ft
(64)
John discussed my question of which flowers they
saw and Bill é té iM é é é / é f / A M é tïM
( of) which
animals
Jan besprak mijn vraag welke bloemen ze gezien
hadden en Bill
(65)
welke dieren
John asked which flowers they saw and Bill
which animals tttéf /é&é ■
Jan vroeg welke bloemen ze gezien hadden en Bill
welke dieren
( 6 6 ) a.
ft.
Stories about Frankenstein terrified John and
about Dracula
Peter.
ft
Verhalen over Frankenstein maakten Jan. bang en
over Dracula
b.
Peter
*
Books about linguistics were reviewed by Bill and
about psychology it é t i /
by Peter.
*Boeken over linguistiek werden becritiseerd door
over psychologie iié fi
Bill en
door John.
(67) a.
ft
Charles lost a picture of his mother and Peter
ta t/
o
f
his father.
ft
Charles heeft een foto van zijn moeder verloren
b.
en Peter m m i 4 u i n u van zijn vader ié f l é ié v I.
*
Bill destroyed an article about sex and Peter
about p o l i t i c s .
ft
Bill heeft een artikel over sex vernietigd en
Peter
(68)
a.
/i i i i !
o
v
e
r
politiek
Charles took a picture of the queen and Bill
Of the king.
Charles nam een foto van de koningin en Bill
van de koning.
- 137 -
b.
Bill wrote an article about sex and Peter
!é
-
i i í about politics.
Bill schreef een artikel over sex en Peter
over politiek.
(69)
John found Bill's book and Peter
téúvifi Harry's
.
*Jan vond Bills boek en Peter
féú á Harries
The
parallelism
that
the
variables
constituents
NP
between
on
constraint
Condition
(see
Gapping
of
either
both
side
overlaps
1.1.),
and WH-movement
rules
may
not
cases
relate
of a N P - boundary. Note
partly
with
which excludes
the
shows
Major
major
that the
Constituent
(58),
(59),
move
out
(61),
(66),
(67)and (69), but not (56) and (64).
2.1.3. THE WH-ISLAND CONSTRAINT
WH-constituents
sentences,
are
allowed
to
of
tenseless
unless these sentences are introduced by a WH-eom-
p lementizer:
(70)
What did John want to cook today?
Wat is Jan van plan vandaag te koken?
(71) *What did John wonder when to cook?
Wat vroeg Jan zich af wanneer te koken?
As
regards
less
Gapping,
sentences,
see
the
remnants may be
(72),
unless,
introduced by a WH-complementizer,
(72) a.
again,
in different
tense-
these sentences are
see (73):
John wants to cook the meals today and Peter
tomorrow.
Jan is van plan vandaag eten te koken en Peter
morgen
- 138 -
b.
John tried to interview some candidates this
morning and Peter ffté é / té / tiïié t'fié 'A /ió rté
this afternoon.
Jan probeerde vanmorgen met enkele kandidaten te
vanmiddag iiéf /
praten en Peter
(73) a.
John wondered what to cook today and Peter
tomorrow,
Jan vroeg zich af wat vandaag te zullen koken en
Peter fté é é / itM / A fliié - t morgen t a u n u / u u t -
b.
*John asked which candidates to interview this
4é.ii<Ai<^éSéé/té
morning and Peter
u u n rn
this afternoon.
*Jan vroeg met welke kandidaten
's morgens te
kunnen praten en Peter
's middags H I M 'é i i i t l 'i i 'i . t iii.
.
The variables of Gapping and WH-movement thus may not contain
a
WH-complementizer, an assumption which
the WH-island Constraint
The
effects
of
cf.
referred
to as
80),
the WH-island Constraint
tensed sentences as well,
(74)
is
(cf, Chomsky 1977,
can be
seen in
(74) and (75):
What did you wonder who he sent?
*Wat vroeg je je af wie je gestuurd had?
/ N *
(75)
Peter wondered what he sent to Mary,
0<
t>ii(dé H é /vi# At / W /
pit
and John
to Sue.
Peter vroeg zich af wat hij aan Mary gestuurd had
aan Susan m u i x u i m i.
en Jan
A
comparison
ants,
of
however,
these
reveals
examples
that
and
the
the
non-WH-island
ungrammatical
Gapping in (75) is due to a more fundamental cause:
vari­
output
of
- 139 -
(76)
What did you tell her that you sent to Mary?
Wat vertelde je haar dat je aan Marie gestuurd had?
(77)
Peter told her that he sent something to Mary, and
John
to Sue.
Peter vertelde haar dat hij iets aan Marie gestuurd
had en Jan
We will
Tensed
side
return
aan Susan
to these cases below in section 2.1.5. on the
S Condition.
(76)
and
(77),
In the meantime,
WH-movement
we
conclude
that,
out­
and Gapping are sensitive to
the WH-island Constraint.
(Some native
Engli sh
which
that
of
example
that
that
(77)
speakers doubt
in (77).
the ungrammatical!ty of the
They consider a variant
is deleted fully grammatical.
is optional
are related.
in English
More will
of
(77)
in
Presumably the fact
and the semi-grammaticality
be
said about
this below,
in
section 2.2.5.2.)
2.1.4. THE SENTENTIAL SUBJECT CONSTRAINT
Gapping
does
not
obey
formulated in Ross (1967,
the
Sentential
Subject Condition
134) as f o l l o w s :
(78) The Sentential Subject Constraint
No element dominated by an S may be moved out of that
S
if that node
S is dominated by an NP which
itself
is immediately dominated by S.
Compare
(80)
.
the WH-examples
of
(79)
with
the gapped sentences of
- 140 -
(79) a.
Who was that the principal would fire
(t)
expected by the reporters?
*Wie werd dat de direkteur
(t) zou ontslaan door
de reporters verwacht?
b.
How much bread has that you took been listed
by Peter?
Hoeveel brood is dat je genomen hebt door Piet
opgeschreven?
(80) a.
Which women the principal would fire was known
ti>£t
by the reporters and which men
y M i i X f l / b y
the publishers.
Welke vrouwen de direkteur zou ontslaan was
bekend aan de reporters en welke mannen
$4/
aan de
ui tge v e r s .
b.
How much bread you took has been listed by Peter
and how much wine
by John.
Hoeveel brood je genomen hebt is door Piet
opgeschreven en hoeveel wijn ¿
4
/
if
i é door John
Since
(79) is ungrammatical and (80) is grammatical,
to maintain
the
parallelism
between
in order
Gapping and WH-movement
an explanation of this difference should be offered.
Such
an
explanation
is possible within
subject sentences provided by Koster
(1978a,
several
claim
tences
arguments
do
not
in
expand
favor
from
of
the
subject
the
analysis of
59). He presents
that
N P s , but
subject
rather
position E, which is available in root sentences only:
sen­
from
a
- 141 -
The
subject
sentence
S '^
in
subject
NP position via COMP,
no way
to
(81),
derive
since
(79)
there
from
is
linked
as indicated in (81).
an
underlying
structure
is no COMP position available
of the sentential subject.
required.
E-positlon
to
the
There is
such as
to the left
For Gapping this extra COMP is not
The grammaticality of
(80)
only shows that Gapping
applies on E' domains as well.
-
2.1.5. THE TENSED S CONDITION
Ross'
ables:
constraints
(Ross 1967)
(Chomsky
1973)
determine
which X and Y specified by a rule can be
are
an
island.
scope of vari­
straints
the
enter
the
may
This yields
not
define
variable
in it.
a
formulated
Chomsky's
differently:
con­
they
involved
following formalization of the island
character of tensed sentences (Chomsky 1973,
244):
(82) The Tensed S Condition
No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
... X ...
\oe .. Y ...|
...
‘
(1) where Y is not in COMP and a is a tensed
sent e n c e .
The
condition
tences
embedded
are
"Y
is
not
semi-islands:
tensed
sentences
in
COMP"
the
is
implies
that
complementizer
excluded
from
tensed
position
the
sen­
of
condition.
This proviso is known as the "COMP-escape-hatch". It explains
the difference between bounded and unbounded movements obser­
ved
by Ross.
COMP position,
W H - m o v e m e n t , which
may escape,
moves
a constituent
to
the
but Adverb Preposing and Extrapo­
- 142 -
sition,
ves
which have no COMP
from
(83a),
but
target,
(84b)
does
may not.
not
derive
Thus
(83b) deri­
from
(84a)
(but
rather from a different underlying structure).
(83) a.
You told me ls lCoMP w h a t l y°u s a w II
*________________________ i
b.
What did you tell me that you saw?
(84) a.
You told me Ig ICOMP
I before d a r k , everybody
•t----------------- ^------------------ 1
would leave,
b.
Before dark, you told me that- everybody would
leave.
For
Gapping,
sentences
cannot
the
Tensed
contain
S Condition claims
one
of
the
remnants
that
but
tensed
not
the
other, unless the remnant contained in the tensed sentence is
in
COMP.
This
accounts
for
the
difference
between
( 8 6 ):
(85)
and
'
(85) a.
Charles may decide which boys are coming along
and Max
which girls &.f$! i'b'thifii,!
Karel mag beslissen welke jongens er mee gaan en
Max $ , $ . £ / welke meisjes i t h
b.
The first letter says how much tax you should
pay and the second letter
how. much V.A.T.
In de ene brief staat hoeveel belasting je moet
betalen en in de andere brief
(86) a.
hoeveel BTW
^Charles decided that 20 boys are coming along and
Harrie M ü & i& lt é é t 30 girls &f<i/ütitjife/¿ f i j i i .
$
Karel besliste dat er 20 jongens mee zouden gaan
en Harrie
30 meisjes
- 143 -
b.
*The first letter says that you should pay tax
and the second letter
V.A.T.
In de ene brief staat dat je belasting moet
14$$ I hi BTW
betalen en in de andere brief
u itm m u .
In both
(85)
sentences,
position
and
but
of
(86),
in
the
(85)
the
the remnants
one
embedded
Tensed S Condition.
obey
,
Tensed
of
the
tensed
remnants
S,
and
In this respect,
S
Condition
in
are in different
the
is
in
thereby
tensed
the
COMP
escapes
the
Gapping and WH-movement
same
way.
A
difference
between these rules, however, was observed in section 2,1.3.,
above.
This
difference
may
be
illustrated
by
(87)
and
(88)
(parallel t o - (76) and (77)).
(87)
What did Max say that you should buy?
Wat zei Max dat je moest kopen?
(88) a.
*Max said that you should buy bread and Peter
wine.
*
Max zei dat je brood moest kopen en Peter
tit!
b.
i\i wijn
To Sue, Max said that you should buy bread and
to Ann, w i u n i m u n u i m m i M i
wine.
#
Tegen Susan zei Max dat je brood moest kopen en
tegen Ann H i /M&f / / h i
In both
(87)
and
(88),
X
and Y are
...said (Max) that y o u . . . . The
in grammaticality
WH-constituent
tensed
in
sentence
can
be
(87)
to
1.
separated by the
explanation of the
found in successive
moves
the
wijn
COMP
via
of
the
the
COMP
divergence
cyclicity:
of
root
string
the
embedded
sentence,
schematically illustrated in (89):
(89)
the
10 ,COMP did Max say I,,,COMP you should buy what]]
b t__________________ ___ 11_______________________i
as
- 144 -
Gapping is not a
cyclicly,
and
movement rule.
hence
the
It cannot apply successively
differences
between
Gapping
and
WH-movement as exemplified by (87) and (88) are predicted.
In
the
second
original
blocking
(Chomsky 1973,
(82' )
context
condition
for
of
the
Tensed
structure
S
(82)
Condition
was
a
mentioned
244):
.. .,
(ii) where Y is in COMP and X is not in COMP
This
of
condition
COMP
clause.
to
prohibits
a
Thus,
position
(in an ad hoc manner)
other
than
the
COMP
(90) cannot be derived, whereas
movement
of
the
out
matrix
(91) can:
(90) *Which dog is believed by Max that Sue saw?
(90')
|c ,COMP NP is be 1. by Max |c ,C0MP Sue saw wh-dog||
b *____ It__________*________ ____ it______________ i
(91)
Which dog is it believed that Sue saw?
(91')
Assume
to
L ,COMP is it b e l i e v e d
l„,C0MP Sue saw w h - d o g 11
“
t_________________________ I■
‘
t______________ I
now
that
Gapping.
remnants
X
the
and Y are
in COMP position,
(85')
will
|s ,
will be
(82')
is applicable
ruled out,
tensed
since both
sentences,
but not
cf.:
•••X...
|s ,
CO m PY 1 •'•II
(92) structured as
lCO M P X l • • ’
not be ruled out.
as (92),
(85)
in different
(s , IC O M P ' ‘ ‘1
On the other hand,
(92')
C0MP-C0MP condition
In this case
Is'IcOMPY
••'II
Unfortunately,
(85) is as grammatical
showing that the difference illustrated by (85') and
(92') is irrelevant to Gapping:
- 145 -
(92) a. Who decides which boys are coming along and who
M<tt4 a
f>f. / i 4>ttt £ f b l i t i'i
which girls
Wie beslist we Ike jongens er mee gaan en wie
welke meisjes i t i u a u m
b. Which letter says how much tax you should pay and
which letter t & i i how much V.A.T.
In welk boek staat hoeveel belasting je moet
betalen en in welk boek 41'A’At hoeveel BTW
hi ! M i t IM t & liii'?
The difference, however,
condition
account
must
in
143),
He
predicts
for
Gapping.
rules
relations,
see
definition
of
holds
follow
(1979,
rules
It
the
from
In
that case,
also
obvious
that
rules only,
COMP-COMP
is
an
(1974,
preservingness
is
and
condition for
conditions
Gapping
In fact,
Vergnaud
structure
for movement
19).
and
rules.
by
condition.
