Deriving Coordinate Symmetries: A Phase-Based Approach Integrating Select, Merge, Copy And Match (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provi...

Author: John R. Te Velde

107 downloads 593 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editors Werner Abraham

Elly van Gelderen

University of Vienna

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Ian Roberts

Harvard University

Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque

Ken Saﬁr

University of Venice

Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

University of Lille, France

University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

University of Salzburg

University of Groningen

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Volume 89 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries: A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match by John R. te Velde

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match

John R. te Velde Oklahoma State University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data John R. te Velde Deriving Coordinate Symmetries : A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match / John R. te Velde. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166–0829 ; v. 89) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Coordinate constructions. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Ellipsis. 3. Parallelism (Linguistics). 4. Asymmetry (Linguistics) P293.V45 2005 415--dc22 isbn 90 272 3353 5 (Hb; alk. paper)

2005053690

© 2005 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microﬁlm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 9:21

F: LA89CO.tex / p.1 (47-106)

Table of contents

Abbreviations Chapter 1 Outline of the study 1.1. Introduction 1 1.2. Features and matching in coordination 4 1.3. Merge and phase in the derivation of coordinate structures 1.4. Ellipsis in conjunction 9 1.5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of Germanic 11

ix

1

7

Chapter 2 Features and matching in coordination 2.1. Coordinate Feature Matching (CFM) 13 2.2. Features in syntax vs. in coordination 18 2.3. Features in coordination 19 2.3.1 Symmetry and features in conjunction: questions raised 20 2.3.2 Asymmetry and features in coordination 22 2.3.3 Configurations and agreement in coordinate structures 25 2.3.4 Configurations and (a)symmetry in coordinate structures 32 2.4. Feature matching in derivation 36 2.4.1 CFM within a derivational model 36 2.4.2 On the syntax and semantics of [&] 40 2.4.3 Some semantic issues of coordination and agreement 42 2.4.4 The core relations and their features in coordinate symmetry 44 2.4.5 Independent support for CFM from experiments 51 2.4.6 Deriving coordinate symmetry 52 2.4.7 Feature matching and structural isometricity 54 2.5. Feature matching and configurations 56 2.5.1 Camacho (2000) on syntactic symmetries in coordination 56 2.5.2 An alternate proposal 60 2.5.3 Symmetry and sharing in conjoined clauses 63 2.5.4 Feature matching in certain asymmetric constructions 69 2.5.5 weil+V2: Conjunction-clause and syntax-semantics mismatches 77 2.5.6 Summarizing the mismatches 80

13

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 9:21



F: LA89CO.tex / p.2 (106-151)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

2.6. Symmetry within asymmetry through Select, Copy and Match 83 2.7. Chapter summary and conclusions 86 Chapter 3 Deriving coordinate structures 3.1. Some background 89 3.2. Binary phrase structure, asymmetry and coordination 91 3.3. Coordination in the Spec-head-complement model 94 3.3.1 Move α not required in conjunction 94 3.3.2 Unbalanced coordination 96 3.4. Properties of [&] and clausal conjuncts 99 3.4.1 [&] does not project a phrase 100 3.4.2 [&] does not assign or check Case 102 3.4.3 Non-projecting [&] and asymmetric agreement 108 3.4.4 Not all coordinate constructions are CP-based 114 3.5. Conjunction as a pure Merge operation 117 3.5.1 Steps in conjunction 117 3.5.2 Comparing conjunction by pure Merge to other models 119 3.5.3 Solutions available in a phase-based model 121 3.5.4 The role of CFM in a derivational model 125 3.5.5 Feature Matching in conjunction vs. in simplex sentences 131 3.5.6 Selection and sequence issues 132 3.6. An account of breakdown in agreement using a CFM-based derivational model 148 3.6.1 Abstract, morphological and default Case 148 3.6.2 Symmetry and derivational economy 162 3.6.3 Breakdown and prescriptiveness in English 167 3.7. Chapter conclusion 175 Chapter 4 Deriving coordinate ellipsis 4.0. Introduction 179 4.1. Some core properties of and basic assumptions about ellipsis 183 4.1.1 Core properties 184 4.1.2 Parallelism: Its properties, source and role in coordinate ellipsis 4.1.3 Coordinate ellipsis, matching and sloppy identity 191 4.1.4 Asymmetry versus coordinate symmetry: Gap or no gap? 193 4.2. Licensing of gaps 197 4.2.1 Williams’ proposal and an alternative 197 4.2.2 Licensing locally by a lexical head at the left edge 203 4.2.3 Licensing locally by a prosodic feature at the right edge 207 4.2.4 Licensing by a prosodic feature conjunct-internally 214 4.3. Recovery of gaps by matching in LF 225

89

179

188

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 9:21

F: LA89CO.tex / p.3 (151-203)

Table of contents 

4.3.1 Recovery in LEE 228 4.3.2 Recovery in RNR 233 4.3.3 Recovery in Gapping 236 4.4. VPE 242 4.4.1 Binding, not matching 242 4.4.2 Some additional contrasts and a conclusion 244 4.5. Coordinate ellipsis and derivation by phase with Copy and Match 245 4.5.1 Deriving coordinate ellipsis 247 4.5.2 Symmetric ellipsis in non-coordinate structures 261 4.5.3 ATB phenomena and the CSC: Ross’s generalization and what it accounts for 268 4.5.4 Comparing the parasitic gap construction to the ATB construction 278 4.6. Chapter summary and conclusion 281 Chapter 5 Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 5.0. Introduction 283 5.1. The left edge and coordinate ellipsis 284 5.1.1 LEE and the left edge in Germanic: Reviewing the data 285 5.1.2 Büring and Hartmann (1998) on left-edge subject gaps 290 5.1.3 Comparing a VPR account of left-edge subject gaps 300 5.1.4 Phase Theory, subject-object asymmetries and LEE 302 5.2. Other types of coordinate ellipsis and the West Germanic CP-domain 5.2.1 RNR and subject-object asymmetries 304 5.2.2 Gapping, RNR and subject-object asymmetries 306 5.3. Coordination and a finely-structured CP-domain 308 5.4. Gapping and the structure of the German VP 312 5.5. Chapter conclusion 315

283

304

Notes

317

References

359

Appendix

371

Name index

379

Subject index

383

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:42

Abbreviations

acc a/adj adv advp am ap atb aux c cfm compl CoP cp dat Dt dp f/fem fin fut gen Ger inf la lca lee lf m/masc mp n np neg neut nom obj pers

accusative adjective adverb adverb phrase active memory adjective phrase across-the-board auxiliary conjunct coordinate feature matching complement conjunction phrase complementizer phrase dative Dutch determiner phrase feminine finite future genitive German infinitive lexical array Linear Correspondence Axiom Left-Edge Ellipsis logical form masculine Minimalist Program noun noun phrase negation (feature) neuter nominative object person

F: LA89AB.tex / p.1 (46-188)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:42



Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

p part ph pp pf pl pred rnr sa st svo sov Spec subj s.t. t th tp trans v vp wk & &P

preposition participle phonetic prepositional phrase phonetic form pleonastic predicate Right Node Raising (=Right Edge Ellipsis) subarray strong subject-verb-object subject-object-verb specifier subject such that tense theme tense phrase transitive verb verb phrase weak coordinating conjunction (usually and) phrasal projection of [&]

F: LA89AB.tex / p.2 (188-193)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.1 (47-132)

Chapter 1

Outline of the study

. Introduction In this monograph I present an account of the central properties of coordinate structures, focusing primarily on English, German and Dutch, but with data from numerous other languages. The central idea is that all coordinate structures have certain symmetries, some more than others; thus, there must be derivational principles and operations available for generating and interpreting the right symmetries in the right structures. Although a considerable body of literature already exists on the syntactic properties of coordinate structures in these languages, no study has proposed an account that utilizes Phase and Merge proposed by Chomsky (1998) and (1999), building on the Minimalist Program (MP) outlined in Chomsky (1995), for the derivation of coordinate structures, using a principle of coordinate symmetry as its basis. Furthermore, no study to date has incorporated the operation Copy, used in narrow syntax for movement operations in the derivation of simplex structures, for the derivation of elliptical coordinate structures. Chapter 4 of this monograph addresses the core types of elliptical structures, utilizing Copy and a counterpart, Match, a Logical Form (LF) operation, for generating and interpreting semantic symmetries, and for meeting what has been called the Parallelism Requirement of coordination. Numerous studies, especially Hartmann (2000), Hornstein and Nunes (2002), Lopez and Winkler (2003), base their accounts on the existence of this requirement, but to my knowledge no satisfactory explanation for its existence has been given. My proposal accounts for the Parallelism Requirement, referred to here as coordinate symmetry, in terms of copying and matching assisted by an interface with active memory. In non-elliptical coordinate structures, addressed in Chapters 2 and 3, the variant of Copy proposed here is also utilized for assuring syntactic symmetry. Match, the central mechanism in LF for the interpretation of coordinate ellipsis, plays a key role, even though no gaps have to be recovered, because it reveals crucial symmetries needed for interpretation. So while syntactic asymmetries may exist on some level in a coordinate structure, semantic symmetries may still be required for proper interpertation. Thus, when the two VPs are conjoined, semantic symmetries may still be required for proper interpretation because the interpretation depends on the sharing of the subject Bill: (1) Billhuman,volitional [VP+trans purchasedhuman,volitional a ticket] and soon [VP-trans departedhuman,volitional ]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40



F: LA8901.tex / p.2 (132-184)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Chapter 2 provides an account that predicts structures like (1) with both coordinate symmetry and asymmetry; it takes issue with proposals that attempt to account for the asymmetries as a result of an asymmetric phrase structure in which the coordinating conjunction [&] projects &P with one conjunct in its Spec, and another in its complement position. Although such theories, advocated first by Munn (1987) – but rejected in Munn (1993) – then by Johannessen (1993), (1998), Kayne (1994), Zoerner (1994) and others, have provided interesting insights into the asymmetries of coordinate structures, it is argued in Chapter 2 that they are based on the false assumption that both [&] and a typical complementizer project a maximal phrase. It has been a primary objective of several generative investigations of coordinate structures (Goodall 1987; Munn 1993; Camacho 1997; Johannessen 1998) to unify their analysis with simplex structures by using the core principles of syntax theory for both. If coordinate structures really are nothing more than simplex structures joined together, as the term ‘coordinate’ suggests, then unification should be natural, essentially automatic.1 In traditional grammars that is the way coordination is typically presented, and early generative studies follow the practice of simply extending tree structures by adding more branches. As syntactic theory became more sophisticated, so did accounts of coordination, and with that more rules were added, even transformations. A result was a loss of unification. In what could be taken as a response to this trend, Goodall (1987: 17) chose as the central aim of his study the incorporation of coordinate structures into grammar proper. He states his aim with these words: “It is clear that coordinate sentences exhibit properties which appear different from those of other kinds of sentences, but it seems equally clear that we don’t want the grammar to contain a large set of principles which pertain exclusively to coordination or types of rules which are considerably more powerful than what is needed in the rest of the grammar.” In this spirit, a central aim of this study will also be the avoidance of principles whose purpose is exclusively to derive coordinate structures. The position will be defended that the principles of the MP are, in their broad, abstract sense, fully adequate for generating coordinate structures. In fact, what I hope to show is that the most central principle of the MP, economy in derivation, is not only a good modus operandi in devising a theory for coordination, but much more than that: it formulates an unavoidable conclusion about the way a generative grammar proceeds in the derivation of coordinate structures. Economy is more than just an option; it is a requirement, not just for the optimal derivation in the syntactic component – keeping the number of steps and the distance of movements to a minimum – but in the other components as well. Economy is manifested in the syntax, semantics, phonetics and pragmatics of language. The most obvious manifestation of economy in coordination is the phenomenon of coordinate ellipsis.2 I will show that the two operations Copy and Match play a pivotal role in generating elliptical structures like those in (2), when combined with the operation Merge and how it functions in the phasal derivation of coordinate structures, and the assumption that phasal derivation utilizes active memory:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.3 (184-246)

Chapter 1. Outline of the study

(2) a. Peteri has kissed the bride and ei will now get in line for cake b. Peter hasi kissed ej and Paul ei insulted [the young bride]j c. Peter goti some cake and Paul ei a dirty look Coordinate ellipsis is presented in Chapter 4 as a manifestation of two properties: (1) coordinate symmetry (or parallelism) and (2) derivational economy. The first property, argued to be the most fundamental of coordinate structures, underlies the redundancy that the constructions in (2) would have without ellipsis. Without symmetry, the ellipses in (2) could not be licensed or recovered. Symmetry can be ‘optimal’ when it obtains in all components of the grammar; when it does, the derivation becomes more economical. It is assumed here that less optimal coordinate structures, those that have fewer types of symmetries, create a greater derivational burden for the grammar.3 The second property, derivational economy i.e. ellipsis, is a direct result of the computational component of the grammar eliminating redundancies of these constructions. There is possibly no purer form of economy than the cancellation of the phonetic realization in Phonetic Form (PF) of redundant lexical items. Closely related to ellipsis and my proposal to use derivation by phase to generate elliptical constructions is the question of constituency in coordinate structures. The notion of constituent and the claim that only constituents can be the object of a syntactic operation have been central to generative syntax theory. On this point coordinate structures cause some problems, for it appears in constructions like those in (3) that non-constituents are involved in syntactic operations: (3) a. Paul gave [Fred a book] and [Mary a CD] a.’ *[Fred a book] Paul gave for his birthday a.” This book Paul gave Fred for his birthday b. [Paul wrote] and [Peter edited] a lengthy book on dinosaurs b.’ *[Paul wrote] a lengthy book on dinosaurs [Peter edited]4 b.” Paul wrote (with great care) a lengthy book on dinosaurs (with great care) In (3a) the bracketed non-constituents are conjoined, i.e. appear to be the object of the syntactic operation ‘conjunction’, even though it is clear from (3a’) that neither one is a constituent. In (3b) the subject-verb combinations appear to be the object of conjunction, but as (3b’) indicates, Peter edited cannot be the object of syntactic displacement, unlike the PP with great care. My proposal will address these puzzles from the approach of derivation by phase and its combination with operations central to minimalist theory: match and elide. In so doing, we will find that the related question of whether coordination is “phrasal” or “clausal” can also be dealt with, since the main challenge for the phrasal approach is accounting for apparent non-constituent coordination. Following the fundamental objective set out at the beginning, of developing a grammar that generates coordinates structures with a minimum of extra operations, I take the position that determining what constitutes an ellipse in a coordinate structure is an empirical matter, accomplished using tests that are not unique to coordination, and that do not merely serve



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40



F: LA8901.tex / p.4 (246-308)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

the interests of a particular approach to coordination. Hence, the terms ‘right-edge’ and ‘left-edge’ ellipsis, ‘Gapping’ and ‘VP Ellipsis’ will be defined using principles of core grammar, which also determine their properties and thereby their scope. The primary languages investigated in this study are from the Germanic languages, including English because of its latent Germanic properties, with some constructions from Japanese, Spanish, Latin and several other languages for illustrating the potentially universal application of the present proposal. These languages represent certain syntactic extremes: English, the morphologically impoverished, paradigmatic SVO language; Japanese, the paradigmatic SOV language with Case but little other morphology; and German, the mixed SOV/SVO language with relatively rich tense, Case, gender and φ-feature morphology. The contrasts between these languages offer a broad basis for stating principles of conjunction and exhibiting forms of coordinate symmetry. They also present a challenge to the proposal of this study that follows in the tradition of Goodall who sought to unify coordination with the rest of grammar. The focus in the present study is on narrow syntax and how it interfaces with other modules of the grammar, and with the active memory faculty of the mind.

. Features and matching in coordination A central objective of Chapter 2 will be to outline a proposal that accounts for the operation Match that occurs in coordinate structures. That matching is part of the derivation of coordinate structures was observed by at least two linguists, Lakoff (1969) and Lang (1984). They use data like those in (4) (b translates a): (4) a. Mary likes visiting relatives, and Sue does too b. Marie mag Verwandtenbesuche, und Susi auch In Chapter 2, I argue that such matching must occur on a feature-by-feature basis, following the assumption that every lexical item selected from the lexicon consists of a feature cluster. The term ‘matching’ will be defined slightly differently than in studies dealing only with simplex sentences. The difference is simple to articulate because it is based on an intuitive and much elucidated distinction between simplex and coordinate structures: Because the latter involve parallelisms and various forms of ellipsis for avoiding redundancies, they utilize the principle of matching differently than simplex sentences for determining where these redundancies and parallelisms exist. Parallelisms occur in coordination for two reasons: the operation Copy in narrow syntax transfers the formal features from the first to the second (and all subsequent) conjuncts. Copying, I propose, is carried out via the interface with active memory, located outside of narrow syntax; it is a form of economy in the derivation of coordinate structures. With Copy, not all derivational operations need to be performed in matching conjuncts. The operation Match, a counterpart to Copy, determines what features in the conjuncts form parallels, or are symmetric. Match occurs primarily in LF for satisfying its independent requirements for coherent interpretation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.5 (308-357)

Chapter 1. Outline of the study

In (5) is a simplified illustration of how the grammar just described is organized; this model does not differ from others in the generative literature except that it includes an interface with active memory: (5) Derivational Grammar Model with interfaced active memory LEXICON

SYNTACTIC COMPONENT cyclic/non-cyclic

ACTIVE

rule

MEMORY

application (interface)

PHONETIC FORM

LOGICAL FORM

This model will be made more precise in Chapter 2 and then modified in Chapters 3 and 4 where we will consider the role of matching in a phase-by-phase approach with Multiple Spell-Out for the derivation of coordinate structures.5 The operation Copy is assumed in Frazier and Clifton (2001) to play a role on the perceptual side of language processing. My model relies on Copy being an integral part of the intentional-conceptual side of language as well. The proposal that Match requires the assistance of active memory follows from the observation made by Cremers (1993: 2) that matching must occur globally, not locally, when determining what is a coordinate. In (3), for example, the entire VP ‘likes visiting relatives’ must be matched with the underlying VP of the second clause in order for the ellipsis to occur with the required matching interpretation.6 Because the MP model of the syntactic component uses locality as a constraint on syntactic operations and relations, the grammar must be designed, as indicated in (4), with the interface for input into active memory where the structures already derived are held until parallel structures are derived in a phasal manner. The merger of a coordinating conjunction then induces the operations Copy and Match. This process can be repeated for n-number of conjuncts. In this way the processing of coordinate structures, specifically the sequencing of conjunction operations (by Merge) can be performed independently of syntactic constraints. In the MP, matching identifies features that are non-distinct (Chomsky 1999: 4); in coordinate structures my assumption will be that a particular type of matching occurs in narrow syntax for identifying redundant features – those that occur in non-initial conjuncts – that under certain conditions – those which allow licensing for ellipsis – can remain unrealized in PF. There is also matching in LF – but only on the perceptual



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40



F: LA8901.tex / p.6 (357-416)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

side – for the recovery of elements not spoken (realized in PF). I refer to requirements placed on coordinate structures for meeting the symmetries necessary for convergence and interpretation as Coordinate Feature Matching (CFM). CFM, I will claim, captures the empirical evidence of symmetries in coordinate structures (see especially the work of Goodall 1987; Grootveld 1994; Hornstein & Nunes 2002; Moltmann 1992; Wesche 1995). It does so on a feature-by-feature basis for the simple reason that matching by syntactic category, for instance, is too imprecise, and there are various subtleties of parallelisms, evident most clearly in agreement phenomena, that cannot be accounted for unless matching identifies individual features rather than labels of whole feature clusters, whether they be syntactic, semantic or prosodic. Numerous examples of this point are given in Chapter 2. One of the most common is illustrated in (6): (6) [Du] und [ich] [kennen] [uns] gut [you-2sg] and [I-1sg] [know-1/3pl] [refl-1pl] well Feature resolution in constructions like (4) requires the matching of conjunts; to accomplish this, I propose that the grammar utilizes the operation Copy which targets formal features required for agreement and copies them onto a subsequent conjunct while the first conjunct is held in active memory until another lexical array or subarray (the latter the case in 5) constituting a conjunct is merged. By Copy it is assured in (6) that both du and ich have the feature [+nom], required for checking with kennen. The matching operation required for the resolution of number agreement morphology in (6) differs from the matching that results in ellipsis, the latter requiring parallel planes in LF. An extended theory of feature resolution and parallel planes is not an objective of the present study, however, as it entails formalisms of semantics that extend beyond its scope. Argued here is that matching in coordinate structures does not require derivational operations, unlike matching in the derivation in narrow syntax of simplex structures, which requires Move for the elimination of uninterpretable features. Instead of eliminating features, coordinate matching in narrow syntax identifies phonetic features that need not be spelled out in PF, resulting in ellipsis. Coordinate matching in LF targets semantic features for establishing semantic parallels. This proposal is able to provide solutions for some long-standing as well as some less-noted problems of coordination. Of the former, cross-categorial coordination is one of the best known. If the requirement of coordination is not categorial identity, but rather the matching of a minimum number of features assigned to heads as proposed in Chapter 2, then the fact that (7a, b) are perfectly acceptable can be accounted for: (7) a. Paul is [DP a procrastinator] and [AP proud of it] b. Peter drove [Adv fast] and [PP with no regard to signs] The DP and AP in (7a) share the feature [+complement], a more abstract feature than [+noun], assigned to the DP, or [+adjective], assigned to the AP. The Adv and PP in (7b) share the feature [+modifier], a more abstract feature than either Adv or PP.7 Matching identifies these shared features for rendering the coordinate relation between the relevant lexical items.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.7 (416-475)

Chapter 1. Outline of the study

A much less-noted problem of coordination theory is the conjunction in German of non-symmetric clause types, as in (8): (8) [CP Wenn ich keine Zeit [V finde]] und [TP der Termin [V lässt] sich If I no time find and the deadline lets refl nicht verschieben], . . . not postpone ‘If I run out of time and the deadline can’t be postponed, . . .’ Even if we ignore the clause types identified in (8), CP and TP, the coordinate structure is less than symmetric because of the contrasting verb positions, which imply that each clause has presumably undergone different syntactic derivations and has different syntactic and semantic properties. Yet despite these contrasts, there are central features shared by the clauses which make this conjunction acceptable: both clauses have [+present], [+indicative], [+conditional]. Further analysis of this construction type will be presented in §2.5.4.

. Merge and phase in the derivation of coordinate structures In Chapter 3 the focus is on derivational aspects of conjunction as an operation within narrow syntax that is interfaced with active memory. In this chapter the advantages of this interface become more evident in the sense that the whole derivation of a coordinate structure, and ultimately its configuration, relies on an “online” or dynamic exchange between active memory and the derivation in the syntactic component. The grammar model introduced in Chapter 2 is made more precise for this purpose. The position will be defended that the greatest challenge of coordination, how the symmetries and asymmetries of coordinate structures should be accounted for, is not best addressed in the phrase structure, but rather in the features of the lexical items themselves and how these features are enumerated and activated in the derivation. Chapter 3 begins with a discussion of asymmetric phrase structure and how it interacts with the symmetry of coordinate structures. It is argued that binary phrase structure and the notion of antisymmetry introduced by Kayne (1994) do not lead to the conclusion that conjuncts of coordinate structures are not symmetric with each other and that coordinating conjunctions must be unified with subordinating conjunctions in the manner assumed by Johannessen (1998), whose proposal carries the ramifications of Munn’s (1987) to their full extent. I argue that, in contrast to what is predicted by the unification of these two conjunction types, Move plays no role in the derivation of coordinate structures. Furthermore, “unbalanced” (cf. Johannessen 1998) or asymmetric coordinations, though sometimes related to the asymmetries inherent in phrase structures, retain key forms of symmetry. A recurring thesis in my analysis is that symmetry in some form is required in every coordinate structure and that the asymmetry of phrase structure and the linear properties of language often create a tension with this symmetry. The central



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40



F: LA8901.tex / p.8 (475-532)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

difference between coordinate and subordinate clauses can be localized in the differences between the relevant heads: a subordinating conjunction projects, creates its own syntactic domain, the subordinate clause, and has scope over this clause; a coordinating conjunction, because it is a defective head, does none of these.8 Its sole function is to conjoin. In my proposal conjunction occurs by pure Merge on the right branch of whatever category the operation Conjunction identifies. The selection of [&], the coordinating conjunction, induces Copy and Match for assuring and determining symmetries, respectively. Match also recovers elements that are not spelled out in PF (ellipsis). In this model no additional categories must be assumed, in contrast to Camacho’s (1997) account of coordinate symmetries.9 Following the thesis of Chapter 2, I demonstrate that symmetry must be determined in a derivation at the feature level, and that LF matching plays a role in identifying symmetric (identical) features in related conjuncts. What conjuncts are related is determined by the derivational operations Select, Merge and Copy. These operations follow the principle of derivation by phase; I propose that TP and CP conjuncts constitute separate phases, whereas all other conjuncts, with the possible exception of some DP conjuncts, are subarrays, following the exposition of these notions in Chomsky (1998, 1999) who does not, however, deal with coordinate structures. Derivation by phase, when combined with the assumption that every Merge operation in a coordinate structure requires refreshed active memory, can solve a number of problems that asymmetric coordinations pose for a theory like this one which is based on the premise that coordinations are fundamentally symmetric. Furthermore, it is shown that derivation by phase in verb-second (V2) constructions in German with conjoined verbs can explain how certain asymmetries are allowed that are not allowed in non-V2 equivalents. Opacity leading to coordinate asymmetry can be created by two factors in the derivation of coordinate structures: When [–interpretable] features are eliminated before conjunction occurs, or when a movement operation occurs in just the first conjunct after the coordinate structure has merged. In V2 clauses with conjoined verbs that raise to the [T]-position, as in (9a), Case asymmetry evident in the conjoined verbs is tolerated because Case checking occurred earlier with just one of the verbs, whereas in (9b) the configuration in which Case checking occurs is also the one in which conjunction occurs, and it is the configuration that meets the interface. The convergence of these operations in this configuration demands Case symmetry: (9) a.

Marie begrüßteacc und halfdat dem Nachbarn M greeted and helped the-dat neighbor b. dass Marie *dem/*den Nachbarn begrüßte und half that M the-dat/the-acc neighbor greeted and helped

Problems of apparent asymmetry in English usage, found in constructions like those in (9), are also addressed: (10) a. Me and my best friends go out every Friday night b. Him and my dad don’t get along

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.9 (532-596)

Chapter 1. Outline of the study

We will see that the conjuncts in both (10a, b) are symmetric because the default Case, [+objective] in English, is assigned to both subjects in this configuration when they are not transparent for [+nom] Case checking. Evidence that the two conjuncts in both (10a) and (10b) have the same Case comes from the usage in (11a). When the [+nom] Case, assigned before conjunction, is maintained until after conjunction has occurred, then Standard English usage as in (11b) occurs: (11) a. Me and him had a blast last night b. He and my mother just got acquainted Comments on and an analysis of “hyper-correction” are also given in Chapter 3.

. Ellipsis in conjunction In Chapter 4 we turn to probably the most fascinating but also most complex, or at least abstract, aspect of conjunction: “missing” lexical items. Elliptical coordinate structures, as stated at the outset, manifest the most fundamental property of language: economy. Because ellipsis results from the non-articulation of phonetic features only, the lexical items are not really missing; in fact, they can enter into all the necessary syntactic and semantic relations needed for derivation and interpretation. Somewhat surprisingly (at first sight), ellipsis also tightens, through disambiguation, the interpretation of conjoined phrases. Furthermore, elliptical constructions can always be generated and interpreted with less effort. Experimental evidence of the intuition that conjoined structures take less time and effort to generated is provided in Frazier and Clifton (2001), Dubinsky et al. (2000), and Levelt (1989). The account in this chapter of coordinate ellipsis predicts these findings. Using the grammar model introduced in Chapter 2 and articulated more precisely in Chapter 3, I argue that the interface of narrow syntax with active memory, when combined with derivation by phase introduced in Chapter 3, allows for the timely monitoring of coordinate symmetries for determining short-cuts, evidenced most clearly in gaps as forms of coordinate ellipsis. I identify the basis of Hartmann’s (2000) prosody-based analysis of Right Node Raising (RNR) and Gapping in the syntactic component, and extend the principles underlying RNR to other forms of ellipsis: those that occur at the left edge of non-initial clausal conjuncts, exemplified in (12):10 (12) a.

[This bride]i Peterj knows t i from way back and ei ej will probably see t i again b. [This bride]i Peter would never insult t i , nor ei would he avoid kissing t i

Ellipsis is a desirable short-cut in the grammar because it requires less effort. Furthermore, this form of economy results in greater interpretational clarity in LF, a fact that supports the assumption that ellipsis is a product of narrow syntax, i.e. it is “set up” in the syntactic component before its interface with these other components; after each phase or subarray is derived and spelled out, it is placed in active memory from



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40



F: LA8901.tex / p.10 (596-648)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

where it can be retrieved to serve as a partial template via Copy for the next phase or subarray. Copy and Match occur on a feature-by-feature basis between the saved lexical items of the first phase/subarray in active memory and the lexical items in the next phase/subarray undergoing derivation. This process can be reiterated for however many conjuncts are generated. In this way the symmetries of coordination are generated as output of a derivational grammar without the use of three-dimensional/sharing representations (proposed in Grootveld 1994; Moltmann 1992 and Wesche 1995) or parallel structures/planes in narrow syntax (proposed in Goodall 1987 and Muadz 1991), though no judgment of the empirical strength of these other proposals is made. Implicit in, indeed central to, this approach to ellipsis is the assumption that elided constituents have syntactic representation, i.e. meaning cannot be recovered without this syntactic structure, as supported by the work of Kennedy (2003). It should be noted that the interface with active memory eliminates the requirement that elided constituents are derived by movement, with these constituents occurring in a different position in the sentence as full lexical items as a result of movement, and the traces left behind constituting the ellipse, as proposed in Donati (2003). This approach is problematic, I argue, because it requires the assumption of structures for Gapping constructions (see especially Johnson 2002, discussed in Chapter 4) that are not needed in simplex constructions and have no purpose except to enable the ellipsis-by-movement approach. Furthermore, this approach requires movement, whereas no movement is required in the approach outlined in Chapter 4, utilizing an interface with active memory mentioned earlier. I will argue that avoiding movement in favor of a phase-based derivation with copying from active memory, rather than copying by movement, better meets the requirements of minimalist syntax. The ellipsis types in (12) are particularly prominent in German because of its more extensive use of the TP and CP domains as goals of both verbal and nominal raising. An interesting comparison with English indicates that it too can utilize gaps in these domains when the same raising operations are required, as in (12). Out of this comparison comes further evidence that the [T]-position in German is the final goal of verb raising in subject-initial V2 clauses, first argued for German by Travis (1984), and by Zwart (1993, 1997) for Dutch. This chapter also addresses across-the-board (ATB) phenomena of wh-constructions.11 A result of the phasal derivational model of Chapter 3 is that ATB movement is no longer necessary, in fact no longer possible, given that no more than one clause (a phase) can be selected at one time, and each phase must be derived before another can be selected, following Chomsky (1999). The elimination of ATB movement is a desirable result because such movement requires look-ahead, and Move as a syntactic operation is less economical than Merge and Match.12 In my proposal the single wh-movement that occurs in the first conjunct, a phase, is duplicated in the succeeding conjuncts (and licensed by Copy and recovered by Match), but without movement out of the conjunct. In addition, asymmetries between ATB constructions on the one hand, and parasitic gap constructions on the other, as investigated by Cowper (1985), Franks (1993), Huybregts and van Riemsdijk (1985), Munn (1992), Williams (1990),

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:40

F: LA8901.tex / p.11 (648-669)

Chapter 1. Outline of the study

and most recently by Hornstein and Nunes (2002), can be accounted for in terms similar to the asymmetries between subordinate and coordinate constructions. An account based on Select and Copy in narrow syntax and matching in LF is also available for the parallelisms of ATB constructions, observed but not explained by Hornstein and Nunes.

. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of Germanic The book ends with a chapter that addresses certain assumptions made throughout the study about the structure of Germanic that are not directly addressed in the previous chapters but play a fundamental role in the proposals regarding the coordinate structures of Germanic. Of particular interest is the left edge of the Germanic V2 clause: How fine is the structure at the left periphery? How many functional head positions must the area left of TP have to accommodate all the construction types? This question is addressed in light of the data from coordinate ellipsis. The assumption is made that coordinate structures and matrix – embedded structures reveal certain syntactic properties of the Germanic V2 clause that aren’t as apparent in simplex constructions and thus offer a reliable and insightful basis for developing a grammar of the Germanic left periphery. Areas requiring further research are also mentioned.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.1 (46-124)

Chapter 2

Features and matching in coordination

In this chapter we turn to the role of features in the derivation of coordinate constructions. We will follow the assumption that features make the lexical, phrase-structural and prosodic content of constructions workable for derivation in the various components of the grammar, given that all parts of a linguistic expression must be broken down into features of various sorts. One overarching objective of this chapter is to show that this form of atomization of syntactic operations, whereby individual features of lexical items determine the output of an operation, results in a reduction in the complexity of the structures involved, with the objective of generating coordinate structures using only the structures necessary for simplex sentences. Given that the syntactic structure of coordination has caused considerable difficulty since the earliest days, realizing this objective would mark a significant improvement in an account of coordination. Minimalist theory in fact demands this approach. In recent years it has been assumed that any lexical item can be broken down into a cluster of features. Features underlie the syntactic derivation, phonetic realization, and the interpretation of a construction; they can therefore be grouped into three categories: (1) syntactic or uninterpretable features, which serve only to drive syntactic derivation; (2) phonetic features, interpreted in PF; and (3) semantic features, interpreted in LF. Within work in phonology and syntax, the term ‘phonetic feature’ refers to one in a set of features necessary for the realization in PF of a lexical item’s sound in speech. These figure prominently in a theory of coordinate ellipsis proposed in Chapter 4; they will also play a part in the determination of coordinate symmetry in this chapter. In some versions of the Minimalist Program, movement transformations are motivated by whether or not a feature is strong or weak and [±interpretable]; feature percolation has been replaced by feature attraction which affects only grammatical features (not θ-roles). These are a few examples of how an atomic theory of language, a theory that is composed of relatively independent submodules, can be developed with the help of features. Simply put, features make abstraction in linguistic theory possible, without which modules and submodules in a linguistic theory would not be possible.

. Coordinate Feature Matching (CFM) In this section I will outline three operations under the rubric Coordinate Feature Matching (CFM) that I assume are required for generating symmetric coordinate con-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.2 (124-186)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

structions at the feature level. They are: (1) Select, for drawing lexical items from the lexicon, (2) Copy in narrow syntax, for establishing syntactic symmetry, and (3) Match in LF, for determining semantic symmetries as they pertain to interpretation. CFM is satisfied on a feature-by-feature basis; it expresses the Parallelism Requirement of coordinate structures (cf. Chomsky 1995: 203; Hornstein & Nunes 2002), needed for syntactic convergence, phonetic realization and a logical interpretation. The basic notion of symmetry in coordinate structures can be roughly described this way: When [&] is selected and merged with some other lexical item in a numeration, what follows it must match in certain respects what precedes it. In the ideal, i.e. most easily processed and interpreted derivation of a coordinate structure, there is a high degree of symmetry, though the amount of symmetry required for grammaticality and felicity various greatly. Coordinate symmetry means that conjoined embedded clauses, if CPs, will in the ideal case all have the categorial label CP to which is assigned one or more features such as [+rel] (relative) or [+cond] (conditional) or [+nom] (nominal), or [+adj] or [+adv]. If the conjoined CPs are matrix clauses, the features associated with embedded clauses with be replaced with those associated with matrix CPs such as [+decl] (declarative) and those features associated with illocutionary force. The need for this kind of symmetry is supported by constructions such as If Bill marries Sue and (if ) Sue loves him, then. . . vs. */#If Bill marries Sue and Sue got a suntan, where Sue got a suntan is not interpretable as a condition relating to the first clause. This kind of symmetry is not an absolute requirement, so it is possible, as I will argue in this chapter, to conjoin a CP with a TP, if they share sufficient features, as in the construction [CP Wenn ich nach Hause komme und [TP niemand ist da . . . ]], (‘If I come home and no one is there. . .’) in which the TP supplies more information about the condition (situation) stated in the first clause and is thus to be interpreted as part of a whole, which is the coordinate structure.1 Thus, both the CP and the TP must be assigned a feature such as [+cond] for this interpretation to be possible. For the conjunction of TPs, I assume that the tense of both must be the same for the greatest felicity, but this requirement is not an absolute. Thus, a construction like Bob married Barb and Bill will marry Sue is perfectly interpretable, despite the contrasting tenses, simply because the time sequence of the event corresponds with the linear sequence of the sentence, whereas the reverse order #Bill will marry Sue and Bob married Barb is ill-formed. So we see that the symmetry requirements of conjoined clauses depends on more than just the symmetry of one or two syntactic and semantic features. Pragmatic features play a central role in the conjunction of clauses. As we descend the syntactic hierarchy down to vP, syntactic and semantic features become more crucial for symmetry. At this level, [±trans] (transitive) becomes significant, though again absolute symmetry is not a requirement. Thus, we can conjoin a transitive with an intransitive vP: Bob [vP married Sue and [vP left on a business trip]] is perfectly grammatical because the two vPs share one subject that has features appropriate to both verbs. This is not the case in Bob married Sue and devoured the fawn because the second vP must have a subject such as ‘lion’ (at least in a literal interpretation). So in the case of conjoined vPs, sharing, a relation explored in some detail in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.3 (186-250)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

this and other studies, plays a central role in the determination of coordinate symmetry. Sharing is not restricted to the category vP; it is found in the relation of a single preposition to conjoined DPs, in the relation of one determiner to conjoined NPs, and in many more such coordinate structures. For the conjunction of two or more DPs, I will assume that the Case feature and θ-role must match, though exceptions to this are possible when a higher level of abstraction is accessed. So ideally two conjoined subjects would both be [+nom] and [+agent] or [+theme] or [+experiencer], ruling out conjoined DPs such as *[DP+nom Der Hase] und [DP+acc den Löwen] lebten nebeneinander im Wald (*‘The rabbitsubj and the lionobj lived next to each other in the woods’). The derivation of symmetric subject DPs may seem, on the one hand, to be a trivial matter: If one subject is checked off as [+nom], why shouldn’t the other also be checked off this way? A closer look at the data reveals, however, that Case symmetry is not always a given. Thus, in English constructions like Him and I see each other all the time are not uncommon in certain varieties. Other languages show similar asymmetries. These will be taken up in greater detail. It will not be the objective of this study to pinpoint or identify every feature that must match for a given coordinate structure to converge and be interpretable. A study with this objective would involve highly technical aspects of semantic and pragmatic theory. Because the focus of the present study is on the syntactic structures and derivations required for coordinate structures, the pursuit of this objective, though highly fruitful in its own right, would mean a much lengthier study. To keep the scope and focus of this study more manageable, semantic and pragmatic aspects of coordinate structures will be incorporated only to the extent that they are necessary for exposition of the syntactic aspects of coordinate structures. The intent here is to argue that the derivation of coordinate structures requires certain operations, but not to identify every possible subtlety of coordinate symmetry. Because coordinate symmetry occurs on a continuum, with corresponding degrees of grammaticality and well-formedness, pinpointing the exact location on the continuum that a particular coordinate structure occupies can be very involved. As an introduction we consider next some derivational aspects of coordinate symmetry, using the two DPs the black bear and the yellow dog; this example will illustrate more clearly the role of Copy in creating symmetry. The derivation of this coordinate structure begins with the selection and merger of the first DP, which is then placed in active memory (AM).2 This is followed by the selection of [&], which triggers the operation Copy, targeting the features of the DP that are visible to the syntactic component. Copy assures that the structure following [&] will meet the symmetry (parallelism) requirements placed on coordinate structures by independent principles of the grammar; assumed here is that minimally the Case feature and θ-role of a DP must be copied to satisfy CFM. I will refer to these as the formal features, as they are visible to the syntactic component; θ-roles are also visible to the LF component. Thereafter the lexical items of the second DP are selected and merged, and then the two DPs are conjoined, after which they enter the interface level, if matching in LF is to proceed at this point. This derivation is outlined in (1):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.4 (250-286)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(1) Steps in the derivation of conjoined DPs a. Select, merge DP-1; place in AM b. Select, merge [&] and DP-2; Copy formal features of DP-1 c. Conjoin (merge) DP-1 and DP-2; paste features from DP-1 d. (Spell out in PF); Match DP-1 and DP-2 in LF In the case of the black bear and the yellow dog significant aspects of symmetry obtain as a result of the selection of lexical items and Copy; given that the two DPs share many lexical features, they can be assigned the same θ-role which, along with the Case feature of DP-1, can be copied over onto DP-2 once it has conjoined with DP-1. The semantic symmetry is determined in LF by matching in parallel planes: (2) a.

Symmetry as seen in matching features of conjoined DPs: the black bear [Det] [adj] [animate] [color] [animal] [wild] and the yellow dog Matching [Det] [adj] [animate] Matching [color] [animal] Contrasting: [domestic] b. Symmetry in the syntactic structure of conjoined DPs: DP AP

D the

NP

Adj black

N bear

DP & and

DP AP

D the

Adj

NP

yellow

N dog

The “structure” of the coordinate DPs in (2a) is reminiscent of the parallel planes in Goodall (1987) and Muadz (1991). My assumption will be that in LF, the requirements

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.5 (286-342)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

of asymmetric phrase structure, whether they be stated as in Kayne’s (1994) LCA or in some other formalization, do not apply (though they could presumably apply to the items within each of the conjuncts), simply because LF is external to the syntactic component and is constrained by different principles for the determination of linguistic well-formedness. I will not speculate on what principles other than matching apply in LF for determining coordinate symmetry. The phrase structure of the conjoined DPs in (2b) indicates that the second (lower) DP does not occupy a position that can be checked by a head – whether [T] or [v] – in the same way the first (higher) DP is checked. This points to the reason why Copy is chosen in this study as the operation that assures the required symmetry, in place of symmetric Spec-head feature checking which is not possible in this phrase structure.3 Copy is thus assumed necessary for assuring the symmetry of conjoined DPs. One of the most interesting properties of CFM is its global application. On this point my proposal is in agreement with Cremers (1993: 2) who states, “What counts as a coordinate in a coordinated string is not determined locally, but globally.” CFM is partially determined on the basis of feature matching in LF, but whether LF feature matching meets the requirements of CFM for coordination is obviously determined by Select and Copy, both in narrow syntax. CFM appears to have a global scope because reiteration occurs in some form at selection and in narrow syntax; the degree to which reiteration has met symmetry requirements of coordination is not determined until LF. What determines symmetry in LF is depends on selection from the lexicon; the features targeted by Copy, with the exception of the θ-role, are not visible to LF and thus are not part of matching. Thus, symmetry results from Select and Copy, the former satisfying primarily the semantic well-formedness condition of coordinate symmetry (verified in LF by matching), while the latter satisfies primarily the syntactic aspects of coordinate symmetry. Given that the economy principle, as it is generally understood and defined in the MP, applies to CFM as a condition on coordinate symmetry, it is highly unlikely that all of the features indicated in (2a) must meet symmetry requirements. In §2.3 we will examine a coordinate construction in which sufficient symmetry is created with only one matching feature. We will find that rather high degrees of asymmetry can be tolerated in coordination, but a prediction of the model I outline in this chapter is that there is a correlaration between symmetry and optimality. That matching is needed in coordination for well-formedness and grammaticality is supported by the evidence in (3) (3d from Prüst & Scha 1990: 123, ex. (5)): (3) a. Bill wrotei a letter and Barb *ei /wrote on the computer b. Sue always orders ei but Sam usually declines/#dislikes [buttered popcorn]i c. Jill enjoys visiting relatives, but Joe doesn’t (enjoy it/them) either: Jill enjoys going to visit relatives, but Jim doesn’t enjoy going to visit relatives or: Jill enjoys relatives who come for a visit, but Jim doesn’t enjoy relatives who. . .



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.6 (342-410)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

d. A paper was submitted by almost every student. *But Bill didn’t. In (3a) the two writes don’t match with respect to their selectional properties. In (3b) dislikes doesn’t have a sufficient number of matching properties to select the same object as orders, i.e. order and decline can be matched for sharing the common object buttered popcorn, but order and dislike cannot because dislike is not part of the set of verbs to which order belongs that have to do with the purchase of popcorn in e.g. a movie theater. In (3c) the anaphoric (elliptical) VP must be interpreted exactly as the antecedent VP (by matching). In (3d) VP ellipsis is out because did doesn’t match was in terms of auxiliary type.4 These matches or lack thereof exist independently of the framework or theory applied to their analysis. Although these data involve the choice or rejection of ellipsis, matching is also clearly required without regard to the ellipsis option, as indicated in (4): (4) a. *The children like the story of the black bear and over the rainbow b. #In this story the bear rapidly chases a yellow dog into the woods and over the rainbow Although (4b) is grammatical, it would certainly require a conception of reality contrary to the experience of all earthlings. Making it “well-formed” within the context of the story would depend on the talent of the writer. In any case, it is a mismatch in the semantic features of the conjuncts that creates this challenge or confusion.

. Features in syntax vs. in coordination My proposal for the role of features in the determination of symmetry in coordinate constructions will be that all coordinate constructions must be symmetric to a degree determined by requirements of the construction itself as well as general requirements of the grammar pertaining to semantic interpretability and wellformedness of coordinate structures (e.g. that two objects of the same verb must have the same θ-role). This degree of symmetry is based on the number and kind of features that the conjuncts have in common. Symmetry is a relative term and can in certain constructions appear to be less prominent than the asymmetric features. The degree of symmetry required for grammaticality and well-formedness is affected by the general transparency of the structure, as determined on the perceptual side of the grammar. The option sometimes exists for the speaker to use ellipsis, especially in coordinate structures (the topic of Chapter 4). In elliptical constructions, transparency on the perceptual side is reduced. Correspondingly, symmetry requirements increase. Let’s consider briefly what it means for the present account of coordinate symmetry to analyze a lexical item in terms of a feature cluster. First of all, a lexical item’s uninterpretable features play no role specific to coordination because no movement is assumed to be necessary for conjunction. However, if one conjunct is moved for the checking of uninterpretable features, then all conjuncts of the coordinate structure

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.7 (410-453)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

must move or somehow have their uninterpretable features checked (cf. Chapter 3). For the semantic interpretation of individual lexical items as well as of the construction in which these lexical items occur, semantic features will not take on any meaning beyond what they have in equivalent simplex constructions. However, semantic features will figure prominently in the determination of symmetry, a cornerstone of my account in which interpretable features like categorial, tense and φ-features of nominals, as well as certain uninterpretable features like Case features and verbal agreement features, are all important for symmetry. Uninterpretable features are posited in minimalist syntax theory to motivate movement: an uninterpretable feature must be checked off before the derivation enters LF where it would otherwise cause the derivation to crash. In my proposal for coordination, no movement of any kind, whether to check off uninterpretable features, or to satisfy the requirements of information structure, will ever be necessary for the creation of a coordinate structure, in contrast to what is proposed in Williams (1978) for across-the-board (ATB) wh-constructions, or more recently in Johnson (2000, 2002) for Gapping and subject-gap constructions. These constructions will be discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. In the next section I outline more specifically the role of features in the derivation of a coordinate structure.

. Features in coordination A simple illustration is given in (5) of how CFM at the feature level makes perfectly acceptable coordinations out of what are otherwise ungrammatical conjunctions of syntactically unlike categories:5 (5) a. George is [DP a geek] and [AP glad to be one] b. He works [adv diligently] and [PP without pause] The categorial status of a lexical item is not as significant to the symmetry of a coordination as other features. Cross-categorial coordinations are discussed extensively in Sag et al. (1985) within the GPSG framework.6 In the MP, they can be handled under the assumption made here that coordinate symmetry, as a prerequisite for good coordination, is not predicated upon symmetric category features alone but rather on all relevant features shared by the items coordinated.7 The conjuncts geek and glad to be one are both assigned the feature [+compl] (complement) because of their relation to the subject. Furthermore, they occupy parallel syntactic positions in the VP. These features suffice for satisfying the symmetry requirements of LF interpretation, which in this case are determined on the basis of whether the lexical item can be interpreted as a complement of the subject:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.8 (453-519)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(6) George { geek, glad to be one } [n] [adj] [compl] [compl] We note in (7a) that these conjoined items cannot be the subject of a sentence, an indication that they do not form a unified set which can enter an agreement relation with a verb, unlike those in (7b):8 (7) a. *A geek and glad to be one aren’t very popular b. A geek and a socialite have little to talk about In the subsections that follow, we will look at more specific roles that features play in the grammar of coordination. We will consider how features can be unified to make agreement possible between conjoined DPs and a single verb, or between conjoined verbs and a single DP, when not all of the features meet the normal syntactic and semantic requirements of agreement in a given language. We turn first to the questions raised by the assumption that symmetry must be maintained at some level in a coordinate structure.

.. Symmetry and features in conjunction: questions raised The question of what is symmetric about coordination has been addressed in at least two different ways, from two different perspectives in the history of generative syntax research. In the earlier years and at least until Williams (1981) in which the “Law of the Coordination of Likes” is maintained, symmetry was defined in terms of syntactic categories: only like categories can be conjoined.9 This assumption had to be weakened in light of data from cross-categorial coordination, examined extensively in Sag et al. (1985) who propose slash-categories for handling them.10 More recently symmetry in coordination has been accounted for by Goodall (1987) in terms of parallel structures; these will be adopted here for matching in LF. The three-dimensional structures of Muadz (1991), Moltmann (1992) and Grootveld (1994), though conceptually very appealling and adopted in te Velde (1996), are not incorporated into the present study under the assumption that the generation of linguistic constructs in the human mind follows a linear sequence and should be matched with a linear representation and a derivational step-by-step sequence, the latter captured in Phase Theory (Chomsky 1999). The extended X’ scheme of Wesche (1995), which generates coordinate structures as conflated trees, presents compatibility issues as well.11 In my proposal for the grammar of coordination, I will go beyond coordinate symmetry and account for the inherent asymmetry of language and how it interacts with coordinate symmetry, producing unique properties clearly evident in anaphoric binding across conjuncts and ATB phenomena. With the development of Antisymmetry Theory, even before Kayne’s greater formalization of it, proposals were made to account for coordination as an asymmetric structure, conforming to the structure of simplex sentences. In this theory, as presented

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.9 (519-580)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

in Munn (1987) and Kayne (1994), a second conjunct of a two-conjunct coordinate structure is analyzed as a complement of [&P], i.e. asymmetric to the first conjunct which occupies the Spec,&P position, &P the projection of the coordinating conjunction. Symmetry in coordination, to whatever extent it exists, is confined to the semantics in this approach, as well as in Munn’s (1993) version which posits that the second conjunct is an adjunct of BP (Boolean Phrase), and the first conjunct occupies no particular Spec position (details in Chapter 3). This direction of analysis raises several sets of questions: (1) To what extent do coordinate structures have syntactic symmetry? Is symmetry structural? A related question is: Can the claim that syntactic categories define symmetry be “weakened” or reformulated in some way through the use of semantic features on syntactic categories, as proposed in te Velde (1988) and Thiersch (1994), without the relevance of syntactic categories to symmetry being lost? (2) If syntactic properties and categories still play a role in defining symmetry in a coordinate structure, then does this approach become incompatible with the asymmetric approach to coordination which claims that coordination has no syntactic symmetry, or stated somewhat more weakly, that syntactic symmetry considerations play no role in coordination? (3) Do the insights of Antisymmetry Theory have any relevance to coordination? Is it possible to incorporate them into a theory of coordination which recognizes that syntactic structure is fundamentally asymmetric (because it is linear), but that other aspects of syntax, namely syntactic features, have properties of symmetry? Could it be that these and other properties of symmetry, both syntactic and semantic, play a central role in certain types of structures, most clearly in coordinate structures? In my proposal I will assume that the answer to this last question, and to all questions positing the existence of syntactic symmetry is: yes. In an approach to coordination which adopts asymmetric phrase structure but which nevertheless recognizes syntactic and semantic symmetries, it can be assumed that the linear properties of language “carry over” into coordination without nullifying the symmetries. The result of this carry-over can be seen not only in the fact that antecedent-anaphor relations extending from one conjunct to another must respect linear and hierarchical constraints, but also in the fact that linearity determines the very processing of a coordinate structure itself. It can be shown that in a theory which posits linear processing and derivation of coordinate structures, a number of properties of coordination can be accounted for which otherwise create problems for theories like Johannessen (1998) and Kayne (1994) which posit [&] as a projecting head that has conjuncts in its Spec and complement positions: (1) That coordinate structures must in most cases respect categorial identity, but exceptions are possible because symmetry is determined at the feature level; (2) That asymmetric phrase structure underlies coordination without subsuming it; (3) That symmetry exists primarily in the semantics but not exclusively; (4) That agreement relations between conjuncts and a single head external to the conjuncts must be determined on the basis of the features of the conjuncts themselves, individually and in union with each other.12



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.10 (580-639)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

It will be a major objective of this chapter to show that a minimum number of syntactic and semantic symmetries are required in any coordinate structure (the number of these varies according to structure type), and that they co-exist with the syntactic and semantic asymmetries typical of simplex structures, since coordinate structures are essentially built on these simplex structures. My proposal for making these symmetries and asymmetries compatible with each other will involve the operations Select and Copy in narrow syntax for creating syntactic parallels, and Match in LF for determining semantic parallels that result from the selection of lexical items with matching features. Furthermore, conjunction is a derivational, phase-based process that exploits active memory for the establishment and determination of coordinate symmetries.

.. Asymmetry and features in coordination In recent years much more emphasis has been placed on the asymmetries of coordinate structures. One reason for this is the Antisymmetry Theory of Kayne (1994), who devotes a separate chapter to coordination. Munn’s (1987, 1993) work predates Kayne’s, and Munn’s later study interestingly abandones the central structure assumed for coordination proposed in the earlier one, but this structure is adopted by Kayne (1994) and Johannessen (1998). Because asymmetries have figured prominently recently, we will look in this subsection at the nature of coordinate asymmetries before moving on to the implementation of my proposal for feature matching. Asymmetries in coordination come in many forms. They include the fact, as we saw earlier, that unlike categories can be coordinated. This is possible even if the categories have very different underlying structures, as in the coordination of two different clause types in German (see Höhle 1990). In §2.5.4 we will look at this type of asymmetry in detail. Another type of asymmetry is the so-called “unbalanced coordination” which is found in many different forms. An in-depth analysis of these is given in Johannessen (1998). Some comments on an aspect of her theory of unbalanced coordination will be given in §2.3.3. Her theory will be taken up in greater detail in Chapter 3 where we consider structural and derivational aspects of symmetry in coordination. The focus in this chapter is primarily on the role of features in coordination, under the assumption that features are fundamental and pervasive and must therefore be elucidated in detail. The need for the distinction between structural asymmetry on the one hand and, for instance, categorial asymmetry on the other is supported by the fact that in German a verb-second (V2) clause can be conjoined with a CP headed by a complementizer, requiring a finite verb in final position: (8) [CP Wenn das Wetter mal schön ist, und [TP wir gehen zusammen If the weather once nice is, and we go together in die Berge, dann. . .]] into the mountains, then. . .

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.11 (639-699)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

This construction type will be analyzed in more detail in §2.5.4. Here we note that the maximal projections of the two categories [C] and [T] can be coordinated, despite the fact that there is an obvious asymmetry with respect to the position of the finite verb in each clause.13 One could argue that the coordination is symmetric on a more abstract level; for instance, given the fact that both projections, CP and TP, have the status of clauses, they share at least the feature [clause], and undoubtedly a number of others. In other words, if we choose to express symmetry in terms of matching features, then there must be either (a) some feature(s) missing from our inventory of categorial features such as [clause] or [S] that account(s) for the symmetry of (8), or (b) some unification process occurs by which the differences between the two clausal categories are nullified for the purposes of coordinate symmetry, or (c) coordinate symmetry isn’t really needed between clauses. There appears to be good evidence for argument c. Consider the following: (9) a. Mary had a little lamb, and Peter defended his dissertation b. The cow jumped over the moon, and Ann wrote another article on semantic symmetry c. One flew over the cuckoo’s nest, and soon the weather turned cold However, even though all three of these constructions are grammatically flawless, they don’t make much sense, at least not without a lot more context.14 It appears that the conjunction of clauses is not typically subject to sentence-grammar constraints, simply because these are generally clause-bound; nevertheless inter-clausal constraints of another sort generally prevent such constructions, and these must be captured in a theory of coordination based on symmetry. So while “grammatical” symmetry isn’t usually required in the conjunction of clauses, a form of semantic/interpretational and pragmatic symmetry is required. The linearity of language also affects the nature of coordinate symmetry. It can set up ellipsis, which creates an obvious surface-level asymmetry:15 (10) a.

Karl kauft ein rotes Autoi und Uwe ein gelbes ei K bought a red car and U a yellow (one) b. Karl kauft ein rotes ei und Uwe ein gelbes Autoi

(11) a.

Wir wissen, dass Karl ein Auto gekauft hat, und Uwe nur eines We know that K a car bought has, and U only one geliehen ei borrowed b. Wir wissen, dass Karl ein Auto gekauft ei und Uwe nur eines geliehen hati

(12) a. Karl [kauft Marie]i ein rotes Autoj und Uwe ei ein gelbes ej b. Karl kauft ei und Uwe leiht [Marie ein rotes Auto]i bought and U lent M a red car K Another form of asymmetry in (10)–(12) is the fact that the preferred or most felicitous or natural formulation in each pair is the a-formulation, the other requiring some



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.12 (699-756)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

prosodic device such as focus accent. An explanation for this difference is available in the fact that the ellipsis can be more easily recovered, given the linear processing required, if it occurs in the second conjunct, because then the element required for recovery of the ellipsis is linearly more dominant. That is, the general assumption made here is that a lexical item with linear precedence also has a certain dominance, as expressed in Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom. Asymmetry in agreement is evident in (13), a result of differing subject-verb configurations: (13) a. There was/*were a man and a woman standing in the park b. A man and a woman *was/were standing in the park The data in (14) seem to indicate, however, that syntactic structure, specifically whether the configuration is SV or VS, makes no difference in English agreement:16 (14) a. Jim and Sue *is/are studying linguistics together b. Over there *is/are Jim and Sue, waiting patiently c. Never *has/have Jim and Sue met so many students of linguistics Studies like Jaeger (1992) and Findreng (1976) have shown that VS structures like the ones in (15) from German are more prone for a couple of reasons to asymmetry with respect to agreement: (15) a.

. . . links war die Binnenalster und die weißen Lichtreklamen left was the Binnenalster and the white light-billboards (Duden, cited in Johannessen 1996: 664) b. Alt und jung will nun die Zeichen sehen Old and young wants now the signs (to) see (H. Karossa, cited in Johannessen 1996: 664) c. Es stürzte der Berg und das Land in sich expl crashed-sg the mountain and the land into refl zusammen together (H. Heine, cited in Johannessen 1996: 665) d. Die Folge war ein Nahkampf und Durcheinander, in dem The result was a close-battle and confusion in which Freund und Feind [. . . ] durcheinandergeschüttelt wurde friend and foe through-each-other-shaken was (F. Werfel, cited in Johannessen 1996: 665) e. . . . in seinem Falle verlässt ihn der heroische Sinn und die in his case leaves him the heroic sense and the angeborene Königswürde nicht in-born king-worthiness not (J. Schreyvogel, cited in Pörnbacher 1969: 65)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.13 (756-803)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

f.

Ist die Kurfürstin noch und ihre Nichte hier. . . ? Is the princess yet and her niece here. . . ? (H. Kleist, Prinz Friedrich von Homburg I,4) g. So verrauschte Scherz und Kuss / Und die Treue so So dissippated.sg joke and kiss / and the loyalty so ‘In this way joke and kiss dissippated, as did loyalty’ (J. W. von Goethe, “An den Mond”) h. (?)In den Wald ging der Jäger und sein Hund In(to) the wood went-sg the hunter and his dog In Dutch similar facts can be found: (16) In de kamer komen/kom/*komt ik en Jan vaak Into the room come-pl/come-1sg/come-3sg I and John often Assuming that the VS configuration can “adversely” affect agreement between conjoined DP/NPs and a verbal head, in the next subsection we explore what the source of this form of asymmetry might be.17

.. Configurations and agreement in coordinate structures Johannessen (1996) examines a number of constructions from a variety of languages which exhibit some form of ‘unbalanced coordination’, in her terminology. She makes the assumptions about coordination and agreement cited in in (17):18 (17) . . . partial agreement is a subclass of a more general, and widespread, phenomenon: unbalanced coordination. . . . The central idea is that the conjunction heads a Conjunction Phrase and that unbalanced coordination is a possible consequence of specifier-head agreement. This explains a correlation between the order of conjuncts that have different grammatical features and the order of head and complement in these languages. (Johannessen 1996: 661) . . . the choice of which conjunct takes part in agreement is linked to whether a language is predominantly head-initial or head-final. . . [18a] is the structure for head-initial languages, and [18b] the structure for head-final languages. (Johannessen 1996: 668) In (18) are diagrammed the kinds of structures that Johannessen argues in favor of: (18) a.

CoP[X] X conjunct 1

Co’

Co conjunction

Y conjunct 2



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.14 (803-842)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

CoP[X]

b.

X conjunct 2

Co’ Y conjunct 1

Co conjunction

Johannessen presents the argument in (19) to account for “partial agreement”: (19) In a minimalist spirit (see, e.g., Chomsky 1995), let the only relevant relation between elements in the CoP [=&P] be specifier-head agreement. Since a conjunction, the head of the CoP, must be considered a functional category, we shall regard specifier-head agreement as involving unification of features, so that the head projects the features of its specifier. Thus, the features of the specifier will also be present at the maximal level, since this is a projection of the head, thereby bestowing ordinary lexical features on the CoP. The conjunct in the complement position takes no part in agreement and offers no syntactic features to the CoP itself. [bold added] (Johannessen 1996: 669) This is Johannessen’s basic assumption about agreement in all cases of coordination where agreement must occur. Questions that arise immediately are: What structure is assumed if there are more than two conjuncts? Must a third and all subsequent conjuncts be adjoined to the complement position? Are these other conjuncts then equally asymmetric with each other as the first and second are to each other? Answers to these questions are not available in her proposal. Furthermore, (19) is not sufficient by itself for coordination. In (20) we see that feature checking, which Johannessen assumes is necessary, cannot proceed between the finite verb and the coordinated subjects, if strict Antisymmetry applies as described in (19). According to (19), the plural verb wohnen should not occur because it is impossible for wohnen in (20) to check equally with both der Mann and seine Kinder:19 (20)

TP &P &’

DP der Mann The man

(‘&P’ = ‘CoP’)

T’ T

&

DP

und and

seine Kinder his children

VP

wohnen gerade nebenan live right next-at (next door)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.15 (842-895)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

To rectify this situation, Johannessen (op cit.) makes the stipulation that “the lexical entry of the conjunction is enhanced with explicit requirements. . . The complement thus receives the same features as the specifier.” She argues further that in constructions like those in (14) (Jim and Sue are studying. . .), a plural verb is correct because, “subject-verb agreement is not subject to syntactic considerations in standard English” (Johannessen 1996: 669, n. 8). This claim counters virtually all work done on English syntax in generative theory. I will suggest an alternate proposal based on feature matching in coordination which is more in harmony with the spirit of minimalism, can be more easily unified with grammar theory in general, and is more empirically sound. A fundamental problem with Johannessen’s theory is the basic assumption that coordination is syntactically ‘unbalanced’: the unbalanced cases are used as the norm, in the interest of conforming coordination theory to Antisymmetry Theory which is understood to mean that the conjuncts of a coordinate structure must occupy the Spec and complement positions of the phrase [&P]. This issue is taken up also in Chapter 3 in more detail where arguments are presented against assuming that [&] can project. Johannessen’s theory forces the assumption that agreement in symmetric coordinate structures comes about through the union of features which (a) must be derived by unspecified means [“bestowing on”] (b) relies heavily on lexical features of the head [&]; and (c) does not contain any features from conjuncts other than the first conjunct. I find this proposal less than satisfactory because it does not account for agreement through the union in the phrase structure itself of syntactic and semantic features from all conjuncts. What would a more comprehensive proposal look like, one which is broad-based and more easily unifiable? Using CFM as a starting point, we assume for subject-verb agreement of the kind illustrated in (21a, b) that Case and φ-features must match as a requirement of coordinate symmetry. In (21a) it is evident that the verb, as indicated by its ending, agrees with the conjunction of two singular DPs, to which the feature [+pl] has been assigned. In (21b) the conjoined objects both have the same Case/gender morpheme: (21) a.

[Der Nachbar the neighbor zusammen together b. Peter schenkte P gave Blumenstrauß bouquet

und sein Kind]pl spiel[en]pl im Garten and his child play in-the garden

sein[er]dat Mutter und sein[er]dat Freundin einen his mother and his friend-fem a



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.16 (895-940)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

This kind of symmetry is the typical case in languages. Other studies which explore the symmetry of agreement in coordinate structures of languages other than English are Camacho (1999, 2000) focussing on Spanish, Dyla (1984) on Polish and Franks (1993) on Russian, among others. In languages like English with impoverished Case and agreement morphology, coordinate symmetry appears to break down. What actually happens in many cases is that the overt markers break down, not the symmetry itself. In colloquial English constructions like (22), the verb agrees with either the conjoined subjects, thus having a plural (null) ending, or with a singular, third-person pronoun subject, thus having an s-ending, just as in standard usage, but “agreement” in the form of coordinate symmetry between the conjoined subjects themselves is not 100% in colloquial usage: the objective him can be conjoined with my brother, which has no equivalent objective morphology. However, we still have a basis for symmetry between the conjoined subjects: (22) a.