Alternatively,
May
some
examples
another
deletion
rule
Sluicing
of
provided
on
anaphoric
the
difference
quite
naturally
and (85) comes as no surprise.
Finally,
all
to movement
is
COMP-COMP
may
movement
explained,
actual
a
the
preservingness
movement
between
direction
presents
structure
only goes to show that the COMP-COMP
restricted
this
which
not
be
material
to
of
might
wonder
reduction
rule
with
whether
by Gapping,
and
since
(1969).
(85)
there
roughly the required
proposed by Ross
the right
(92)
effect,
This rule
of the complementizer.
are
exists
the
deletes
Its effect
can be exemplified by (93):
(93) a. Ralph is going to invite somebody from Kankakee
to the party,
but they don't know who
M H IiiU & in iU U U IM ItM liM ti.
Ralph neemt iemand uit Kankakee mee naar het
•
f e e s t , maar ze weten nog niet wie
M tlt U iilM U i.
f $44/M & t
- 146 -
b. It is clear that you should pay tax, but
you can only guess how much
Het staat vast dat je belasting moet betalen,
maar je kunt alleen maar raden hoeveel
UltMtiytitfrtiii.
It seems then that
tion
of
Gapping
several
the
ways
fact
that
that
intermediate
Sluicing
turns
ces,
Sluicing.
this account
for
(85)
stage has
and
out
(92) and (85) can be derived by a combina­
and
it
is incorrect.
(92)
to
are
optional
be
most informants
shown
First,
This
reject
in
consider
Sluicing
as well,
rules.
for them Sluicing applies
such as (93) o n l y . Of.
can
involve
to be grammatical
Gapping
to be wrong:
since
and
However,
the
since both
prediction
these
senten­
in contrastive contexts
(94):
?*
(94) a.' Charles may decide which boys are coming along
and Max may decide which girls £.f<é/
Atérti ■
#
' Karel mag beslissen welke jongens er mee gaan en
Harry mag beslissen welke meisjes é
f
■
b.' The first letter says how much tax you should pay
and the second letter says how much V.A.T,
9*
' In het ene boek staat hoeveel belasting je moet
betalen en in het andere boek staat hoeveel BTW
hi
Second,
note
exclamations,
(95a),
nor
in
that
neither
Sluicing
in the
coordinations
does
not
apply
in
"classical"
context
(95b)
importance
(the
indirect
of Sluicing
of
such
constructions was pointed out by Frans Zwarts in a lecture at
the TIN-meeting 1979):
- 147 -
(95) a.
*1 could tell by the color of his hair that he
was a lover of music, but I could not tell what
a lover of music
Ik kon aan de kleur van zijn haar zien dat hij
een muziekliefhebber was, maar ik kon niet zien
wat een muziekliefhebber fiffchké-i.
b.
By the color of his hair you can tell what a
lover of music he is and by the shape of his
cheeks you can tell what a gastronome )hé / t i ■
Aan de kleur van zijn ogen kun je zien wat een
muziekliefhebber hij is en aan de vorm van zijn
.wangen kun je zien wat een smulpaap Yiti/ié-
Gapping in indirect exclamations,
on the other hand,
is gram­
matical :
(96) By the color of his hair you can tell what a lover
of music he is and by the shape of his cheeks
ifi'X.Iié.iM tiX X what a gastronome tfié /
■
Aan de kleur van zijn ogen kun je zien wat een
muziekliefhebber hij is en aan de vorm van zijn
wangen KvM/ h i /i t i t
Therefore,
Third,
wat een smulpaap tyihI té •
(96) is a genuine case of Gapping.
observe
that
Sluicing
diately contiguous to the COMP node,
(97) a.
deletes
the
string
imme­
cf.
John knows that the boys are leaving but he does
not know when
Jan weet dat de jongens vertrekken,
weet niet wanneer é i /
maar hij
/ ^ ittti^ é i^ -
John knows that the boys are leaving but he does
not know when the girls & f i /Xifcfifiè •
Jan weet dat de jongens vertrekken,
weet niet wanneer de meisjes
maar hij
.
- 148 -
The
second
gap
the
result
of
in examples
Sluicing.
such as
(98)
Variants
"sluiced" gap are ungrammatical,
of
cf.
therefore
(98)
cannot be
with
only
the
(99).
9
(98)
'John may decide when the girls are leaving and
/M U M
Peter
when the boys A f i/ t iA f iiii-
Jan mag beslissen wanneer de meisjes vertrekken
en Piet
(99)
.
wanneer de jongens
*John may decide when the girls are leaving and
/ttA ftiii-
Peter may decide when the boys
*Jan mag beslissen wanneer de meisjes vertrekken
en Piet mag beslissen wanneer de jongens
The
weak
grammatical ity
presumably
due
with more
than
tionally,
(98)
is
citous
one.
to
it
of
fact
the
English
the
third
(100), e.g.,
in
Examples
remnant
(98)
is
sentences
low in quality anyway. Addi­
must be pointed out
limited.
example
that in English gapped
two remnants are
highly
when
the
is
that
are
the gapped pattern of
relatively
contiguous
is considered ungrammatical
to
most
the
feli­
second
almost univers­
ally :
(100)'
John may decide when we will go to Paris and Peter
MUM
when ybg/i/iitt/&$ to London.
9*
' Jan mag beslissen wanneer we naar Parijs gaan en
wanneer 'fii naar London
Piet
Be this as it may,
the comparison of (98) on the one hand and
(97b) and (99) on the other strongly suggests that the second
gap in (98) is the result of Gapping,
not of Sluicing.
In sum, the observations in this section show that Gapp­
ing
is
a
respectable
parallels WH-movement
shown
to
be
rule
of
sentence
grammar.
in important respects:
constrained
by
the
Gapping
both rules were
Tensed S Condition
(plus
COMP-escape-hatch), the NP C o n s traint, and the WH-island Con­
straint . WH-movement,
but not Gapping,
was
found to obey the
i
i
- 149 -
COMP-COMP
but
condition,
it
was
claimed
to
have
preservingness
follow
tion
from
of
an
and
out
an
or
a
the
that
Sentential
recently
alternative
constraint
alternative
subject
Gapping
and
pointed
source
on
Condition,
latter
have
(either
anaphoric
been
structure
relations),
analysis of the structural
sentences.
WH-movement
Subject
the
If
is
so,
the
parallelism
adequately
or
posi­
between
described
by
the
underscored triplet.
2.2. EFFECTS ON THEORY
In Chomsky and Lasnik (1977)
generalizations
grammar
over
discussed
in
posed.
The
partly
due
partly
to
Island
Constraint
movement
to
the
rules.
construal
(e.g.
that
previous
syntactic
and
The
are
of
Conditions:
Subjacency
Conditions
rules).
The
(1978),
rules
sections
constraint
Binding
Binding
on
WH-movement
Opacity.
indexing
the
and Chomsky
constraints
on
so-called
will
for the
the
constraints
the
show
the
have
sentence
been
claimed
pro­
to
Subjacency,
the
is
apply
be
and
Nominative
relevant
to
to
of
following
proposed generalizations
several
of
fail
rules
subsections
to account
parallelism between Gapping and WH-movement observed
in the previous section.
2.2.1.
SUBJACENCY
Subjacency is formulated as follows
(Chomsky 1977,
73)
(101) Subjacency
"...
a cyclic rule cannot move a phrase from
position Y to position X (or conversely)
(6)
...X...
where a and
|a...
|0...Y...|
are cyclic nodes.
...|
in (6):
...X...,
- 150 -
In Chomsky
(1973)
this assumption,
int
(the
(102)),
contents
but not
in (103)
(102)
S'
and NP were assumed to be cyclic. Under
Subjacency subsumed
of which
the Complex NP Constra­
is represented
the NP Constraint
schematically
in
(schematically represented
(circled nodes are cyclic)):
COMP
|s ... I Q . . . I Q
COMP
|s ...
|A <+wh>| ...||||
t..— ______ _________________ It_______________ I
(103)
COMP
|s . . .
. . . |pp
<+wh>|
This implies that in Chomsky (1973) movement of a PP out of a
N P , such
as
in
(104)
is considered
to be the unmarked
(un­
exceptional) case:
(104) a. Of whom did John take a picture?
Van wie heeft Jan een foto genomen?
b. About what did John write an article?
Waarover heeft Jan een artikel geschreven?
Bach and Horn (1976),
ples
in
ses,
no
claim
(104)
are
on the other hand, claim that the exam­
exceptional,
and that in the unmarked ca­
element may be moved out of a NP. They sustain their
with
examples
expository purposes);
(105) a.
such
as
(105)
(slightly
adjusted
■
Of whom did John destroy pictures?
#
Van wie heeft Jan f o t o 1s vernietigd?
b.
About whom did stories terrify John?
Van wie maakten verhalen Jan bang?
c.
Of whom did John see Peter's picture?
-g.
Van wie zag Jan Piets foto?
for
d.
With what did John buy a book?
(Answer: With a golden jacket.)
*Waarmee heeft Jan een boek gekocht?
(Antwoord:
As
observed
moves
out
difference
deep
in
Met een gouden kaft.)
section
2.1.2.,
of
a
in
structure:
structure
N P , such
such
as
as
for
those
(104),
Bach
the
examples
(106),
whereas
cases
and
in
Horn
(104)
(105)
where
assume
will
will
a PP
have
have
a
a
(107)
as its deep structure:
Under
this
assumption
(104)
will
not be
a counterexample
to
the NP Constraint.
In
and
Chomsky
(105)
is
(1977)
accepted
this
analysis of the
grosso
modo.
He
sentences
prefers,
(104)
however,
a
readjustment rule to account for the difference In structure.
This
readjustment
rule
effects
the
following
change
(where
the original position of PP is indicated by trace t):
(108) He saw
L m a picture
Wr
= 7ihe saw
|__ of John II
rr
a picture tl
lpp of John I
This readjustment is sensitive to:
(i)
the lexical contents of V (105a);
(ii)
the position of the NP in the tree:
subjects
may not be readjusted (105b);
(iii)
the contents of the determiner of the NP (105c);
(iv)
the choice of the preposition
(105d).
and
- 152 -
Though Chomsky
a NP
represents
tion,
He
(1977)
he
the
does not
puts
forward
falsify"
agrees that
marked
questioning of a PP out of
rather
than
the
unmarked
situa­
agree with Bach and Horn's NP Constraint.
examples
such
it (Chomsky 1977,
as
(109),
which
"immediately
112):
(109)
a. A review was published of Bill's book.
[S ,C0MP ls lNP a review t j
...
[of B's book|pp ||
i
b. Of the students in the class several failed the exam.
[s ,COMP [g [of the students
,.,jpp
[Npseveral t^]
. . .]]
By the NP Constraint, movement of PP out of NP as in (109) is
incorrectly
prohibited.
that
is
and
there
other
(109)).
a
movement
Again,
Subjacency,
suggested
he
of
to be
this
situation,
difference
rules
(such
as
accounts
for
this
although
redefinition
On
fundamental
the
the
set
cyclic.
the
account
of
Chomsky
between
ones
exemplified
difference
is
cyclic
based
nodes:
Subjacency will
comments
WH-movement
in
on
S
terms
a
and
in
of
slight
NP
are
allow movement of a
daughter of a NP to any position within S (as in (109)), but
not to COMP,
(110)
which is outside of S:
lg 'COMP |/^Ty . .
A.
... PP|
...III
______ j ij_____ ƒ.
A----------- 5*------ ---1
Nothing is lost by this redefinition of the set of cyclic n o ­
des.
The
Complex
NP
Constraint
still
holds,
as
shown
in
(111):
(111)
[g |COMP |/ ^ V . .
♦
In
actual
fact,
it
something
• • ■ Is ,COMP
[s .. .wh-X. . .1111]
__________ It___________1
is
gained,
Constraint now follows from Subjacency:
since
the
WH-island
- 153 -
(112)
If
|
COMP g
COMP | ... Is .COMP2 | . . .wh-X. . .|||]
t h_______________It__________ I I
!
------------- * --------------- 1
is
position,
filled,
X cannot
constituent
move
to COMP^
X
cannot
either,
move
since
to
this
this assumes
that two cyclic boundaries can be crossed in one swoop.
Let
cases.
us
consider
Constraints,
one
from Subjacency
there
are
remnants
the
the
effect
Since Gapping obeys the
distance
(101).
that
the
gappings
there
between
the
are
as
on
Gapping
Gapping
follows
On the one hand
(113),
where
from one another,
grammatical
remnants
of
however.
such
in subjacency distance
hand
Subjacency
scope
It does not,
ungrammatical
are
other
expects
of
(Complex) NP and the WH-island
gappings
violates
and on
where
Subjacency,
the
the
as
in
(114):
(113) a. Complex NP Condition
*John discussed the question of which roses
are to be planted and Peter f
i t t t i
(of) which appletrees $.ti / t<t/tM
*Jan besprak de vraag welke rozen geplant moesten
worden en Peter U U U t i U l f t U i welke
•
appelbomen
b . HP Constraint
Charles destroyed an article about the moon and
t4 about the sun.
Peter
Karel vernietigde een artikel over de maan en
Piet
/4 M /
o
v
e
r
de zon.
c . WH-island Constraint
*
John asked what to write to Mary, and Peter
to Sue.
*Jan vroeg wat aan Marie te moeten schrijven en
Peter
aan Susan t i/ M it i'f i -
/
•
-
(114)
154
-
Subjacency
a.
Charles seems to believe to be able to say yes,
/ t<t
and John
/14 /
no.
Karel schijnt te geloven in staat te zijn ja
i M /t$ / U t i i i i i l fj\ / i t i . i t
te zeggen, en Jan
t i/ t i& t i
b.
nee t i l t i i i . i t .
John wants to try to begin to write a novel and
Sue ' A & t t l t i l t i i I t i l t i t t t l t i l i i t t i i
a play.
Jan wil proberen te beginnen een novelle te
schrijven en Sue
een
toneelstuk
In
(113),
the
only one cyclic node separates the remnants:
(Complex)
cases.
The
arbitrary
NP
examples in
amount
variable.
Constraint
of
cases
(114)
in
the
can
be
NP in
WH-island
that an
contained
in
Subjacency is too strong for gappings of type
attempts
to
Constraint
derive
the
granted
that
no
and
derivation
can be called successful
the
(114)
(113). This shows that the
NP-Constraint
the
from some version of Subjacency has not
success,
straints
S
show on the other hand,
S-boundaries
and too weak for gappings of type
with
and
of
the
WH-island
(yet) met
two
con­
if it does not include the
Gapping cases.
2.2.2. BINDING CONDITIONS
By
virtue
be
of
rules
can
tions
on
anaphora:
taken
to
be
perspective
the
development
considered
the
antecedent
it becomes
of trace
theory,
movement
to be constrained by binding
moved
constituent
and anaphor,
possible
and
its
respectively.
condi­
trace
are
From this
to exclude both examples in
(115) by the same constraint on the relation between they and
each other in (a), and they and t in (b):
- 155 -
(115) a.
*They^ believed Tom to have criticized each
other.
1
b.
Chomsky
* T h e y . were believed Tom to have criticized t..
J
J
(1978)
proposes
interpretation
phrases):
of
two
conditions
anaphora
the Nominative
(empty
which
nodes
Island Condition
and Opacity (Chomsky 1978,
"bind"
and
the
reciprocal
(Chomsky
1978, 48)
17):
(116) The Nominative Island Constraint
A nominative anaphor cannot be free in S ' .
(117) Opacity
If a is in the domain of the subject of j3 ,
P minimal, then a cannot be free in f).
"Free" is "unbounded",
a abbreviates
Chomsky
equal
for
(1978,
to
i.e. not coindexed with an antecedent.
anaphora
13)).
(3 is
"c-commanded
(Reinhart 1976,
(pro,
S'
by".
trace,
(p.18).
"In
C-command
and
the
is
reciprocal,
domain
defined
as
of"
is
follows
32):
(118) C-command
Node
nor
A
B
c (onstituent)-commands
dominates
the
other
and
node
the
B
if neither
first
A
branching
node which dominates A dominates B.
i.e. ,
a
node a is
in
the
domain
of
a
node y if
it
is
dominated by the first branching category dominating y .
Nominative
sentence,
case
is
assigned
to the
subject
of a tensed
but not to the subject of a tenseless sentence.
The
Nominative Island Condition uses this distinction and prohib­
its
subjects of tensed sentences
from being empty.
dicts the following pattern:
(119) John seems
[s , COMP
Ig ^NPe ^ to be
Jan schijnt ziek te zijn.
This pre­
- 156 -
(120)
*John seems
|g,
(that )1
^NPe I ls illl
*Jan schijnt dat ziek is.
Both
in
is no
(119)
and in
antecedent
nominative
(120)
and therefore
is free
lN p el
in S '. In
(120),
(120),
in S',
but not
but not
in
(119)
since
(119)
there
|N p e) is
is excluded by
the Nominative Island Condition.
In effect
c-commanded
tenseless
the
Opacity
by subjects,
sentences,
Condition
e.g.
holds
for constituents
Both
in tensed and in
objects.
objects
are
not
allowed
to
be
free
in
S'. This explains the difference between (121) and (122).
(121)
It is unclear
I„ , („„„„what .1 I„(„„el
5 COMr
1 5 NP
[ , |Q0MPw h o il ^s
(122) *It is unclear
to do t .II
l
I fjPe HI
^i
In both cases t. is bound in S' (by what, and who.); I..„el is
i
J ---- 1
--- 1
'NP 1
in both cases. In (121) this empty node itself is the
free
subject,
and
thereby
not
in
the
not excluded by Opacity.
(122)
is
subject
in
the
domain
of
the
domain
of
the
subject,
is excluded by Opacity:
and
INpe|
(t ^ ) , and not bound within
S '.
Since COMP is not in the domain of the subject,
it is an
exceptional position.
It follows that COMP may again function
as an "escape hatch".
This is shown by WH-movement, which,
applied
cyclicly
successively
is
the
only
rule
to
move
if
a
constituent out of a tensed sentence:
In
(123) WhOj do you think
|g, lC0Mp
(124) Whoj do you think
|g,lC0Mp ti j|
(123),
tion,
ti is a nominative
bound
(g t^ is i 11II
|g we saw tjl
anaphor by virtue
t . . in 0 (= S '). The
by
jl
trace
of its posi­
in COMP
(t.
1 IJ
free
in
(123)
is
assumed
claims
S',
not
that
but
not
excluded
t^ j,
this to be
.) is
^ !J
in
the domain of the
by
Opacity.
unlike
t^,
is
In
subject,
this case,
and thus
it must be
non-nominative.
Chomsky
so by stipulating that movement rules move
- 157 -
all
features of a category,
1978, 48). Still,
application
of
including
case features
t^ is assumed to be nominative,
WH-mo v e m e n t , because
the
(Chomsky
despite the
position
of
t^
is
inherently related.to nominative case.
In
bound
(124),
in
S'
influence
of
replace
at
t^
is in the domain of the
subject
(we),
but
by
t . ., and thereby t - escapes from the
1) J
JOpacity. In this way, the Binding Conditions
least
the Tensed S Condition,
and
the COMP-esca­
pe -hatch.
Let us consider the
Gapping.
to
the
either
the
remnants
anaphoric.
Binding
Nominative
it
Proper
version
1976).
An
(125),
of the Binding Conditions on
in
are
are
not
it
empty,
which
considered
defined
antecedent,
not
rules
Binding
is
case
Island Condition or Opacity,
are
Additionally,
recent
Gapping
relates
Conditions
so-called
anaphor
effect
There is no obvious reason for Gapping to be subject
(Fiengo
in
e.g.,
is
necessarily
the
are
to
obey
of
said
the
condition
which
in
c-command
to
anaphor.
c-command
since
necessarily
constrained by the
1974),
terms
c-commands
and not
properly
The
related
its
of
most
(Reinhart
bind
an
remnants
of
as
shown
by
structured as (126): ,
(125) Which wine to serve has been decided by John and
which cheese
by Peter.
Welke wijn je moet aanbieden is door Jan beslist
en welke kaas ¡4/$$$$/$.$##%$$$$/%$ door Peter
w a n t.
by Peter
- 158 -
Neither
the
dominates
ating
first branching node
Ippby Peter I , nor
Ippby Peter 1 dominates
to be impossible
the
dominating
first
l^pwhich cheese 1
branching node
IjjpWhich c h e e s e ] . Thus
to interpret
domin­
it seems
the Binding Conditions as con­
straints on the remnants of Gapping,
For yet another
reason it seems
the Binding Conditions as such.
side the
Tensed S cases,
the Specified
impossible to interpret
It was shown above that, out­
the Binding Conditions also replace
Subject Condition.
The latter constraint, how­
ever, does not restrict the application of Gapping.
worthwhile to consider this in some detail.
254)
the
Specified
Subject
Condition
is
It may be
In Chomsky (1973,
formulated
as
fol­
lows :
(127) The Specified Subject Condition
No rule can involve X, Y (X superior to Y)
in the structure
... X ...
\a ... Z ... - WYV ...|
...
where Z is the specified subject of WYV.
(Subjects are specified in case they are lexically filled,
or
by X. a = S'
or
contain
a
proform
which
is not
controlled
NP) .
The
examples
(128)
illustrate
the
effect
of
this con­
straint :
(128) a. The men promised me to defeat each other.
De mannen beloofden me elkaar te verslaan.
b.
The men asked me to defeat each other.
*
De mannen vroegen me elkaar te verslaan.
The reciprocal phrase each other (Y) in (128a)
to
the men
(X),
since
de f e a t . In (128b),
the men controls
the
can be related
empty subject of
the men does not control the empty subject
- 159 -
of de f e a t , and therefore,
each o t h e r . (128b)
the men cannot be the antecedent of
is excluded,
since
the reciprocal
phrase
cannot find an antecedent.
The
difference
between
(128a)
and
(b),
structured as in
(128' ) ,
(1281) a. The men promised me
|g,
lN p e]
to defeat each
other|
b. The men asked me
Iw p el
to defeat each otherl
is accounted for by Opacity as follows.
The reciprocal phrase
each other
therefore
|Npe]
is
must
"binds"
in
the
|<,,
domain
of
be bound in S'.
the
Being
each o t h e r . Lexical
properties
quire that the men be the antecedent of
reby assigning identical
subject
[N p e]
,
and
the only NP available,
of promise
lNpe|
in (128a),
re­
the­
indices to the m e n , [N p e | , and each-
o t h e r . Lexical properties of ask require that me be the ante­
cedent
of lN p e] in
coindexed,
(128b).
resulting
in
Me,
[N p e] > and each other thus
an uninterpretable
structure,
are
since
the reciprocal phrase requires a plural antecedent.
The Specified
in
earlier
s e c t i o n s , since
WH-movement
Subject
subject
cyclic
provides
Condition,
Specified
hatch.
Subject Condition has not been considered
Subject
(First
Z in
Y
but
it is irrelevant
direct
can
Condition
moves
(127),
boundary.
no
to
evidence
be
by
COMP,
made
to W H - movement.
for
the
compatible
virtue
of
passing
the
over
Specified
with
COMP
the
the
escape
specified
and then it moves to X, passing over the
WH-movement
thereby
does not
involve X and
Y, where X and Y are separated by both the subject Z and the
cyclic
boundary).
Subject Condition,
(129).
Gapping
appears
to
if the
remnants
are
disobey
the
Specified
taken as X and Y, cf.
(129)
a. Today, John wants to try to begin to write a
novel,
/t t i /
and tomorrow,
/Wi t t
t H i i t t t t a play.
Vandaag wil Jan beginnen een novelle te schrijven
en morgen
een toneelstuk
b. Some people want the door to open to the left,
and others iiéixff
to the right.
Sommigen willen de deur naar links laten
openslaan en anderen iifttitl< A 4 /
naar rechts
lé.tiiiléM'é-iti-i-tc. Some people want all doors to open to the left
and others ii&M all windows
Sommigen willen alle deuren naar links laten
openslaan en anderen i i t t t i t
/liiit é ! l
i
t
i
t
alle ramen
/ ■
The difference between promise and a s k , which illustrates the
Specified Subject Condition par excellence
be reproduced for Gapping (cf.
(130) a.
(cf.
(128)) cannot
(130)):
My mother promised me to talk
to the director and my father
U /U U
to the dean.
Mijn moeder beloofde me met de (lirekteur te
praten en mijn vador
met de dekaan
b.
My mother asked me to take counsel with
the director and my father
with the dean.
Mijn moeder vroeg me met de direkteur overleg
te plegen en mijn vader
iiit U i/ H / iU iU .
met de dekaan
- 161 -
In fact,
this
one might present
problem.
Chomsky
(1973,
increasingly
sentence
from
Ever
since
269
grammar
introduction
footnote),
successful,
from
constraints
the following perspective on
the
to
there
derive
bound
have
traces
been
constraints
constraints
on
of
on
empty
anaphora.
From
attempts,
on
rules
positions,
the
in
of
i.e.
beginning,
constraints on the scope of WH-movement constituted the pivot
of expositions on
a
result
clear
how
grammar
this
of
discussions
WH-movement
constrained
view
should
the explanatory value
these
it
obey
preceding
is
might
by
not
similar
sections
fit
obvious
only
island-sensitive
surfaced
at
same
become
into
on
why
constraints.
not
of this approach. As
has
conditions
regular,
the
it
a
theory
Gapping
time
and
Nevertheless
of
of
or
striking
Within
WH-movement
they
Gapping
sentence
less
sentence
bound anaphora.
legitimized
rule
more
do.
as
The
a
fully
grammar,
they
parallels
between
the
scope of Gapping and the scope of WH-movement.
This
and
leaves
empty
positions
strain
the
positions
the
one,
interpretation
in
rule,
in
whether
will
be
with questions about
these
gapped
Logical
remnants
then,
of
parallels,
sentences
the
Form,
will
remnants
or
subject
about
whether
to
or
will
the
the -source
whether
will
refer
not
to
variable
constraints
on
the
con­
empty
between
Gapping
and
WH-movement as well.
Three
Zwarts
recent
(1978),
questions,
theories
made
an
and
i.e.
of
publications
Neijt
on
(1978b)
they considered
general
attempt
Dutch,
constraints
to derive at
have
the
on
Koster
(1978b),
considered
these
relevance' of Gapping for
sentence grammar.
least some
Koster
constraints on Gap­
ping from a theory of empty places, more or less in the spi­
rit
more
of
Fiengo
(1974,
old-fashioned
chapter 4).
syntax.
Neijt
and Zwarts represent
They do not use
empty places but
derive the scope of Gapping from a generally defined scope of
the
syntactic
Zwarts
ly),
(1978)
and
will
variable.
below
from
We
will
(sections
there
articulated version of Neijt
discuss
2.2.3.
proceed
(1978b)
Koster
and 2.2.4.
with
a
more
(1978b)
and
respective­
elaborately
(section 2.2.5.).