[TP [DP Him] and [DP my brother] play basketball together] [agent] [agent] b. *Him/he plays basketball a lot with my brother

Both subjects have the feature [+agent] and both are DPs, and both occur in the Spec,TP position. Nothing more is necessary to establish their symmetry; the Case morphology of me certainly cannot undermine it in this variety of English. Based on their identical θ-roles and syntactic position, the conjoined subjects are syntactically and semantically symmetric. Possibly the only asymmetric feature in the conjunction is the morphology of him. This is an interesting problem, because its nominative form he is still active in English and the two are not interchangeable in non-coordinate structures, as indicated in (22b). However, the reason he is not used in (22b) by the same speakers who use him in (22a) is because in (22b) the Spec position where he is located cannot escape Case checking, in contrast to the coordinate DPs in (22a) which apparently do. One possible explanation for the failure of Case checking in (21a) is that him does not stand in a Spec-head relation with [T]. Let’s assume the structure in (23), which we note conforms to general assumptions about asymmetry:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.17 (940-971)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

TP

(23) DP him

TP DP &

TP DP my b.

T’ T o

v’ v playi

VP NP b.b.

VP adv a lot

V’ V

adv

ti

together

This analysis, utilizing TP- instead of DP-coordination, provides one possible solution to the problem that English Case morphology presents.20 Because English has only remnants of a full morphological Case system, many speakers use he only in the most distinctive syntactic position: the Spec,TP (subject) position, where the objective forms like me, him, her, etc. are not permitted because of the Spec-head relation with [T] where a checking feature is located. There is evidence that English either defaults to or assigns objective Case in all other positions, contributing to this fact (see Emonds 1986). This usage is found in a wide range of English varieties and is consider an acceptable solution to the dilemma of Case morphology when pronouns are not in their canonical structural positions.21 Other speakers allow conjoined pronouns that otherwise require correct Case to escape morphological Case checking in this configuration: (24) My brother and me/him/etc. play basketball a lot together I will argue that in (24) me, etc. escape Case checking because the coordination is assigned the structure in (25) which is not transparent to Case checking in English:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.18 (971-1021)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

TP

(25) DP N’

D My

T’

DP

N brother

o

VP play b.b.

&

DP

and

D

a lot ...

me

One could argue, as does Johannessen (1998: 60ff.), that in constructions like (21) both DPs are in the objective Case. Indeed there is no way to prove that they aren’t, and constructions like (26) support this: (26) Him and me played basketball together last night If the speaker who generates (22) also generates (26), then this is evidence that this speaker does not assign nominative to either DP in (26). Further data collection needs to be completed before final conclusions can be drawn, but there is also a theoretical basis for this assumption which supports my proposal about feature matching in coordination: A speaker who assigns [+objective] to both DPs in constructions like (21) and (26) does so for reasons of symmetry. One could argue that this kind of usage in English is the most natural and the least influenced by prescriptive rules, just as symmetry is also a very natural, basic principle in coordination. The same construction type in German also requires symmetry, as reflected in the morphology: (27) Mein Bruder und ich/*mich spielen viel Basketball zusammen my brother and I/me play a-lot basketball together The difference between English and German with respect to Case morphology is obvious. Because German is a language which relies less on structure and more on morphology for Case marking than English, German constructions like (27) always require nominative forms of both conjoined subject DP/NPs.22 A conflict in the morphology of mein, which is clearly nominative with a masculine noun, with the morphology of mich, clearly accusative, would create too great an asymmetry. English, on the other hand, relies more on syntactic position for Case marking, and colloquial usage does not demand that Case morphology be symmetric in coordinate structures, given the degraded state of Case morphology in colloquial varieties. If we assume that both English and German assign the same structure to conjoined subject DPs, then we must assume that German has a morphology checker of some sort which is lacking in En-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.19 (1021-1082)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

glish. Another aspect of Case in English is the fact that morphological Case is unrelated to abstract Case for many speakers. The data in (28) can be used to support the argument that, despite the lack of transparency with respect to Case checking, coordinate symmetry must be determined; if it did not get established, we would expect the singular verb plays in agreement with just one conjunct. In fact, agreement with the verb is based on both conjuncts, contrary to what is predicted by Johannessen’s principle in (16). This is possible if the coordination is symmetric and based on a union of the two conjuncts:23 (28) a. b. c. d.

My brother and me play/*plays basketball a lot together My brother and I play/*plays basketball a lot together Me and my brother play/*plays basketball a lot together ??I and my brother play/*plays basketball a lot together

Whether or not the DP occurs in the first or second or both conjuncts, and whether or not the coordination is asymmetric, verbal agreement does not break down: the conjoined DPs always require a plural verb. This suggests that the plurality of the conjoined DPs is not determined by the morphology of the DPs or their configuration, but by an independet operation that assigns features to the coordinate structure.24 My proposal, to be outlined in more detail as further data are considered, posits that and is in the typical case (exceptions considered below) assigned the feature [+pl] when, for instance, it conjoins two (or more) subjects in Spec,TP. Johannessen (1998) and Munn (1993) assume that and has the feature [+pl] as part of its lexical entry. If this were the case, this feature would have to be nullified in constructions like (29) (c, d are translations of a, b respectively): (29) a.

Dass ihr Vater ihr ein Auto schenkt und dass ihre Mutter ihr Kleider kauft, gefällt/*gefallen Justine mehr als sie zugeben will b. Dass Dana wegging und dass Martin nicht kommen will, ärgert/*argern mich mehr als die Tatsache, dass du noch da bist c. That her father is buying her a car and that her mother buys her clothes pleases/*please Justine more than she wants to admit d. That Dana left and that Martin doesn’t want to come irritates/*irritate me more than the fact that you are still here

The required singular agreement in (29) suggests that when [+pl] is assigned to a coordinate structure, it does not come from the lexical information attached to [&] but is a product of the derivation, as determined by the features of the conjuncts themselves: because that-clauses are not assigned any number feature, their conjunction does not produce [+pl]. Further evidence that the feature make-up of the coordinating conjunction is determined by the derivation of the construction in which it occurs can be found in (30):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.20 (1082-1149)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(30) . . . weder das neither the dunklen Seiten dark sides

Bauwerk noch sein Name können als Symbol für die building nor its name can-pl as symbol for the der deutschen Geschichte belegt werden25 of-the German history substantiated be

Clearly the plural ending on können cannot be a result of some form of agreement with weder. . . noch whose semantics requires the conjuncts to be individually paired with the verb. The plural ending is acceptable because of the autonomy of the syntax: the simple rule applies that when two subjects are conjoined, the verb must have a plural marker, unless the semantics of the conjunction are such that a plural marker would cause a serious conflict in semantic interpretation. This is the case with or/oder and the corresponding correlatives either . . . or/entweder . . . oder:26 (31) entweder das Bauwerk oder das Parlament kann als Symbol . . . either the building or the parliament can-sg as symbol . . . The evidence we have seen in this section points to the interaction of two components of syntactic derivation for the determination of agreement: phrase structure and features. The role of phrase structure in agreement will be taken up again in the next chapter. For the remainder of this chapter we concentrate on the role of features in the determination of agreement in coordinate structures. The underlying principle that I proposed in §2.1 for this operation is CFM. Before we consider further details of CFM, we investigate certain other asymmetries and what their source might be. We will find that when the principle of coordinate symmetry, as determined by feature matching, is applied to the analysis of these asymmetric constructions, facts of anaphor binding can be explained that otherwise require ad hoc or other undesirable solutions, as defined by minimalist requirements.

.. Configurations and (a)symmetry in coordinate structures The argument has been used in a number of studies (e.g. Munn 1993; Johannessen 1998) that anaphor binding in coordinate structures gives evidence of the asymmetric relation between conjuncts. Examples given are like those in (32): (32) a. b. c. d. e.

Georgei and hisi wife live in Tulsa *Hisi wife and Georgei live in Tulsa I know Georgei and hisi wife *I know hisi wife and Georgei The candidatesi spread rumors about themselvesi /each otheri /*themi

Hartmann (2000: 26ff.) favors the asymmetry explanation for binding in coordination, but she points out that in coordinate constructions like the ones in (33), the reverse distribution of pronoun and anaphor binding occurs (Hartmann’s (11) with my slightly different phrase structure analysis; a’ and b’ translate a and b respectively):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.21 (1149-1202)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(33) a.

The filmmakeri made [DP a commercial and [DP a movie about himselfi /*himi ]] a.’ Der Regisseuri drehte [DP einen Werbespot und [DP einen Film über sichi /*ihni ]] b. Peter knows [DP the filmmakeri and [a movie about himi /*himselfi ]] b.’ Peter kennt [DP den Regisseuri und [DP einen Film über ihni /*sichi ]]

Hartmann states that in (33b) a DP conjunct seems to behave as a governing category (‘binding domain’ in minimalist terminology) because it is bound by a preceding conjunct, while in (33a) a DP conjunct is not a governing category because it is bound from “outside.” Hartmann suggests anaphor raising, as proposed in Lebeaux (1983, 1984) and Chomsky (1986) as a solution for this problem (see details in Hartmann 2000: 29). Anaphor raising may well be a good solution to the constructions analyzed by Lebeaux and Chomsky. However, Hartmann takes anaphor binding one step further by applying it across-the-board (ATB) in these constructions. My objections to ATB wh-movement will be presented in detail in the next chapter. One of them applies directly to ATB anaphor raising: ATB movement requires the “absorption” of superfluous lexical items, because more than one is moved, but only one is required in the landing site. This problem – which creates the need for the ad hoc “absorption” operation – occurs whether the movement is in LF or at some other point in the derivation. The question of why the DP the filmmaker in the preceding conjunct binds a pronoun in (33b), but unlike the subject in (33a) does not bind an anaphor, can be answered with recourse to the principle of CFM: When [DP a movie about himself] is conjoined with [DP a commercial] in (33a), there is no logically/semantically eligible DP in the preceding conjunct which can bind himself. The only eligible DP is the subject, and by Principle A of binding theory, it must bind an anaphor or reflexive, not a pronoun. CFM plays no role in this binding, which is adequately constrained by the asymmetric relations between the binder and the reflexive pronoun. In (33b), on the other hand, CFM must apply to get the desired interpretation. When [DP a movie about him] is conjoined with [DP the film maker], the two conjuncts must have symmetric features with respect to binding, if him and the filmmaker are to be coreferential. Because the filmmaker is an R-expression and thereby free in its binding domain, the pronominal in the conjoined DP must also be free in its domain; i.e. it must be him, not himself.27 Of interest to the thrust of this chapter is the fact that CFM predicts the reverse distribution of binding, as required by Hartmann’s account. An advantage of CFM is that no ATB movement needs to be assumed. Furthermore, CFM is more flexible than the ATB account: because it does not obligatorily establish any binding relation between elements in opposing conjuncts by ATB anaphor raising, it predicts the possibility of the interpretation in (34) (the German equivalents have the same binding requirements):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.22 (1202-1262)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(34) a.

Peteri is introducing [DP [DP the film makerj ] and [a movie about himselfi ]] b. Of all the people here, Peteri knows just [DP [DP the film maker] and [hisi own wife]]

The binding indicated in (34) derives as if the first conjunct did not occur. As we see in (35), the binding of an anaphor in a complex DP (here a movie about himself ) follows the same principle in a simplex sentence as in one like (34a, b) with conjoined DPs: (35) Peteri loves the movie about himselfi This binding, in fact, supports the assertion that the conjoined DPs in (34), like those in (36), are symmetric with each other, i.e. the second DP does not have to be a binding domain by itself. In (36a) both DPs are objects of loves and both are within the binding domain of Peter if need be. However, it is also possible for the second conjunct to be a binding domain, as the choice of him in (36b) indicates: (36) a. Peteri loves hisi children and hisi wife equally b. Peteri likes his bossj and the film about himselfi /himj The binding in (36a) exemplifies a typical coordinate relation: the conjuncts are symmetric with respect to their binding relation to the subject. However, binding from a preceding to a second conjunct is another possibility as we see in (33b) and (36b) with him. This binding also results from CFM because the two conjuncts are symmetric with respect to each other: both his boss and him are R-expressions. Another example is in (37): (37) a. Peteri loves hisi childrenj and theirj mother b. Peteri loves hisi childrenj and the movie about theirj mother/*himi Note that it makes no difference whether the second DP is a complex or a simplex DP, a distinction cited by Hartmann as significant to binding in conjoined DPs. These data indicate that binding domains are not syntactically transparent in coordinate constructions. Two fundamental relations come into play in these constructions: a) the asymmetric phrase structural relation, and b) the symmetric relation between conjuncts required by CFM. Copy and Match determine the choice of him in (36b) and their in (37b), in effect creating a binding domain out of a preceding conjunct. But this relation would not be possible without structural asymmetry. This illustrates that conjunction operations must function within the larger framework of asymmetric phrase structure. Finally we note that Copy and Match also make it possible for a coordinate structure as a single constituent to bind an anaphor, as in (38a), without eliminating the possibility of one conjunct binding an anaphor, as in (38b):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.23 (1262-1336)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(38) a. Peter knows [Paul and Paula]i and theiri parents b. Peter knows Paul and Paulai and heri parents The property of coordinate structures evident in (38a) is not unlike the property evident in subject-verb agreement analyzed earlier. The fact that conjoined DPs together are assigned a feature is support for CFM: through matching, two (or more) conjuncts become one and constitute a separate syntactic and semantic unit. As is the case with agreement investigated earlier, the semantic side of CFM, LF matching, does not require asymmetric phrase structure, unlike binding. For this reason conjoined DPs can be phrase-structurally represented as syntactically asymmetric to one another without affecting their symmetries and the symmetries of the coordinate structure in which they occupy positions, symmetries that are required for the two DPs to form a single consituent and bind an anaphor. This fact suggests that the syntactic and semantic features that constitute CFM are independent of the asymmetric phrase structure that provides the basic framework.28 Related to this approach is how CFM comes about in a derivation: it is a principle of coordinate symmetry that relies on the operations Copy and Match within a derivational grammar that utilizes Merge as an operation that forms a set out of two or more symmetric elements. The syntactic and semantic requirements of this operation automatically trigger CFM, but CFM is not part of the syntactic cycle. In this way the paradox cited in Perlmutter and Ross (1970: 350) can be avoided. They observe that in constructions like (39), the antecedent of who must be both a man and a woman: (39) A man entered the room and a woman went out who were quite similar Leaving aside details of the steps involved in the phase-based derivation of constructions like (39) until the next chapter, we note that (39) is similar to (38) in that the antecedent of a pronoun must be the conjunction of two elements and not of just one or the other. (39) is more subtle than (38) because there are more features involved, but that is about the only difference. In (39) the two elements a man and a woman are each subjects of independent clauses which are conjoined. This conjunction requires more features than the conjunction of the DPs in (38). However, the matching that occurs produces the same result: when a woman is matched with a man, the feature [pl] is generated on their conjunction. It is crucially this feature that is required for the binding of who, which also has the feature [pl], as indicated by its agreement with were. In the next section, we look at CFM within the grammar model generally assumed in the MP.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.24 (1336-1368)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

. Feature matching in derivation .. CFM within a derivational model CFM will be argued here as a necessary principle of a derivational grammar that generates coordinate structures; its purpose is to assure that the symmetries required for interpretation are present. Because the semantic side of CFM, the operation Match, is an interpretive device, it occurs in LF; the occurrence of matching semantic features in conjuncts results from the selection of lexical items for conjuncts that have some identical features. Matching formal features (in narrow syntax) results from Copy, an iterative operation that in effect transfers features of one conjunct to another (in sequence, i.e. by phase). LF matching, I propose, occurs in parallel planes; the interface between active memory (AM) and the syntactic component and LF makes it possible for a potentially unlimited number of conjuncts to be matched. For this reason, matching in coordinate structures appears to operate in an “online” fashion throughout the derivation, making use of AM for storing a derived conjunct before Spell-Out. AM determines, for instance, that the surface-level asymmetry of the construction presented in the previous section has a number of symmetries at the feature level: (40) [TP [DP Me] and [TP [subj] [sg] + [human]

[DP my brother][VP play b-ball together]]] [subj] [V] [sg] = [pl] [pl] [human]

Coordinate symmetry is satisfied in (40) because the two DPs share sufficient semantic and syntactic features, and because they are conjoined with and which forms a [+pl] set that agrees with the verb.29 As (40) indicates, the sequencing of CFM within the derivation is crucial to the outcome. My proposal for how the interface with AM assists CFM and interacts with a derivational grammar is illustrated in (41). It follows standard assumptions about grammatical derivation as outlined in Chapter 1. In the syntactic component the steps and operations necessary for conjunction are listed separately.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.25 (1368-1414)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(41) Derivational Grammar Model for Conjunction with Coordinate Feature Matching30 L e x i co n Select N A R R O W

S Y N T A X

Lexical Array → Merge lexical items of C-1 → project phrases → derive grammatical structure, place in AM (move, bind, agree, etc.) Conjunction: → merge [&] → merge lexical items of C-2 → copy features of C-1 from AM → derive grammatical structure of C-2

A M

Interface Level (Spell-Out) PF Component

LF Component

→ linearize → realize PH features etc.31

→ interpret C-1, → interpret C-2 → match C-1, -2

A M

Speech

A basic assumption underlying the model in (41) is that conjunction always requires two operations: (1) Copy for transferring features from C-1 to C-2, and (2) Merge for adding new feature clusters.32 Only the features visible to narrow syntax (including θroles) can be targeted by Copy (‘Copy’ assumed in the sense of Frazier and Clifton 2001 who use the term Copy α). A requirement of the derivation of coordinate structures is that at least some new lexical items must be selected for the second and subsequent conjuncts. I assume that the two steps of conjunction, Copy and Merge, are unified in such a way that AM is exploited as a storage space until the copying of formal features occurs (presumably a few milliseconds). This copy operation does not, of course, preclude the possibility that the second (third. . .) conjunct(s) may not have the appropriate, symmetric structures onto which the copied features can be copied. If this occurs, the derivation may crash, depending on the degree of asmmetry. This copy operation, we note, does not require any feature percolation, in contrast to the Sag et al. (1985) and Warner (1988) models, but is rather a feature mapping procedure which in effect uses a preceding construction as a template for the generation of a new conjunct. Either all or a part of a preceding structure can serve as a template. When new lexical items (feature clusters) are merged from the array, new projections and syntactic operations are potentially possible. Some of these will project



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.26 (1414-1430)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

identical structures with the same or compatible features, others will not. For instance, if the structure in (42a) has been generated, then (42b) will match it, but not (42c): (42) a.

Harry wrote a poem → merge, move, etc., producing: TP NP

T’ T

Harry

vP

o

o

v’ wrote

DP poem

a

b. [DP and [DP a short story]] → merge and project: DP D a

NP N poem

DP & and

DP D a

c.

AP A

NP

short

story

[PP and [PP into the woods]] → merge and project: DP D a

NP N poem

PP & and

PP P into

DP D

NP

the

woods

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.27 (1430-1488)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

Although both structures, the DP a short story, and the PP into the woods, can merge with the existing structure Harry wrote a poem, when the derivation is spelled out and enters LF, it will not be interpretable when matching occurs. Theoretically nothing blocks this merger in the syntactic component, but Copy will not be able to transfer relevant features, and it will not pass the symmetry requirements of matching in LF, simply because there are insufficient matching semantic features to overcome the nonmatching (asymmetric) categorial features. Categorial asymmetry can in some cases meet the requirements of coordinate symmetry in LF, if the lexical items provide a compatible interpretation. This is the case with (5a) George is a geek and glad to be one; it could also be the case here if the AdvP not so well were merged using the conjunction but, producing: (43) Harry wrote [DP a poem] [AdvP but [AdvP not so well]] In LF the categorial asymmetry is rescued by the interpretation in which the conjunct is a modifier for the verb wrote, along the lines of the construction in (44): (44) [TP Harry [vP wrote [DP a poem] [AdvP rather poorly]]] In the conjunction of but not so well in (43), the coordinating conjunction but must be interpreted primarily on the basis of a feature value which enables it to provide a contrasting piece of information; call this feature [+contrast]. In this way its feature [+reiterate], possessed by all coordinating conjunctions, becomes secondary, and the AdvP it conjoins gets the interpretation just described, as a modifier of the foregoing verb. I am assuming, following Reid (2001), that adverbs can be adjoined rather freely in a phrase structure, including by means of a coordinating conjunction. In Chapter 3 we will investigate other similarities between conjunction and adjunction. Recapping briefly, CFM depends on the selection of lexical items with symmetric features, while Copy in narrow syntax assures the symmetry of formal features. Though LF-matching resembles syntactic Spec-head feature matching/checking in some respects, it differs from it in significant ways: (a) It is not subject to the same configurational requirements because it occurs in LF; (b) It does not eliminate any features, not even uninterpretable ones, but rather targets semantic features; (c) A minimum number of semantic features must match (the number varies, depending on language-specific and other factors, such as the degree of symmetry present in the other features); syntactic and phonetic features must match in certain types of ellipsis; non-matching syntactic and phonetic features can often be resolved according to language-specific rules and parameters; resolution of semantic feature conflicts typically leads to an ill-formed (non-interpretable) construction. Further examples of feature conflict and resolution will be given in §2.4.3, 2.4.4 and 2.5.4.33 The operation of feature matching in coordination must be revisited each time a new construction type is analyzed; for this reason we will look repeatedly at how feature matching proceeds. We will see that each construction type offers new evidence that CFM exists and serves an important constraint in the derivation. In the second and third subsections below we look in more detail at the non-configurational aspects



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.28 (1488-1546)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of feature matching and consider this question: What can it do for clarifying the problem areas of coordination theory? The conjunction of two DPs and their agreement with a single verbal head was illustrated in the foregoing section as one problem area. We will also consider feature conflicts that arise in other cases of conjunction. As a prelude to these, the next subsection deals with properties of coordinating conjunctions themselves.

.. On the syntax and semantics of [&] Central to feature matching in coordinate constructions is the syntactic and semantic make-up of the coordinating conjunction (cf. Gleitman 1965 on properties of English conjunctions and Lang 1991 on German equivalents). Various arguments have been presented for the existence of certain syntactic properties of [&]. Johannessen (1998), Kayne (1994) and Munn (1987) all assume that coordinating conjunctions project &P. This property is a structural one and will be taken up in §2.5. In this section we focus on those properties of [&] which do not involve structure. The syntactic and semantic properties of coordinating conjunctions are complex and subtle. It is not the intent of this study to address them all but rather to consider those that are central and paradigmatic. For this reason I will for simplicity’s sake refer to all coordinating conjunctions with [&]. Furthermore, I will assume that the most prominent or central property of [&] is its combinatorial property (for an example of how mathematical/grammatical logic can be used to express this, see Oehrle 1991).34 In a derivational model this means that its syntactic function as an operator is to select a syntactic element and conjoin it with another possessing symmetric properties. The semantics of [&] are more complex and not always easy to keep distinguished from its syntactic properties. For this reason coordinate structures have an iterative property, and the syntactic function of [&] can be realized in the operation Copy α (as in (41) above). The same problem arises when discussing the symmetry of coordinate structures: Is the symmetry purely semantic, or are there also syntactic symmetries? My position throughout has been and will be that both types of symmetry exist and play a role in the grammaticality of coordinate structures.35 Collins (1988a, b) argues that conjunctions can be modified by adverbs. As Progovac (1998: 6) points out, this would not be possible if conjunctions were not syntactically present, an argument against a 3D approach which assumes the merging of planes without the presence of a coordinating conjunction.36 Collins also points out that even the conjunction and makes a clear semantic contribution, identifying a clausal/temporal relationship between conjuncts, as in:37 (45) a. Bill drank the poison and died b. #Bill died and drank the poison c. Bill died: he drank the poison The lack of and in (45c) makes clear the source of the oddity in (45b). The colon substitutes for a subordinating conjunction, allowing for the linear reversal of the two

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.29 (1546-1611)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

clauses which is not allowed by the coordinating conjunction and, which might be interpreted to mean that it is semantically neutral. In fact, [&] sets up and becomes part of a causal relation and in this way acquires semantic content. The conjunction and induces an iconic implicature: the order of occurrence (in reality) should or must correspond to the linear order in the sentence. The implications of this for the syntax of coordination are clear: and is more than just a functional category. Its properties (sometimes in the form of a function) include (a) eliciting syntactic and semantic relations between parallel/symmetric elements, whether heads or phrases, and (b) providing a phonetic realization – in contrast to a prosodic feature or nothing at all – of its function as a conjunction. Item b may seem superfluous; the point is that a lexical coordinating conjunction has different properties than its non-lexical equivalent. This difference is evident in the contrast between (46a) and (46b): (46) a. The army invaded and the people looted the village b. The army invaded; the people looted the village Only in (46a) is there a clear correlation between the two events. A certain prosody (rising and falling intonation) can assist the correlation in (46b), but it never becomes as definite as in (46a). A “full” lexical coordinating conjunction is also different than the cliticized form in English: (47) a. b. c. d.

We all like Rock ‘n’ Roll We all like to rock ‘n’ roll ??Peter and Petra first sang ‘n’ then they danced Peter sang ei *‘n’/and Petra playedi the new song

While a clitic is adequate for at least some DP/NP and VP coordinations, it is questionable with TP coordinations, and ungrammatical if there is some form of ellipsis in a TP coordination as in (47d).38 The contrast between (48a) and (48b) also indicates something about the properties of [&]: (48) a. *(Die) Zeit reicht nicht dafür the time reaches not therefore ‘There’s not enough time for that’ b. Zeit und Geld reichen nicht dafür time and money reach not therefore ‘Time and money aren’t sufficient for that’ The noun Zeit cannot occur as the subject of reicht without the definite article die, but when conjoined with Geld, it may. The reason undoubtedly has to do with properties of [&] which are compositionally added to the derivation at conjunction. I am assuming that the coordinate structure itself is not assigned a feature independently of the features of [&], since no feature can be assigned to a structure on the basis of the structure itself, but only on the basis of the structure and an element in the structure, whether overt or covert. If we assume that [&] contributes a feature to the coordinate



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.30 (1611-1663)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

structure as a whole when the point in the derivation is reached at which a definite article is realized or omitted, then the proper choice can be made. Following the model in (41), this point could be in the PF component where the phonetic realization of the features of the element in the Spec of the coordinate structure [Zeit und Geld] occurs. On the basis of the feature matrix of this structure, PF determines that no definite article needs to be articulated. One could assume that a null definite article exists, but I will leave this for further research. In any case, it is relatively clear that the features of [&] contribute to the derivation to the point of determining the realization or non-realization of a definite article. In the next section I will outline some current studies which have addressed issues in the semantics of agreement in coordination. The purpose is to sketch a picture of the complexity of the problems, to suggest that feature matching is the central operation of conjunction and thus the grammar must account for it, and to give references to studies dealing with the issues involved in agreement in coordinate structures.

.. Some semantic issues of coordination and agreement Data in Lasersohn (1995), an extensive study of the semantics of conjoined NPs, provide support for the matching side of CFM, as proposed here. The role of semantic features in subject-verb agreement clearly illustrates that [&] does not automatically assign the feature [+pl] to conjoined DPs as assumed in Johannessen (1998) and Sag et al. (1985: 15439 ), and that agreement must proceed on a feature-by-feature and construction-by-construction basis. Consider the examples in (49) from Lasersohn (1995: 110): (49) a. Every day and every night was spent in bed b. No peasant and no pauper was ever president c. Many a day and many a night has passed away These constructions contrast with the following (Lasersohn 1995: 111): (50) a. b. c. d.

The first day and the second night were/*was spent in bed A man and a woman were/*was upset Ron and George were/*was president A day and a night have/*has passed away

Lasersohn assumes that the occurrence of a singular verb with conjoined singular DPs is due to semantic factors.40 He formalizes the rule in (51) to account for (50) (1995: 112): (51) Coordinate noun phrases may be singular or plural, depending on whether the conjuncts are “atomic.” Atomicity is defined in terms of “minimal elements.” The minimal elements of a noun phrase denotation Q are those sets which are mapped onto 1 by Q, and which have no proper subset which is also mapped onto 1 by Q. A noun phrase is atomic iff the minimal elements

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.31 (1663-1733)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

of its denotation are singleton sets in every model. For example, the noun phrase every dog will map onto 1 any set containing all the dogs. . . Conjunctions of non-atomic singular noun phrases give rise to singular coordinate noun phrases. . .. Lasersohn’s work draws on the work of Partee and Rooth (1983) who present a generalized conjunction operation for cases like those in (50) which can be summarized this way: (52) Where A and B are non-atomic noun phrases, [[A and B]] is that function f such that f(X) = 1 if [[A]] (X) = 1 and [[B]] (X) = 1; otherwise f (X) = 0 (for all X in the domain of [[A]], [[B]]). As Lasersohn states, (52) gives the result that Every man and every woman was happy, for example, is equivalent to Every man was happy and every woman was happy.41 What Lasersohn suggests is a mapping formalism which matches conjuncts. Unless the conjuncts [A] and [B] match, the formalism will not produce the correct results. In other words, feature matching is required, and I propose that Copy and Match in the derivational model outlined in (41) generates the right structures, given further details and formalisms remaining to be outlined. Some of these will be suggested in the next section. Another study which addresses a problem of agreement with coordinate NPs is Farkas and Ojeda (1983). Their work focuses in a GPSG framework on the fact that in French and Spanish the morphology of an adjective shared by conjoined DPs does not reflect the number, person and gender morphology on the individual DPs (their 3): (53) a. El libro y la revista son caros/*caras (Spanish) (French) b. Le livre et la revue sont chers/*chères the-m book and the-f magazine are expensive-m,pl/exp-f,pl In contrast to Lasersohn, Farkas and Ojeda argue that the resolution of this kind of feature conflict is not a matter for the semantics. They point out that the choice of a singular or plural verb in constructions with the correlative conjunction neither . . . nor vary from one language to another, English requiring the singular, but French for instance, the plural, even though the English and French constructions have the same meaning. I will not outline their proposal for feature resolution in constructions like (53) as it is not compatible with the framework assumed here, but the principle they apply is based on a rule for feature intersection which assigns head features to categories that are in effect meta-features. In this way a match is created out of a higher level of abstraction. Whether or not such “meta-features” are necessary for resolving this kind of agreement conflict will be left aside. The interesting point for our discussion is the fact that the proposal relies on the principle of feature matching and, if needed, a higher level of abstraction, as does my proposal.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.32 (1733-1791)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Other mechanisms for resolving agreement questions are suggested in Partee and Rooth (1983), Dyla (1984), Ingria (1990), Franks (1993), McNally (1993), Stowell (1993), Artstein (2001) and Moosally and Hagen (2001). The issues are sometimes very complex and usually language-specific, although certain Case and thematic hierarchies appear to be useful in resolving some of the problems. It is not necessary for the purposes of this study to elucidate all of them and attempt a new proposal that involves formalisms of semantic theory. My intent throughout is to unify the core semantic with the core syntactic relations that exist in coordination for the purpose of arriving at a larger picture, one which can be unified with grammar theory in general, as it is being pursued in the MP. In the next subsection some of the key agreement issues addressed in the studies cited will be illustrated, along with the role of CFM in resolving feature conflicts.

.. The core relations and their features in coordinate symmetry What are the core semantic relations that can be captured from the foregoing data? One that cannot be overlooked is the semantic symmetry between the conjuncts, as seen in the DP conjunction every man and every woman or a day and a night. Clearly day and night must have semantic features in common for this conjunction to have any semantic content, and unless they had many of the same features, they could not form a union of features bearing the feature [sg] which must agree with a singular verb. Some examples of semantic feature matching necessary for logical interpretation are given in (54): (54) a.

[Peter] likes to go fishing, but [Petra] prefers swimming [human] [human] [sg] [sg] [agent] [agent] b. The [stars] are bright, and [M31] is out naked eye [celestial object] [celestial object] [pl] [sg] [theme] [theme]

Of course, less symmetry than this is possible, but the less there is, the odder the coordinations and/or the more context required: (55) a.

Peter likes to go fishing, but the others prefer to read books (second subject plural) b. Petra prefers swimming, but the water is too cold (What water? Where? etc.) c. The stars are bright, and the water is cold (So what about it?) d. M31 is clearly visible, but Petra prefers swimming (Huh?)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.33 (1791-1863)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

Symmetry in bi-clausal coordinations without ellipsis is sometimes not essential to interpretation, and it may be non-transparent and cross-categorial without becoming ungrammatical or ill-formed. One example of an apparent high degree of asymmetry is (56), taken from Munn (1993: 80):42 (56) You can depend on [DP my assistant] and [CP that he will be on time] What matches here? Although only the DP requires Case, both conjuncts have the features [theme][objective]. Even though the CP has no Case, it has to be interpreted as the object of depend on and thus has the feature [objective], a more general or abstract feature than either [acc] or [dat].43 Note the ungrammaticality of (57): (57) *You can depend on that he will be on time This fact follows from another: that conjunction doesn’t necessarily require symmetric Case forms. Symmetric Case morphology becomes a part of CFM only when the conjuncts are both/all DPs and Case (whether abstract or morphological) plays a role in their semantic interpretation and/or is a language-specific requirement; the latter is true in German and Spanish illustrated in (58a, b) respectively: (58) a.