I
- 162 -
2.2,3. THE BOUNDING CONDITION (KOSTER,
The
NP
Constraint
(Bach
and
Horn,
1978b)
1976)
outlawed
any
extraction from or deletion in N P . This constraint is reform­
ulated by Koster
within
NP
within
that
(1978b)
unless
in order to exclude empty positions
they are bounded
NP.
Koster
further
(i.e.
find
such that it applies to N P , A P , PP,
this
and S'.
(13D
constraint
He defends
reinterpreted and generalized NP Constraint
principle of core grammar:
an antecedent)
generalizes
this
as a fundamental
the Bounding Condition.
The Bounding Condition
7 cannot be free in
(Koster 1978b,
1/3...
I-ye]
123)
...I
where 0 is a top node.
Top nodes are defined as follows:
(132) Top nodes (Koster 1978b,
A
maximal
not
projection,
105)
'
X n , is
a top
node
iff it
is
immediately dominated by a node Xm (of the same
projection type) such that m > n.
Since
S',
S'
the
is
a top
Bounding
node
and
Condition
since
allows
language
specific exceptions.
S',
Bounding
the
Condition
empty subject may be
If
the
empty
interpreted
languages.
by
This
for
If the
is
certain
inapplicable
is
marked
a wh-antecedent
Koster
as <+wh>
ing
tributional
set
of
picture.
with
its
variation,
provisions
e.g.,
it
may
the
top node
all
"empty
straightlaced
and non-core
that
,
outside
or
an
muddle
in many
position"
viz.
the Bound­
restrictions
grammar,
the
be
His statement makes
distinction between core grammar,
Condition
and,
recaptures
facts mentioned in the recent literature.
an elegant
universal
top node Is a tenseless
interpreted by a controller outside S'.
position
way
empty places occur within
the
transparent
on
dis­
additional
original
- 163 -
A remarkable
of top node
and Intended consequence
is that
a "top node",
whereas
themselves are not.
(133)
only
tion.
be
the
As
circled
A-nodes
a consequence
the first
below,
under
count
the
"bound"
conjunct.
(135b)
bounded
the labels
The
top
nodes
or
by the
[^e] in
"interpretable"
empty positions
own
(The
as
empty position
however,
their
ungrammaticality.
in the top of the conjuncts
In diagram (133)
........ .
and
A'
as
of the definition
label in the top of a conjunction is
A1
considered
and
the
are
not
top nodes,
S-bars
by
defini­
(134)
the
in structures
in
each
which
may
m e n t i o n e d - in
can
verb
in
(135a)
separate
case
explain
their
(134)
and
(135)
are top nodes) .
(134)
[g,John hit Mary and Bill
(135) a.
*[g,John hit Mary and I don't believe
Is ,Bill
b.
the
[y e] Sue]]
.
*[g,John says that he eats an apple and
Max
Since
(v e ] Sue | .
[y e]
Bounding
ls ,COMP
Condition
lN p e]
ly e]
a pearl]
is weakened
.
for tenseless
sen­
tences the following structure is allowed:
(136)
fg |John wanted to invite Mary and Peter
Ig.CQMP
In
the
variable
in:
same
lNpel
vein,
the
I-y-e] Sue]]
Bounding
in Gapping cannot
3
(-y-e|
,
Condition
explains
why
cover parts of a major phrase,
the
as
- 164
(137) John was standing in front of his house,
and Peter
Iye I Ipp Ipe I l^jphis car || •
Jan stond voor zijn huis en Peter
Iy el Ipp lPe I lNpzijn autoll .
The
Bounding
Condition
the
remnants
of
thus
Gapping,
stituent Condition,
strongly
e.g.,
it
restricts
subsumes
discussed favorably
the
the
in the
form
Major
of
Con­
first part of
this chapter.
While the Bounding Condition thus achieves a large meas­
ure of success,
it is less successful in cases such as (138),
where it predicts ungrammaticality for a grammatical sentence
(in which
S'
is
tensed),
and
(139)
(In which
S'
is tense-
less), where it predicts just the opposite:
(138)
(139)
John asked
[<,,which apples he should eat | and
Peter
(g,which pears
[v e|
*John wondered
Peter
|v e|
Although one might
may
follow
from
Bounding Condition,
1A U X e 1 IVe N
|g,who to invite for dinner|
|s , |COMpe|
object
other
|N pS|
that
|y e|
for lunch|
‘
and
.
the ungrammaticality of (139)
principles
and
it is ominous
that
does
not
falsify
the grammatical
(138)
shows the very charaeterictics ruled out by the condition.
the analysis that we will give in section 2.2.5.,
(138)
and
(139)
will
be
seen
to
follow
the
In
both facts,
directly
from
an
appropriately defined notion of Subjacency.
The
either.
S'0 will
notion
If we
"top
node"
consider
be a top node.
a
itself
structure
is
not
such
as
without
problems
(140),
only the
This seems to imply that all Gapping
patterns of (141) are allowed.
a
' o >1 l3NP
V n p I (4n p e
b
to 1 ¡3NP
V NP| I4n p e NP|]
V NP 1 [C N P e NP]]]
6
l2 I5n p
*[0 ¡I [3NP
V NP] 14n p V NP]]
l2 !5n p
c
d
l0 ll
structure
chapter
1,
||
[3 n p V NP] [4n p e NP])
e *1
l3Np V NPj
10 'I
This
n p
was
I4 n p V NP]]
discussed
section
2.1.6.),
by
and
>2
[5n p e npI [CNP e NP|j]
b
e n p ! [„NP e NP]]]
o
CNP V NP|||
^2 ls NP e NP 1 6
V NP]]]
l2 I5n p e NP 1 KNP
b
Williams
there
(1978)
is no
doubt
(cf.
also
that
the
variants (c) - (e) are ungrammatical, cf.:
(142)
a.
John wants brandy and Max y^pi)is beer, or Max
brandy and John iié-tti beer.
b.
John wants brandy and Max iié-tté beer,
wants brandy and John
c. *John wants brandy and Max wants beer,
'fréiité brandy and John
d.
or Max
beer.
or Max
beer,
*John wants brandy and Max itécfaté beer, or Max
ii&iifé brandy and John wants beer.
.
e.
*John wants brandy and Max wants beer, or Max
ivk'hii brandy and John wants beer.
Furthermore
node,
one
constituent
would
from
if
SQ
in
expect
one
of
structure
there
the
to
(143)
be
conjuncts
other. No such phenomenon exists.
is
rules
and
the
sole
extracting
insert
top
a
it in the
- 166 -
The following morals appear warranted.
and
its
auxiliary principles
explained
earlier
by
The Bounding Condition
cover the
several
empty position facts
alternative
principles.
The
notion "top node" was stretched for coordinated structures in
order to bring
the Gapping facts under the explanatory scope
of the Bounding Condition.
gets
"excess
124,
and
content"
1976,
96).
In this way the Bounding Condition
over
its
However,
competitors
the
stretched
(Lakatos
notion
1970,
top node
runs into serious difficulties if one considers coordinations
with more than two conjuncts,
rule
scope
support
one
defined by this notion enjoys a striking
from non-Gapping phenomena,
conjunct,
principles
and
of the
cf.
(143).
to exclude
(143),
Over
this
above
does not
this,
defined and in spite
and
And
(139))
even
solve
the
lack of
such as extractions from
if we
the unwanted
lack of evidence
and
((138)
such as (141). Furthermore,
invoke
independent
results sketched in (141)
the more
fundamental problem
for the stretched notion "top node".
if
we
allow
the
notion
of its difficulties,
top
node
as
some Gapping facts
seem to falsify rather then to confirm the
Bounding Condition.
This
relevant
ciently
quire
the
criticism
if
one
of
supported
by
"excess content"
framework
of
Koster
feels that
(1978b)
is
only
independent
evidence
and
(1978b)
cannot
be
is
does
in order to be acceptable.
Koster
marginally
the Bounding Condition
suffi­
not
re­
Even then,
claimed
explained why Gapping is a rule of sentence grammar.
to have
- 167 -
2.2.4. A PROPOSAL BY ZWARTS (1978)
A key observation
in Zwarts
(1978)
concerns the follow­
ing Dutch construction.
(144) De veiligheidsagent stond
[ „ [
P
Q
[p ,achter de grootvorstin || .
meter]
(The body-guard was standing five meters
behind the duchess.)
The
single
phrase
P
2
vijf meter achter de grootvorstin
function as a remnant of Gapping,
tioned by WH-m o v e m e n t , cf.
cf.
can
(145), and can be ques­
(146).
-
(145) De ene veiligheidsagent stond twee meter achter de
grootvorstin en de andere veiligheidsagent
ét<tM
I o I „twee meter] |pl achter de koningin|] .
P Q
'
(One body-guard was standing two meters behind the
I
duchess and the other body-guard
two
meters behind the queen.)
(146) Hoeveel meter achter de grootvorstin stond de
veiligheidsagent?
(How many meters behind the duchess was
the body-guard?)
At the same time,
a
remnant
of
WH-movement,
2
the Q -phrase within the P
Gapping,
cf.
cf.
(147),
and
can
2
can function as
be
questioned
by
(148).
(147) De ene veiligheidsagent stond twee meter achter de
grootvorstin en de andere veiligheidsagent
ét<£M
/M /i f i è t i i t é t ï i i ƒ)/ .
I 2 I 2drie meter |
(One body-guard was standing two meters behind the
duchess and the other body-guard
meters
.)
/été-t’A tté three
- 168 -
(148) Hoeveel meter stond de veiligheidagent achter de
grootvorstin?
(How many meters was the body-guard behind
the duchess?)
p
The
smaller P '-phrase within
as a remnant
of Gapping,
by W H-moveme n t , cf.
(149)
cf.
the P
in (144) cannot function
(149),
and cannot be questioned
(150).
*De ene veiligheidsagent stond enkele meters achter
de groqtvopstin en de andere veiligheidsagent
l\l ^ /)/
Ip,achter de koningin|| .
(One body-guard was standing several meters behind
the duchess and the other body-guard ii£.&/
I
(150)
behind the queen. )
*Achter wie stond de veiligheidsagent enkele meters?
(Behind who was the body-guard several meters?)
Zwarts proposes
to explain
this parallel
and Gapping by a constraint
variable
the
may
other
In this way
NP
and
PP
reference,
In
(148),
not
at the
2
one P -bracket,
same time.
the variable
boundaries.
The
unless
same holds
a
it contains
2
for N -brackets.
in the rule is made to respect both
Let
us
call
this,
for
the
sake
of
the "Bracket Constraint".
order
in
contain
between WH-movement
on the variable in both rules:
to
which
explain
the
the
variables
grammaticality of (147) and
2
contain a P -bracket, Zwarts
adds to this constraint two modifications.
First,
transforma­
tions apply to standard factorizations in the sense of Peters
and
Ritchie
leftmost
(1973,
symbol
a left bracket.
57):
a
factor
a right bracket,
According to this,
cannot
W2
as
its
2
the leftmost P -bracket in
(151) is not included in the variable W ^ :
(151) W 2 [ 2 w h - Q 2
contain
nor as its rightmost symbol
- 169 -
As
a consequence,
sarily leftward,
(152)
in
the
given
extraction of wh-Q
2
in (148) is neces­
and cannot be rightward:
Wx (
w h - Q 2 W 2 2| W 3
P
!I
P
-------- - 1
----- X ------ >
The
from NP.
the
mirror-image
The
NP,
and
the
of
relative
is
this
clause
moved
constraint
phenomenon
rightward.
on
is
Extraposition
is right-peripherally contained
the
It
cannot move
variable,
and
l efward,
the
notion
of
to
contain
an
standard factorization.
(153)
It
is
W.
| „ W0 S
J W,
N
|| N
<---- x ---- 11------- >
obvious
offensive
that
there
boundary,
since
will
-
be
variables
WH-movement
and
Extraposition
are
defined as in (154) and (155).
(1 5 4 ) WH-movement
W
E
W2
(Zwarts 1978,
X2
366)
W3
+W
1
2
14
3
3
4
5
0
5
(155) Extraposition (Zwarts 1978, 373)
s2
W
1
2
1
0
W1
S2
W
3
4
5
3
2
5
2
3
Zwarts is forced to add therefore,
variable
tions,
holds
i.e.
only
for
that the constraint on the
variables
between
specified
posi­
for W „ , and not for W- and W 0 In (154) and (155).
d
I
d
_
This is the second modification of the Bracket Constraint.
- 170 -
it
We have four objections against Zwarts' analysis. First,
2
possible to extract a Q -phrase from NP in Dutch.
is not
Just as English PP and NP, Dutch NP is closed.
(156)
*Ik weet niet
| hoeveel kilol hij [ ___ andijvie)
Q
4_________________ N
!
koopt.
(I know not how many pounds he endive buys)
Ik kocht vijf kilo andijvie en híj M i t t
(157)
[
[ zes kilo] é - M ï^ ïé ] .
N Q
(I bought five pounds (of) endive and he
six pounds M l/ 4 t< tti4 - )
The grammaticality of (157)
that
cf.
the
deletion
is a surprise until one realizes
of andijvie
does not
result
from Gapping,
(158),
(158)
Ik koop vijf kilo andijvie als ik weet dat jij
l „| „zes kilo] A t è iii't ê ] koopt.
N Q
■
(I buy five pounds (of) endive if I know that
you six pounds l i t i /
The adherence
of the
some
of
version
"nouny"
the
i v buy.)