Hans dankte den Professoren und *die/den H thanked the-pl,dat profs and the-pl,acc/the-pl,dat Studenten students b. para tú y yo *para ti y mi para ti y para mi for you-nom & I for you-obj and me for you and for me

However, even German with its relatively rich morphology does permit certain asymmetries with Case morphology in coordinate structures, as indicated in (59):44 (59) Es gibt viele Sehenswürdigkeiten in und um die it gives many sights in-dat and around-acc the-acc Stadt city ‘There are many worthwhile things to see in and around the city’ We will revisit this construction in the next chapter to investigate whether the asymmetry in the phrase structure plays a role in the morphological asymmetry. Here we note that even though die in the position between um and Stadt can only be acc, it does not cause ungrammaticality or ill-formedness, despite the fact that the only Case assigned by in, which is conjoined with um, is dat in this construction. It is one more example of how the matching semantic features of in and um – both have features something like [spatial], [locative] – can rescue a construction with a Case asymmetry. A point that the foregoing data make clear is that Case checking in coordinate structures is an extension of the (simplex) sentence syntax and is not a separate requirement of coordination. For this reason coordinate DPs create problems for the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.34 (1863-1935)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Spec-head feature checking mechanism. One or the other DP, depending on which is not in a Spec-head relation, may fail Case feature checking, if Copy fails to transfer the Case feature from the foregoing to the next DP. More detail on the phrase structure of conjoined DPs and the role that Copy and Match play in such structures will be given in Chapter 3; here we note that language-specific rules must apply to deal with asymmetries if they affect the semantic interpretation. Morphological Case asymmetry without semantic ambiguity is tolerable, as is predicted by the model in (41). Taking up (56) once again, we note that there are two forms of asymmetry that follow from one assumption about [&]: that it does not assign or check any Case features, unlike the heads [V,P].45 The two forms of asymmetry are: the lack of Case symmetry and the lack of categorial symmetry. Just as the asymmetric conjunction of CP with DP is allowed, in the same way the lack of a match on the CP for the feature [acc] on the DP my assistant is allowed, i.e. [&] does not assign any features to CP that would otherwise need to meet symmetry requirements. Minimal coordinate symmetry nevertheless exists on a more abstract plane in the feature [+obj]; [+obj] is not a specific Case, but it is a syntactic feature identifying the status of the CP as an object. One could call [+obj] the union of [+acc] and [+dat], which serves an independent function in English as the default Case. Lack of adequate symmetry in coordination can lead to ungrammaticality, or simply to awkwardness. In German, prescriptive usage requires that a DP shared by two or more conjoined verbs have a determiner that agrees with both verbs. Because of overlap in German Case morphology (die can be [nom,fem,sg], [acc,fem,sg], [nom,pl] and/or [acc,pl]; den can be [acc,masc,sg] and/or [dat,pl]; der can be [nom,masc,sg], [dat,fem,sg] and/or [gen,pl]; das can be [nom,neut] and/or [acc,neut]; dem can be [dat,masc,sg] and/or [dat,neut,sg]; des can be [gen,masc] and/or [gen,neut]) asymmetric conjunctions (such as [gen,fem,pl] & [gen,masc, pl]) are fine, as long as they are semantically and pragmatically felicitious. Examples are given in (60):46 (60) a.

P hat *die /*der Frau / #den Studenten begrüßt und gedankt P has the / the woman the students greeted and thanked | | | [acc]/[dat] [dat,pl]/[acc,masc,sg] Frau und die Studenten und a.’ Peter begrüßteacc die P greeted the-acc woman and the-acc students and danktedat der Frau und den Studenten thanked the-dat woman and the-dat students b. Das Haus der Kinder und Mutter The house of-the children and mother [gen,neut,pl] [gen,fem,sg]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.35 (1935-2003)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination #Dame und Herren / Damen und Herren Das Geld der the money of-the lady and gentlemen / ladies and g-men | [gen,fem,sg/pl] (fem,sg does not conjoin with pl) c.’ Das Geld der Banken und Geschäfte banks and businesses [gen,fem,pl] [gen,neut,pl]

c.

(60a) illustrates that begrüßen [acc] and danken [dat], cannot share the DO Frau because neither determiner der nor die allows both of these Cases in combination with the feature [fem]. Den, on the other hand, satisfies the morphological requirements of both verbs: it can be either [acc,masc,sg] or [dat,pl]. Because Studenten can be interpreted as either [acc,masc,sg]), or [dat,pl] (mixed gender), it can be used grammaticality with each of the verbs (though arguably not with both simultaneously, as pointed out in Pullum & Zwicky 1986 – see below). However, conjunction with und requires that the determiner den be interpretable with both verbs, i.e. Where is there a world in which one individual (Peter) greets and thanks a single student and a group of students, presumably in one event? This is not assumed to be pragmatically possible. Hence, one could convincingly argue that the morphological Case asymmetry is not the source of the problem with den Studenten in (60a). In (60b) the article der is grammatical for both [gen,neut,pl] and [gen,fem,sg]. Hence, no ungrammaticality results, and the semantics and pragmatics produce no anomaly. In (60c), however, der cannot be used for both [gen,masc,pl] (Herren) and [gen,fem,sg] (Dame) without unacceptable semantic or pragmatic asymmetry, although grammatically it is correct, as attested by (61): (61) Ich mag die Farbe der Tische und Lampe I like the color of-the tables-gen,masc,pl and lamp-gen,fem,sg As with (60a), a pragmatic anomaly prevents acceptable symmetry in (60c), apparently stemming from the conjunction of the plural males, Herren, with a singular feminine, Dame, as genitive complements of the entitity Geld. I will not explore the details of this anomaly here, but only point out that the conjunction of asymmetric natural genders poses a problem, while the conjunction of asymmetric grammatical genders in (61) does not. In any case, the morphological Case features themselves are not the underlying source of the problem. The interplay between morphological and other features in the resolution of feature conflicts can reveal interesting facts about how morphological Case and gender markers and abstract Case and gender features don’t always coincide. While it is ungrammatical to conjoin accusative and dative verbs when they must share a DP with a morphological Case marker appropriate for only acc or dat, it is perfectly acceptable when the morphological marker is omitted, as in (62b), or acceptable for both accusative and dative, as is the case with Herrn and Frau in (62c):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.36 (2003-2062)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(62) a.

Peter hat *dem/*den Mann begrüßt und gedankt P has the-dat/the-acc man greeted and thanked b. Peter hat *der/*die Frau begrüßt und gedankt the-dat/the-acc woman b. Peter hat Petra begrüßt und gedankt c. Peter hat Herrn und Frau Schmidt begrüßt und gedankt . . . Mr. and Mrs. . . .

In general, then, Case and gender/plural conflicts do not lead to ungrammaticality in German as long as the result is interpretable and describes a possible or likely world.47 Pullum and Zwicky (1986) argue that phonological resolution, as proposed in Eisenberg (1973), is not sufficient for resolving conflicts of the sort in (61). Their criterion is that the syntactic features of a resolution must not be distinct from those that each conjunct would have individually. So, for instance, (63a) is acceptable because each verb, if spelled out, agrees with its respective subject individually, while in (63b) this is not the case:48 (63) a.

weil wir das Haus ei und die Muellers den Garten kaufeni because we the house and the Ms the garden buy b. *weil wir das Haus ei und Franz den Garten kaufeni

It is beyond the scope of this chapter to outline in detail the syntactic and semantic formalisms needed for feature resolution in constructions like those in (63). It is clear without consideration of the syntactic structures involved that feature matching is a key criterion in the resolution of feature conflicts, and that resolution constitutes a form of symmetry. One aspect of CFM whose contours become more visible with these data is that CFM, as a determination of what features are symmetric, must obtain not only with semantic features in LF, but also in the syntactic component. If the principle CFM did not apply in the syntactic derivation, then the unacceptable agreement morphology conflict as in (63) could not be avoided. My claim is that Copy in narrow syntax guarantees this kind of symmetry. This point is significant for distinguishing the approach to (a)symmetry in coordination being developed here from other approaches (e.g. Munn 1993; Kayne 1994; Johannessen 1998; i.a.) which are based on the assumption that symmetry in coordination exists only in the semantics. Also supporting the assumption that certain symmetries must obtain in the syntax is the fact that the interpretation of an elliptical coordinate construction like the one in (64) is dependent on what form of structural/syntactic symmetry is assigned: (64) Which man did Joe introduce to Moe, and which woman Jim to Tim? The symmetric interpretation (determined in LF) comes from matching which woman with which man, i.e. as both assigned [+theme]. This interpretation is impossible, however, unless the elliptical clause which woman Jim to Tim is disambiguated syntactically so that Case is assigned symmetrically and gaps are inserted as in (65):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.37 (2062-2108)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(65) Which man-acc didi Joe introducej to Moe, and which woman-acc ei Jim ej to Tim The role of syntactic symmetry in the interpretation of (64)/(65) points to its significance as a property of coordination. Matching, of both syntactic and semantic features, is far more critical in elliptical constructions than in non-elliptical ones. The ways that elliptical conjuncts match is discussed briefly in Klein (1981: 75). Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) is a interesting account of agreement in coordination, using the Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) framework to account for agreement in constructions which are typically assumed to have gaps. They propose two relations that are particularly central to their proposal. These are outlined in (66): (66) a.

Feature resolution (person, gender)

and

b. Feature checking in coordination

and

In many respects their notion of feature resolution and checking resembles the formalism of “feature match-up” proposed in te Velde (1988), where a GB framework is used. Their work builds on a number of other studies in the LFG framework. The data in (67), slightly adapted from Eisenberg (1973), are considered by Dalrymple and Kaplan who develop their proposal illustrated in (66) to deal with such constructions:49 (67) a.

weil ihr das Haus und Franz because you-pl the house and F b. *Ich habe den Dozenten gesehen und I have the lecturer seen and

den Garten kauft the garden buys geholfen helped

(cf. (61))

While their proposal can account for these data, it nevertheless has a fundamental shortcoming for a derivational approach to coordination. Because the factors that affect agreement in coordination are not just syntactic, structural, semantic or pragmatic, but rather a combination of them in many cases, it is undesirable to look for solutions to problems of agreement resolution and indeterminacy as illustrated in (61), (62), (63) and (67) as purely a matter of a mechanism that assigns features to sets and



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.38 (2108-2182)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

determines resolution and indeterminacy according to local checking relations, if these are restricted to the syntactic component. The inadequacy of the Dalrymple and Kaplan proposal also has an empirical basis. In their analysis the two subjects ihr and Franz in (68) form a union of feature sets and as a union agree with kauft. Numerous generative studies have shown, however, that “right node raising” (RNR) structures like this one involve a gap at the right periphery of the first conjunct which is recovered as indicated by the coindexation in (68): (68) weil ihr das Haus ei und Franz den Garten kaufti the garden buys-sg because you-pl the house and F Agreement in this construction is therefore not established between the two subjects and the single verb at the right periphery, but between each individual subject and its respective verb. The fact that one of them has no phonetic features and is therefore a gap does not change the requirements of agreement because the right-peripheral gap has all the features of a full lexical verb at the point of agreement. This assumption has theory-independent empirical support. How constructions of this type are derived will be outlined in detail in Chapter 4. Furthermore, the agreement relation assumed in Dalrymple and Kaplan cannot, according to standard assumptions about agreement, extend across clausal boundaries, as required in their theory. In addition to these shortcomings, their theory, because it does not take into consideration the configurational factors that affect the acceptability level, has no explanation for why (69a) is significantly better than (69b): (69) a.

?Wir

haben den Nachbarn begrüßtacc und geholfendat we have the neighbor greeted and helped | | [acc,sg/dat,pl][acc,sg/dat,pl] b. *dass wir den Nachbarn begrüßtacc und geholfendat haben that we the neighbor greeted and helped have

Additionally, their theory does not provide an account for the fact that the subjects in the Gapping construction in (70a) do not have to have the same number feature in contrast to the requirements of (67), or the parallel construction in (70b): (70) a.

Franz kauftei das Haus und wir ei F bought the house and we b. *dass Franz das Haus und wir den that F the house and we the

den Garten the garden Garten kauftenpl /kauftesg garden bought/bought

In the present proposal, the fact that Gapping has less stringent phonetic matching requirements than RNR constructions can be accounted for if feature resolution is unified with the syntax and semantics in a derivational model. A derivational theory that can account for the difference between (70a, b) will be proposed in Chapter 4. The important point for this discussion is that if the deletion in Gapping and RNR does not occur until after agreement relations have been checked, as outlined in (41), then

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.39 (2182-2244)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

agreement in Gapping and RNR is no different from agreement in the non-elliptical equivalents. In other words, no extra rules or operations are needed for these cases of coordinate ellipsis, as desired in a minimalist approach. Furthermore, we note in (71), the non-elliptical equivalents of (70a, b), that no feature matching requirements on the verbs need to apply: (71) a.

Wir kauften das Haus, und F kaufte/pflügte/etc. den Garten we bought the house and F bought/plowed/etc. the garden b. dass (that) wir das Haus kauften und Franz den Garten kaufte/pflügte/etc.

Further considerations of feature conflict and resolution extend beyond the scope of this study. The intent here is to illustrate some of the problems and to suggest that all of them illustrate the role of CFM for constraining derivations in coordination. The details of the mechanism(s) by which all feature conflicts are resolved do not have to be considered in the development of my proposal; what must be shown is that feature resolution of whatever form operates according to the general principle of CFM.

.. Independent support for CFM from experiments Beyond the independent support for CFM presented in §2.1, there is evidence from experiments in which human language processing is tested that provides independent support for the notion of feature matching in coordination. These experiments show that the computation time required for the generation of conjoined clauses in which some form of matching is possible and necessary for generation is greater by 85 milliseconds than with constructions requiring no conjunction, hence no matching. The first experiment of this sort was undertaken by Levelt (1989: 275–283). Although it was not the objective of his experiments to determine whether or not matching added time to a derivation, the results point to this fact. When subjects were required to generate coordinate clauses, the computation time was greater when the subjects of the clausal conjuncts had to be matched.50 Dubinsky, Egan, Schmauder, and Traxler (2000) come to the same conclusion about the role of feature matching in the generation of complex constructions. Their experiments measured the time it took for subjects to generate two types of structures, one requiring the matching of a subject in a matrix clause with a gapped subject of a small clause, the other the simple adjunction of a structure lacking a subject, and therefore requiring no matching. Their results suggest that the matching of features, especially φ-features (person, number, gender), demands the extra computation time required for generating conjoined independent clauses, when the subjects must for one reason or another have matching features. In §2.1 several constructions were given in (3) to provide independent support for the existence of some form of CFM. To help us recall this type of data, we consider another example in (72) in which matching in conjunction is required:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.40 (2244-2311)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(72) a.

Fabian bestand das Abitur und *(es) wurde die ganze F passed the graduation-exam and (it) was the whole Nacht getanzt night danced b. Die ganze Nacht wurde getanzt the whole night was danced ‘There was dancing the whole night’

The fact that es is expletive is confirmed by (72b). Without es the passive clause of (72a) is subjectless, since Fabian cannot be interpreted as the subject of wurde. Although German, like English, allows “subject sharing” (discussed in detail in Chapter 4), this is not possible in (72a) because Fabian, as the subject of bestehen (past tense bestand), cannot also be assigned [+theme] as passive subject of wurde. Unless a lexical item is selected which meets these θ-role requirements, the only alternative is the expletive es. This fact supports the assumptions about feature matching proposed here: the fact that a lexical item must have features appropriate to both/all verbs, if it is to be a shared subject, can only be a requirement if the matching of these features occurs. If the features are semantic, they are checked in LF; if they are formal features, they are copied from one conjunct to the other in narrow syntax. No additional mechanisms, operations or structures are needed for determining the coordinate symmetries.51

.. Deriving coordinate symmetry In this section we consider briefly some aspects of the derivational processes required for creating coordinate symmetry in the form of matching features. A thorough analysis of these processes is taken up in Chapter 3. The analysis in this section will be limited to those aspects directly related to feature matching. We will find here that the merging of conjuncts must involve feature matching for the convergence of a coordinate structure, and that this operation must take place in an “online” fashion so that it can apply at more than one point in the derivation. We will also see that in some cases feature conflicts are avoided when a derivational approach to the generation of a coordinate construction is followed. The symmetry results from operations that have nothing to do with coordination per se and therefore require no additional mechanisms. This is of course desirable in a minimalist theory. Let’s take the constructions in (73) as examples of how coordinate symmetry comes about: (73) a. Each man and woman is taking a walk b. The man and the woman are taking a walk together When and and woman are selected in (73a) for merger with each man, some of the considerations that must be made for grammaticality and well-formedness are these: (a) Is the lexical item a DP? (Can it be assigned Case?) If it is not a DP, then further questions are raised: Does it have subject properties? (e.g. Is it a TP such as [TP you know

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.41 (2311-2368)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

who] or a CP such as [CP whatever her name is]); (b) Does it have the feature [human] or at least [animate]? If it does not, then the question arises: How animate-like or compatible with man is it? (e.g. his golf bag might work); (c) What determiner if any must be selected? If none is selected as in (73a), then a different kind of relationship is implied than in (73b). Addressing these questions will lead to a sufficiently symmetric match, as far as the conjoined DPs are concerned, but the coordinate matching is not yet complete. Once the two DPs have been conjoined, agreement with the verb must occur. Here the choice of singular or plural depends on what feature is assigned the union of the conjuncts, as determined by choice of interpretation.52 The feature [sg] on [Each man and woman]sg signifies a different relationship between the DPs the man and the woman than the feature [+pl]. Important for our discussion here is that matching (symmetry) in conjunction is required in the syntax (hence Copy) as well as in the semantics. It was suggested earlier that CFM must be unified with a derivational approach in order for all contingencies and requirements of coordinate symmetry to be met. Furthermore, it was stated that a derivational approach to CFM is able to prevent certain feature conflicts that arise in a non-derivational model. Pullum and Zwicky as well as Dalrymple and Kaplan assume that a feature conflict arises in RNR and Gapping constructions. This is not the case, however, in a derivational approach following the model in (41). Using that model, formal features are copied in narrow syntax from the first occurrence of the verb to the second (before PF); this assures that the two objects have matching Case features. The [±sg] feature does not need to match in the syntax, as this feature is relevant only to Spell-Out: (74) a.

Peter is eating the German pastries, and the others are eating the Dutch cheese (pre-PF) b. Peter [is eating]i the German pastries, and the others are eating => ei the Dutch cheese

When the phonetic features of are eating remain unrealized in PF, a gap occurs and coindexation with the preceding verbal complex occurs by way of CFM. Feature matching is still useful for the recovery of the gap in LF, and the non-matching phonetic features in PF do not cause a conflict. No conflict occurs, if we assume that Copy applies in the syntax to the formal features and does not occur in PF. The recovery of the gap is then based on the verb’s semantic features, not on its phonetic features, and clearly these match.53 In RNR constructions the conjunction is always clausal; thus CFM applies to the entire clause simultaneously with phonetic realization in PF, as in Gapping constructions. Unlike Gapping, RNR does not usually tolerate non-identical phonetic features, ruling out subject-verb agreement with either verb form in (75a): (75) a. *dass F das Haus ei und wir den Garten kaufenpli /kauftsgi that F the house and we the garden buy/buy b. dass wir das Haus ei und die Nachbarn den Garten kaufeni



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.42 (2368-2416)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Studies have shown, most recently Hartmann (2000), that the prosody of RNR constructions is critical to their grammaticality and well-formedness. One could interpret this reliance on prosody as an indication of a general intolerance of phonetic feature conflicts and that feature resolution is rather simplistic: whenever the items are phonetically identical, a gap may be generated, otherwise not. We will see in Chapter 4 that ellipsis in RNR is a bit more complicated, specifically that a model like the one proposed in (41) is in fact required in which the phonetic requirements have a syntactic basis, i.e. the matching must begin in the syntax. The point to note here is that matching is required, regardless of what account is chosen. The last detail of this section concerns the feature matching that occurs when no feature resolution is necessary. The questions arise: (a) Is feature matching necessary at all in those cases? And (b) If it is, what features are considered? Our earlier example is a case in point: The conjunction of (76) The man and the woman are taking a walk together requires no feature resolution, only set formation/conjunction with assignment of the feature [+pl] to the syntactic structure indicated in (76): (77) the man ∪ the woman = [DP the [NP man] [DP & [DP the [NP woman]]]]pl No feature conflicts arise in (76); however, CFM must still obtain to get a well-formed conjunction, for as we saw earlier, not just any noun can conjoin with man to form the subject of go for a walk together. My assumption will be that any coordinating conjunction has a set of syntactic and semantic features which induce CFM at the point in the derivation where some element is selected for merger with one preceding it. That is, CFM is always required at this point in a derivation. Whether it is also required later depends on the type of construction being generated.

.. Feature matching and structural isometricity Levelt (1989) argues that a structural transfer takes place in the production of coordinate structures. When a clause is generated and enters AM, a pattern is kept active for 200 milliseconds. If we assume that coordinate structures require Copy in their derivation, and that formal features copied determine the structure (phrase structure is project by head features), we have an explanation for Levelt’s findings. This copying procedure is enabled by AM, which makes an already merged and derived structure “available” to narrow syntax when the next conjunct is selected. This generative process allows for a natural unification with the fact that coordinate structures can easily be generated in pattern with a preceding construction, that they can easily be memorized, and that parallels exist in coordinate structures. This processing procedure explains why, especially in spoken usage, patterns occur like those in (78):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.43 (2416-2484)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(78) a.

The president stressed that all members of Congress must work together, that all members must seek bipartisan solutions, that all members need to put the needs of the country first, etc. b. Paul Celan’s Todesfuge (first 4 lines; the pattern continues throughout the poem): Schwarze Milch der Frühe wir trinken sie abends wir trinken sie mittags und morgens wir trinken sie nachts wir trinken und trinken

Levelt’s research finding implies that structural isometricity is necessary in coordinate structures, i.e. that it results from conjunction, if conjunction does indeed utilize AM for matching and transfer of structures from one conjunct to another. Structural isometricity cannot be an absolute requirement of matching in coordinate structures, however, just as categorial identity is not an absolute requirement. Examples which confirm this are given in (79): (79) a. George is [DP a geek and [AP given to antisocial behavior]] [DP & AP] b. George described [DP the incident] and [CP what Jim has done to himself] [DP & CP] c. What computeri did George [vP go out and [vP buy ei this weekend]] (asymmetric ellipsis) Computer sitzt und d. [CP Wenn Peter nur am If P only at-the computer sits and [CP & TP] [TP seine Freunde kommen nie vorbei, dann. . .]] his friends come never by, then. . . Each of these coordinations has a form of structural asymmetry; some of them have received considerable attention in the literature. A construction similar to (79a) was discussed in §2.3; (79b) simply illustrates that a DP and a CP have features in common sufficient for coordination. The idiom go+infinitive in (79c) has been widely discussed as an example of a violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) of Ross (1967). I will make no further comment on the CSC until Chapter 3; we only note here that such constructions have an apparent asymmetry. (79d) illustrates a coordination type that was first discussed in Höhle (1990) and will be taken up in the next section. The asymmetry is striking in German because of the contrasting finite verb positions in this analysis. This construction type forms the basis for the assumption underlying the analysis in Chapters 3 and 4 and defended in Chapter 5 that the two clauses have different projections, CP and TP, which constitutes another form of asymmetry. Despite these rather common cases of asymmetry in the conjunction of clauses, my position will be that even though isometricity is not an absolute in coordinate



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.44 (2484-2537)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

structures, it is favored, and symmetric coordinations are more easily processed, and therefore more optimal. Isometric coordinations are the ideal, requiring the leasteffort, and should therefore be the starting point for any theory of coordination which uses a minimalist framework. Nevertheless, it is interesting to test the limits of the grammar with asymmetric coordinations, and for that reason, we turn in §2.5.3 to German coordinate structures which mix clause types.

. Feature matching and configurations In my proposal for CFM I assume, building on earlier work of te Velde (2000), that syntactic, semantic and even prosodic features enter into the overall symmetry of a coordinate structure. Structure itself, in the form of the configuration of the phrases being conjoined, also plays a role. However, because structural isometricity is not always a requirement of coordinate symmetry, we are led to the conclusion that other features, most prominently semantic features, can sometimes suffice for establishing symmetry, with structure and syntactic features playing a secondary role. In RNR and Gapping phonetic features assume a prominent role. In the first subsection we consider syntactic symmetry and how Camacho (2000) proposes to account for it. Then in §2.5.2 I will propose an alternative to this account, and in §2.5.3 the alternate proposal will be applied to more constructions. Then in §2.5.4 we consider how coordinate symmetry is at least partially reached in coordinate constructions that are less than symmetric, and in §2.5.5. an account is offered of a type of coordinate construction in German in which syntactic symmetry contrasts with semantic asymmetry. In §2.5.6 a summary of these subsections is provided. I will be following the assumption in my tree diagrams, to be argued in more detail in Chapter 3, that [&] does not project [&P] and that conjuncts do not occupy the Spec and complement positions of [&P], contrary to what is argued in Munn (1987), Kayne (1994), Johannessen (1998), Zoerner (1995) and others.

.. Camacho (2000) on syntactic symmetries in coordination In §2.4.3 and §2.4.4 we considered various proposals for the resolution of feature conflicts in coordinate structures. All of them were feature-based, using either phonological or syntactic approaches. In Camacho (2000) a structural approach to symmetry and feature resolution is proposed, interestingly with a rejection of the Pullum and Zwicky (1986) proposal based on phonological feature resolution guided by syntactic features. Camacho argues that structural symmetry must be maintained in coordinate structures in the form of Spec-head checking relations. He focuses on the checking relations required for the feature [Tense], arguing that conjoined verbs must without exception have symmetric tense features and may not be resolved in the manner suggested by Pullum and Zwicky. His proposal involves structural configurations which

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.45 (2537-2570)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

must be consistently symmetric with each other, following the generalization in (80) (Camacho 2000: 35):54 (80) Each conjunct in a conjunction is independently licensed by the same functional projection The application of this principle to temporal arguments, following a proposal by Zagona (1999), is illustrated in the following tree diagramm (where ‘Zeit’ is a temporal determiner which maps its predicative complement to a time-denoting expression): (81)

ZeitP1 Zeit10

TP

T0 [+]

ZeitP2

Zeit02 [+]

VP

We focus first of all on the claim that a structural, syntactic checking relation is necessary in each conjunct for assuring the symmetry of the conjuncts. The kind of symmetry that his proposal seeks to assure is exemplified with the Spanish constructions in (82): (82) a.

Este jugador siempre [se cae y pierde la pelota] this player always cl falls and loses the ball b. *Este jugador siempre [se cae y va a perder la pelota] this player always cl falls and goes to lose the ball *‘This player always falls and will lose the ball’

In (82a) the two verbs se cae and pierde occur in the same tense and have the same time denotation, whereas in (82b), even though the verbs are all in the same tense, two different time denotations are required in the semantic interpretation. Using Zagona’s proposal for the checking of temporal relations, Camacho proposes the following structure for coordination (focusing on just the lower of the two ‘Zeit’-nodes in (83), as they would occur in a conjunction of VPs):



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.46 (2570-2612)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(83)

ZeitP2a Zeit’2a Zeit2a

VP ZeitP2b Zeit’2b &

VP

[Zeit2a] is the node which an aspectual adverbial like casi ‘almost’ occupies, in parallel with [Zeit2 b] which provides a head position for [&]. It is immediately obvious that maintaining a system of symmetric checking relations in the conjunction of VPs comes with a cost to the theory. Camacho’s proposal requires additional structure and an additional category, [Zeit], partly because he assumes that coordinate structures must maintain two fundamental forms of asymmetry which he refers to as c-command asymmetry and checking asymmetry. Besides the additional structure and category, there is an additional mechanism, the nature of which is not clearly defined. Camacho states “the lower Zeit2 b head ‘duplicates’ the feature specification of the higher head Zeit2 b. This means that it will receive its feature specification from that head” (p. 47). Just how this duplication or receiving occurs is not explained, as he rejects feature percolation as an option. He also assumes for the conjunction of DPs that “the lower part of the chain will insert two matrices, presumably as double specifiers” (p. 46). How a chain can “insert two matrices” is not made clear.55 Let’s consider whether tense symmetry needs to be assured in the VP domain in the way Camacho proposes. Two of the constructions he considers are given in (84) (his 24 and 26i): (84) a.

Dario casi se acabó la manzana y se devoró el D almost cl finished the apple and cl devoured the helado ice-cream ? b. Daniel casi se acabó la manzana y se devora el *D almost cl finished the apple and cl devours the helado ice-cream c. *Daniel se acaba la manzana y se devoró el helado *D cl finishes the apple and cl devoured the ice-cream

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.47 (2612-2671)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

The tense morphology of the English glosses is sufficient for indicating the tense contrasts in the Spanish original. We note that English requirements on tense symmetry are even stricter than those in Spanish, which allows, as shown in (84b), the use of present tense in the second conjunct after a past tense in the first. Why Spanish allows this asymmetry will not be of interest here, only the fact that in the other constructions of both English and Spanish there must be tense symmetry. How can we account for this fact? Camacho points out, following work of Travis (1988), Bowers (1993) and Cinque (1999), that the scope of adverbs can be structurally defined, that adverbs fall into several categories, some taking CP, some TP and some VP as their scopal domain, and that an adverb must be licensed locally. The adverb casi in (84) is considered to be an aspectual adverb, requiring an aspectual resolution rule which insures the symmetry of the conjuncts with respect to aspect within the domain of the adverb. Camacho argues that each conjunct must therefore have a separate [Zeit] node which bears the appropriate aspectual feature and licenses the conjunct, each one independently, as indicated in (83), repeated as (85) for convenience, with the adverb casi added, as well as the remainder of the lower VP (omitting nodes for the objects in each VP): (85) Structure of coordinate VPs modified by casi (omitting object nodes; based on Camacho 2000: 47) ZeitP2a Daniel

Zeit’2a Zeit2a

casi almost

VP V

ZeitP2b

se acabó  finished

Zeit’2b Zeit2b y and

VP V

se devoró…  devoured

Camacho assumes that movement operations raise the subject and the verbs out of the positions indicated in (85) to the Spec of ZeitP1 (not shown) and the head positions of the conjoined VPs, respectively. This movement insures “that the subject DP . . . licenses the temporal interpretations” (p. 36).56 Camacho’s work must be credited for its objective of capturing the symmetries of coordinate structures within a phrase structure that is fundamentally asymmetric



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.48 (2671-2725)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

and compatible with Kayne (1994). No other study has attempted to do this as systematically as his. Because this objective underlies the present study also, Camacho’s approach is of particular interest here. His proposal represents a striking contrast to the other accounts which do not focus on structural configurations for resolving feature conflicts. The question arises, however, whether checking relations of the sort that Camacho proposes are the best solution for the resolution of feature conflicts. My position on this issue will be that CFM is not only a good compromise between the extremes of structural and phonological resolution of feature conflicts, but also one which is empirically supported independently and more in keeping with economy of derivation as advocated in the MP. It is also more comprehensive than the type of matching (‘duplicate’) that Camacho proposes which must apply at a fixed point in the derivation.57 By contrast, I am proposing that Copy targets formal features – not unlike Camacho’s operation ‘duplicate’ – and additionally that semantic features must meet symmetry requirements in LF. In the next section I will propose an alternate account of the construction type given in (84), following the same premise that Camacho outlines, that syntactic asymmetries can be found in coordinate structures, but without the addition of any extra categories or projections. In this way the structures I propose are “barer” and fewer movements are required. Coordinate symmetries will be captured more in the features and less in the structures and movement operations than in Camacho’s proposal.