QP to its NP cannot follow from
A-over-A
Constraint,
since
a
deeper
embedded QP cannot be a remnant either:
(159)
*Jan fotografeert twintig meter hoge torens en Piet
ié M t t& té iit
| „[ pl odertig meter] t é t i I\! t é t i t ü
N A N
(John photographs twenty meters high towers
and Peter i> tét4 if$ 4 ti thirty meters t i i t l t i i i è t é • )
One might object that this is a straw man to begin with since
clearly
the NP does not
to be subject
Bach
and
irrelevant
to further constraints.
Horn's
to
offend Zwarts'
NP
the
for Dutch PP only.
Constraint,
discussion,
the
and
proposal, but appears
But if these add up to
NP
the
constituent
constraint
will
will
be
hold
- 171 -
Second,
such
as
according
to
the
Bracket
Constraint,
achter de grootvorstin gaan staan
cannot
a
string
be
gapped
between two remnants, but in (160) it is,
(160) Hij is vijf meter achter de grootvorstin gaan staan
bij de eerste wedstrijd en )h ii! ié
meter|
[ „ | „drie
P Q
A i t t i t / é i ! i t é i t f é i ' é i i t l / ^/éé-M/été-At bíj
de tweede wedstrijd.
(He has five meters behind the duchess gone standing
during the first game and fii/té-é three meters ïH ttiié
t t 4/
This
is
t4 é é /é i té / é t Até i i é during the second game)
a direct
counterexample,
and
it -is not
easy
to see
how Z w a r t s ’ analysis can be modified in order to capture it.
Third,
consider
the
following.
The
Bracket
Constraint
predicts that the left-peripheral part of a major constituent
can function as a second remnant,
eral
part
of
a
major
and that the right-periph­
constituent
can
do
remnant.4 The gappings presented by Zwarts
illustrate
the
illustrate
that
former combination.
this
prediction
is
Examples
false.
so
as
a
first
((147) and (157))
with
the
latter
Right-peripheral
parts of leftmost constituents never function as remnants:
(161) a. * A u t o 's met ronde wielen rijden soepel en
/U A M i f é met vierkante wielen
N
N
(Cars with round wheels run smoothly and
ii.f i
b.
stug.
with square wheels f v iyi rigid, )
*Kritiek op de dagbladen wordt gepubliceerd in de
weekbladen en
'/ ¡éfü /
|/ Likt i t t 4Vi | ,°P de weekbladen]]
N
P
in de dagbladen.
(Criticism on the daily papers is published
in the weekly papers and i f i t t ü é f i
ié / iM ïié t ii
in the daily papers.)
on the weekly
- 172 -
c,*Hij stond enkele meters achter de grootvorstin
é/
bij de eerste wedstrijd en
/
itiÜ-été
i ï é t - é f & f l ^ , U | 2 de koningin]|j
bij de tweede wedstrijd.
(He was several meters behind the duchess
during the first game and
the queen during the second game)
In
order
to protect
Zwarts has
the first remnant
against
the variable,
to add the coordinator as a factor of the Gapping
rule, as in (162).
(162) Gapping
c
w
(Zwarts 1978,
X2
1
W2
x2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6 =£>
1
0
3
0
5
0
The first variable
is predicted
tween specified positions.
suspect
W
363)
reason
coordinator
can
to
to behave as if enclosed be­
However,
enter
the
reasonably
this is the only and very
coordinator
be claimed
in
the
rule.
to be relevant
The
to the
recoverability condition, but not so to the issue of possible
remnants.
The
fourth
and
last
counterargument
runs
as
follows,
¿warts1 observations
on QP in PP strongly remind one of the
COMP-escape
sentential
hatch
on
structures.
Here as well
as
in the case of Dutch PP, there is a major constituent in what
seems
to
refer to
it may
be specifier position.
the constituent
serve
as
In both cases
the
rules may
in the specifier to the effect that
a remnant
of
Gapping,
cf.
and may be questioned by W H - m o v e m e n t , cf,
(145)
and
(163),
(146) and (164),
- 173 -
(163) Ik weet dat Jan zei achter welke grootvorstin je
stond en Piet ü i
[<,, [ ^ ^ a c h t e r welke koningin]
¿ é / é tM & ï.
(I know that John said behind which duchess
you were standing and Peter
behind which queen
I t t i- M M i)
(164)
Ik weet wel
zei
[g , (C0M p achter welke koningín]
[s , 1C0MP ___ dat]
Piet
je stond]|
(I know behind which queen Peter said that you
were standing)
The
set
of
observations
strongly suggests
(145)
-
(163)
and
(146)
-
(165)
that Z w a r t s ' analysis has missed a reveal­
ing generalization.
An escapehatch
on Ss and PPs in Dutch is
in fact proposed by Van Riemsdijk (1978),
and it appears that
he is on the right track.
Again,
applies
one
only
if
might
one
object
feels
notion vis-à-vis the scope
not
necessarily
study,
he
Zwarts'
that
that
this fourth
Subjacency
of syntactic
position.
conspicuously
does
not
WH-constituents out of sentential
consideration
is
a
relevant
rules, while this is
In his clear and detailed
discuss
the
structures,
extraction
of
and Subjacency
is not among his topics.
Be
that
the
this
as
Bracket
it may,
maximal projections
(well-known)
the following two examples
Constraint
cannot
of S next
examples
indicate
possibly generalize
over
to NP and PP. The first set of
consists
of
clauses
with
tenseless
embeddings :
(165) John wants to try to begin to write a novel,
Peter i / M M / t t f /
l
a play ]]| .
Jan wil proberen te beginnen een novelle te
schrijven en Peter 'èÌX/Ì>t<Ì>'$,£Ì'<iih/
|g,een toneelstuk té / à é ìfittifé é )} ■
and
- 174 -
The second set consists of clauses with sentential subjects:
(166) Which dress to wear is a problem for Sue,
ls ,which tie
and
for John.
Welke jurk je moet dragen is een probleem voor Susan
en
[s ,welke das
voor John.
Whatever
and
further
analysis
Subjacency,
tures
and
observed
for
Zwarts
the
above,
at
will
give
parallelism
this
moment
for WH-movement
of PP
we
and
fail
S-struc-
to
see
the
strength of his analysis of Gapping phenomena.
2.2.5. SUBJACENCY REFORMULATED
Since
the
thesis of Ross
have been well
aware of the
(1967),
fact
generative grammarians
that the
scope of rules is
constrained by a relatively unrevealing variety of structural
configurations,
known as islands and semi-islands. The notion
of Subjacency was introduced to derive the Island Constraints
from formal abstract principles. One might say that Subjacen­
cy
and
Ross'
the
Binding
theory
of
syntax
This is not
be,
but
were
has
been
about
introduced
to
explain
thesis defines what the
for
the
last
twelve years.
to say that Ross defined what the issues were to
his
servation
ments
as
Conditions
results. Under this view, Ross'
work
has
language,
("this
is
provided
i.e.
the
terms
a grammatical
theoretically
meaningful
to
a
large
by which
sentence")
factual
extent
factual
can be
the
ob­
state­
interpreted
statements
("this
is
a
violation of the Wli-isl and constraint").
In
joins
this
one
light,
the
of the major
past
decade.
that
the
Its
analysis
assumed
similarities
appeal
between
best handled by a derivative
Subjacency.
The
presented
in
this
section
streams of syntactic research of the
resides
Gapping
in
and
of Subjacency,
its
basic
WH-movement
idea
are
so-called Strict
latter gives a unified explanation of the NP
- 175 -
Constraint,
Constraint
Gapping
5
tures.
the
as
and
Tensed
S
constraints
coindexing
Constraint
on
both
rules
and
Gapping
are
the
and
claimed
WH-island
W H - movement,
to
share
no
literature
since
fea-
2 .2.5.1. PARAMETERS OF SUBJACENCY
If
(1973),
we
consider
the
notion
the
relevant
of
Subjacency
has
received
Chomsky
different
interpretations in a number of ways:
(a) the choice of cyclic nodes: NP/S,
(b) the number of cyclic boundaries:
boundary,
N P / S 1', or NP/S/S" ;
a rule may cross one
or no boundaries at all;
'
(c) the position of the cyclic boundary:
properly
contained
in
the
a boundary not
variable
does,
or
does
not
co unt.
These
alternatives
will
be
discussed
in
this
order .in the
following subsections.
THE CHOICE OF CYCLIC NODES
As
regards
the
choice
of
cyclic
nodes,
all
possible
combinations of S and NP have been proposed in various recent
works by Chomsky.
In Chomsky
(1973),
S' and NP were consider­
ed to be cyclic;
in Chomsky
(1976),
S and NP; and in Chomsky
(1978),
and
S',
S,
NP.
NP
constraint meant to replace the
is
constant
here,
since
any
(Complex) NP Constraint needs
to include NPs.
Let
us
both cyclic,
consider
there
lic WH-movement,
(167)
[s ,COMP
the
last
alternative.
If
S
and S'
are
is an obvious problem for successive cyc­
c f .:
ls . . .
Ig.COMP
______________
|s . . . wh-X
______I
. . . |]]|
- 176 -
Each WH-step bar the first crosses two cyclic boundaries.
As
for
Gapping,
the
choice
of
S
and
S'
predicts
a
difference between (168) and (169):
(168) Charles told who said which boys are coming along
and
|g,who
lg,which girls
I
111) ■
Karel vertelde wie gezegd heeft welke jongens er
mee gaan en
|g ,wie
[5i f /M i I tA&ii |]]]
|
[
s ,welke meisjes
.
(169) Max told that Peter said which boys are coming
along and
jgJohn
! H'shMi
|g,which girls
■
Karel vertelde dat Peter gezegd heeft welke jongens
er mee gaan en
cyclic
ls ,welke meisjes
HI •
[
Two
t
[gJohn
boundaries
(168), whereas only one
(S
and
S')
separate
the
remnants
in
(S') does so in (169). Both (168) and
(169) are grammatical, however.
Given
(168),
let us
assume
that either S'
or S is cyc­
lic, but not both. The question now arises how to account for
the semi-open character of sentences.
be
any
strong
However,
verb,
let
since
us
a priori
the
reasons
to
complementizer
tentatively
assume
There do not appear to
choose between S'
subcategorizes
that
they
are
the
in
and S.
matrix
the
same
cyclic domain.
This implies that for the time being we will assume that S is
a cyclic node and S' is non-cyclic.
- 17? -
THE NUMBER OF CYCLIC NODES
As regards the number of cyclic nodes,
present
themselves:
(a)
two alternatives
the
two speci­
fied positions may not
contain a cyclic boundary,
and (b) it
may contain one
boundary at most.
cyclic
the
variable between
the latter option should be chosen
sive
cyclic
WH-movement
Additionally,
Chomsky
the NP boundary:
as
(171).
The
(Chomsky
(1976)
recall
the
restriction
Chomsky argues that
in order to allow succes­
1974,
3d
lecture,
27).
offers rules which apply across
examples of (109), here repeated
of
the
scope
of
variables
to
one
cyclic domain will be too strong for these examples.
(171) A review
Of the
(t) was published of Bill's book.
students in the class
several
(t) failed the
exam.
For gapped sentences, however,
of Gapping
dary
is
the opposite holds:
the output
is ungrammatical even if only one NP-
or S-boun-
contained
in the variable:
cf.
(112),
repeated here
as (172).
(172) a.
Complex NP Condition
*
John discussed the problem of which roses are
to be planted and Peter
(of) which appletrees
*
Jan besprak de vraag welke rozen geplant moesten
worden en Peter
b.
welke appel­
.
bomen
NP Constraint
*
Charles destroyed an article about the moon and
A f t i i t i about the sun |
Peter
.
*
Karel vernietigde
Piet
een artikel over de maan en
over de zon]N p .
- 178 -
c•
WH-island Constraint
*
John asked what to write to Mary,
and Peter
to Sue| g.
*
Jan vroeg wat aan Marie te moeten schrijven en
ls aan Susan U I H d t U
Peter
Therefore,
I will
lic boundary.
assume that variables may not cross a cyc­
It follows that the structures in (171) are not
derived by a movement rule
Moreover,
not
be
This
within
possible
is
to
a clearcut
formulated
in
in a way suggested by the traces.
the present variants
the
generalize
problem:
same
of Subjacency,
it will
over Gapping and WH-movement.
the
scope
unadorned
of both rules can be
observation
language
islands and semi-islands that we owe to the work of Ross.
as
we
have
notions
meant
suggested
such
to
be
as
Subjacency
superior
then
obviously
have
overcome
above,
no
to
the
and
the
concept
of
introduction
the
Binding
Rossian
of
the observation language
can
be
If,
abstract
Conditions
observation
Subjacency
of
is
language,
claimed
to
if it has not done so
for both rules, WH-movement as well as Gapping.
THE POSITION OF THE CYCLIC BOUNDARIES
As
to
a
these
Neijt
third
parameter
sections
(1978b)
it
the
was
we mentioned
position
argued
of
in the preliminaries
the
that
cyclic
variables
boundary.
may
not
In
cross
cyclic boundaries (there taken to be S' and N P ), unless these
boundaries
are
peripheral.
Amherst-Subjacency
terms
This
(Chomsky
condition
1974,
3d
is
formulated
lecture,
34)
fo l lows:
(173) W I
la W2
w h e r e : a is a cyclic node
and neither
nor
is empty.
in
as
- 179 -
This
as
explains
follows.
variable
and
hand,
is
S'
the
In
Tensed
(174)
(174)
S Condition plus
S'
is
is
peripherally
grammatical.
internally contained
In
COMP-escape hatch
contained
(175),
in
the
on
the
other
in the variable,
and
(175)
is ungrammatical:
(174)
John said how many girls should go and Bill
éé\ \ .
|s , how many boys |g
Jan zei hoeveel meisjes er moesten gaan en Bill
Ut
|s , hoeveel jongens
|g
! 'éééitéé!iAé-é ]] .