.. An alternate proposal At the heart of Camacho’s proposal requiring the category ‘Zeit’ from Zagona (1998) is the assumption that each conjunct of a coordinate structure is independently licensed by the same functional projection (cf. (83)), and that adverbs must be licensed by certain projections in certain configurations. The configuration for licensing must be local, i.e. a Spec-head relation. In the case of casi in (85), the adverb must modify the projection which hosts the verb, in this case VP, since casi is an aspectual adverb. There are a couple of problems with this theory besides the general problems mentioned earlier: (1) It is not possible for casi to occupy a position in a Spec-head relation with the head of VP using the structure that Camacho outlines. In (85) se acabó, the finite verb, is dominated by VP and the adverb casi by Zeit’2 a. Although this structure may be empirically supportable, it is not a Spec-head relation, though it does allow casi to c-command both finite verbs in one definition of c-command (but not in a minimal sense). (2) The structure is not symmetric: while Zeit’2a dominates the adverb casi, the equivalent category and projection in the second conjunct dominates the coordinating conjunction. This asymmetry stems from Camacho’s assumption that the feature specification of Zeit’2a is inserted again in the lower duplicate of it, Zeit’2 b, where it appears as part of the feature matrix of the coordinating conjunction, rather than with a second occurrence of the adverb casi. With this configuration he proposes to capture the symmetry in the way the adverb modifies both verbs. He does not discuss the properties of coordinating conjunctions and how or why they are dominated by the category

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.49 (2725-2753)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

[Zeit], nor how they can assume the function of apparently whatever category is being coordinated. Although this idea is intuitively appealing because it captures the iterative property of conjunction, it may well conflict with what is known about categories, projections and merger. (3) The assumption that a conjunct, regardless of type, must be licensed: What independent evidence or arguments can be presented for this assumption? I will assume that conjuncts do not need to be licensed unless they require licensing for reasons independent of coordination, following the general principle that coordination does not require a separate (sub)grammar with independent licensing requirements. Further discussion will be left until Chapter 3 where the properties of [&] are discussed. An alternate proposal for the construction that Camacho analyzes which avoids these problems is one which makes three assumptions: (1) Conjuncts do not need licensing as conjuncts, but only as elements in a syntactic feature-checking configuration, if one exists independently of the coordinate structure. (2) Adverbs occupy positions within a VP or TP or CP, depending on type, as Camacho also assumes. However, the licensing of adverbs is not mediated by a separate category; rather, features of the adverb alone, combined with its relation to a lexical head in a configuration structurally identical to a Spec-head configuration, determine its scope and licensing.58 In the case of casi, the projection vP licenses it and defines its scope: (86)

vP adv casi

v’ v

...

se acabó

(3) In a coordinate structure, the scope of an adverb which extends over two or more conjuncts is determined by the domain which hosts it. In (86) the domain of casi is vP; an intervening superior projection such as TP or CP will block its scope in the conjunction of TPs or CPs over which casi is to have scope. If we assume the conjunction of vPs, on the other hand, the scope of casi is not blocked, given the assumption that [&] does not project [&P]:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.50 (2753-2792)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(87)

vP adv casi almost

v’ v

VP

se acabó o  finished

V’ DP

vP

la manzana & the apple y and

vP (adv) (casi)

v’ v

VP

se devoró o  devoured

V’ DP

...

el helado the ice-cream

The advantages of this analysis are: (1) No extra categories or projections are needed. (2) No extra movements (required movements not outlined) are required. (3) The two conjuncts are perfectly symmetric, both in terms of features and structure, while the inherent asymmetry of the syntax is preserved. The inherent asymmetry, in fact, contributes to the coordinate symmetry, if we assume that the second occurrence of casi is not necessary because the scope of the first occurrence extends into the second conjunct. The tense symmetry in (87) can be accounted for under the assumption that both VP-conjuncts are dominated by TP (not shown), the locus of [tense]. The construction in (87) is comparable to – though different in one significant way from – the English construction in (88): (88) [TP Peter [T has] [vP almost finished the apple and [vP devoured the ice cream]]] The difference between (87) and (88) is in the way [tense] is realized: in English it is realized on an auxiliary, in Spanish on the lexical verbs themselves. Because TP, the locus of tense morphology in English, dominates the conjoined VPs, CFM insures that the second VP is tense-symmetric with the first because it is dependent on the auxiliary has for tense. In §2.6 we will consider a similar construction for the purpose of exploring the role of CFM in auxiliary sharing. The derivation itself is relatively simple:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.51 (2792-2847)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

the second VP conjunct is merged with the first one after the auxiliary has has been merged in [T] and its relation to finished has been determined. With merger of the second VP, the requirements of the syntax, identified in the formal features, are copied into a second VP that is symmetric with the first one in terms of other features as well. Contrasting the structure of (87) with the structure of conjoined TPs may help clarify the properties of VP conjunction. If the initial TP were conjoined (merged) with a second TP instead of a VP, the picture would change significantly. The result would be a structure like (89): (89) [TP Peteri has almost finished the apple and [TP ei will now devour the ice cream]] The details of the derivation of this construction type must be left until Chapter 4, because it involves ellipsis. The point here is that the merger of a TP results in the generation of a new clause with its own [tense] and subject positions. Because negation in English and Spanish are confined to the VP domain, a second TP also has to have its own negation (a translates b): (90) a. Peter has not arrived and will *(not) order coffee b. Pepa no llegó y *(no) va a pedir un café P not arrived and (not) goes to order a coffee The key difference between conjoined TPs and conjoined VPs is that VP, but not TP, coordination allows the sharing of [tense], negation and VP-adverbial scope. This kind of sharing is due to the phrase-level asymmetry of coordinate structures like the one in (83), but this asymmetry with its dominance and precedence relations cannot overcome the limits of the domains of tense, negation and adverbials. In the next section we consider the conjunction of TP and CP clauses which illustrate how features and configurations interact in the grammar to create symmetry for the purpose of sharing, made possible through coordinate symmetry.

.. Symmetry and sharing in conjoined clauses Let’s consider first a construction which is not symmetric and therefore does not allow the sharing of a DP to the left of the conjuncts. We compare this construction to an equivalent one which is symmetric and therefore allows sharing, manifested in ATB ellipsis. As in Camacho’s constructions, tense features come into play, and like his proposal, mine also preserves a basic asymmetry in the phrase structure (i.e. it maintains what Camacho calls c-command asymmetry). However, no additional projections, movements or structures are assumed. The comparison of (91) and (92) brings into focus how syntactic projections and semantic features can prevent the matching of features necessary for ellipsis in CP coordination; it is assumed that TP is the locus of tense:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.52 (2847-2848)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(91) CP conjuncts; matching not possible; ellipsis ungrammatical (irrelevant structure omitted) CP DPi

C’

Which paper did

TP DP John

T’ T o

vP o

v’ v file

v’ DPi

v’ CP

o

... C’

C

TP

after NP Bill

T’ T o

vP o

v’ v

DP

read /r5:d/

*e/it

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.53 (2848-2872)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

(92) Coordinate symmetry and matching between TP conjuncts; ATB ellipsis possible CP C’

DPi Which paper

C did

TP NP John

T’ T o

vP o

v’ v file

v’ DPi

TP &

TP

and NP Bill

T’ T o

vP o

v’ v

DP

read /ri:d/

ei/*iti

The construction in (91) is not acceptable by most speakers as a parasitic gap construction – and only very marginally by those who do accept it – for reasons that are evident in the phrase structure analysis.59 The embedded CP headed by after in (91) contrasts with (92) in which TPs are conjoined and the coordinating conjunction, with very different properties, does not project a CP. The conjuncts which must match for the recovery of the gap via matching in LF are TPs; a TP that is otherwise identical but is dominated by a CP with a subordinating conjunction as head as in (91) cannot be matched. Asymmetries occur on several levels, preventing CFM: the upper CP, containing a wh-element in its Spec position, obviously doesn’t match syntactically or semantically with the embedded CP, containing a subordinating conjunction as a head. The prosody of each construction is also different: (91) requires a different intonation



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.54 (2872-2910)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

and stress pattern for the matrix than for the embedded CP, while (92) is marked by symmetric prosodic features in each conjunct. In brief, coordination and subordination look very similar at the phrase-structural level; both are fundamentally asymmetric. The difference between the two resides in the features possessed by the respective heads. In the case of subordinating conjunctions, its features are projected up to CP which establishes a new syntactic domain, whereas with coordinating conjunctions no new domain is created. Rather, a domain is copied from what goes before, a process which results in symmetry out of reiteration. The asymmetries in (91) extend to the tense features also. Note that read in (92) is an infinitive, while read in (91) is a finite verb, as confirmed by their phonetic realizations. The syntactic status of read results directly from the syntactic relations: in (91) there is no sharing of a superior syntactic domain: both clauses have their own CP domains. In (92), by contrast, file and read are both dependent on did, i.e. two TPs share a single CP, mediated by the coindexation of two T-positions. This coindexation is not the result of ATB movement, but rather is realized through CFM. This aspect of (92) will be taken up again in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4.60 It appears from the contrasts between (91) and (92) that tense symmetry is limited to the TP domain and does not obtain in coordinate CPs. This is not the case, as (93) indicates (ignoring irrelevant details of structure, in particular the vPs which contain traces of the respective verbs): (93) Wen küsste Hans, ignorierte Karl, heiratete Fritz. . . who-acc kissed H-nom, ignored K-nom, married F-nom . . .

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.55 (2910-2928)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination CP Spec

C’

Weni C

TP

küsstej NP

T’

Hans tj

VP ti

CP C’

o C

TP

ign-tek NP Karl

T’ VP

tk

CP

ei o

C’ TP

C he-te1 NP Fritz

T’ t1

VP ei

(...)

When additional verb raising from T to C (Vfin → C) occurs in (93), creating the CP projections, tense symmetry may be desirable for greatest symmetry. However, as (94) indicates, tense symmetry does not have to be maintained, even with ATB (crossclausal) ellipsis.61 (94) a.

Weni küsste Hans t i , ignoriert Karl t i , heiratet Fritz t i . . .? whom-acc kissed H-nom ignores K-nom marries F-nom . . . ‘Who did Hans kiss, is Karl ignoring and Fritz marrying?’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.56 (2928-2991)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. ?Weni küsst Hans oft t i ignorierte Karl gestern t i , wird Fritz whom kisses H often ignored K yesterday will-fut F morgen t i heiraten . . . tomorrow marry Given that tense symmetry is not required in the conjunction of CPs and TPs, these constructions provide no support for an assumption like Camacho’s that all conjuncts are independently licensed by the same projection with the same tense, which would always lead to symmetric tenses in the conjunction of TPs or CPs.62 The scope of negation, because it is limited to the VP, requires that conjoined VPs share a finite verb in T◦ or C◦ , if they are all under the scope of one element of negation (cf. Johnson 2000 for a discussion of the scope of negation):63 (95) a. *John didn’t [VP file the paper and [VP read it tomorrow]] b. John didn’t [VP file the paper and [VP read it at the same time]] = John [not file the paper] and [not read it at the same time] #John [not file the paper] and [read it at the same time] In the interest of minimalist phrase structure, I will assume as a working hypothesis that negation and adverbials define their domains by means of the category which hosts them and that no extra projection (e.g. NegP) is required for this purpose. However, further investigation of the interaction of negational scope and coordination will be left aside for now. If a TP hosts an adverb or a negational element, then the temporal scope of the adverb or negation will interact with the temporal features of the TPs. Contributing to this interaction is the configuration in which the adverb or negation and the conjoined TPs establish relations with each other. The result will be that the domain of the adverb or negation will be equal or symmetric in each conjunct, as illustrated in (95). This proposal for symmetry is similar to Camacho’s, but it is different in that each conjunct does not have to be dominated separately by the same scopal element in order for symmetry to be assured. The inherent asymmetry of the syntactic structure (creating symmetric c-command relations in each conjunct), and the copying of formal features in narrow syntax and the matching of features in LF assures the symmetry. Note also that in (95) no additional category beyond the standard categories assumed to be the loci of tense in English and German is needed.64 The features and structures which determine the symmetry of tenses in (94) and (95) are the following: (a) The matching categories: all conjuncts are hosted by the same (projection of this) category; this projection can be either TP or CP, depending on whether Vfin → C has occurred.65 (b) The matching configurations: all conjuncts have the same structural configurations. (c) The matching tenses: all finite verbs have the same tense feature. The matching of these features does not come about by way of movement from one conjunct to another, as proposed by Camacho. The details of how these structures are derived is the topic of the next chapter where we will see that ATB movement is not necessary in coordinate structures for the determination or maintenance of symmetry.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.57 (2991-3053)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

In the next section we turn to a couple of coordinate constructions in which symmetry does not obtain in a way typical of coordination. We will see, however, that symmetry does exist and constitutes an important property of the constructions, only on a somewhat more abstract level.

.. Feature matching in certain asymmetric constructions In §2.3 we looked briefly at cross-categorial coordination, a type of asymmetric coordination. In this section we consider a form of asymmetry resulting from the conjunction of different clause types. The first of these constructions, coined the “One-More” or “OM-Construction” by Culicover (1970), is a syntactically coordinate but semantically subordinate DP. Culicover’s example is given in (96a); in (96b) is rendered the German equivalent, important for our analysis here: (96) “One More (OM-) Construction” (Culicover 1970 and 1972) (a translates b): a. One more beer and I’m leaving = If you/I drink one more beer, I’m leaving b. Noch ein Bier und ich haue ab yet a beer and I beat away (‘beat it’) = Wenn du/ich noch ein Bier trinkst/e, haue ich ab If you/I yet a beer drink, beat I away In Culicover and Jackendoff (1997) it is argued that the OM-Construction exhibits a mismatch between syntactic structure (SS) and conceptual structure (CS): a syntactically coordinate but semantically subordinate DP. We might speculate that this construction is a good candidate for a universal, given the fact that it is constructed with a universal conjunction which conjoins two other universals, a DP and an S, the S being either a TP or a CP.66 We won’t be exploring the universal properties of this construction as much as the fact that it does not have the properties of a typical coordination. What is atypical about this construction is the mismatch between its semantics and its syntax. The semantic properties of the one-more phrase resemble those of a subordinate clause. That is, the DP one more beer shares some properties with a full subordinate clause like If you drink one more beer. Culicover and Jackendoff show, however, that the two are not identical. The fine semantic distinctions will not concern us here; simply stated, the subordinate clause introduced with if does not have the same illocutionary force as the expression One more beer. What is of primary interest is that the DP one more beer possesses properties of a subordinate clause and is conjoined syntactically by and to the TP I’m leaving, clearly a main clause semantically and syntactically. Therein lies the mismatch. A second construction type that exhibits a similar mismatch is found in the German construction in (97). Here a dependent (verb-end, VE) clause is conjoined with



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.58 (3053-3119)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

an independent, verb-second (V2) clause; the result is a mismatch of clause types as defined by verb position:67 (97) Wenn du noch ein Bier bestellst und ich darf keins mehr bestellen If you yet a beer order and I may none more order ‘If you order another beer, and I may not order any more, . . .’ (cf: Wenn du noch ein Bier bestellst und ich keins mehr bestellen darf, . . .) (VE clauses) We will concern ourselves with just the German construction, though it is likely a similar type exists in English. In English, however, the syntactic features would not be as striking because English doesn’t have as pronounced a syntactic difference between main and subordinate clauses. The semantic contrasts of (96a) are also present in the German equivalent in (96b). It’s these contrasts that will be of particular interest in our analysis. The construction type in (97) was investigated for the first time from a generative perspective in Höhle (1990).68 The syntactic mismatch evident in the conjunction of a VE and a V2 clause is paralleled by a pragmatic one in that each of these clauses has a different degree of illocutionary force. We will not go beyond the syntactic and semantic properties into the realm of pragmatics, but the pragmatic properties, when combined with the syntactic ones, force the question of whether the mismatch in the syntax has an equivalent in the semantics. This question could be formulated this way: Does the construction in (97) also involve an SS-CS mismatch like the constructions in (96)? The answer I will support is: yes and no; there is a mismatch, but it’s of a different sort. The mismatch in (97) shares with the constructions in (96) the fact that the initial conjunct in (97) – what precedes und – has the semantic properties of a subordinate clause, but it also clearly has all the syntactic properties of a subordinate clause, in contrast to the adjective phrase one more beer/noch ein Bier. The mismatch exists in the relations of this initial subordinate clause to the main clause following und. One is tempted to speculate that the relations between the conjuncts in (96) and (97) are the same: syntactically coordinate, while semantically subordinate. However, because the initial conjunct in (97), wenn ich noch ein Bier bestelle, is clearly a full-fledged subordinate clause, it is unlikely that the clauses are mismatched in exactly the same way. The assumption that there is some sort of relation of subordination between the two clauses is ruled out, as we will see below, by the fact that und is a coordinating conjunction only. Und in (97) requires, as we have seen, some form of symmetry between the two structures on either side of it, whereas the syntactic properties of wenn and its clause rule out a syntax of coordination, at least as it is defined in Williams’ (1981) Law of the Coordination of Likes. This is the nature of the mismatch in (97) that we will be examining more in light of my proposal that feature matching and symmetry are hallmarks of coordinate structures. The third construction type, found in (98), displays a mismatch between the subordinating conjunction and the clause which it normally dominates. In (98), however, the weil-clause takes on syntactic properties of a main clause, as indicated by the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.59 (3119-3178)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

position of the finite verb. The result is conjunction by means of a “subordinating” conjunction. This is commonly heard in colloquial, spoken German. (98) weil+V2: conjunction-clause mismatch: Ich sollte kein Bier mehr trinken, weil (. . . ) ich hab’ schon I should no beer more drink, because . . . I have already (2 V2 clauses) viel getrunken a-lot drunk (cf.: Ich sollte kein Bier mehr trinken, weil ich schon viel getrunken habe) (V2–VE) In (98) both the syntactic and the semantic relations are coordinate, but only if the syntactic properties of weil have been nullified in some way, as indicated by the verb position, the intonation and the optional prosodic break that accompany this construction. The ensuing intonation after the pause reflects the symmetry that has been established between the two clauses: both are V2 clauses, and stand on equal footing, syntactically.69 Some questions that we will be considering in our analysis are: (1) How can a subordination be created semantically in (96) despite the presence of the coordinating conjunction and/und? Does this mismatch imply that and/und is merely a syntactic function word that has no semantic content and therefore allows what we could call “semantic subordination” within syntactic coordination? Can we assume that (96) is a case of syntatic and semantic subordination? (2) Are the relations between the wenn-clause and the und-clause in (97) another example of a SS–CS mismatch, like the construction in (96)? Are both the syntactic and the semantic relations between the wenn-clause and the und-clause subordinate? Or is it possible that both the syntactic and semantic relations between the wenn-clause and the und-clause are coordinate, as suggested by the conjunction und? (3) Is (98) a case of mismatched semantics but matched syntax? That is, does the weil-clause actually stand in a relation of semantic subordination but syntactic coordination with the preceding V2-clause? Stated somewhat differently: Is the weil-clause simply an added comment, and therefore semantically coordinated? Is the position of the verb in the weil-clause any reliable indication of the syntactic relation between the clauses? There is a broader, higher-level question implied by these constructions: What do mismatches tell us about the syntactic structure of coordination and subordination? This question is also taken up in Chapter 3 in connection with structural aspects of derivation. However, it is important to consider some related questions in this chapter on features and symmetry. Is grammar theory best served if we assume that in general coordinate constructions are syntactically asymmetric while the semantic relations between conjuncts can be either subordinate or coordinate? This is the basic premise of Kayne’s (1994) Antisymmetry Theory, used in Johannessen (1996, 1998), and other studies. Neither Kayne nor Johannessen thoroughly addresses the issue of semantic relations in coordination. The contrasting standpoint is that grammar theory is best served if we assume that the semantic relations between mismatched conjuncts can



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.60 (3178-3232)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

generate a subordinate reading while the syntax remains coordinate. This is the basic premise of the Culicover and Jackendoff (1997) theory on OM-constructions, which does not question the traditional assumption that syntactic relations of coordination are different than syntactic relations of subordination. Both the Culicover and Jackendoff (1997) theory and the Kayne (1994) theory support the autonomy of syntax in that semantic conditions do not directly constrain the syntax. Of particular interest to German is the question: What are the relations, both syntactic and semantic, between verb position and coordination on the one hand, and between verb position and subordination on the other? This question will be addressed in the subsections below, as it concerns the matching of features.

... Preliminary answers We consider now some preliminary answers to the questions just raised. Out of these answers will come some assumptions that address the broader, higher-level question. Some data which suggest an answer to the first set of questions are given in (99): (99) a. a.’ b. b.’

One more beer, or I’m leaving Noch ein Bier, oder ich haue ab One more beer, but then I’m leaving Noch ein Bier, aber dann haue ich ab

Based on these data, we can conclude that and/und is not unique in its ability to join mismatches. Even the coordinating conjunctions but/aber and or/oder, which have more semantic content than and/und, can create OM-constructions. Hence, it is unlikely that the lack of semantic content sometimes considered a property of and/und is a requirement on the coordinating conjunction in these constructions. There is therefore no support from these data for the assumption that the coordinating conjunction und/and is only a function word and plays no semantic role in OM-constructions. In my proposal for CFM I claim, in fact, that and/und has a semantic feature which triggers matching in LF. Let’s move on to the next question: Is the relation between the structures in OMconstructions a syntactic subordination? We note first of all that the OM-constructions in (96) appear to have the same mismatch of semantics and syntax as the weil+V2 constructions in (98) (though the order of subordinate-coordinate is reversed). On the one hand, none of the variations on the OM-construction in (97) allows the one more beer phrase to be treated like a syntactically subordinate clause (to be argued further below), but the semantic reading of the phrase one more beer or noch ein Bier could be in the form of “If you drink one more beer” or “Wenn du noch ein Bier trinkst,” both subordinate clauses. Yet, equating an OM-construction with one of these rewrites does not provide an adequate answer to the question of the syntactic relation between the two structures on either side of the conjunction. The DP one more beer and the AdvP noch ein Bier are not true subordinate clauses, syntactically speaking. A true subordinate clause may, as Culicover and Jackendoff point out, occur either before or after the main clause that it is subordinate to, and the subordinating conjunction

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.61 (3232-3295)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

always occurs before the clause. The data in (100) clearly show that only one ordering is possible with the OM-constructions, if the same semantic interpretation is to be preserved and no degradation in well-formedness is to occur: (100) a.

#Ich haue ab, und noch ein Bier = Noch ein Bier und ich haue ab

I beat away, and then yet a beer yet a beer and I beat away ‘I’ll beat it, and/or/but then another beer’ b. #Ich haue ab, oder (or) noch ein Bier = Noch ein Bier oder ich haue ab c. ??Ich haue ab, aber (but) dann noch ein Bier = Noch ein Bier, aber dann haue ich ab Given these syntactic restrictions, it would be incorrect to assume that the syntactic relation under discussion is a relation of subordination like the semantic relation. Rather, we have syntactic coordination, and hence the mismatch. Our response to the third question, whether both the syntactic and the semantic relations between clauses in OM-constructions are ‘subordinate’, must therefore be: No. At this point we can make a preliminary assumption that will play a guiding role in our further discussion: (101) Preliminary assumption (à la Culicover & Jackendoff 1997): Syntactic coordination can occur between two structures that are semantically non-coordinate, if a coordinating conjunction provides the syntactic link. In this case the “Law of the Coordination of Likes” (Williams 1981) applies only at Syntactic Structure (SS). At Conceptual Structure (CS) the structural property of coordination is irrelevant to the semantic reading. Let’s consider now how (101) is supported by the mismatch in (97) between the VE and a V2 clauses.70 Assuming that the wenn-clause and the V2 und-clause are conjuncts in a coordinate relation with each other follows directly from the syntactic properties of und, a coordinating conjunction. But as we saw in the construction in (96), und doesn’t necessarily require a semantic relation of coordination. So it is possible that the semantic relation of the wenn-clause to the und-clause in (97) is no different than the semantic relation of noch ein Bier to the main clause in (96), a relation of subordination. What makes (97) different, however, is that the wenn-clause quite obviously stands in a semantic relation of subordination to the dann-clause, which provides a conclusion for the construction. Given that the und-clause is a coordinate of the wenn-clause, it too could be subordinate to the dann-clause. This assumption is borne out by (102). These data reveal that the binding relations between a wenn- and a dann-clause are different than between a wenn- and a V2 und-clause (* for the binding relation only): (102) a.

Wenn eri sich noch ein Bier bestellt, dann wird sich Karli If he refl yet a beer orders, then will refl K betrinken ‘bedrink’ (get drunk)



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.62 (3295-3369)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. *Wenn eri sich noch ein Bier bestellt, und Karli haut . . . he refl yet a beer orders, and K beats away . . . If Supporting the assumption that the V2 und-clause is like any other coordinate clause is the binding relation in (103) (* for the binding relation only): (103) *Eri hat sich noch ein Bier bestellt, und jetzt haut Karli ab he has refl yet a beer ordered and now beats K away The data in (103) support the assumption that the wenn-clause in (102b) is neither syntactically nor semantically subordinate to the V2 und-clause, unlike its relation to the dann-clause in (102a).71 At this point we return to symmetry in coordination. Assuming that the relation between the wenn-clause and the und-clause is syntactically and semantically coordinate conflicts with Williams’ (1981) Law of the Coordination of Likes, if we define “Likes” syntactically. Can my proposal about CFM solve this problem? In §2.4 I proposed that semantic symmetry is fundamental and syntactic symmetry secondary in most coordinate structures. That proposal appears to be supported by the wenn. . . und. . . dann-construction. A check of the features relevant to coordination and subordination that each clause is assigned makes this point clearer: (104) [CPi [CPj Wenn [TP du . . . bestellst und [TP ich darf . . . bestellen]]] [subordinate, embedded] & [subordinate, embedded] [CPi dannj ist . . . hin]] [main, matrix] [CPi [CPj Wenn . . .[TP c-1 & [TP c-2]]][CPi dannj . . . [TP ]72 If we analyze the wenn. . . und-conjunction as the conjunction of two TPs sharing wenn (which c-commands both TPs) and ignore the verb positions, the asymmetry is less apparent: it lies purely in the surface-level position of the verb. Symmetry exists in the features that the wenn- and the dann-clauses share: (1) Both are clauses, i.e. have a finite verb and a subject; (2) Both are subordinate to the dann-clause; (3) Both have a form of the verb bestellen ‘to order’; (4) Their subjects, du and ich, contrast but constitute parallels, creating symmetry. Related to the fact of exceptions to Williams’ law is this question: What makes the mixture of grammatical relations in (97) possible? That is, how can a V2 und-clause be two things syntactically to two different clauses? This mismatch is presumably possible only if two otherwise robust syntactic features, the verb positions (VE and V2) and the syntactic features of wenn and und, are irrelevant in the conjunction of the two. It is generally assumed in studies on verb movement in Germanic languages that subordinating conjunctions and verb movement are closely linked, so that in German it appears to be the case that either the subordinating conjunction or the finite verb occupies the head of CP position. Other studies, most notably Zwart (1993, 1997), have shown that this complementary distribution is not as it appears. In fact, the position of the finite verb is also dependent on agreement and tense features associated with [T],

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.63 (3369-3429)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

and that the [T]-position is on the left branch of TP, and that it is the initial landing site of verb raising in V2 clauses. The important point for our analysis here is that there is no contradiction in the assumption that the V2 und-clause is conjoined with the wennclause, i.e. verb raising in the und-clause is not blocked by wenn, even though both the TP of the wenn-clause and the TP of the und-clause are semantically dominated by wenn, but remain in terms of verb position syntactically independent of each other. The relations of the wenn-clause to the V2 und-clause clearly contrast with those of the wenn-clause to the dann-clause, as indicated in (102). Given these data and the generalization that clauses relate to each other only in terms of coordination or subordination, we can assume that the V2 und-clause is semantically coordinate with the wenn-clause, an inter-clausal relation, but that wenn plays no role in the position of the verb in the V2 und-clause, i.e. it cannot block verb raising. Hence, the syntactic relation between the two clauses is obviously dependent on other features besides those of wenn. If this were not the case, both (105a, b) would not be acceptable: (105) a.

Wenn du ein Bier bestellst und ich darf keins mehr bestellen If you a beer order and I may none more order b. Wenn du ein Bier bestellst und ich keins mehr bestellen darf

What features trigger one or the other word order? They are clearly not syntactic features of the lexical items, since both constructions have the same lexical items. Quite obviously the syntactic-semantic features [subordinate/embedded] and [main/matrix], along with whatever other features these are associated with, e.g. features of wenn as a subordinating conjunction/complementizer, determine whether verb raising occurs or not.73 In either case, both clauses have a verb in final position; in V2 clauses it consists of a trace of the verb of which a copy occupies second position. The syntactic asymmetry in (105a) is, in this view, only superficial, given that the underlying verb positions are the same. A key point is that in a relation of coordination between two clauses, the syntactic features of the clausal heads do not by themselves play a role in interclausal relations, if there are any. In many cases there are no syntactic relations between coordinate clauses beyond the coordinate relation itself. For (97) I am assuming that wenn itself has no syntactic relation to the und-clause, as these two clauses are coordinate with each other, but wenn does have syntactic and semantic relations to the dann-clause in its function as head of a clause which states a condition for the dannclause. The und-clause, by comparison, as a coordinate of the wenn-clause, simply provides another condition, parallel to the one stated in the wenn-clause. If this is correct, the mismatch in (97) is twofold: (1) The syntactic mismatch between the wenn-clause and the V2 und-clause: both are stating a condition, but each uses a different kind of syntactic structure to do so. (2) The syntactic mismatch between the und-clause as a condition, and the dann-clause, for which it is a condition. Condition clauses are normally syntactically subordinate to conclusion clauses, the former VE clauses, the latter V2 clauses. Since the und-clause is a V2 clause, it is an aberation as a condition on the dann-clause. It is tolerated because it is conjoined,



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.64 (3429-3514)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

specifically it is semantically coordinated, with a wenn-clause, which is subordinate to the dann-clause. Important to note is that this kind of mismatch would not be possible without CFM; the matching of the wenn- with the und-clause provides the basis for the interpretation of a coordinate structure despite surface-level syntactic asymmetries.74 The fact that this kind of clausal asymmetry is permitted with condition clauses introduced by wenn, but not with the complementizer dass, must be considered: (106) a.

#Peter

weiß, dass du viel Geld gewonnen hast, und ich P knows that you much money won have, and I habe nichts gewonnen have nothing won = b. Peter weiß, dass du viel Geld gewonnen hast, und ich nichts gewonnen habe

The fact that (a) = (b) indicates that the conjunction of a V2 und-clause and a VE dassclause as in (a) does not result in the same semantic interpretation as the conjunction of two VE clauses as in (b). (a) is semantically odd because as a V2 clause, the undclause cannot be interpreted on par with the preceding structure. Why should this be so? My assumption is that the complementizer dass is too devoid of semantic content to establish a semantic relation between the clauses, in contrast to wenn which has at least the semantic feature [+conditional]. Because dass is purely a syntactic function word, its scope as a complementizer is limited to the syntactic domain of the dass-clause itself, unless an und-clause is conjoined and matched syntactically with it, i.e. has VE word order. The scope of wenn, by contrast, extends to the V2 und-clause because of its semantic features, which do not require syntactic symmetry for the extension of scope to the conjoined clause.75

... Some assumptions about subordination versus coordination Several assumptions can be formulated on the basis of some observations in the preceding section. The first has already received wide acceptance; the others have to my knowledge not been directly investigated in generative syntactic studies (but see Talmy’s (1978) study in terms of universals): (107) Assumptions about syntactic and semantic relations in subordination and coordination A. A subordinating conjunction is syntactically unified with verb derivation in the clause it heads, as seen in the very obvious correspondence in e.g. German and Dutch between the occurrence of a subordinating conjunction and the position of the finite verb. B. A coordinating conjunction is not syntactically unified with verb derivation in any clause, neither in the clause it conjoins, nor in the preceding clause, as no syntactic adjustments such as verb movement must occur when clauses are conjoined.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.65 (3514-3547)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

C. A coordinating conjunction, unlike a subordinating conjunction, is not unified in any way with verb derivation, indicating that it is not the head of the clause it conjoins, contrary to some claims of Antisymmetry Theory (Kayne 1994) about coordination. D. A V2 clause conjoined to a subordinate clause will be syntactically and semantically subordinate to any main clause in which the subordinate clause is embedded. The resulting syntax-semantics mismatch is only apparent, as a V2 clause does not have a priori status as either coordinate or subordinate, though one could argue that its default status is “main” and therefore non-subordinate. However, any main, V2 clause can be subordinate through conjunction with a subordinate clause, as the coordinating conjunction, unlike a subordinating conjunction, imposes no restrictions on either the semantic relation between the clauses, or on the syntactic structure of the clauses that it conjoins. V2 structure itself does not preclude semantic subordination. E. The syntactic link of coordination can in constructions like (97) produce a host – adjunct relation, the subordinate clause hosting a V2 adjunct clause. This relation presupposes that coordination has a syntactic representation which does not correspond to a semantic relation. If the two relations were both [+interpretive] and had to coincide with each other, we would expect a fundamental difference in meaning between the constructions in (97) (repeated here as (108)). Given that no such difference in meaning exists, we must assume that the same key semantic features occur in both:76 (108) a.

Wenn du noch ein Bier bestellst und ich darf keins mehr bestellen, dann ... b. Wenn du noch ein Bier bestellst und ich keins mehr bestellen darf, dann ... F. The structural properties of coordination are autonomous from the semantic relations between the conjuncts. The syntax of coordination must therefore be kept distinct from the syntax and semantics of subordination. If they were not distinct, we would not have the contrast between (108a, b), nor would the mismatch in (108a) be tolerated.

Given these assumptions, we can move on in the next subsection to the last type of mismatch introduced earlier.