(175) * John said that some girls should go and Bill
[g, M i t
i*i>\\ .
ls some boys
*Jan zei dat er enkele meisjes moesten gaan en Bill
Ui
(g, iét
ls if
enkele jongens ééiiféé/i&M ]|.
COMP-to-COMP movement follows,
pheral
(176)
The
since in that case S' is peri­
(Wg is empty):
... COMP ...
Complex
NP
|s , COMP ...
Constraint
contained in the variable
follows,
since
the NP-boundary is
(neither W 1 , nor Wg is empty),
cf.
■g.
(177)
John answered the question which roses he would
prefer and Bill
Is , which
appletrees f
i
i
11 •
*
Jan beantwoordde. de vraag welke rozen hij het liefst
had en Bill W£$t't<i>4ti:&4/ Ï^ U é H t A é - Î
appelbomen f$4
However,
this proposal is falsified by the observation that a
remnant may be
chosen arbitrarily,
and thus may accidentally
be the constituent adjacent to a cyclic boundary,
(178):
|g, welke
Ï Ï Î &W-
as shown in
- 180 -
*
(178) a.
John discussed with Peter the question of which
car he would like to buy and
Max |Np f\i£ /
with
(of ) ls , which bike
M / i n t s M f i / t i M [| .
*
Jan besprak met Peter de vraag welke auto hij
met Max lNp M f f f & i i
graag zou kopen en
[g, welke fiets
*
b.
I wonder which city Peter thinks you visited and
[s i which city
f t i i t i $ J] .
[g Susan
*
Ik vraag me af welke stad Peter denkt dat je
bezocht en
|g, welke stad
|g Susan i u u / m m
uurnw.
From
these
nants
fore,
can
examples
never
it
belong
seems
to
the proposal of Neijt
Subjacency
Gapping.
cannot
Cyclic
be
obvious
different
that
the
cyclic
Gapping
domains.
(1978b) must be rejected:
used
to
boundaries,
constrain
in
no
the
matter
Amherst
variable
what
rem­
There­
of
position,
constrain the applicational domain of rules.
2. 2. 5. 2. STRICT SUBJACENCY
As
the
notion
of
Subjacency
capture the Gapping facts,
as
it
stands
is unable to
I propose the following version of
"Strict Subjacency".
(179) Strict Subjacency
(first formulation)
No rule may involve X, Y in
... X ... [„
...Y...
j ...X...
where a is S or N P .
(179)
The
covers
the
constraint
is
NP
Constraint
too general,
and
the
however,
Tensed
in that
S Condition.
it excludes
WH-movement in a simple case such as (180).
i
- 181 -
(180)
[g ,COMP
In order
IgJohn eats what 11
to remedy
this defect,
let us
assume
that the con­
tents of the COMP nodes influence the applicability of rules.
Thus,
S
is
a
semi-island,
i.e.
it becomes
a
closed
such as NP iff its specifier is lexically filled.
domain
This can be
expressed by the following convention:
(181) Cyclicity Changing
S changes from non cyclic to cyclic in case
the immediately preceding COMP is filled;
and
S changes from cyclic to non cyclic in case
the immediately preceding COMP is emptied.
Cyclicity Changing accounts for the
semi-island character of
sentences.
S
By
Cyclicity
Changing,
is' non-cyclic
at
the
point WH-movement applies, while as a consequence of WH-movement
S
lexical
1973,
will
become
insertion
39;
and
cyclic.
is
Evers
Furthermore,
cyclic
1975,
(Bowers
83),
it
if we
1972,
follows
assume
681;
that
that
Schachter
an embedded
clause is closed in case lexical insertion of the complement­
izer' occurs.
"Unbounded" WH-movement must
cyclicly
tensed
in
sentences
with
an
apply successively
overt
complementizer
that or d a t : once the COMP
is filled (which is obligatory in
the case
in Dutch,
filtered
of tensed clauses
out),
S
counts
as
a
otherwise the output Is
cyclic
boundary,
WH-constituent cannot be moved out:
(182)
|s , Is
...|s ,dat
4 <-cyel>
[s
. . .wh-X. . .|]]]
<+eycl>
1
--------------- X --------------
and
the
<+eycl>
:
---------------X ----- J------- ----------- insertion of dat
at S2 level
In tenseless
es,
lexical
COMP
is
sentences,
insertion
ruled
stances.
In
out
these
and in certain English tensed claus­
of COMP
by
is optional
filters
sentences,
only
and nonfilling
under
WH-movement
special
may
of
circum­
(though
need
not) apply successively cyclicly: both options are allowed.
The
this:
WH-island
once
following
Condition
a WH-constituent
S node
follows
occupies
is cyclic,
quite
naturally
from
the C O MP-position, the
and no other WH-constituent may
be moved out.
Strict Subjacency can now be formulated as follows:
(183) Strict Subjacency
(revised)
No rule may involve X, Y in
... X ...
where a
|a ... Y ...
] ... X ...
is HP
or a is S iff its specifier is lexically filled.
Then consider Gapping. As predicted by Strict Subjacency
Gapping
may
delete
over
any
complementizers are empty,
over
a
S-boundary
if
number
of
S-boundaries
if
the
complementizer
is
filled,
as
(185).
(184)
the
as in (184), but it may not delete
John wants to try to begin to write a novel and
Peter u ^ u / i ^ u / m n ^ u / u u ^ / t ^ u / u i u
a play |]| .
Jan wil proberen te beginnen een novelie te
schrijven en Peter
|seen toneelstuk t
I
i
t
/1
.
!t>i H M M
in
(185)
John assumes that he will write a novel and Peter
M&t / %
/ ' b
H
i a play] .
*
Jan veronderstelt dat hij een novelle zal
schrijven en Peter
een
toneelstuk
As a further illustration,
tizer
for
(186))
tenseless
Gapping
may
clauses
not
consider the Dutch complemen­
om ■ If
apply
om
across
is
the
obligatory
S - b oundary,
(cf.
cf.
(187):
(186)
Karel ging weg
(om) brood te halen.
(Charles went away
(for) bread to get)
-*
(187)
Karel ging weg om brood te halen en Peter
wijn
(Charles went away for bread to get and Peter
wine n u m
.
Even if om is o p t i o n a l , as in
(188) Hij probeerde
(om) Bernard te imiteren.
(He tried (for) Bernard to imitate;
he tried to imitate Bernard.)
the presence of om in the first conjunct is incompatible with
a gap in the second for most speakers:
(189) Kees probeerde
Harry
Presumably,
(*om) Bernard te imiteren en
/ I M ) Fred
■
this pattern is paralleled in English by optional
that:
(190) John believes (that) the dog is ill.
(191) John believes (*that) the dog is ill and
Charly
1 M & tl the cat i £ / i f f .
- 184 -
A
similar
tial
effect can be observed
subject
(discussed
presence of a pronoun
in
in examples with a senten­
2,1.4.
above),
after
which
the
(d a t ) is optional in Dutch:
(192) Welke foto's bijbesteld moeten worden (dat) staat
op de achterkant van de radiobode.
(Which photos require a repeat order (that) is
specified on the back page of the TV-guide)
Assume
i.e.
that
dat is in COMP position
welke
bijbesteld
foto's
If
(cf. Koster
1978a,
61),
that the structure underlying (192) is (192').
dat
is
present,
Cyclicity Changing,
a remnant
dat
t^ staat op de achterkant
moeten worden
the
van de radiobode.
following
and none
S
is
cyclic
by virtue
of
of its elements can function as
together with an element
outside of S. This can be
verified by (193a) and (193b):
*
(193) a.
Welke foto's bijbesteld moeten worden dat staat
op de achterkant van de radiobode en welke
dia's
op
het bloknoot in de keuken.
(Which photos require a repeat order that is
specified on the back page of the TV-guide and
which slides H m H u / t m u / é m t / u u / u
m u n u
on the tear-off pad in the kitchen)
- 185 -
b.
Welke foto's bijbesteld moeten worden staat
op de achterkant van de radiobode er. welke dia's
V11ï«i i t é ' U ¡-M4 1 H /v*<»f'M’é l éf-M f. op het bloknoot
in de keuken.
(Which photos require a repeat order is
specified on the back page of the TV-guide and
I t i M & t / $ t M t / i $!
which slides
t H$
on the tear-off pad in the kitchen)
2.2.5.3. THE INTERACTION OF GAPPING AND WH-MOVEMENT
The
however,
revised
is
not
version
(yet)
of
fully
Strict
Subjacency
accurate.
in
(183),
Constructions
exist
where WH-movement and Gapping interact in a perfectly gramma­
tical w a y , e.g.:
(194) Who eats an apple and
[g, whoj^
This
Here,
sentence
lg t^ i A t i a pear ||?
is incorrectly excluded
Gapping leaves
by Strict Subjacency.
as remnants two constituents which are
in different cyclic domains, by virtue of previous filling of
the COMP by WH-movement. For such cases, a more sophisticated
version
of
Strict
Subjacency
is
required.
It
seems
that
Strict Subjacency can be disobeyed if the constituent outside
of the cyclic domain binds a trace within the cyclic domain.
Unattractive
though
this
may
be,
we
are
forced
to
add
unless-condition to Strict Subjacency:
(195) Strict Subjacency (final version)
No rule may involve X, Y in
... X ... [ a ... Y ... | ... X ...
where a is N P ,
or a is S iff its specifier is lexically filled,
unless X binds a trace t
in a , and there is no
cyclic boundary between tx and Y.
an
- 186 -
Strict Subjacency resembles the Specified Subject Condition,
which contends that X and Y in different cyclic domains can­
not be related over a subject,
unless X controls it.
In the
same vein, Strict Subjacency forbids a rule to relate X and Y
in different cyclic domains, unless X controls a trace within
the cyclic domain of Y.
This
trace-escape
hatch
predicts
that
combinations
of
Gapping and WH-movement obey the pattern of (196), a predic­
tion which is borne out, as can be verified by (197):
(196) a.
[S ,wh-Xi |s ... |s ,
b.
|s ... Y ... ti
1
‘
*lotwh-X, l0 ... Y ... |ol
I„ ... t^
S'"“ -'1! 1S • ■ • * • • ■ 1S'
1S • • ■ "i ’ • -IIII
*
[S ,wh-Xi (s ... ti ... Is , |g ... Y ...])]]
c.
d.
ls|Wh-Xi Is **• Y ••• t i •**
(197) a.
Is1
Is •••HU
What presents did you say that you bought for
éé-i/ ftt&f
your mother and what presents
for your father?
Welke cadeautjes zei je dat je voor je moeder
gekocht hebt en welke cadeautjes i , £ i / h i / M t / h ^
voor je vader
For whom did you say that Peter believed that
you should bring wine, and for whom
éé-f / P M t M U i l U t U i U I t M f / f M /
beer?
Voor wie zei je dat Peter dacht dat je wijn
in moest schenken en voor wie M t ! U l U t l t i U t
m u /m m
bier M / M é ê i / i m m w ?
*
b.
What did you say today that Peter bought for
his mother and what
yesterday
M &f /f é t é t /$ i vii # t / 1<t>t /$ i é /M t K i t ?
#
Wat zei je vandaag dat Peter voor zijn vader
gekocht had en wat t i l t hi gisteren
i A4>f / 1 i hi\ / i i 0 / /£ i K i i M t /t i $ ?
- 187 -
*
Who did you tell Peter that you believed
that he should visit and who
M t John n u a u i u t u i u i n u m i M u t i
m m
*
Wie heb je tegen Peter gezegd dat je dacht
dat hij moest bezoeken en wie
tegen John i é H M / M t /
Mitt Hétèité'91?
*
c.
Who thought that he should bring wine and
! tiïé-t/iï-é/ éM'Aïi/t't'ttii beer?
who
*
Wie dacht dat hij wijn mee moest nemen en wie
A è é ï h t l bier Méitié<é£f./
d.
Who thought that he should bring wine, and who
that he should bring beer?
Wie dacht dat hij wijn mee moest nemen en wie
t&AéM dat hij bier mee moest nemen?
This
analysis
crucially assumes
that traces are left behind
in argument position, but not in COMP-position (see Huybregts
1976, 348). If a trace were left behind in COMP, the (b)- and
(d)-cases of (197) could not be distinguished.
The relation between X and Y in (196a) and (196b) above,
is structurally identical to (196c) and (196d), respectively,
the
only
difference
being
the
position
of
the
trace.
The
generalization is that deep structure clausemates may be the
remnants
surface
of
Gapping,
structure.
no
It
matter
may
seem
how
in
far
this
their
distance
respect,
that
in
the
unless-elause introduces the notion of deep structure clausemate,
but
this
clausemateness
is
by
not
true.
itself
is
The
notion
inadequate
in
deep
view
structure
of
the
grammaticality of sentences such as (198) and (199).
(198) John told me which books were ordered and Peter
which journals i i i t i !
Jan vertelde me welke boeken besteld werden en Piet
W / pM
welke tijdschriften
- 188 -
(199) Who told you which books were ordered and who
which journals i t i i i /
Wie vertelde je weIke boeken besteld werden en wie
' H t t i t i . i l h i we Ike ti jdschrif ten
The second
remnant in these
examples is not a deep structure
clausemate of the first remnant.
that
the
rule.
the
two
remnants
In brief,
notion
of
fall
Strict
deep
It is only after WH-movement
under
the
Subjacency
and
iMri?
scope
(195)
surface
of
the
Gapping
formally represents
structure
clausemateness,
excluding intermediate structure clausemateness.
3. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis elaborates on the assumption that Gapping is
a
relatively
almost
"unmarked"
completely
mechanisms.
The
phenomenon,
predictable
unmarked
in
tion
this is "Delete".
is
given
"Delete"
served
was
the
the
undergenerating
motivated
Adoption
of
an
independently
surplus.
rule
rules
2,
in
motivated
is reflected
of
over-
further
requires
order
to
all
information
in undergeneration.
between
the
support
rule
principles
and
the
It was ob­
Adoption
of
order
of
an
independently
remaining
requires
in
beyond
undergeneration
research.
generate
overgenerating
motivated
rule
only information incorpora­
where
to result
choice
direction
of the
being
The basis for this simple formula­
chapter
shown
that
squeezes
in
the
properties
independently
character
in the rule format proposed:
ted
from
its
the
to
cases.
support
exclude
of
the
The success of either strategy depends on the appeal
of the proposed additional rules or principles.
As
regards
generating
rule,
Gapping,
but
presented
for the rules added. Here,
The
implications
investigated.
the
problem
of
earlier
the
studies
little
assumed
independent
an
under-
evidence
the opposite strategy was pursued.
overgenerating
rule
"Delete"
were
Part of chapter 2 and chapter 3 in toto bear on
of how to filter out the ungrammatical
products
- 189 -
of
the
rule.
aspects
of
different
problem
rule
tecedent.
of
the part
was
were
components
considered
tion
The
the
approached
distinguished
the
relating
grammar.
modularly:
and
In
the gapped
two
relegated
chapter
string
to
2,
we
and its an­
It was suggested, after Sag (1976), that this rela­
be
primarily
governed
by
recoverability
of
deletion,
defined at the level of Logical Form.
The
last
chapter
defended
the
claim
that Gapping
con­
tributes to the theory of sentence grammar. Given a solution
to the recoverability problem along the lines suggested, two
closely connected questions emerged:
mined
the
shape
of
the
remnants,
which principles deter­
and
which
constrain
the
distance between the remnants. For both, familiar constraints
were
put
to
versions
of
use.
were reviewed.
ever,
was
As
regards
the
shape
the A-over-A Principle,
and
of
the
remnants,
the Head Condition
Hankamers's Major Constituent Condition,
how­
shown to best serve the facts. Constraints on the
distance between the remnants of Gapping were shown to equal
the familiar constraints on movement rules.
Taking this as a
point of departure, we developed the following conclusions:
(1) Gapping is an island-sensitive rule.
Condition
(73)),
(cf.
and
constrain
(64)
the
-
(68)),
Tensed
the distance
S
The (Complex) NP
the WH-island Constraint
Condition
between
(cf.
(85)
and
(cf.
(86))
the remnants. Any attempt to
explain Island Constraints from more abstract principles such
as
Subjacency
and
the
Binding
Conditions
should
include
Gapping.
(2) The attempt by Koster (1978b) in terms of the Bounding
Condition
Constraint
(132),
by
Zwarts
(1978)
(section
2.2.4.
and
(1978b)
in
terms
explain
Island
of
a variant
Constraints
from
in
terms
footnote
of
3),
Amherst
abstract
of
the Bracket
and
by
Neijt
Subjacency,
principles
to
which
include Gapping were found to be unsuccessful .
(3)
There
is no reason to expect that Gapping obeys con­
straints on bound anaphors, and in fact, the relation between
the remnants is not governed by the notion of C-command (cf.
- 190 -
125).
It
is
therefore
a
priori
impossible
to
explain
the
island-sensitivity of Gapping by the Binding Conditions. More
specifically,
Specified
we
saw that Gapping is not constrained by the
Subject
Condition
(129)
and (130), although it is
sensitive to the Tensed S Condition.
(4) Finding the Binding Conditions incapable of explaining
the
island-sensitivity of Gapping,
one is tempted to confer
the island-sensitivity of the rule upon Subjacency. However,
none of the variations of Subjacency proposed in the litera­
ture
(cf.
able
to
Chomsky
generalize
1973,
Chomsky
1974
and Chomsky
over Gapping and WH-movement
1976)
(cf.
is
(113)
and (114)),
(5) A new variant of Subjacency was proposed and christen­
ed "Strict Subjacency" ((195), repeated here as (200)).
(200) Strict Subjacency
No rule may involve X, Y in
... X
Y ... ] ... X ...
where a is NP,
or a is S iff its specifier is lexically filled,
unless
X
binds
a
trace
tv
.A
in a , and
there
is no
cyclic boundary between t^ and Y.
The
new
facts
type
(197)
of Subjacency
based
on
the
led us to consider a new set of
interaction
between
Gapping
and
WH-movement that turned out to support the proposal.
(6)
The parallelism between English and Dutch throughout
this study
strongly suggests the applicability of universal
principles in both systems.
-
191
-
FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. A
true
counterexample
to
the
Major Constituent Condition
in Dutch was brought up by Zwarts (1978):
(i) Jan stond 10 meter achter de grootvorstin en Max
!M I
5 meter
.
(John was standing 30 feet behind the duchess and
Max
The
15 feet
phrase
stituent,
to form
10 meter achter de grootvorstin forms one con­
cf.
(ii).
a major
S meter in
constituent,
(i)
and
thus cannot be argued
(iii)
reveals
that
the
analysis sketched for (10) is not available for (i).
(ii)
10 meter achter de grootvorstin stond Karel.
(10 meters behind the duchess stood Charles)
.
(iii) * Peter stond 5 meter
(Peter was standing 30 feet
Not all
gapped
speakers
agree with S t i l l i n g s 1 judgements for the
examples,
discussion:
but
those
grammatical,
this
does
not
speakers who accept
consider
the
affect
the
(i i )-variants
the
present
(i)-variants as
grammatical
as
well.
Zwarts'
condition runs as follows
(1978, 376):
"Conditie op yariabele f a c toren:
Voor
elke
passende
factorisering
(£j,
£ i+ 2 »
..£n )
geldt:
als £ i+j een variabele factor
constante
roet
factoren zijn,
of R (£ i + 1 ) = ) A
1,
betrekking
tot
een
• •,
£ it
Ëj+i»
transformatie
T
is en £ i en £ i+2
dan R(£^+ 1 ) =
|A
[A
1A ... IA , waar voor genêrlef
1
2
„ m
„
..., m) geldt: A ± = P* of
- N ."
• • • [A
(i
m
- 192
Translated, the condition says:
For each proper factorization
(p.,
p., p.
p.
JL
1 — 1+ i — 1+ c.
••En ) with respect to a transformation T it holds that:
if
p. ,
is
•=-1+ 1
constant
a variable
factors, than
’
factor,
either
and
p.
R(p. , )
^l+l
and
=
p. „ are
— 1+ 2
I.
I. ...
IA 1 lAg
IA , or R(pi+ 1 ) = |A ] A ... ]A , where for no A. (i =
m
1
2
„m
?
1,,.,, m) it holds that: A^ = P or A, = M ,
4. But cf. De Haan (1979) for another view of the impact of
peripheral containment on Gapping phenomena.
5. This statement holds only for the small-scale formulation
of Gapping ((40) of chapter 2). The extensive formulation
of Gapping and coindexing rules are constrained similarly
with respect to Antecendency Binding
(cf. Huybregts 1976,
345). This condition disallows,
roughly,
incomplete ante­
cedents,
a trace.
For Gapping this
implies
i.e.
that
those containing
neither the gapped nor
the
full
anteceding
string may contain a trace that is not bound within that
string. This excludes (i):
(i)
M i-
Jan speelt hiermee en Piet s d a a r
(John plays here with and Peter
there ybjLf,#;
John plays with this and Peter p W ^ / w i t h t
Hier and daar
in
(i)
bind a trace in PP as follows (cf.
Van Riemsdijk 1978):
(ii) Jan speelt [hier], [__mee t .I en
1 rJr
1
Piet
[daar].
t .].
The gapped string
(as well
as the antecedent
string)
is
incomplete: it contains t j . This trace cannot be consider­
ed one of the remnants,
stituents,
and
t
since remnants must be major con­
is not
a major constituent.
This ex-
- 193 -
plains
that
the
only
possible
gapped
variant
of
(i)
is
(iii):
(iii) Jan speelt [hier ]. L_mee t .1 en
■
1 rr
1
Piet
|daar]^ |ppmee tjl.
In
(iii)
the
therefore
trace
is part
does not block
of one
of the
remnants,
the antecedent-anaphor
and
relation
of the gapped and the antecedent string.
In
this
thesis,
the
relation between
the gapped part
and its antecedent is not a main issue. We will leave this
matter
at
a
sketchy
Huybregts (forthcoming).
stage,
referring
the
reader
to
■
1
Bibliography
AKMAJIAN, A.
1973
'The
role
phoric
of focus
in the Interpretation of ana­
expressions',
(eds.),
in S.Anderson and P.Kiparsky
A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New
etc., Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
York
215-226.
BACH, E. AND G.M. HORN
1976
'Remarks
on
"Conditions
on
Transformations"',
Linguistic Inquiry 7, 265-300“.
BLOM, A.
1975
'Against Conjunction Reduction',
Linguistics
in A.Kraak (ed.)
in the Netherlands 1972-1973,
Van Gorcum, 128-140.
1977
Assen,
■
'Het kwantitatieve er' , Spektator 6-7/8,
387-394.
BOWERS, J.S.
1972
Grammatical Relations, unpublished
doctoral
dis­
sertation, M.I.T.
BRESNAN, J.W.
1971
'On
'
sentence
stress
and
syntactic
transforma­
tions' , Language 47, 257-281.
1974
'The
Position
of
Certain
Clause-Particles
in
Phrase Structure', Linguistic Inquiry 5, 614-619.
1975
'Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transfor­
mations', Linguistic Analysis 1, 25-74.
1976
'On the Form and Functioning of Transformations',
Linguistic Inquiry 7, 3-40.
- 196 -
CHOMSKY, N
1957
Syntactic Structures, The Hague, etc., Mouton.
1964a Current Issues
in Linguistic Theory, London,
The
Hague, Paris, Mouton & Co.
1964b
'The logical basis of linguistic theory', in H.G.
Lunt (ed.), Proceedings
nal
congress
of
of linguists,
the ninth internatio­
London,
The
Hague,
Paris, Mouton & Co, 914-1008.
1965
Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge,
Mass.
etc., The MIT Press.
1973
'Conditions
and
P.
on
transformations',
Kiparsky
(eds.),
in
S.
Anderson
A Festschrift for Morris
Hall e , New York etc., Holt,
Rinehart and Winston,
232-286.
1974
'The
Amherst
Lectures',
ques , Université Paris
1976
'Conditions
in
Documents Linguisti­
VII.
on rules of grammar',
Linguistic Ana­
lysis 2, 303-351.
1977
'
'On WH-movement', in P.W. Culicover,
A. Akmajian (eds.),
T. Wasow and
Formal Syntax, New York etc.,
Academic Press, 71-132.
1978
’On Binding1, unpublished paper, M.I.T.
CHOMSKY, N . AND H. LASNIK
1977
'Filters
and Control',
Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425­
504.
DAALDER, S . AND A. BLOM
1975/ 'De
1976
structurele
positie
van
reflexieve
en
reci-
proke pronomina', Spektator 5-6/7, 397-414.
DIK, S.C.
1968
Coordination.
general
Its implications for the theory of
linguistics,
Publishing Company.
Amsterdam,
North-Holland
- 197 -
DOUGHERTY, R.C.
1970
'A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures I 1,
Language 46, 850-900.
1971
'A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures II1,
Language 47, 298-339.
EVERS, A,
1975
The
transformational Cycle
doctoral
dissertation,
(distributed
by
in Dutch and German,
University
Indiana
of
Utrecht
University Linguistics
Club).
FIENGO, R. W.
1974
Semantic Conditions
on Surface Structure,
unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.
GRÛSU, A.
1972
The strategic Content of Island Constraints,
king Papers in Linguistics No.
Wor­
13, The Ohio State
University.
HAAN, G.J. DE
1976
'Containing
nodes:
a
constraint
on
extraction',
unpublished paper, Utrecht University,
1977
'The
Minimal
String
Principle1, Utrecht Working
Papers in Linguistics 3, 73-84.
1979
Conditions on Rules: The proper balance between
syntax
and
semantics, Dordrecht,
Foris Publica­
tions .
HANKAMER, J .
1971
Constraints
on
Deletion in Syntax,
unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
1973
'Unacceptable
Ambiguity',
Linguistic Inquiry
4,
17-68.
HANKAMER, J. AND I. SAG
1976
'Deep and Surface Anaphora', Linguistic Inquiry 7,
391-426.
- 198 -
HUYBREGTS, M.A.C.
'Vragende(r)wi j s : progressieve
1976
Koefoed
en
A.
Evers
(eds,),
taalkunde',
Lijnen
theoretisch onderzoek, Groningen,
in
van
G.
taal­
Tjeenk Willink,
303-366.
(forthcoming)
doctoral
dissertation,
University
of Utrecht.
JACKENDOFF
1971
R.S.
'Gapping and Related Rules', Linguistic Inquiry 2,
21-35.
1972
Semantic
Interpretation
in Generative
Grammar,
1977
X' Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Cambridge,
Cambridge, Mass. etc., The MIT Press.
Mass. etc., The MIT Press.