.. weil+V2: Conjunction-clause and syntax-semantics mismatches In the construction in (98), repeated here as (109), we have a clause introduced by a paradigmatic subordinating conjunction, weil ‘because’, in which the finite verb oc-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.66 (3547-3609)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

cupies second position as in a main clause, instead of the clause-final position, as expected in a clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction in German: (109) Ich sollte kein Bier mehr trinken, weil ich hab’ schon viel I should no beer more drink, because I have already a-lot getrunken drunk (cf.: Ich sollte kein Bier mehr trinken, weil ich schon viel getrunken habe) The questions raised about this construction were: 1. Is (109) a case of mismatched semantics but matched syntax? That is, does the weil-clause actually stand in a relation of semantic subordination as does a normal weil-clause? Is the syntactic relation between the clauses nevertheless a coordinate one, as suggested by the finite verb position? 2. Stating 1 somewhat differently: Is the weil-clause simply an added comment, and therefore semantically conjoined, or is it an added condition and hence semantically subordinate? Is the position of the verb in the weil-clause any reliable indication of the syntactic relation between the clauses? There are a couple of tests we can use to answer these questions. One is the test used earlier for the construction in (96) to determine if the DP one more beer is syntactically actually a subordinate clause. That is: Can the weil-clause in (109) precede the main clause and occupy the position that is typical of adverbial, dependent clauses? The answer is: No. Observe the result of clause permutation in (110): (110) *Weil (. . . ) ich hab’ schon viel getrunken, sollte ich kein Bier mehr bestellen (cf. Weil ich schon viel getrunken habe, sollte ich kein Bier mehr bestellen) (weil+VE) Quite clearly the weil+V2 clause is not syntactically subordinate. But is it semantically subordinate? To answer this question we must ask whether the semantic reading is fundamentally different when the weil-clause occurs with the expected VE word order. The answer is: No. There is no alternate interpretation with the standard word order that is fundamentally different; therefore the weil-clause with V2 is semantically subordinate, as is the weil-clause with VE.77 We must conclude that the mismatch in (109) is on two levels: There is a syntax-semantics mismatch as in construction (96) because a syntactic coordination is matched with a semantic subordination. But in (109) we also have a purely syntactic mismatch between the subordinating conjunction and the V2 clause which it introduces. This raises the question of whether it is possible that weil in (109) actually occupies the syntactic position of a coordinating conjunction. An extraction test can provide us with the necessary data. Notice that in (111) only (a) allows ATB extraction of ein Bier:78

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.67 (3609-3688)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

ich nicht t i bestellen und ei konnte Ein Bieri durfte order and could-past a-acc beer might-past I not sich Hans nicht t i leisten refl H not afford b. *Ein Bier durfte ich nicht bestellen weil (. . . ) konnte sich Hans nicht leisten

(111) a.

Earlier we concluded that the weil-clause in (109) is not syntactically subordinate, and must therefore be syntactically coordinate. The comparison in (111) indicates, however, that even though the weil-clause is a coordinate clause syntactically, ATB extraction out of it is not possible, in contrast to typical coordinate clauses like the one in (111a). The answer must be found in the position of weil: because it does not occupy the position of a coordinating conjunction, it blocks extraction, which is typical of complementizers occupying C of CP in German.79 This assumption follows from what was hypothesized earlier with respect to subordinate clause derivation: a subordinating conjunction, as a head of its clause, occupies the head of CP and is syntactically unified with the derivation of the clause, in particular with verb movement in that clause in German. As clausal heads, they have blocking properties, whereas coordinating conjunctions, because they are not clausal heads and are not unified with verb movement and do not occupy a clausal head position, do not block extraction. This supports the assumptions in §2.5.4.2. about the properties of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. These will be taken up again in the next chapter where further aspects of the syntactic structure of coordination will be considered as they relate to proposals about the derivation of coordinate structures. A remaining question is: If weil occupies the [C] position of its clause, why is verb raising possible? An answer following from the assumptions in (107) is: The element in [C] does not by itself prevent conjunction, i.e. the establishment of symmetric relations between two clauses. With the neutralization of the syntactic properties of weil as a complementizer, verb raising – and the concomitant establishment of the raised verb as head of the clause – can occur. With weil in [C], the raised verb presumably occupies [T]. That it may not raise further to [C] as we would expect, given that weil occupies this position, is supported by (112a), but not by (112b):80 (112) a. *Ich sollte kein Bier mehr bestellen, weil drei habe ich schon bestellt b. Ich sollte kein Bier mehr bestellen, weil diesen speziellen . . .because this special Rotwein möchte ich auch noch probieren red-wine would-like I also yet (to) try We will return to these conflicting data in the next section where the mismatches that we have investigated are summarized and brought into focus with respect to coordination and feature matching.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.68 (3688-3733)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

.. Summarizing the mismatches Let’s sum up the foregoing observations about mismatches in these German bi-clausal constructions with the following two working hypotheses: (1) A subordinate clause following a V2 clause may conjoin with the V2 clause, creating a mismatch, if the syntactic features of the subordinating conjunction can be nullified. The nullification of the features of weil, required for V2, depends on this sequence and the manner in which the weil-clause is merged with the main clause: the merger is an adjunction rather than a subordination. This point is made more explicit in the next chapter. (2) A V2 clause following a VE wenn-clause may conjoin with the wenn-clause, creating a syntactic mismatch, because the syntax of the V2 clause remains independent of the head of the preceding VE clause. The semantic relation between them is one of coordination, as this relation makes it possible for both clauses to be semantically subordinate to the subsequent dann-clause. In both constructions, (97) and (98), the mismatches become superficial once the semantic interpretation is derived, which maintains semantic coordination where appropriate, as in (97), and semantic subordination where appropriate, as in (98). In both mismatches, the semantic features create symmetry despite a syntactic mismatch. In the wenn + und conjunction, semantic features overrule syntactic structure to create coordinate (semantic) symmetry, while in the V2 + weil conjunction, semantics overrule syntactic symmetry in favor of semantic subordination. In both cases the syntax remains autonomous for determining the structure, and the semantics remains autonomous for determining the meaning. The question arises: Why is syntactic coordination chosen in both constructions, despite the availability of an equally acceptable syntactically subordinate clause, and despite the semantic subordination that must be maintained in the weil+V2 construction? I will assume the choice for coordination is driven by force of the simplicity of coordination. It is a reflex of economy in derivation, because in coordination there is only one clausal head, the finite verb, and therefore fewer syntactic relations to work out.81 By contrast, in subordination a complementizer is the head of CP in the embedded clause, and the finite verb is the head of TP in the matrix clause. This is the case in German; no assumptions or predications about other languages are intended. Consider for purposes of contrast a mismatch that is disallowed: semantic coordination + syntactic subordination. In the mismatches we have considered this one did not occur. That is, there is no grammatical construction in which a coordinating conjunction, in place of a subordinating conjunction, can force a semantic coordination with a subordinate clause as in (113): (113) a. Du hast noch ein Bier bestellt, *und/weil ich abgehauen bin b. Du hast noch ein Bier bestellt, und/weil ich bin abgehauen you have yet a beer ordered and/because I am away-beaten ‘You ordered yet another beer and/because I took off ’ c. *Und du noch ein Bier bestellt hast, und ich bin abgehauen d. Weil du noch ein Bier bestellt hast, und ich abgehauen bin

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.69 (3733-3778)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

Recall that for the mismatch in (b) with weil, the subordinating conjunction weil must be nullified syntactically. The reason constructions like those in (113a, c) don’t occur may seem rather obvious: subordination of a finite clause generally requires a subordinating conjunction, as in (113d), which in turn normally requires VE word order in German, the syntactic signal of subordination.82 The VE requirement can be overruled in (113b) under the conditions discussed above when two defaults apply: V2 and coordination. The general syntactic principle I assume is that if the properties of a clausal head are nullified (as with weil), then a default mechanism must engage. In German, as in English, a clause lacking a subordinating conjunction will by default be a main clause, which in German requires V2. In (113a – with und) and (113b) the default derivation was not followed, hence the ungrammaticality.83 Let’s attempt to bring our consideration of mismatches in certain German constructions into perspective with respect to features and configurations and how they interact to create symmetry in coordination. The symmetry created in the conjunction of a wenn- with an und-clause, despite the contrasting syntactic configurations, is much as it occurs in the conjunction of the two contrasting categories such as DP and AP, examined in §2.3. In fact, we can classify the conjunction of a wenn- with an und-clause as a case of cross-categorial coordination, if we assume that the und-clause is a TP, following claims made in Zwart (1997) about Dutch and te Velde (1996) about German. Supporting this assumption is the fact that it is not possible to conjoin a wenn-clause with a main clause that has undergone object fronting, thereby creating a CP projection:84 (114) a. *Wenn du das beste Bier bestellen kannst, und das billigste if you the best beer order can and the cheapest muss ich bestellen, . . . must I order b. Wenn du das beste Bier bestellen kannst, und ich muss das billigste bestellen, . . . This is unexpected if there were no syntactic asymmetries between subject-initial and object-initial main clauses in German beyond the order of the arguments. The mismatch in (114) can be explained, assuming that subject-initial main clauses are TPs, on the basis of the syntactic neutrality of this clause type: it has no CP projection, thus no head in C, the locus of lexical items which bear features that conflict with the features of wenn in the previous clause when matching occurs, as indicated in (115a). By contrast, no features conflict with each other in the matching of the clausal heads in (115b): (115) a. *[CP [C Wenn] du das beste Bier bestellen kannst und [CP das billigste [Comp] [C muss] ich bestellen]] [Vfin]



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.70 (3778-3843)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. [CP Wenn [TP du [T] das beste Bier bestellen kannst und [tense] [TP ich [T muss] das billigste bestellen]]] [tense] Note that following the analysis presented earlier, wenn in (115b) dominates both TP conjuncts, i.e. is shared by both, and thus does not need to match with any element in the und-clause. Quite clearly the head features of the lexical items themselves are not the root of the asymmetry in (115b), but rather the surface position of the finite verb in the und-clause.85 Only highly, if not perfectly, symmetric CPs can be conjoined with each other.86 There is, however, a specific syntactic reason why a TP can be conjoined with a CP headed by wenn, as in (115b): The CP has an embedded TP that is symmetric with the underlying structure of the TP conjoined by und: (116) [CP Wenn [TP du das beste Bier bestellen kannst und [TP ich mussi das billigste bestellen t i ]]] . . . In the underlying structure, the two TPs are syntactically identical with respect to verb position, hence perfectly symmetric in this sense. We can assume that wenn has scope over both TPs, just as any subordinating conjunction does, as in (117): (117) a.

Ich glaube nicht, [CP dass [TP Peter immer Bier bestellt und immer Wein trinkt]]] b. Ich bestelle Bier, [CP obwohl [TP Paul Wein trinkt und [TP although P wine drinks and I order beer nicht dabei ist]]] not thereby is (isn’t here) c. Meistens wird Bier bestellt, [CP weil [TP es weniger mostly aux-passive beer ordered because it less hat und [TP der Wein teurer ist]]] has and the wine more-expensive is

[TP Paul Peter P

Alkohol alcohol

The assumption that subject-initial V2 clauses are TPs therefore provides a reasonable explanation for why the conjunction of a wenn-clause with a subject-initial V2 clause is perfectly grammatical, but not with any V2 clause that has a CP projection (i.e. has undergone V → T,Vfin → C). This point brings us back to (112b), a weil + V2 construction in which the weil-clause has undergone V → T,Vfin → C. The two constructions differ in one significant way: in the weil + V2 construction, no VE clause with a complementizer dominates a conjoined V2 clause, as in (116). Therefore, there is no need to maintain a relation of dominance of the complementizer over this conjoined V2 clause, neither for syntactic nor semantic reasons. Thus, the weil clause with V2 word order is “free” to undergo further derivation; in (112b) a DP is fronted and the finite verb raises to Top◦ ; for this a “split CP” is required (cf. discussion in Chapter 5) in which weil occupies the C position: [CP weil [TopP diesen speziellen Rotwein [Top◦

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.71 (3843-3889)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

möchte] [TP ich . . . probieren]]]. The C◦ position offers no syntactic advantage of dominance, however, as weil has been “reduced” through nullification of its complementizer features to the role of a coordinating conjunction. In the next chapter and Chapter 5 more examples and arguments provide greater support for this analysis, particularly as it relates to the syntactic properties of coordinating conjunctions. In the next section we consider two construction types in which CFM provides an LF interpretation that is based on symmetric sharing by two VPs of a syntactic form, a perfective auxiliary. The analysis builds on all previous sections, but specifically on §2.5.2 where tense symmetry in Spanish conjoined VPs was considered. The difference between the Spanish constructions analyzed there and the English constructions here is the auxiliary in [T] shared by two VPs. This type of symmetry exists in and is fundamental to both the syntactic and semantic relations in this construction type. It stands in contrast, however, to the basic asymmetry of the phrase structure as proposed in Kayne (1994).

. Symmetry within asymmetry through Select, Copy and Match The construction in (118a) seems straightforward on the surface. There are two VP conjuncts dependent on a perfective auxiliary in [T] with the negational element never at the left edge of the coordination:87 (118) a. = b. = c. = d. = e.

Katie has never [VP1 come home and [VP2 acted rude to her parents]] Katie has never come home and has never acted rude to her parents Katie has never come home and never acted rude to her parents Katie has never come home and has acted rude to her parents It has never been the case that Katie came home and acted rude to her parents

It is somewhat surprising that (e), in the preterite tense, is the only good paraphrase of (a) in the present perfect tense. The fact that (e) is the only good paraphrase points to at least two properties of constructions which combine present perfect, the conjunction of VP, and negation with scope over the conjoined VPs. They are: (a) the interpretational requirement exists by which one instance of an event must be combined with one instance of another (otherwise unrelated) event, and (b) the (related) interpretational requirement that the combination of instances identified by the process in (a) has never occurred (as follows from the negation). This somewhat unusual conjunction of syntactic and semantic relations is illustrated in (119) where the one (first) instance of an event that didn’t occur is Katie came home and the other (second) instance that didn’t occur is Katie acted rude to her parents:88



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.72 (3889-3927)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(119)

TP

NP Katie

TP T

TP

has N never

VP

Concurrent matching in LF:89 VP

V come adv home

VP & and

[K never VP

V

AP

acted A rude

[came home i1 …µ… in] and ] [acted rude j1 …ƒ… jn] s. t. i = ‘coming home’, µ = one instance of i, and j = ‘acting rude’, ƒ = one instance of j, with ƒ in È with µ

PP to her parents

We recall that Camacho’s proposal for the conjunction of TPs is to use a separate tense phrase [ZeitP] for each conjunct. This approach runs into problems with constructions like the one in (118a). Following his proposal, each VP has to have two [ZeitP] projections, each of which has a head position. However, because Camacho’s proposal is intended for Spanish, which does not indicate tense for conjoined VPs on a shared finite verb in [T], his structure would need some adaptation along the lines of ATB movement of has from each VP conjunction to the [T] position. ATB movement of this sort is necessary because presumably, leaving has in each conjunction would result in the bad paraphrase (118d). Adding a second occurrence of never in the second conjunct does not improve the grammaticality as indicated in paraphrase (118b). There is a theoretical problem with an approach like the one just outlined, one which derives VP conjuncts from two independent clauses. (118a) provides independent support for two important assumptions about grammar, particularly syntactic theory: (A) Clausal conjunction does not underlie the syntactic derivation or representation of VP conjunction, and (B) Syntactic derivation is autonomous from the semantic derivation. I will leave discussion of assumption A aside – it is lengthy and complex – and mention two recent studies that provide solid evidence and arguments in support of it: Hartmann (2000) and Munn (2000). The second assumption follows from the semantic interpretation of (118a) in (118e), represented in the structure on the right in (119) which requires a different representation than the syntactic representation. One might ask why this difference should be necessary and whether it conflicts with assumption A. One possible answer is: It’s more optimal/economical to derive

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.73 (3927-3989)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

the construction syntactically as indicated in (119), rather than as in the paraphrase in (118e), whose underlying structure requires two finite verbs. Although this argument might be convincing in its own right, there is another form of support for assumption B. The syntactic portion of (119) (on the left) provides theory-internal evidence of the way the syntax is organized: through the combination of hierarchical and linear dominance, syntactic relations can be more economically derived and can more optimally feed the semantic representation.90 As we have seen in other constructions, the asymmetric syntactic structure, based on principles of domains and dominance, establishes the scope of both has and never according to the dictates of linearization, which generates hierarchical dominance relations according to the principles of syntactic categories, which define the domains. But note that the symmetry of the coordination is not sacrificed. This is in large part possible because this symmetry is based primarily on the features of the semantic representation. However, the syntactic relations of has and never to the conjoined VPs require symmetry as well: their equal distribution to both conjuncts is a result of the operation Copy at conjunction, required to satisfy CFM. These relations are inherent in the asymmetric phrase structure indicated in (119), and no ATB movement of the auxiliary has is required to derive these relations, given the operations Copy in narrow syntax and Match in LF.91 This analysis of (119) would not be possible without these operations as part of conjunction. The semantic interpretation in (118e) requires the matching of instances of events from two conjuncts, as well as the establishment of the relations between has and never and the two conjuncts, accomplished via the asymmetric phrase structure. Without matching which identifies the symmetric domains of tense and negation in the two conjuncts, the semantic interpretation given in (118e) could not be derived. Recall that assuming that has occurs in both conjuncts does not produce the correct semantic interpretation, as indicated in paraphrase (118d), or that never occurs in both, cf. paraphrases (118b, c). Even if negation is eliminated from the construction, has may not occur in both conjuncts:92 (120) a. Katie has come home and acted rude to her parents. = b. Katie has come home and (Katie) has acted rude to her parents. The proposal that CFM is necessary for grammatical and well-formed coordinations makes it possible to have syntactic and semantic (and potentially prosodic) symmetry within an asymmetric phrase structure. The analysis in (119) raises a number of questions: (1) At what point in the derivation does the symmetry of the conjuncts come about? Must it precede the syntactic structure? Or is it a result of conjunction? These questions will be addressed in detail in Chapter 3, but one thing will be assumed here without further discussion: The conjunction of parallel planes shown on the right in (119) does not precede the syntactic derivation (like a “deep structure”), i.e. there is no good theory of syntactic derivation that would get the asymmetric structure out of the symmetric structure on the right. Presumably the syntactic numeration feeds the semantic representation in the sense



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.74 (3989-4045)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

that it lays the groundwork for it, and in this way the syntactic structure itself plays a key role in LF interpretation. There would be no reason for its existence otherwise. What we see in (119) is just another reminder of the division of labor in the grammar, sometimes referred to as the form-meaning dichotomy in language. What I have shown with the above and prior analyses is that a theory of coordination that is feature-driven is more compatible with minimalist theory for several reasons: (1) It can utilize a mechanism that is needed for syntax theory in general: feature matching. This aids unification. (2) The properties of asymmetry found in coordination fall out naturally from asymmetric phrase structure. (3) The symmetries of coordination are generated through Select (targeting the lexicon) and Copy, which targets the uninterpretable features requiring checking in the leading conjunct and copies them onto the next conjunct(s), in addition to the θ-role. Semantic symmetries are checked in LF, an operation that can be shown independently to be a central property of coordination, particularly of coordinate ellipsis. (4) Feature-driven coordination is economical/optimal and thereby addresses the central challenge of the minimalist approach.

. Chapter summary and conclusions In this chapter I have shown how a number of persistent problems of coordination can be handled within a grammar that operates more intensively on the level of feature clusters and individual features, and less so on the level of phrase structure and configurations. We saw how focusing on finer features than categorial features eliminates the problem of cross-categorial and other forms of unbalanced coordination, once a workable definition of symmetry in coordination has been defined. Coordinate symmetry is not understood in this analysis as an absolute term, meaning that two grammatical elements must be identical, possessing all the same features; rather, it is a relative term, referring to various degrees of matching, depending on the number of features two elements have in common. No one feature type, such as ‘categorial’ trumps another, though generally features that carry the semantic content carry more weight in the determination of coordinate symmetry than the others. Feature conflicts come in many forms in coordination. They can be manifested in the form of a masculine-looking adjective ending, like Spanish -o, that is shared by two nouns of different genders, or they can come in the form of two contrasting clause types, one embedded/subordinate the other matrix/main which fall under the scope of a single subordinating conjunction, like German wenn. When these conflicts are broken down to the level of the features possessed by the heads involved in the coordination, then much more symmetry appears that was obscurred by more superficial labels like ‘subordinate’, ‘main’, and categorial features, and by the phrase structures and configurations used to represent the surface-level syntax, without even taking the base-level syntax into consideration. In the case of the coordination of a wenn-clause with an und-clause, the contrasting verb positions should not obscure the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53

F: LA8902.tex / p.75 (4045-4109)

Chapter 2. Features and matching in coordination

fact that prior to cyclic rule application, the verbs are in the same position, and that the wenn-clause has an und-clause within it. Hence, this coordination is really just the coordination of two TPs having the same base structure, dominated by wenn whose scope extends equally, due to coordinate symmetry, to both TP conjuncts: (121) Wenn [TP du noch ein Bier bestellst [& und] [TP ich keins mehr bestelle . . .]] The verb raising that often occurs in the second TP conjunct of constructions like (121) does not upset the coordinate symmetry to the point of ungrammaticality because sufficient symmetry is maintained in the semantics and the underlying syntactic relations. In constructions like (121) syntactic symmetry is optional, and the occurrence of syntactic asymmetry and verb raising reflects the lack of a local relation between the second conjunct and the complementizer wenn. In this situation a default setting of the verb position engages: the default is V2 when a finite verb occurs, unless there is a local complementizer. The scope of wenn extends over both conjuncts nevertheless, as indicated by the fact that the interpretation of (121) is basically the same, regardless of whether bestelle is in the clause-final or second position. Coordinate symmetry is argued in Camacho (2000) to require coordinate phrase structures so that the symmetric tense forms in Spanish constructions like (122) can be accounted for: (122) Daniel casi [se acabó] y [se devoró] el helado D almost cl finished and cl devoured the ice-cream An alternate proposal given in §2.5.2 is based on the key assumption that the features of scopal elements like [tense], adverbials and negation interact with syntactic domains so that the scope of these elements extends only as far as a particular domain allows. In the case of the finite verbs in (122), the domain is VP. Given the assumptions about Copy and Match outlined in this chapter, the scope of these elements is copied and matched in the like domain, assuring the symmetry of the finite verbs and the interpretation of the conjuncts as both within the scope of casi. In a similar way, the scope of has as a perfective auxiliary and of the negational element never in Katie has never come home and acted rude to her parents is assured by the matching operation in LF. At the outset of this chapter it was stated that an overarching objective would be to show that a shift in focus to the features of grammatical elements of a coordinate construction would have the result that less reliance on structure building mechanisms for coordination would be necessary. Indeed, Copy and Match eliminate the need for slash categories, feature percolation and unary features (Sag et al. 1985). Because Copy and Match do not require structure building, they add no derivational mechanisms. With the interface between narrow syntax and AM, Copy merely reiterates what occurs already so that the necessary syntactic operations can be engaged as in the previous conjunct. Match in LF provides for the same symmetry on the level of semantics. In the next chapter the focus will be primarily on operations in syntactic derivations. Again the role of features will be central, with the overriding objective being the simplification (optimization) of the derivation of coordinate structures through the



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 11:53



F: LA8902.tex / p.76 (4109-4112)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

application of principles and operations introduced in this chapter. I will show that Copy and Match can substitute for ATB operations, if derivations proceed in phases, as outlined in Chomsky (1998, 1999).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.1 (46-116)

Chapter 3

Deriving coordinate structures

In this chapter we turn to the issues of derivation, particularly as they relate to phrase structure, that must be addressed in the approach to coordination outlined in the first two chapters. These concern primarily the symmetry and asymmetry of coordinate structures, specifically how (a)symmetry should be defined and accounted for in the phrase structure of a minimalist theory of coordination. One main objective will be to show that the complexity of these issues can be significantly reduced if a derivational theory of syntax is adopted as presented in Chomsky (1995, 1998, 1999). The innovations of the MP that will be argued to provide the most improvements for deriving coordinate structures are the operations Merge, particularly Merge without movement (pure Merge, Chomsky 1998) of which Conjoin is a subset, derivation by Phase, and late morphological insertion by default. These, combined with Select and Copy in narrow syntax and matching in LF, all discussed in Chapter 2, will be proposed as the essential tools for conjunction. Each of these operations will be reviewed in the respective sections before their implementation in the derivation of coordinate structures.

. Some background Ever since McCawley (1970) there have been attempts to unify the phrase structure of coordination with that of simplex structures, following the assumption that coordinating conjunctions are heads which project like the major categories N,V,P,A and have conjuncts in their Spec and complement positions. The most notable theories along these lines are Munn (1987) and Kayne (1994). Interestingly Munn refutes his 1987 theory in his 1993 dissertation. Kayne’s work is slightly predated by Johannessen (1993) where the notion that the asymmetric relation between conjuncts, when the first is in Spec and the second in the complement position, is used to explain various forms of unbalanced coordinate structures. All of these theories will be addressed in more detail in this chapter. The general assumption in early generative work on coordination was that the symmetries between conjuncts should be captured in the phrase structure. This approach has two shortcomings: (1) phrase structure theory was too undeveloped for any precise unification of the phrase-structural symmetries of coordination with what was being discovered about the structural properties of simplex sentences; and (2)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.2 (116-176)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

most of the symmetries in coordinate structures are not phrase-structural, certainly not in the sense that all conjuncts must be in the same c-command relation to some head, as was the aim in structures like the one in (1): (1) Bill bought the desk, the computer and the adjustable chair S VP

NP

NP

V NP

NP

? & NP

This notion of phrase structure was proven inadequate for the theory of binary branching, introduced in the early 80s, and it is furthermore not able to account for coordinate structures with more than one conjunct without exacerbating the problem of the branching. Binary branching does not, however, solve all the problems. It appears to obliterate the symmetries for which coordinate structures are so well known, and for that reason it has not been universally adopted. In this chapter I hope to show that binary branching is correct and appropriate for coordination, but also that this assumption does not lead to the unification of the syntax of coordinate structures with the syntax of subordinate clauses in every respect. Full unification, advocated most prominently in Kayne (1994) and Johannessen (1998) and assumed in many other studies, posits that both subordinating and coordinating conjunctions project a clause and thus head a separate syntactic domain. My position will be that coordinating conjunctions cannot be unified with complementizers for empirical reasons. I take this position, however, without abandoning the assumptions about heads and their projections as they are outlined in the Minimalist Program (MP). The MP does not explicitly require all lexical or functional elements to project an XP, and I will show in §3.4 that coordinating conjunctions do not project &P. The benefits of not equating conjuncts with subordinate clauses are many. First of all, we are able to account for those conjuncts which have no properties of clauses, eliminating the need to posit unnecessary operations for deriving them from clauses. Secondly, we can account for the obvious asymmetries between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions themselves. Thirdly, we do not have to assume that the conjuncts of a coordinate structure occupy the Spec and complement positions; there are several problems with this assumption alone, the most obvious being that coordinate structures with more than two conjuncts are asymmetric in unexpected ways with those having just two. All of these points will be addressed in §3.4. Adopting the position that coordinating conjunctions do not project &P but rather simply conjoin X(P) allows us to explore ways to account for the obvious parallelisms or symmetries evident in coordinate structures. In §3.5 we will investigate how Merge, a central operation of the MP, when combined with derivation by Phase,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.3 (176-228)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

provides the only structure-building tool needed for coordination. We will see that coordinate structures can be generated by a pure Merge operation on the right branch of whatever phrase is being extended by conjunction. This process of structure building is able to accommodate the structural symmetries of coordination as well as the asymmetries that occur in varying degrees. The asymmetries of coordination are the main focus of Johannessen (1998). In §3.6 we will turn to central questions that she raises with respect to these asymmetries and find that the operations posited in Chapter 2 for generating symmetries in coordinate structures, when combined with right-branch merger of conjuncts, can account for these asymmetries. A conclusion follows in §3.7. In the next section we take up the unification of binary branching and its corollary, asymmetric phrase structure, with the symmetries of coordinate structures.

. Binary phrase structure, asymmetry and coordination Binary phrase structure and the linking of linear order to hierarchical structure in Kayne’s (1994) Antisymmetry Theory create a tension between the traditionally-held assumption that coordinate structures are somehow symmetric (including their structure), and that phrase structure in general is fundamentally asymmetric, indeed antisymmetric, in the Kayne model. Camacho (2000) and te Velde (2000a) articulate this tension in some detail. Most current theories of coordination essentially abandon any structural symmetry in coordination and “unify” coordinate with embedded/subordinate structures by positing that both types of structures are headed by a conjunction, subordinate or coordinate. This unification results in the almost total loss of structural coordinate symmetries, however, and cannot be supported for independent reasons. Some relatively widely-adopted phrase structures proposed for coordination in recent years are summarized in (2a, b). In (2a) is a tree structure which represents Kayne’s (1994) view, based on work by Munn (1987), that [&] projects a phrase which has a conjunct in its Spec and complement positions; in (2a’) is the mirror image, argued by Johannessen (1998) as the required structure for head-final languages.1 The structure in (2b) is proposed in Munn (1993) as a way around problems with (2a). (2c) is an alternate to (2b) that will be proposed in this chapter for solving a number of remaining empirical and conceptual problems created by the structures in (2a, b) and their underlying assumptions:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.4 (228-271)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(2) [&] projects &P (XP = conjunct) a. Head-initial languages: (Munn 1987; Kayne 1994)

a.’ Head-final languages: (Johannessen 1998)

&P

&P &’

XP-1

XP-2

&

b. [&] is a Boolean category (Munn 1993: 13)2 NP

B

&

XP-1

c. Coonjunction by pure Merge (present study) TP-1

(NP conjuncts) DP

BP

NP-1

XP-2

&’

(TP conjuncts) ... TP

NP-2 &

TP-2

and, or, but

Chametzky (2000: 96) argues convincingly that Kayne’s theory of coordination, based on the claim that coordinating conjunctions head phrases, with conjuncts as complements and specifiers, conspicuously fails to relate the categories of the conjuncts in any way. He points out that one of the central empirical facts about coordinate structures is that only like syntactic categories conjoin. If this is so, then the central theoretical goal should be to derive this fact. Kayne’s theory does not do this; he does not even mention this fact of coordinate structures.3 Munn refers to his coordinate structure as “Adjoined BP” and argues against a “Spec/Head BP” as presented in (2a) – with [&] in place of [B] – using three independent arguments. They are based on (1) binding asymmetries between conjuncts, (2) Across-the-Board (ATB) extraction, and (3) asymmetric (unlike) category coordination. I will briefly summarize his first argument only, the most compelling of the three. The second argument will be taken up in Chapter 4; the third was addressed in Chapter 2. Binding asymmetries are evident in constructions like (3): (3) a. a.’ b. b.’

Every mani and hisi dog headed in a different direction *Hisi dog and every mani headed in a different direction Jacki ’s dog and hei /himi went toward the lake *Hei and Jacki ’s dog went toward the lake

As Munn points out, the fact that it is impossible for his and man in (3a’) and for he and Jack in (3b’) to be co-referential, strongly supports the assumption that the second conjunct does not c-command the first conjunct. These facts also support the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.5 (271-340)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

“Adjoined BP” structure over the “Spec/Head BP” structure if, as Munn argues, we assume m-command rather than c-command, the former defined this way: (4) A m-commands B if A and B are maximal, A = B, and every maximal projection dominating A dominates B (where A dominates B if all segments of A exclude B) Munn’s argument and data supporting an asymmetric relation between conjuncts are convincing in my view (but see an alternate view in Progovac 1998), leaving us with the question: What, if any, structural symmetries exist in coordination? We will return to this question as we consider the alternate proposal outlined in (2c) and defended in this and the next section. I will refer the reader to Munn (1993) for further comparison of the “Adjoined BP” and the “Spec/Head BP” and continue with arguments for the structure proposed in (2c), for which, as for the other theories, the assumption is made that there is a basic syntactic asymmetry in coordinate structures as the data in (3) suggest, but this asymmetry does not require us to adopt the structure in (2a) where the conjuncts occupy the Spec and complement positions. This difference does not answer the question just posed regarding coordinate symmetries, but it does bring us closer to accounting for obvious asymmetries between coordination and subordination. An acknowledgment of these asymmetries is fundamental to laying the groundwork for a proposal which can address the question of structural symmetry in coordination. Note that (2b) and (2c) are the same with respect to the abandonment of the Spec and complement positions as the locations of conjuncts. However, the structure in (2c) differs significantly from the one in (2b) in two respects: (1) The coordinating conjunction does not project, and (2) pure Merge, not adjunction, is the operation which generates the second conjunct. The second point will be discussed in more detail in §3.5. The distinction between right adjunction and pure Merge is largely terminological. One distinction should not be overlooked, however, namely: adjunction has traditionally been assumed to be a movement operation that targets A’ positions. Pure Merge, on the other hand, is defined this way in Chomsky (1998: 16): “Pure Merge is Merge that is not part of Move . . . Pure Merge in a theta position is required of (and restricted to) arguments.” The second part of this definition is of course relevant for DP/NP conjuncts. The assumption that pure Merge is the only operation appropriate for conjunction will be argued in detail in the context of our discussion concerning the difference between (2b) and (2c), that coordinating conjunctions do not project. We will approach this discussion by way of an analysis of a proposal made by Johannessen (1998). The overarching objective of this analysis is to show that the asymmetric structural relations inherent in the Spec-head-complement hierarchy of simplex sentences does not force the conclusion that coordinate structures have no syntactic symmetries. Rather, I will show that coordinate structures are defined by syntactic and semantic symmetries established at the feature level; they in fact determine whether or not any coordinate structure is acceptable.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.6 (340-376)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

. Coordination in the Spec-head-complement model The theory of coordination using the Spec-head-complement model illustrated in (2a), developed most extensively in Johannessen (1998), has several benefits: (1) a greater unification of the phrase structure of coordination with that of simplex sentences is achieved; (2) a phrase-structural account of unbalanced coordination is available, and (3) binding and other asymmetries between conjuncts can be accounted for. What I will argue in this section, however, is that this theory is a case of overreaching, for several reasons: (1) Coordinate structures cannot be generated in the phrase structure Johannessen proposes, if we follow the proposals of Chomsky (1998) and (1999), and forcing this phrase structure into the latest minimalist model comes at a high cost; (2) The syntactic asymmetry between conjuncts observed in (3) does not necessarily result in unbalanced coordination, contrary to what Johannessen claims; (3) Using pure Merge without the assumption that [&] projects [&P] is better supported by the data; (4) Coordinations with more than two conjuncts cannot be accounted for satisfactorily in the Spec-head-complement model advocated by Johannessen. We will consider the first two questions in the next two subsections. The remaining questions are addressed in §3.4 and 3.5.

.. Move α not required in conjunction Let’s turn to the first question: Why can coordinate structures not be generated with the phrase structure in (2a), assumed by Kayne (1994), Zoerner (1995) and Johannessen (1998)? One reason is very simple: Spec positions are targets of movement, and there is no independent or even theory-internal reason for assuming that conjuncts must move for conjunction to occur. Kuno (1973) proposes for Japanese that in constructions like (5a), the conjunct John-to moves to initial position from the position indicated in (5b):4 (5) a.

John-to Mary-ga paatii-ni kita J-conj M-nom party-to came ‘Both John and Mary came to the party’ b. Mary-ga John-to paatii-ni kita M-nom John-conj party-to came ‘Mary came to the party with John’

Such constructions do not, however, provide any independent support for the movement of conjuncts as part of the derivational operations necessary for conjunction, not for Japanese, nor for any other languages. The comparison merely points out an optional movement (for pragmatic or semantic reasons) which is independent of the syntactic derivation of the coordinate structure itself. Even if there is a syntactic requirement for this movement, conjunction remains independent of it, i.e. first comes conjunction, then movement.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.7 (376-437)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

Other arguments for movement in conjunction are based on constructions like those in (6). Van Gelderen (1997: 173–174) argues that constructions like these from Old English give evidence of the movement of an initial conjunct to Spec,TP or Spec,CP: (6) Chaucer, Merchant’s Tale, 1617 Placebo cam, and eek his freendes soone ‘Placebo came, and also his friends, soon’ (7) Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, 2610 The torches brennen, and the laumpes bryghte ‘The torches and the lamps burn brightly’ In §3.5.2 we will see that such constructions can be generated without movement within a model that uses derivation by phase and the operations Copy and Match to support Late Merge. Aside from this proposal, structures like those in (5), (6) and (7) provide no independent evidence that coordinate subject DPs are in a Spechead-complement arrangement with [&] as head. Indeed, those in (6) and (7) present serious problems for the proposal in (2a): It is impossible for the first conjunct to occupy Spec,&P and the second conjunct the complement position of &P, if the structure is to meet the requirements of binary branching. Furthermore, we must assume that movement of the initial DP leftward out of Spec,vP to Spec,TP or Spec,CP is triggered by a feature checking requirement of [T] or [C], not by a requirement of some feature of [&], i.e. this movement is independent of conjunction. My basic assumption about conjunction as a derivational operation (to be defined more specifically in §3.5) will be the following: (8) Assumption about movement and conjunction: The syntactic operation Move is never a required part of conjunction as a derivational operation. Rather, all conjuncts are merged without Move by pure Merge Various arguments with supporting evidence will be presented throughout this chapter in support of this basic assumption. The most fundamental of these is that [&] is not a projecting head and performs no checking function like the heads N,V,P,A. This argument will be taken up in §3.4. Another problem for the Spec-head-complement theory, beyond the implicit movement requirement, is that one must assume that OV languages have their complement and specifier positions reversed, as indicated in (2a’). But there is no evidence that specifiers actually occur after their heads in these languages, as Munn (1993) points out. Thus, Johannessen is forced to make an exception for coordinate structures, resulting in a breakdown of unification and the addition of a construction-specific stipulation, the latter anathema to minimalist theory.5 Furthermore, languages like Luiseño, an Uto-Aztecan language spoken in Southern California, would not be accountable under the Spec-head-complement theory



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.8 (437-496)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

because in this language coordinate NPs have a coordinating conjunction after them, never between them. In (9) and (10) are given two possible word orders in Luiseño, taken from van Gelderen (1997: 174): (9) Xwaan Mariya weh pum ?owo?aan X M and aux working ‘Xwaan and Mariya are working’ (10) Xwaan pum Mariya weh ?owo?aan X AUX M and working ‘Xwaan and Mariya are working’ Languages like classical Latin and Japanese, which cliticize a coordinating conjunction onto the last conjunct, also cause problems for the Spec-head-complement model. The argument has been used by Kayne (1994) and Zoerner (1994) that languages in which a conjunction must occur before every conjunct (cf. Payne 1985) provide evidence for the status of [&] as a projecting head. This property of ‘conjunction doubling’ can be analyzed in another way, however. We will return to this point in §3.4.1. In the next section we address some problems with Johannessen’s treatment of unbalanced coordination. We will see that a theory of symmetric agreement in coordinate structures needs to be based on the canonical configuration of conjoined subjects rather than induced by a semantic stipulation.

.. Unbalanced coordination Johannessen’s study brings to light an interesting set of coordination data that had not been given much consideration in previous studies. The data must be addressed seriously, as Johannessen maintains, and her study indeed advances coordination theory significantly in this respect. Given these advances and those within minimalist syntax in general, I think we are at a point where greater unification and sharpening of coordination theory is possible. Unification must be made in two areas: (1) In the phrase structure and the syntactic machinery required to generate it; and as a result of this: (2) In the data set that can be accounted for without stipulations. One shortcoming of Johannessen’s theory related to her approach outlined earlier is that the larger data set is neglected. This set includes those coordinate structures in which there is an obvious balance and symmetry between the conjuncts, syntactically and semantically, especially those made up of more than two symmetric conjuncts. For instance, in two widely-studied languages, German and English, most coordinations of DP/NPs result in the same Case and theme assigned to all conjuncts. Johannessen’s theory must include an extra mechanism or rule to account for these. This problem was the topic of §2.3.3.Configurations and agreement in coordinate structures where I propose an account using Copy and Match that predicts these forms of coordinate symmetry. These operations and how they fit into a derivational model will be ad-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.9 (496-568)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

dressed again in §3.5 where they will be shown to play a key role in the derivation of coordinate structures. Other data illustrating unbalanced agreement similar to those consider by Johannessen (1998) are found in German and Dutch VSO constructions like those in (11): (11) a.

Aber links war die Binnenalster und die weißen But to-the-left was the Inner Alster and the white (Duden, cited in Johannessen 1998: 29) Lichtreklamen light-billboards b. In de kamer komen/kom/*komt ik en Jan vaak In(to) the room come-pl/come-1sg/come-3sg I and J often

In (11a) war agrees with singular Binnenalster, not with plural Lichtreklamen, nor with the two DPs together; in (b) the agreement of kom with ik parallels the agreement configuration in (a). Given the VSO configuration of these constructions, we would suspect, following Jaeger (1992), that the unbalanced agreement would not occur in SVO equivalents of (11). As (12) indicates, this is the case: (12) a. a.’ b. b.’

Aber die Binnenalster und die weißen Lichtreklamen *war/waren links Aber die weißen Lichtreklamen und die Binnenalster *war/waren links Ik en Jan komen/*kom/*komt vaak in de kamer Jan en ik komen/*kom/*komt vaak in de kamer

This comparison indicates that more is involved in the occurrence of singular agreement in VSO configurations than just the specifier-complement asymmetry and the head-final/head-initial parameter. Ironically for the Johannessen approach, the SVO versions require balanced, i.e. symmetric agreement in the sense that the two conjuncts together agree with the verbs. This balanced agreement is not predicted by Johannessen’s theory, regardless of whether German is classified as a SOV or SVO language. Johannessen classifies German and Dutch as mixed languages with respect to the OV/VO parameter and predicts that in V2 constructions they behave more like English, an obvious VO language. But even English, colloquial or standard, is not partial to first-conjunct agreement: (13) a. ( ?) We and George don’t get along very well a.’ Us and George/George and us don’t get along very well b. He and I hang around a lot together b.’ Me and him/him and me hang around a lot together Both subjects in each of these constructions agree with the verb (as a single constituent marked [+pl]), not just one or the other. Johannessen assumes for constructions with symmetric agreement, calling them cases of “Extraordinary Balanced Coordination” (EBC), that they do not involve any form of syntactic agreement; rather, the agreement is semantic only. She concedes that there is no clear way to derive the agreement facts using her theory (Johannessen 1998: 61). Her claim that agreement in (13) is se-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.10 (568-621)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

mantically based conflicts, however, with general assumptions about the division of the grammar: How can Case morphology be determined by semantic features? We will return to an account of EBC in §3.6 where it will be posited that this type of agreement in coordination in which Case morphology conflicts with syntactic position and semantic features is actually a form of coordinate symmetry and is not as extraordinary as Johannessen maintains. It is in fact a default form of agreement and reflects the basic symmetry of coordination; it is not a form of agreement which requires any stipulative or semantic mechanism. As further illustration of asymmetry in coordinate structures, Johannessen points out that in a number of languages (Czech, Old Norse, some Arabic and Hebrew varieties, and Serbo-Croatian) agreement occurs only with the first conjunct in VSO configurations, supporting the findings of Corbett (1991) and Jaeger (1992). This seems to be the type of agreement required in English: (14) a. There was/*were a baby, its mother and her dog in the room b. There’s several cars outside the house The same type of agreement, between just the first of multiple conjuncts and the finite verb in a VSO configuration, have been noted to occur in German (15a–d) and Dutch (15e) also: (15) a.

aber auch in seinem Falle verlässt ihn [der heroische Sinn] but also in his case leaves him [the heroic sense]nom und [die angeborene Königswürde] nicht6 and [the in-born king-worthiness]nom not ‘but also in his case the heroic sense and the in-born royal character don’t leave him’ b. Es stürzte der Berg und das Land in sich zusammen7 It crashed.sg the mountain and the land into refl together ‘The mountain and the land crashed into each other’ c. Ist die Kurfürstin noch und ihre Nichte hier. . . ?8 Is the Electress yet and her niece here ‘Are the Electress and her niece here yet?’ d. In den Wald ging der Jäger und sein Hund In(to) the wood went-sg the hunter and his dog e. In de kamer kom ik en Jan vaak into the room come-1sg I and J often

It should be pointed out about these German and Dutch data, however, that they are rare in written texts, and that further investigation of corpora with spoken usage is necessary to ascertain just how much this kind of unbalanced agreement occurs. We note also that, like the English constructions in (13), the Case morphology reflects balanced agreement. This construction type will be taken up again in §3.6 where we will be able to apply the model presented in §3.5 for determining its derivation. At this point we simply note that it does not provide clear-cut evidence that agreement in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.11 (621-689)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

coordinate structures is unbalanced; at most we can claim that number agreement in the derived (non-base) VSO configuration is asymmetric. A note about the English construction in (14) is appropriate here: although unbalanced agreement is required when existential there precedes the verb, the same agreement is not required in wh-constructions when the verb requires progressive aspect or a compound tense: Why (*)??was/were a baby, its mother, and a dog waiting/sitting/etc. in the room? b. When (*)??was/were a baby, its mother, and a dog waiting in the room? c. (*)??Has/have a baby, its mother, and a dog been waiting a long time already? d. (*)??Does/do a baby, its mother, and a dog always have to wait this long?

(16) a.

In the SVO equivalents of all of these, any singular agreement is completely ungrammatical in both standard and colloquial usage: (17) a. b. c. d.

A baby, its mother, and a dog were/*was waiting/sitting/etc. in the room A baby, its mother, and a dog were/*was waiting in the room A baby, its mother, and a dog have/*has been waiting a long time already A baby, its mother, and a dog do/*does not always have to wait this long

All of the data in (16) and (17) with plural number agreement are problematic for the Johannessen theory to the extent that a separate mechanism is required for them, even though they represent the canonical configuration of conjoined subjects. We could expect a separate stipulation or mechanism to account for constructions like (14), if one were necessary, but not for those in (17). The picture that emerges from these data points to more complexity than a theory based on configurational factors with an added semantic mechanism can account for. For these reasons, I believe a more satisfactory account is required, if we hope to reach the objectives of a minimalist account. Before an alternative can be outlined, we must consider what the properties of coordinating conjunctions themselves appear to be and what these suggest for an account of unbalanced (asymmetric) coordination. We recall that the central assumption behind (2a) is that [&] projects &P. This assumption will be challenged in the next section. Then in §3.5.6.3 we will revisit the construction type in (14), after we have considered some derivational aspects of conjunction.

. Properties of [&] and clausal conjuncts A central requirement of a theory of coordination like the one proposed in Kayne’s (1994) Chapter 6 is that the category [&] projects a phrase, and that the Spec and complement positions of this phrase contain conjuncts. We would therefore assume that the projection of [&], which contains the left conjunct, is subject to the same feature-



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.12 (689-752)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

checking requirements that any DP in a Spec position is subject to, and that the right conjunct in the complement position is the target of Case and φ-role assignment. Furthermore, we would assume that [&] plays a role in these operations in the same way that the heads [V,P,A] do, and that [&] heads a projection that constitutes a syntactic domain, in parallel with the category [C]. In this section I will argue that [&] is defective and is therefore incapable of projecting a phrase and performing any syntactic operation.9 In brief, [&] simply conjoins and nothing more, though in conjunction the operations performed on the conjunct to which another conjunct is conjoined will be matched on the second and subsequent conjunct(s). My case will be built, then, on the defectiveness of [&], beginning with its status with regard to projection: it cannot project a phrase level; the possibility will be explored whether individual features are projected.

.. [&] does not project a phrase Several arguments can be presented for the assumption that [&] is not a member of the class of syntactic categories that project a phrase (maximal projection) that dominates other phrases. If this assumption can be defended, we must make a syntactic distinction between the major categories N,V,P,A on the one hand, and [&] on the other, which is more like the category Adverb (Adv), classified in Travis (1988: 287) as “defective” in terms of its categorial status. I will argue, based on independent evidence, that [&] is even more defective than Adv.10 The first piece of evidence is that, like Adv, [&] has no independently identifiable Spec and complement positions. Although it is possible to use what might be considered to be complements or specifiers with Adv, such as severely to the right or truly impossible, it is not clear whether severely or truly is in Spec or the head position. Adv quite clearly cannot have an element in both a specifier and a complement position in English:11 (18) a. *Bill drove the car extremely fast carelessly/carelessly extremely fast b. *The car swerved severely to the right swiftly c. *Sue wrote the paper very well quickly/quickly very well/well very quickly In the case of [&], which is more closely related to Adv than any other category, the situation is even murkier.12 Only theory-internal arguments can be given for the assumption that the two DPs in (19), for instance, are in the Spec and complement positions of and: (19) a. Bill crashed [DP a car] and [DP a boat] b. He destroyed [DP a tree] and [DP a dock] Given that the two DPs must agree symmetrically with the finite verb to their left and be rendered interpretively as symmetric objects, i.e. both as [theme], it seems semantically and syntactically wrong to assume that they occupy contrasting syntactic positions, especially if these positions have any functional and interpretive content.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.13 (752-802)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

Further arguments supporting the distinction between N,V,P,A and [&] are available from diachronic and cross-linguistic comparisons. It comes as no surprise from the perspective of the present proposal that a syntactic divide exists between the two types of conjunctions, coordinating and subordinating, when the sources of each are considered. Kiparsky (1995) and others have shown that subordinating conjunctions (complementizers) developed from pronouns in Gothic, e.g. thatei ‘that’ from that‘this’, a demonstrative pronoun, compounded with ei ‘that’, a complementizer. Pronouns, as D-elements, are functional like V and P, and it is not surprising that in German several prepositions can be used as both complementizers and prepositions: bis ‘until’, seit ‘since’, während ‘during’. This contrast is expected, if we assume that subordinating conjunctions are in the class of those categories that project a phrase level, and that [&] is not in this class. Some coordinating conjunctions, e.g. denn ‘for’, aber ‘but’, sondern ‘but rather’ have, by contrast, developed from adverbs. Furthermore, in some languages clitics are used in place of a free morpheme as a connective. Kuno (1973) provides numerous examples from Japanese (see §3.4.1).13 Korean uses -go as in (20):14 (20) Peter-neun keu-go Paul-eun jageun chaek-eul sa-ass-ta P-topic large-and P-topic small book-acc bought ‘Peter bought a large, and Paul a small book’ Both Russian and French also use clitics as connectives. The general assumption about clitics is that they do not project. If [&] belongs to this class, we can conclude that it does not project [&P]. A proposal along these lines therefore predicts that Japanese can have Conjunction as a derivational operation, as attested by the data in Kuno (1973) and many other studies, even though it does not have any functional categories. In §3.3.1 we noted that some languages like French require ‘conjunction doubling’ as in (21) (from Kayne 1994: 58): (21) Jean connaît et Paul et Michel J knows and P and M Contrary to Kayne’s claim that the repetition of the conjunction after each DP indicates that the conjunction projects a phrase level that dominates the DP, I will argue that this property of French and other such languages is one more manifestation of coordinate symmetry: with a lexical [&] preceding every conjunct, this symmetry is made more transparent. This lexicalization of [&] could be a requirement in some languages in which the prosody is not able, unlike in languages such as German and English, to demarcate the edges of the conjuncts. An additional explanation in the model that I am proposing can be developed along the lines of a requirement of Copy and Match via active memory. The fact that some languages choose to trigger it through the lexical realization of [&] at the point in the derivation when the first conjunct is selected, rather than wait until the second conjunct is merged, should not be surprising for two reasons: (1) the prosody is not adequate for triggering Match; and (2) the coordinating conjunction itself may have properties of a clitic, as is the case in French. In this



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.14 (802-865)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

respect the occurrence of [&] before the first DP conjunct simply assures that Match is induced, as it is by prosody and the occurrence of [&] before the second/last conjunct in languages like German and English. A theory-internal argument related to conjunction doubling against [&] as a projecting head can be constructed along these lines: If [&] projects the phrase level which dominates the conjunct in its complement position and has the first conjunct in its Spec position, as claimed in the Spec-[&]-complement model, why doesn’t the first [&] in (21) have a Spec position? Furthermore, how can the first conjunct in (21), Paul, be a complement of the first et and also occupy the Spec position of the second et, as required in this model? Related to this is the problem of the contrast between the Spec and complement positions. This contrast is not expected in a coordinate structure, following what the vast majority of studies have shown convincingly about the properties of coordinate structures. If, for instance, most coordinate structures have conjuncts with the same category label, an aspect of coordinate symmetry, then it is inconsistent to claim that the second of two conjuncts is a complement of [&], but not the first. This problem becomes worse for each conjunct added to the coordinate structure that is not preceded by a lexical [&]. From this perspective languages with conjunction doubling can be used as an argument in support of the present model, for conjunction doubling simply reinforces coordinate symmetry. We must keep in mind that the number of languages which require conjunction doubling is very small; this fact alone dispels any notion that the phenomenon might be an as yet undiscovered syntactic requirement that parallels the requirement that a relative pronoun introduce a relative clause, or a complementizer an embedded clause. Let’s turn now to other properties of [&] which support the assumption that it is a “defective” head that can neither attract features nor project a phrase; rather, it possesses the feature [reiterate] which at conjunction induces the operations Copy and Match.

.. [&] does not assign or check Case If [&] neither attracts features nor projects &P, then we would expect that it does not assign or check Case, if we understand Case as defined by Blake (2001: 1) who states that Case is “a system of marking dependent nouns for the type of relationship they bear to their heads. Traditionally the term refers to inflectional marking, and, typically, Case marks the relationship of a noun to a verb at the clause level or of a noun to a preposition, postposition or another noun at the phrase level.” If Blake is correct, it is expected that contrasts exist between verbs and prepositions on the one hand, and coordinating conjunctions on the other with respect to syntactic position. In VO languages, a DP/NP must be linearly to the right of the Case-assigning head; in OV languages we find the reverse order. In the strictly OV language Japanese, [&] occurs as a clitic to the right of the conjunct it is most closely associated with; however, it has no effect whatsoever on the Case of a DP/NP conjunct in that position. Furthermore, this

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.15 (865-919)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

DP can move to initial position if it is a subject, in which case the cliticized [&] occupies a position between two conjuncts ((5) repeated here as (22), from Kuno 1973):15 (22) a.

John-to Mary-ga paatii-ni kita J-conj M-nom party-to came ‘Both John and Mary came to the party’ b. Mary-ga John-to paatii-ni kita M-nom John-conj party-to came ‘Mary came to the party with John’

In its position between the conjuncts, -to occupies the paradigmatic position of [&] as a free morpheme in languages like English and the Germanic languages. It is not surprising that movement to this position is possible in Japanese, if with this movement -to occupies a position typical of [&] as a free morpheme. I will argue in §3.6 that CFM requirements are triggered by the selection of [&]; this selection occurs as the initial step in conjunction and therefore needs to precede the selection of a second conjunct. This derivational sequence conflicts with the data in (22); solving this problem would take us too far afield of the immediate discussion, but a solution will be suggested in §3.5.4. The point to keep in mind here is that Japanese -to does not assign Case or project; rather, its position and relations to conjuncts are compatible with what we expect of [&] as a non-projecting category. If [&] is not a Case assigning head, we would also expect contrasts with subordinating conjunctions, specifically that [&] has no syntactic domain of its own, whereas subordinating conjunctions do and therefore fall into the class of projecting categories. This assumption is borne out by the contrasts between subordinate and coordinate clauses outlined in (23):16 (23) Subordinate clauses can move (a and a’ translate b and b’ respectively): a. Everyone knows [that he writes novels in his spare time] a.’ [That he writes novels in his spare time] everyone knows b. Jeder weiß [dass er in seiner Freizeit Romane schreibt] b.’ [Dass er in seiner Freizeit Romane schreibt] weiß jeder (24) Coordinate clauses cannot move (a and a’ translate b and b’ respectively): a. [He works on a novel] and [then goes out with friends] a.’ *[And then goes out with friends] [he works on a novel] b. [Er arbeitet an einem Roman] und [geht dann mit Freunden aus] b.’ *[Und geht dann mit Freunden aus] [arbeitet er / er arbeitet an einem Roman] Subordinating conjunctions (complementizers, Comp) differ from [&] in one important respect: Comp, but not [&], possesses the feature [D] for definiteness, most commonly associated with definite articles. This feature enables Comp to determine

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.16 (919-970)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

its own syntactic domain. The fact that dass, wenn and the other complementizers in German have their own syntactic domains is seen in the lack of V → T movement in a CP headed by either of these Comps. The weakening of this [D]-feature leads to the result that V → T is allowed under certain circumstances, like those in (25) reflecting spoken usage, investigated in §2.5.5:17 (25) a.

Ich kann heute Abend nicht ins Kino, weil ich hab’ I can today evening not in-the cinema, because I have kein Geld no money ‘I can’t go to the movies tonight because I have no money’ b. Ich finde den Film ziemlich langweilig, obwohl er hat gute I find the film rather boring, although it has good Schauspieler actors

Another property of [&] is that, unlike Comp, it cannot move with the following conjunct to another position, as we observed in (24). I interpret this restriction as further evidence that it does not have the [D]-feature, necessary for it to form a single constituent with this conjunct and for determining its own syntactic domain. Further examples are given in (26) (cf. a versus a’, b versus b’, in contrast to [Comp+embedded clause (TP)] in c and c’):18 (26) a. a.’ b. b.’ c. c.’

Joe trains tigers and Jill performs stunts *And Jill performs stunts, Joe trains tigers That you write novels and that he performs stunts I have long known *And (that) he performs stunts I have long known that you write novels I have long known [that you write novels] [That you write novels] I have long known

Structures comparable to [C+TP] are given in (27a, b); these also form a single constituent (head+complement or Spec+NP) and can be moved: (27) DP+PP, P+DP are each a constituent: a. Last year he wrote [a novel [about the Thirty-Years’ War]] a.’ [A novel [about the Thirty-Years’ War]] he wrote last year b. He wrote it [during the winter] b.’ [During the winter] he wrote it As in English, [&]+clausal conjunct cannot move in German, but Comp+TP may (a and a’ translate b and b’ respectively): (28) a. I didn’t know [that he wrote a novel about the Thirty-Years’ War] a.’ [That he wrote a novel about the Thirty-Years’ War] I didn’t know b. Ich wusste nicht [dass er einen Roman über den Dreißigjährigen Krieg schrieb]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.17 (970-1032)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

b.’ [Dass er einen Roman über den Dreißigjährigen Krieg schrieb] wusste ich nicht Ross (1967: 90–91) argues that constructions like those in (29) provide evidence that [&] forms a constituent with the following conjunct: (29) a. b. c. d.

John left. And he didn’t even say goodbye *John left and. He didn’t even say goodbye John bought a book yesterday, and a newspaper *John bought a newspaper yesterday, a book and

The fact that a clause boundary between and and the following conjunct as in (29b) produces an ungrammatical construction in English does not, however, provide independent support for the assumption that and is a head like a subordinating conjunction that projects a clause. The reasons (29b, d) are ungrammatical will be taken up in §3.5.1–3.5.4 where the operation Conjunction in a derivational model will be addressed. As indicated in (24b), [&] does not block verb raising, unlike dass or any other complementizer. Furthermore, there is no independent evidence that coordinating conjunctions check features in the way assumed in minimalist theory, i.e. in a Spechead configuration. If they did, we would not get the typically symmetric Case forms in constructions like those in (30), for [&] is not in a Spec-head checking relation with all of the conjuncts: (30) a.

Der Mann, sein Sohn the-nom man his-nom son den Fluss entlang the river along b. Niemand sieht den Mann, no-one sees the-acc man c. Niemand spricht mit dem no-one speaks with the-dat Hund dog

und ihr Hund spazieren and their-nom dog walk

seinen Sohn und ihren Hund his-acc son and their-acc dog Mann, seinem Sohn und ihrem man his-dat son and their-dat

It might seem logical and linguistically sound to assume that the Case of all DP/NP conjuncts in the domain of one [P] or [V] is checked by this head, in the same manner as in a simplex sentence. Given the asymmetry of phrase structure, however, including the relations between conjuncts, this kind of symmetric checking, in which one head checks all conjoined DP/NPs equally, is not possible. Instead, we will find in §3.5.6.2 that matching features result from Copy, producing the kind of symmetry in conjoined DP/NP phrases evident in (30). The most we can attribute to [&] in the checking of Case or other features is the role of inducing Copy throughout the coordinate structure via conjunction. Following the proposal of §2.1 that [&] induces a copying operation, the Case distribution required for the symmetric Case forms of constructions

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.18 (1032-1081)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

like those in (30) follows directly. The phrase structure assumed for symmetric DPs of the sort in (30) is given in (31): (31) The phrase structure of conjoined DPs DP D

NP N

DP &

DP D

NP N

...

The uppermost DP is dominated by a TP if the DPs are conjoined subjects, by [v’] if they are conjoined direct or indirect objects. In accordance with the assumption that [&] does not project, it is dominated by a DP. If another category were conjoined, then that category would dominate [&]. Case checking resulting in the symmetric Case forms seen in (30) proceeds in a sequenced fashion as each conjunct is merged. Details of Merge and Case checking will be taken up in §3.5.6.2 after Merge in coordinate structures has been introduced. The structure in (31) indicates the domain of [&] as DP. Within this domain, [&] induces Copy and Match at conjunction. The domain of [&] is appropriately not determined by [&], since it is a defective head, but by the category that dominates [&]. In this way the target of Copy and Match is dependent not on the defective head [&], but on the category which [&] conjoins. These assumptions appear to be falsified by Spanish usage in PPs like (32) (from Goodall 1987: 47–48):19 (32) a.

Para for b. *Para for c. Para for d. *Para for

mí/ti me/you-obj yo/tú I/you-nom tú y yo you-nom and I ti y mí you-obj and me

The paradigm in (32) shows that para assigns [+objective] to a single pronoun object, but not to a second conjoined pronoun, i.e. the domain of Case does not appear to extend to the second conjunct as we expect, if [&] induces Copy as claimed here. At conjunction Case assignment appears to be defaulting. An account of default Case is

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.19 (1081-1144)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

therefore a necessary part of a grammar model which claims to generate coordinate structures. The account of default Case used here will be the one outlined in Schütze (2001). We will find that Spanish and English both utilize default Case because of the inadequacies of their morphological Case systems, with the difference that Spanish pronouns default to [+nom], while English pronouns default to [+objective] when such Case morphemes are available. In both English and Spanish this occurs only with pronouns. Answering the question of why Case checking defaults in these constructions will be put off until §3.6, as the account requires the incorporation of phase theory into conjunction, the topic of §3.5. To sum up this section, we note some key contrasts between properties of a head that projects XP (X(XP)) in (33), and those of [&] in (34): (33) Properties of a projecting head a. X(XP) defines the syntax of its entire projection, e.g. a subordinating conjunction projects a clause and obviates the need for V → C in German and Dutch; hence the subordinate clause-main clause asymmetry. b. X(XP) if N,V,T or v checks Case, EPP-feature or φ-features within its domain. (34) Properties of [&] a. [&] does not project and therefore does not establish its own syntactic domain. b. [&] does not assign or check θ-roles or features of EPP, Case or φ. Based on the contrasts between X(XP) and [&], we can state the following contrasts between embedded CPs and CP conjuncts: (35) Properties of CP conjuncts a. Paratactic in the sense that they do not occupy a licensed position in another clause. b. Prosodically independent, having their own main focus accent. c. Constitute an independent syntactic domain; no external element dominates them. (36) Properties of embedded CPs a. Syntactically and semantically dependent on another clause: occupy either a licensed position in another clause, or modify an element in another clause. b. Prosodically distinct from a main clause, lacking main focus stress, indicating a dependent relation. c. Within the syntactic domain of either a subordinating conjunction or some external element. We turn now to some claims of theories which unify coordination and subordination, as they relate to asymmetric or unbalanced agreement.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.20 (1144-1192)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

.. Non-projecting [&] and asymmetric agreement A prediction of a theory like Johannessen’s is that in the typical construction involving conjoined DPs, the agreement between the conjoined subjects or objects and the Case-assigning or checking verb should be fundamentally asymmetric. To support this point, Johannessen (1998) presents data from a wide variety of languages in her Chapter 2. There is no doubt about the presence of some form of “unbalancedness” in coordinate structures in a relatively large number of languages. The prediction of Johannessen’s theory, however, is that every language should have unbalanced coordinate structures everywhere, if there are no rule mechanisms or operations to prevent or “repair” the unbalanced syntactic relations that lie at the basis of coordination as she accounts for it. For English Johannessen claims that a semantic agreement rule makes balanced agreement (which she calls “extraordinary balanced coordination”) possible in the typical coordinate structure like (37):20 (37) a. He and I/*me get along just fine b. We and they/*them know each other well c. Bill knows us and them Without the semantic mechanism, the starred forms would be expected in English according to Johannessen. She does not, however, extend her account of balanced coordination to German, a language that only very rarely has unbalanced coordinate structures. The examples in (38) reflect the typical usage in German, both spoken and written: Er und ich verstehen uns sehr gut (cf. 37a) he-nom,sg and I-nom,sg understand us-refl,pl very well b. Hans kennt mich und dich H knows me-acc and you-acc c. Das gefälltdat mir und dir that pleases me-dat and you-dat

(38) a.