KEENAN, E.: ,. AND JR.D. HULL
1973
'The
logical
answers',
presuppositions
in
J.S.
Petöfi
and
of
D.
questions
and
Franck '(eds.),
Prasuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik,
Frankfurt, Atheneum Verlag, 441-466.
KOSTER, J.
1975
'Dutch as an SOV language', Linguistic Analysis 1,
111-136.
1978a 'Why subject sentences don't exist',
ser
(e d . ),
Recent
in S.J. Key-
Transformational
European Languages, Linguistic
Studies
Inquiry
in
Monograph
no. 3, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.
1978b Locality
Principles
in Syntax, Dordrecht,
Foris
Publications.
KUNO, S.
1973
'Constraints
on
Internal
Clauses
and
Sentential
Subjects', Linguistic Inquiry 4, 363-385.
1976
'Gapping:
A
Functional
quiry 7, 300-318.
Analysis',
Linguistic In­
- 199 -
LAKATOS, I ,
1970
'Falsification
and
the Methodology
Research Programmes',
(eds.),
Criticism
of Scientific
in I .Lakatos and A.Musgrave
and
the Growth
of Knowledge,
London, New York, Cambridge University Press.
1976
Proofs
and
Refutations, Cambridge,
London,
New
York, Cambridge University Press.
LAKOFF, G.
1968
Deep and surface grammar, unpublished paper
(dis­
tributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club).
LANGENDOEN, D.T.
1975
'Acceptable conclusions from unacceptable ambigui­
t y 1, in
D.
Cohen and J.R.
Wlrth
(eds.),
Testing
Linguistic Hypotheses, Washington etc., Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation,
111-127.
LASNIK, H.
1972
Analyses of Negation in English, unpublished
doc­
toral dissertation, M.I.T.
LEES, R.B.
1960
The grammar of English nominalizations, Part II of
the International Journal of American Linguistics,
Volume 26, No. 3.
MALING, J.M.
1972
'On
"Gapping
and
the
Order
of
Constituents"',
Linguistic Inquiry 3, 101-108.
MALING, J. AND A. ZAENEN
1978
'The
Nonuniversality
of
a
Surface
Filter',
Lin­
guistic Inquiry 9, 475-497.
MANASTER-RAMER, A.
1978
'The Position of the Verb in Dutch and German', in
D.Farkas,
W.M.Jacobsen
and
K.W.Todrys
(eds.),
Papers from the fourteenth regional meeting Chica­
go Linguistic Society, 254-263.
MAY, R .
1979
'Movement and binding', unpublished paper.
- 200 -
MILSARK, G.L.
1974 Existential
doctoral
Sentences
in
dissertation,
English,
M . I .T .
unpublished
(available
from
Indiana University Linguistics Club).
NEIJT,
A.H.
1978a 'Marked coordination in conjunction with the S0VSVO problem',
in W.Zonneveld
the Netherlands 1974-1976,
(ed.) Linguistics in
Lisse,
The
Peter
de
Ridder Press, 188-195.
1978b 'Constraints on Gapping1, in D. Farkas, W.M. Jac­
obsen,
and
K.W.
fourteenth
Todrys
regional
(eds.),
meeting
Papers from the
Chicago Linguistic
Society, 307-315.
PAARDEKOOPER, P.C.
1971
Beknopte ABN-syntaxis, Den
Bosch,
Malmberg,
4th.
print.
POSTAL, P.
1974
.
On Raising, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press.
REINHART, T.
1976
The
Syntactic
Domain
of
Anaphora,
unpublished
doctoral dissertation, M.I.T.
RIEMSDIJK, H.C. VAN
1978
A Case Study
in Syntactic Markedness, Lisse,
The
Peter de Ridder Press.
ROSS, J.R.
1967
Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D.
tation,
M.I.T.
disser­
(distributed by Indiana University
Linguistics Club).
1969
'Guess
Who?',
Papers
from
in
the
R.I.
Binnick
et. al.
fifth regional meeting
(eds.,),
of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286.
1970
'Gapping
Bierwisch
and
and
the
K.E.
Order
of Constituents',
Heidolph
(eds.),
in
M.
Progress in
Linguistics, The Hague etc., Mouton, 249-259.
- 201 -
SAG, I.A.
1976
Deletion and Logical Form, unpublished Ph.D.
sertation,
M.I.T.
dis­
(available from Indiana Univer­
sity Linguistics Club).
SCHACHTER, P.
1973
'Focus and relativization', Language 49, 19-46.
1977
'Constraints on coordination', Language 53, 86­
103.
STILLINGS, J.T.
1975
'The Formulation of Gapping in English as Evidence
for Variable Types in Syntactic Transformations',
Linguistic Analysis 1, 247-273.
STQCKWELL, R.P., P. SCHACHTER, AND B. HALL PARTEE
1973
’
The
Major Syntactic Structures
of
English,
New
York etc., Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
TAI, J.H.
1969
Coordination Reduction,
unpublished
doctoral
dis-
sertation, Indiana University.
THIERSCH, C.L.
1978
Topics in German Syntax,
unpublished
Ph. D.
dis-
sertation, M.I.T.
VERGNAUD, J.R.
1974
French relative clauses, unpublished Ph.D. di sse r—
tation, M.I.T.
.
'Transformations
and the lexicon1, in P .W .Culieo-
WASOW, T.
1977
ver,
T.Wasow and A.Akmajian
(eds.) Formal Syntax,
New York etc., Academic Press, 327-360.
WILLIAMS, E.S.
1974
Rule Ordering in Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.
1977
'Discourse
and
Logical
Form',
Linguistic Inquiry
8, 101-139.
1978
'Across-the-Board
Inquiry 9, 31-43.
Rule
Application',
Linguistic
- 202 -
ZONNEVELD, W.
1978
Linguistics
In the Netherlands 1974-1976,
Lisse,
The Peter de Ridder Press.
ZWARTS, F.
1976
'Over
de
Disjunctie
kundig Bulletin
Conditie
op Anafora',
Taal­
van het Nederlands Instituut van
de Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen 6, 35-39.
1978
'Extractie uit prepositionele woordgroepen in het
Nederlands',
in
A.
van
Berkel
et
Proeven van Neerlandistiek, Groningen,
Instituut, 303-399.
al.
(eds.),
Nederlands
Index
across-the-board,
11,
13,
18,
30-37, 68, 72
Adj-Deletion, 112
Adverb Preposing, 141
all-and-only, 95
alphabetic variance, 100-108
Amherst
Subjacency,
178,
180, 189
Antecedency Binding, 192
A-over-A Principle, 114-120,
128, 170, 189
Backward Conjunction Reduc­
tion, 1, 15, 17, 18, 39­
46, 49-51
Binding
Conditions,
149,
154-160, 174, 178, 189,
190
Bounding Condition, 162-166,
189
Bracket
Constraint,
168,
169, 171, 173, 189
c-command, 155-157, 189
clausemate, 111, 187, 188
coindexing, 96, 175
cojacent, 30
COMP-COMP
condition,
144,
145, 149
COMP-escape hatch, 141, 148,
156, 157, 159, 172, 179
Complex NP Condition,
23,
24,
43,
44,
133,
134,
150-154, 175, 177, 179,
189
Conjunction Reduction, 51
Conjunct Movement,
1, 47,
62-66
constant term, 118-119
constituent
variable,
21,
76,
107
context predicate, 118
Coordinate Constituent Con­
dition, 32, 33
Coordinate
Structure
Con­
straint, 23, 30-37, 43,
44
coordinator,
1, 2, 6, 25,
59, 62, 172
cyclic boundary, 159
Cyclicity Changing, 181, 184
cyclic
domain,
176,
177,
180, 185, 186
cyclic node, 116, 149-150,
152, 154, 175-179, 181,
182
deep structure, 5, 26, 48,
55, 56, 97, 98, 151, 187,
188
Delay, 17
Deletion, 17
descriptive adequacy, 85
discourse, 37, 69
discourse grammar, 37, 38
Disjunction Condition, 124,
125
domain,
87,
89, 95,
106,
107, 141, 155-157
explanatory adequacy, 89
Extraposition, 141
filter, 35, 47, 75, 87
focus, 102, 103,
Focus Assignment, 61
Forward Conjunction Reduc­
tion 1, 17, 47, 50-57
forward reduction, 17, 39
Gapping (formulations), 38,
39, 73, 76, 88, 95, 109,
172
Head
Condition,
113-115,
128,
189
identity, 44, 73, 97, 98
- 204 -
idiolectal variation, 91
immediate
domination,
139,
162
Immediate Domination Prin­
ciple,
118,
120-123,
126-128
indirect exclamation,
146­
147
initial coordination, 1-16,
53-55, 68
interpretation, 96
interpretive rule, 22, 47,
72, 113
interrogative sentence, 69
intonation, 61, 62
Island Constraint, 39, 189
island sensitive,
18,
23,
43, 161, 189, 190
iterative, 70
It-replacement, 55, 72
lambda-operator, 100,
101,
105
Left Branch Condition, 134
Left Peripheral Deletion, 1,
17, 47, 50, 57-62
list phenomena, 58
Logical Form, 89, 100-104,
161, 189
major constituent, 6, 7, 18,
19, 23, 39, 40, 73, 110,
111, 122, 137, 171, 172,
191,192
Major Constituent Condition,
74, 89, 109-113, 115-117,
122, 123, 137, 164, 189,
191
major phrase, 2, 7, 93, 163
maximal phrase, 12, 13, 116
maximal projection, 2, 3, 5,
6,
12-14, 114, 162, 173
Maximization Principle, 115
minimal difference, 118-121
minor projection, 14
minor-image, 17, 169
modular, 87, 96, 189
N-Deletion, 112
negation, 65, 66, 70, 93
N-Gapping, 26-29
No-Ambiguity Condition, 74­
77,
82, 85, 96
Nominative Island Constraint
149, 155-157
non-initial coordination, 1­
16, 53, 54
Nonleft-Peripheral NP Con­
dition, 81, 82, 96
NP Constraint, 133-137, 148,
150-154, 162, 170, 175,
177, 180, 189
observational adequacy, 85,
87, 88
one-pronominalization, 125
Opacitiy, 149, 155-157, 159
overgeneration, 86, 87, 188
Passive, 55, 56, 72
phrasal conjunction, 1, 47­
49, 55, 86
Phrasal Conjunction
Hypothesis, 1, 47-49
predicate, 120, 121
Predicate
Deletion
Con­
straint, 72
preposition deletion, 58
preposition stranding, 128
proper analysis, 119-121
Proper Binding, 157
quantifiers, 102, 106, 107
Question-Answer pairs, 102­
107
■
readjustment rule, 151
recoverability, 73, 97-108,
172, 189
Reflexivization, 72
relabeling, 48, 49, 56
Relativized A-over-A Prin­
ciple, 118, 128
restructuring, 47, 48, 56,
63, 66, 78, 79
Right Node Raising, 17, 41,
42
right peripheral deletion,
17
semi-island, 141, 174, 178,
181
Sentence Conjunction Hypo­
thesis, 1, 47, 48
sentence grammar,
24, 30,
31, 37-39, 45, 96, 109,
129, 148, 149, 161, 166,
189
Sentential
Subject
Con­
straint, 23, 24, 43, 44,
139-141, 149
set-abstraction, 103-107
- 205 -
shallow structure, 88, 99,
1 0 0 , 102
simultaneous factorization,
33, 35
SOV, 7-13, 67, 69
Specified Subject Condition,
145-148,
158-160,
186,
190
standard factorization, 168
Strict Subjacency, 109, 129,
174, 180-188, 190
structure
preserving,
53,
145, 148
Subjacency, 129, 134, 149­
154, 164, 173-175, 178,
180, 189, 190
Subject Condition, 134
Subject Deletion, 56
Subject Interpretation, 56
Substitution Transformation,
56
successive cyclicity,
143,
144, 156, 175, 181, 182
surface structure, 32, 99,
188
surface constraint, 91
SVO, 8, 11, 67
target, 18, 19, 22, 24, 41,
42, 118, 142
Tensed
S
Condition,
129,
130, 139, 141, 148, 157,
175, 179, 180, 189, 190
Topicalization, 110
top node, 162-164, 166
trace,
75,
99,
100,
151,
154, 155, 161, 178, 185­
187, 192
transderivational
con­
straint, 74, 75, 81
Truncation, 79-81
undergeneration, 188
Universal Grammar, 82, 93
variabl e, 18 , 19, 21,, 23
24, 31, 38, 77 , 88 , 95
100, 101 , 118, 120, 121
129, 130, 137, 138, 141
161, 168, 169, 172, 175
177 , 179, 192
variable constituents, 88
Verb Fronting, 10, 11, 68
verb-scrambling, 67
V-Gapping, 27-29
VP -deletion, 20, 2 1 , 72, 98
99, 102, 119 , 121
v_ postposing, 8
V - preposing, 8, 68
Wh -island Constrai nt , 137-139, 148, 152--154, 174
175, 177, 182, 189
33 , 105
WH -movement, 31,
109-193 passim
wo rd order, 7-13, 67
X - bar theory, 15, 113 , 114

Peter Anderton AoB Bio

Peter Bible - RR Donnelley

Peter Bang joins GCA Savvian as a Managing Director specializing

The News Letter of the Hobart Model Aero Club Inc. June 2014

NCGG セミナー （LBD−１）

The 100 best Low Saxon sayings (of which only 58 are

AB - Youth for Christ Bible Quizzing

Peter Allen Not The Boy Next Door Cast A

Codepage 850 (Multilingual) Houdt de linker ALT toets

Peter Atkins - Badminton Horse Trials