These are completely unmarked, and yet they are balanced. We would overlook a generalization in arguing that this morphological symmetry results from the semantic mechanism, in essence a stipulation, proposed by Johannessen (1996). It is very unlikely that this semantic mechanism also applies in German and guarantees morphological symmetry. Thus, two different mechanisms are required to account for the same phenomenon in two languages. The facts do not support the kind of generalized asymmetry that Johannessen’s account predicts. The asymmetries in constructions like (39) are very rare, and each is considered a grammatical error in prescriptive usage (indicated by the parenthetical judgment):21

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.21 (1192-1273)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

(39) a.( *) Es gibt viele Sehenswürdigkeiten indat und umacc die in and around the-acc it gives-3sg many sights Stadt city ‘There are many tourist sights in and around the city’ ( ) b. * In den Wald ging der Jäger und sein Hund into the wood went-3sg the hunter and his dog These cases of asymmetric agreement do not cause any misinterpretation, despite the fact that in (39a) in+acc in grammatically correct usage is used only with verbs denoting a change of location, like fahren ‘to drive’ or gehen ‘to walk’, and not with a verb like gibt (3sg of geben ‘to give’). The “error” in (b) is typical of VSO constructions in both English and German; we will return to them in §3.6. The unresolved Case morphology in (39a) as well as in (40a) produces a semantic anomaly and causes them to fail LF convergence: in (39a), in with gibt requires dative, while um ‘around’ requires accusative, regardless of the verb. Hence, perfect syntactic and semantic symmetry in the conjunction in and um in (39a) is not possible, as long as the verb is gibt. In (40a) im ‘in the’ with laufen indicates dative, while durch den indicates accusative. (40a) is semantically degraded because durch ‘through’ implies an action that conflicts with the semantics of im (locative). Feature copying in narrow syntax cannot prevent this prescriptively unacceptable asymmetric derivation because it is not required when Case assigners like these prepositions in and durch are conjoined and each has its own object. The fact that such constructions sometimes occur in spoken, colloquial usage indicates that either CFM does not always apply or that morphological Case markers do not play a role in semantic interpretation. Feature checking requirements in the conjunction of in + durch cannot be satisfied with Copy as long as the Case markers (morphological) are incorporated into the interpretation required within the domain of laufen. In this situation the only way to prevent a conflict between the Case markers and the semantic features is to rule out the need for Copy. This occurs in (40b): (40) a.*/ #Die Kinder laufen im und durchacc den Park The children run in-the-dat and through the-acc park b. Die Kinder laufen im Park herum und durchacc The children run in-the-dat park around and through den Park durch the-acc park through ‘The children run around in the park and all the way through the park’ In (40b) the two prepositions are not both associated with one DP as in (40a); thus, feature conflicts do not occur. The constructions in (41) can pass feature matching in LF if, for instance, the morphological Case requirements of each preposition or verb are not part of this matching, i.e. morphological Case markers are used for syntactic purposes only. Interestingly, the same level of grammaticality is not possible if the DP precedes the conjoined Case assigners, as in (41e, f, g):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.22 (1273-1305)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Hut auf (41) a.( *) Fritz fährt gern mitdat oder ohneacc den F drives gladly with or without the-acc hat on ‘Fritz likes to drive with or without the hat on’ b.( *) Ilse hat Angst vordat und umacc den Nachbarn I has fear before and for the-acc neighbor ‘Ilse is afraid of and for the neighbor’ Herrn c.( *) Fritz begrüßtacc und danktdat dem greets and thanks the-dat gentleman F d.( *) Fritz dankt und begrüßt den Herrn F thanks and greets the-acc gentleman e. Fritz hat *den/*dem Herrn begrüßt und gedanktdat F has the-acc/the-dat g-man greeted and helped ‘Fritz greeted and helped the gentleman’ f. Ich weiß, dass Fritz *den/*dem H begrüßt und gedankt I know that F the-acc/the-dat g-man greeted and helped hat has ‘I know that Fritz greeted and helped the gentleman’ g. Fritz muss *den/*dem Herrn begrüßen und danken F must the-acc/the-dat gentleman greet and thank These constructions will be examined more closely in §3.5. For the present discussion we note that while it is true that semantic asymmetries in constructions like (40a) cause a greater degradation in acceptability than the unresolved morphological Case requirements of the conjoined prepositions in (39), it would be incorrect to say that morphology does not matter, i.e. that in narrow syntax there is no operation for assuring matching Case markers. If no such operation existed, (41e, f) would not be ungrammatical. In fact, the correct approach for German seems to be that morphological resolution in the case of a DP shared by two Case-assigning/checking heads results from Copy targeting the abstract Case features of the conjoined heads in narrow syntax, while the morphological Case markers result in PF from the spell-out of features copied in narrow syntax. One clarification about the operation Copy must be noted at this point. It appears that this operation applies to morphological Case separately or differently from its application to abstract Case, based on the contrasts in (42): (42) a. . . . dass Fritz *dem/*den Herrn begrüßt und dankt a.’ . . . dass Fritz Herrn Meyer begrüßt und dankt that F Mr.-acc/dat Meyer . . . b. (*)?Die Kinder kommen mitdat und ohneacc ihre The children come with and without their-acc,pl Mützen zur Schule caps to school

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.23 (1305-1376)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

b.’ Die Kinder kommen mit und ohne Mütze zur Schule The children come with and without cap to school These contrasts appear to provide evidence that CFM applies in PF, as well as in LF. Given that abstract Case features are realized phonetically in PF as Case morphemes, we would suspect that feature matching must also apply there. However, the assumption that it is not needed in PF will be maintained on the grounds that the morphological markers realized in PF are based directly on the abstract features checked in the syntactic component. Independent support for this assumption comes from constructions like (43):22 (43) . . . dass that größte greatest

Treue zur und Fürsorge für ihre Tochter die loyalty to-the-dat and care for-acc her daughter the Bedeutung im Leben . . . significance in life

There is a certain asymmetry in this coordinate structure – the contrast between the Case forms required by each preposition – that is permitted in the narrow syntax because nothing ungrammatical is generated. The construction indicates that conjoined Case-assigning and checking heads do not have to assign the same Case to be symmetric; this condition applies only if they share a morphological Case form, as in (42b). The conjunction of zur and für ihre is not symmetric in terms of surface morphology or Case, but symmetry does exist in the fact that zu and für are both prepositions, and that they are both used here for nominal complements. An objective of my proposal for ellipsis in Chapter 4 will be to further substantiate the analysis of matching based on syntactic rather than morphological features. My basic argument will be that it makes more grammatical sense to assume that Copy and Match with abstract features is more efficient and optimal and therefore sufficient. Applying feature matching in PF for verifying coordinate symmetry is under this assumption redundant. Therefore the model lacking feature matching in PF, as outlined in Chapter 2, will be maintained here. Configurational factors also play a role in the asymmetries of feature checking in prepositional phrases with conjoined Ps ([P & P [DP]]). The data in (44) indicate that locality plays a role in favoring one Case over another in these constructions, i.e. (41a) is better than those in (44) where only the preposition farther from the DP agrees with the Case morphology of the determiner: (44) a. *Es gibt Sehenswürdigkeiten umacc und indat die Stadt it gives-3sg many sights around and in the-acc city ‘There are many tourist sights in and around the city’ b. *Fritz fährt gern ohneacc oder mitdat den Hut auf F drives gladly without or with the-acc hat on ‘F likes to drive without or with the hat on’ c. *Ilse hat Angst umacc und vordat den Nachbarn I has fear for and of the-acc neighbor



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.24 (1376-1433)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Johannessen makes the generalization that SOV languages check only the conjunct on the right because it occupies the Spec,&P position: (45) a. Head-initial languages:

b. Head-final languages:

&P

&P &’

XP1 &

&’ XP2

XP1

XP2 &

We note that Johannessen’s agreement rule for coordination, based on the structures in (45), does not account for the German constructions in (44) for two reasons: (1) it is unclear how the configuration [P & P [DP]] can be accommodated with either structure (45a) or (45b); and (2) the head [P] is not a maximal projection, as required in Johannessen’s analysis. Therefore we can conclude that a model based on the assumption that [&] always projects &P and can check features (for which there is no independent evidence) cannot account for all possible coordinate structures, even if such a model is flexible enough to check either to the left or the right.23 In embedded, modal or perfective tense clauses in German such as those in (46), the agreement requirements when a DP is shared by two verbs ([[DP] V & V]) do not allow the kind of unbalanced coordination found in SVO configurations of the kind in (41): (46) a.

. . . dass Fritz *dem/*den Herrn begrüßtacc und danktdat that F the-dat/the-acc gentleman greets and thanks ‘. . . that Fritz greeted and helped the gentleman’ b. . . . dass Ilse *dem/*den Herrn siehtacc und hilftdat and helps that I the-dat/the-acc gentleman sees ‘. . .that Ilse saw and helped the gentleman’ c. Fritz hat *dem/*den Herrn begrüßtacc und gedanktdat F has the-dat/the-acc gentleman greeted and thanked ‘Fritz greeted and helped the gentleman’ d. Ilse hat *dem/*den Herrn gesehenacc und geholfendat and helped I has the-dat/the-acc gentleman seen ‘Ilse saw and helped the gentleman’

For some reason the locality factor does not hold in the OV configuration, i.e. the local relation between den Herrn (marked [acc]) and begrüßt/sieht (checking [acc]) does not improve the grammaticality. The lack of the locality factor in embedded clauses is undoubtedly related to their derivational history. The ungrammaticality is not surprising if we assume that the object DP occupies the Spec position of the topmost Case-checking head in vP, and that this configuration induces Copy which transfers the Case feature of the first verbal head to the second one, and that this ungrammatical transfer of Case meets the PF-interface where Case morphology is spelled out, and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.25 (1433-1454)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

that this configuration also meets the LF-interface where the asymmetry of the two verbs is detected with respect to the shared object. The structure of (46a), following this derivational history, is given in (47): (47) Non-convergent derivation of (46a) (ignoring irrelevant details):24 CP C’

o C dass

TP NP Fritz

T’ T

vP o

v’ DPi

v’

*den/m H

v

v’

begrüßtj &

v’ v dankt

VP tsubj

V’ ti

tj

Further discussion of this construction and its derivation must be left until §3.5. However, a few observations relevant to the current discussion are possible here. If the structure indicated is correct, the surface structural relations between the shared object and the conjoined clause-final verbs has clearly made Spec-head Case checking with both verbs impossible, whereas it is possible with just one verb in a simplex construction: (48) a.

. . .dass . . .that b. . . .dass . . .that

Fritz F Fritz F

dem the-dat den the-acc

Herrn gentleman Herrn gentleman

danktdat thanks begrüßtacc greets



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.26 (1454-1525)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

The structural limitation on Case feature checking in (47) does not occur in the equivalent present tense matrix clause given in (49), if we assume that (49) is grammatical because Case checking has been satisfied. But this is clearly not true, if the morphological marker for dative on the definite article reflects Case checking. Assuming it does, then only the more local verb, danken, has checked Case:25 (49) Fritz begrüßtacc und danktdat dem Herrn F greets and thanks the-dat gentleman Further analysis of these constructions will be put off until §3.6, at which point we will be able to analyze them in terms of the model to be presented in §3.5. What these data show for the current discussion is that the OV/VO parameter is insufficient as the core of a theory for explaining unbalanced coordination in German. According to Johannessen’s theory, we should expect unbalanced coordination in both OV and VO constructions, but that is not the case. Presumably embedded and perfective tense constructions in German should both pattern after the head-final structure in (45b), and therefore favor agreement with the second of the two verbs. But as the data in (46)– (48) indicate, such configurations do not show any such favoritism. They indicate that with the conjunction of [begrüßenacc und dankendat ] sharing a morphologically marked DP in a higher Spec position that neither accusative nor dative is acceptable. The favoritism for the Case of the most local verb in VO configurations of [begrüßenacc und dankendat ] will be taken up in §3.6. At this point we note that it is unclear how the configuration [V & V [DP]] can be accommodated with either structure (45a) or (45b), since a [V] cannot occupy either a Spec or a complement position. Furthermore, the head [V] is not a maximal projection, as required in Johannessen’s analysis. Before we move on to the details of the derivational issues, we consider one small but significant point in the general discussion of coordination that has recurred in the literature and must be brought up here for purposes of clarity.

.. Not all coordinate constructions are CP-based We recall that Johannessen posits the transformation ‘coordinate alpha’ operating on CP-like structures in a way comparable to Chomsky’s generalized transformation ‘move alpha’, i.e. it is transformational in nature, hence at least implying movement. Transformations in the Minimalist Program require movement into the functional domain; for Johannessen the Spec,&P position is within the functional domain headed by [&] and is at least the implied target of movement. Wilder (1997) also posits a CP basis for most coordinate structures (using deletion, not Move), and Camacho and Elias (2001) argue that all coordinate constructions begin as clauses. My position on the question of clausal vs. phrasal coordination will be that any overt lexical item can be coordinated with any other, as long as the prosodic requirements on conjuncts can be met (see n. 28), and they are minimally symmetric. I will posit no gap or trace for any lexical item unless there is independent evidence that the gap exists. Independent evidence includes the need for interpretation, i.e. recovery of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.27 (1525-1575)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

the lexical item at a particular point in the derivation which cannot be accomplished without the assumption that an ellipse exists. An ellipse serves the purpose of inducing or triggering a match in coordinate structures by which recovery is accomplished. In Chapter 4 more detail will be given on this operation. The basic premise of a clausal approach to coordination requiring movement can be called into question with the observation that a property of many conjuncts is that they are non-phrasal and/or do not leave the (semi-)lexical domain:26 (50) a. I haven’t [V [seen] or [heard]] of him since b. We roamed [P [up] and [down]] the hallways all night long c. Wir fahren am Montag [Adv [hin] und [zurück]] We drive on Monday away and back ‘We are driving down and back on Monday’ d. [Adv [Ab] und [zu]] muss Peter den Hund des Nachbarn Off and to must P the-acc dog the-gen neighbor füttern feed ‘Now and then Peter has to feed the neighbor’s dog’ In each of these constructions the conjoined heads form a semantic unit which must be interpreted apart from any other elements: seen or heard of X means something different – in fact becomes relatively unintelligible – in the clausal rendition ??I haven’t seen of him nor have I heard of him. The same is true of German idioms such as ab und zu as in (50d) which, if paraphrased in the the form of clausal conjuncts, becomes unintelligible and ungrammatical: #*ab muss Peter . . . und zu muss Peter den Hund füttern. We might ask at this juncture whether CP conjuncts and embedded clauses share key properties, as predicted by a model like the Spec-&-complement model advocated in Johannessen (1998), Kayne (1994) and elsewhere. That is, a coordinate structure such as (51a) should resemble that of an embedded clause with the matrix clause in its Spec position, as in (51b):27 (51) a.

[&P [TP Peter begrüßt die Gäste [&’ und [TP Petra nimmt die P greets the guests and P takes the Mäntel ab]]]] coats away ‘Peter greets the guests and Petra takes the coats’ b. [CP Immer begrüßt [TP Peter die Gäste [CP wenn sie ein always greets P the guests if they a Mitbringsel dabei haben]]] with-bring-ette thereby have ‘P always greets the guests when they have a hostess gift’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.28 (1575-1638)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Aside from one or two structural similarities between (51a, b), the two constructions have major differences, both syntactic and semantic: What follows und is a V2 clause with very different syntactic and semantic properties than the CP clause introduced by wenn, the latter with a finite verb in its clause-final position. These contrasts lead us to question whether the unification of subordination and coordination created by the Spec-&-complement model has a solid empirical basis. By contrast, the present model keeps coordinate structures consisting of conjoined TPs or CPs as in (52a) structurally distinct from embedded CPs in (52b): (52) a. [TP Peter begrüßt die Gäste [& und [TP Petra nimmt die Mäntel ab]]] a.’ [CP Zuerst begrüßt Peter die Gäste und [CP dann nimmt Petra first . . . then . . . die Mäntel ab]] b. [TP Peter begrüßt die Gäste immer [CP wenn sie ein Mitbringsel dabei haben]] b.’ [CP Immer begrüßt Peter die Gäste [CP wenn sie ein Mitbringsel dabei haben]] The phrase structures in (52a, a’) are built on symmetries shared by the conjuncts, but they do so without eliminating the fundamental asymmetries of the simplex clauses. Based on the data in (51) and (52) alone, it is empirically unsound to support a theory which assumes that all conjuncts are of the CP- or clausal type, and that the first conjunct must occupy the Spec,&P position, a target of movement. For further arguments against clause-based coordination, see Hartmann (2000) and Munn (1999).28 In the next section we look more closely at the assumptions underlying (2c) which is based on the claim that conjuncts are right-merged. We consider specifically how these assumptions differ from those underlying (2b), Munn’s adjunction proposal with the Boolean category, and how (2c) better suits the properties of coordination. These structures are repeated here for convenience (with XP in place of TP in 2c): (2) [&] projects &P (XP = conjunct) a. Head-initial languages: (Munn 1987; Kayne 1994)

a.’ Head-final languages: (Johannessen 1998)

&P

&P &’

XP-1 &

XP-2

&’ XP-2

XP-1

&

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.29 (1638-1683)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

b. [&] is a Boolean category (Munn 1993: 13)29 NP

TP-1

(NP conjuncts) DP

BP

NP-1

c. Coordination by pure Merge (present study)

B

(TP conjuncts) ... TP

NP-2 &

TP-2

and, or, but

On the basis of these observations I will outline a proposal in the next section that is able to better account for the larger data set – the one made up of symmetric coordinate constructions. This proposal will then form the basis of an analysis of asymmetric/unbalanced coordinate structures, some of which have already been mentioned.

. Conjunction as a pure Merge operation .. Steps in conjunction A central claim of §3.4 is that [&] is defective and therefore does not project [&P]. My proposal is therefore as indicated in (2c): [&] is dominated by XP, and not by [&P], which, as a logical consequence of this claim, doesn’t exist. Furthermore, as a defective category, [&] has properties of a clitic, as argued in §3.4. This assumption is supported by numerous languages, including Latin which uses -que cliticized to the first word of the final conjunct, unless that word is monosyllabic; then it cliticizes to the second word. This property of -que is certainly not characteristic of a projecting head. In either position it acts as a coordinating conjunction (cf. Carlson 1983: 80): (53) Solis et lunae reliquorumque siderum ortus sun and moon other-and stars rising ‘The rising of the sun, the moon, and the other stars’ An essential part of my proposal follows from this non-projecting, clitic-like property of [&]: (54) [&] is dominated by a second projection of whatever phrase is projected by the selected items forming a conjunct When [&] is selected, Copy is triggered by which formal features are transferred from the first to the second conjunct (cf. discussion in §2.1). The phrase projected by the selected items is also the phrase that dominates [&].30 This derivation of conjoined DPs is sketched in (55):31



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.30 (1683-1704)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(55) Conjunction a. Select Xn lexical items of the coordinate structure DP1 & DP2 b. Merge DP1 (those items up to [&]) c. Merge [&] on right branch of DP1, projecting a DP d. Copy formal features of DP1; place derivation in AM e. Merge DP2; merge/conjoin DP2 with DP1; apply formal features from DP1 The corresponding tree diagramms for (55) are given in (56): (56) a. Select array: der große Baum und der kleine Hase b. Merge DP-1 (from the bottom up): DP D

AP

der A große

c.

Ü project DP Ü merge große Baum + der Ü project AP NP Ü merge große + Baum Baum

Merge & + DP-2: und der kleine Hase; copy over Case feature, θ-role of DP-1 DP & und

DP D

AP

der A kleine

NP N Hase

...

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.31 (1704-1738)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

d. Merge DP-1 + DP-2: DP AP

D

NP

der A große N

DP

Baum &

DP

und A

AP

der A kleine

NP Hase

The structure of the conjoined DPs in (56), while adhering to phrase-structural asymmetry, preserves the properties of coordinate symmetry for satisfying the parallelism requirements: the conjuncts are syntactically identical in terms of structure and derivation. This predicts that their interface with LF will result in symmetric interpretations (semantic symmetry).

.. Comparing conjunction by pure Merge to other models Using the derivational conjunction operation outlined in (55) and (56) means that no stipulation must be made that all conjuncts must be either a maximal projection, a clause, or “CP-like.” The evidence supports the simpler, more minimalist assumption that any category, whether a single head or a CP, can be conjoined with another of its kind, or one that has sufficient semantic features in common with it, as proposed in §2.3. (55) also has an advantage over (2b), repeated below: (2) b. Munn (1993) “Adjoined BP” NP BP

NP1 B

and, or, but

NP



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.32 (1738-1803)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Adjunction is assumed to be a movement operation in most versions of generative syntactic theory. This term is inappropriate for conjunction, as there is no independent evidence that any conjunct must move in the conjunction operation (cf. §3.3). Pure Merge (Chomsky 1999), assumed here, does not involve movement, given that individual conjuncts remain in their “base” position, i.e. do not become the object of Move α; only whole coordinate phrases may move:32 (57) a. b. c. d.

I know [Bill [Sue [and [Sam]]]] [Bill [Sue [and [Sam]]]]i I know t i *Billi I know [t i [Sue [and [Sam]]]] *[Bill [Sue]]i I know [t i [and Sam]]

(58) a. I know [that Bill and Sue read fiction [and [Sam writes poems]]] b. [That Bill and Sue read fiction [and [Sam writes poems]]]i I know t i c. *[That Bill and Sue read fiction]i I know t i [and [Sam writes poems]] Although (57d) is better if a lexical [&] occurs before each conjunct as in (59a), it is better yet if too is added, in which case coordinate VP ellipsis occurs, as in (59b): (59) a. ??Bill and Sue I know, and Sam b. Bill and Sue I know, and Sam too I know Note that (59b) requires a certain prosody, as does (57b). The prosodic requirement signals that the trailing conjunct must be matched with the earlier ones; without this matching, which establishes symmetric relations, the necessary interpretation is not possible. This prosody is hardly sufficient, however, for matching a trailing DP with a subject DP (versus a fronted object DP in 59a): (60) a. *Bill reads fiction, and Sue b. *Sam writes poems, and Jill Apparently syntactic restrictions apply to the use of prosody for repairing an ungrammatical derivation. What these might be will be left aside here. An interesting property of agreement in, for instance, a coordinate DP/NP-verb relation is the use of a plural verb ending (in most such coordinate relations – but see §3.6), even when both DP/NPs are singular. One might ask how the model proposed here predicts the plural verb ending in (61): (61) Peter und Paul kennen sich gut P and P know refl well Neither Peter nor Paul has a plural feature. The assumption of the advocates of the Spec-head-complement model and of Munn (1993) is that and has a plural feature which induces this agreement. If this were so, some mechanism would be needed to eliminate this feature in (62): (62) a.

[That Peter knows Paul [and] that they get along well] [is] known to all (translates b)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.33 (1803-1867)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

b. [Dass Peter that P [ist] allen is all-dat

Paul kennt] [und] [dass sie sich gut verstehen] P knows and that they refl well understand bekannt known

If, on the other hand, the feature [+pl] is generated on the node dominating [&] and enters an agreement relation with the verb when two DP/NP conjuncts are merged, then the desired agreement relation obtains in the model that I have proposed.33 Only DP/NP conjuncts have the feature [±pl]; clauses do not. Hence, the conjunctions in (62) will both result in [–pl] agreement. When two singular DP/NPs are merged as in (61), each projects this singular feature to the node that dominates both. Two [–pl]/[+sg] features logically add up to one [+pl] feature.34 In the next subsection we consider the role of derivation by phase in the model that I have outlined. We will see that conjunction on the right branch by pure Merge solves some problems of the Johannessen model.

.. Solutions available in a phase-based model In (63) are given some examples of coordinate structures that in van Gelderen’s (1997) analysis require movement of a conjunct to Spec,TP or Spec,CP: (63) a.

Placebo cam, and eek his freendes soone Placebo came and also his friends soon (Chaucer, Merchant’s Tale, 1617) b. The torches brennen, and the laumpes bryghte The torches burn and the lamps brightly (Chaucer, Legend of Good Women, 2610)

Both movements, whether to Spec,TP or Spec,CP, have the problem that they must occur independently of the other conjunct the laumpes bryghte. As we saw in (57), (58) and (60), the movement of just one of two conjoined DPs, as indicated in (64a), is not a possible operation. The movement of the two together in (64b), however, is fine: (64) We saw those white lamps and yellow torches burning brightly a. Front the DP those white lamps ⇒ *Those white lamps we saw and yellow torches burning brightly b. Front the conjoined DPs together ⇒ Those white lamps and yellow torches we saw burning brightly The derivation of (63b) that does not crash and is available using the proposal made earlier has the following steps (omitting irrelevant details): (65) The derivation of (63b) (LA = lexical array) a. Select LA the torches brennen and the laumpes bryghte b. vP phase: [TP the torches [VP brennen]]



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.34 (1867-1934)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c. Merge &+DP as subarray: [DP and [DP the laumpes bryghte]] d. Copy features of DP1; paste features on DP2 e. Conjunction: merge output of c on right branch of VP: [TP [DP the torches]nom,th [VP brennen [DP and [DP the laumpes bryghte]nom,th ]]] The difference between (65) and the derivation proposed by van Gelderen comes down to one point: the Late Merge operation in (65d) is allowed, but not the movement operation.35 The impossibility of (64a) supports this condition on movement in English, which also applies in German: (66) a.

Wir sahen die weißen Lampen und gelben Fackeln we saw the white lamps and yellow torches b. After DP-Fronting: *Die weißen Lampen sahen wir und gelben Fackeln

The adjective ending -en on gelben is ungrammatical when Fackeln is removed by fronting from the domain of die, the DP determiner shared by weißen Lampen and gelben Fackeln. The source of this ungrammaticality becomes clearer in a comparison with a closely-related construction that is acceptable because it differs from the output of (66) in one key point: (67) Die weißen Lampen sahen wir, und die gelben Fackeln the white lamps saw we and the yellow torches With the occurrence of a second die in (67) before gelben Fackeln, the weak adjective ending -en on gelben is correct. The reason gelben Fackeln is not correct in (66b) is that it does not fall within the domain of the first die. The use of Late Merge in (65) and (67) follows from discussion in Chomsky (1995: 329–330) on the differences between Move and Merge, and the use of Late Merge by van Gelderen (2004) to account for the grammaticalization of certain prepositions as complementizers. Late Merge can be manifested in many forms; here it is used as an option when the “normal” use of Merge for conjunction fails, i.e. when the second of two conjoined DPs is added/merged later, and in a lower position, rather than (linearly) immediately after the DP with which it must be matched for interpretation. This use of Late Merge for conjoining a symmetric DP in (67) is permitted in the present proposal because Copy and Match supply and identify (respectively) the necessary symmetries. More on (Late) Merge for conjunction and how it interacts with Select, Copy and Match will be taken up in the remainder of this chapter. Let’s turn now to the conjunction of Case-checking heads to see how derivation by phase, when combined with Copy and Match, can provide a simpler analysis. In §3.4.3. we noted that Johannessen’s assumptions about the structure of coordination, particularly that a single Case-checking head with two conjuncts as objects agrees only with the conjunct in the Spec,&P position, does not provide a solution for construc-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.35 (1934-1971)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

tions that have two or more conjoined Case-checking heads, each requiring a different Case, but sharing one object. Relevant data are of the sort in (68): (68) a.

Die Kinder kommen mitdat und ohneacc Hut the children come with and without hat b. Wir kaufen heute indat und umacc die Stadt ein we buy today in and around the-acc city in ‘We’re going shopping today in and around the city’ Herrn c. Fritz danktdat und begrüßtacc den F thanks and greets the-acc gentleman

In Johannessen’s account, conjuncts must be maximal projections; I see no independent evidence for claiming that the conjoined heads in (68) are maximal projections; assuming that they are would entail a deletion mechanism along the lines of (69) that is otherwise unnecessary: (69) a. Die Kinder kommen mit Hut und ohne Hut b. Wir kaufen heute in der Stadt und um die Stadt ein c. Fritz dankt dem Herrn und begrüßt den Herrn (69a) allows deletion under identity (by matching), but in (69b) der and die do not match, and in (69c) dem and den do not match. Although there might be a way around the matching problem by resorting to a more abstract feature that these determiners share, avoiding the deletion operation results in a better analysis for two reasons: (1) there is no need to “fix” the non-identity problem, and (2) one less operation is required, a desirable result from a minimalist perspective. It should also be noted that the deletions required in (69) do not have the properties of deletion/ellipsis types that are widely accepted in the literature and assumed to have independent support. These include Gapping, Right Node Raising and Left-Edge Ellipsis. Because coordinate ellipsis is a broad topic, this point will be taken up in Chapter 4. For these reasons these data merit a closer look and a better analysis. We recall that unbalanced agreement as in (69c) is due in Johannessen’s account to the presence of only one conjunct in the checking (Spec) position of &P. Johannessen does not make clear how the asymmetry in (69c) can be accommodated under this assumption, since the Case-checking heads are the conjuncts themselves. In the proposal outlined here, the necessary structures can be derived straightforwardly using derivation by phase, and no stipulations need to be made about agreement. Let’s consider first the structures in (70) illustrating Conjunction by right-branch Merge:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.36 (1971-2019)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(70) Right-branch Merge of conjoined T-heads (a), and conjoined P-heads (b): a.

b.

TP YP

PP P

T’ T

P M: Ý T’ &

N’

D M: Ý P &

T’ T

vP DP

D

DP

N P P

v’ (...) N’ N

With either the conjunction of T- or P-heads, there is a local relation between the second Case-checking head and the DP, as seen in the linearization indicated in (68). This surface-level c-command relation appears to license the asymmetry in (68a, b), in effect nullifying the normal symmetry requirements. We must first of all recall that LF matching does not detect any asymmetry in (68a, b), since the two conjunts, in and um in (68a) and mit and ohne in (68b) share essential semantic features. Furthermore, there is no Case feature for Copy to target in (68a, b) because the conjoined prepositions do not have a feature that is checked; they assign Case. The asymmetry exists only in the contrasting Case morphology that is required if each preposition has an object preceded by a Case-marked determiner. This situation is very similar to, but slightly different from, the conjunction of dankt and begrüßt which does not automatically cause a derivation to crash. This conjunction crashes only in OV configurations, such as in (71a) (repeated from 46a): (71) a.

dass Fritz *den/*dem Herrn begrüßtacc und danktdat that F the-acc/the-dat gentleman greets and helps ‘that Fritz greets and helps the gentleman’ b. dass Fritz Herrn Meyer begrüßt und dankt that F Mr.-acc/dat Meyer greets and thanks

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.37 (2019-2068)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

In this configuration the shared DP occurs in the Spec position of the first finite verb, under the analysis in which the verbs conjoin in the vP, and the DP is in a Spec-head relation with the verb begrüßt. In Johannessen’s account, the accusative [D] den in (71a) should be acceptable. Why it is not, and why neither accusative nor dative is acceptable, whereas just one or the other is acceptable in the VO configuration, must be explained on the basis of more than the surface morphology or configuration, given that (71b), lacking acc/dat morphology, is fine. My account requires aspects of the model proposed in §3.5.1 that have not yet been discussed. For this reason, we will take up (71a) once more in §3.6. To conclude this section, we have seen that the Spec-&-complement model, because only maximal projections may be conjoined, requires more derivational complexity and deletion operations lacking independent theoretical and empirical support. The proposal outlined here based on the conjunction of any category, whether a head, an intermediate projection, or a maximal projection, can be empirically supported and results in a simpler derivation. As my proposal unfolds in subsequent sections, the independent support for it will increase. As the last subsection of §3.5 we consider the role of CFM in the derivational model for conjunction outlined above. Much of what will be proposed here is implied in Chapter 2; however at this point, after having seen the derivational model in (55), a clearer “big picture” can emerge.

.. The role of CFM in a derivational model In the previous section I proposed derivation by phase in conjunction for addressing certain properties of coordinate structures. Little attention was given to the role of CFM. In this section we will consider in further detail how CFM expresses the Parallelism Requirement. Let’s assume, as outlined above, that coordinate structures are derived by phase in a step-by-step fashion, beginning with the selection of a lexical array. This array, once derived, constitutes a single, complete phase. Assuming that another structure of the same kind is to be conjoined with it, conjunction begins after the derivation of the first lexical array is completed. It begins specifically with the selection of [&], which triggers Copy, the syntactic operation for satisfying CFM. The first conjunct is then placed in AM. In (72) is given a somewhat revised version of this model:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.38 (2068-2112)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(72) Derivational Grammar Model for Conjunction with interfaced active memory L → N a r r o w

S y n t a x

lexical array (LA) ⇒ merge, project ⇒ derive XP, place XP in AM Conjunction: ⇒ select [&] + new LA (LA-2) Active ⇒ copy formal features of LA-1 Memory ⇒ derive LA-2 (AM) ⇒ merge LA-1 and LA-2 (conjunction) ⇒ paste formal features of LA-1 CFM (within narrow syntax)36 ⇒ copy formal features of conjunct 1 (C-1) ⇒ paste formal features of C-1 and C-2 Interface Level (spell-out)

PF Component

LF Component

⇒ linearize

⇒ interpret LA-1; place in

⇒ realize phonetic features

⇒ interpret LA-2 ⇒ match

refreshed AM

Speech

Interpretation

When the formal features of the first conjunct are copied in narrow syntax, one aspect of the parallelism requirement is satisfied. The degree of parallelism or symmetry in LF depends on the lexical items selected for the second lexical array. When these items are selected, some will duplicate those in the first conjunct perfectly. Perfect symmetry (duplication) throughout results, of course, in total redundancy and must be avoided, but a certain amount of redundancy produces symmetry or parallelism. Certain redundancies between conjuncts can be eliminated through ellipsis. The various types of ellipsis available in English and German (with some examples from other Germanic languages) are outlined in Chapter 4. Those lexical items which are not perfect duplicates will, nevertheless, have some syntactic features that are equivalents of those in the first conjunct, with the result that a very similar if not identical structure will be projected and some formal feature of the first conjunct can be pasted onto the second one. In LF, parallel lexical items are matched to determine what semantic features are shared and how this form of symmetry affects the interpretation. An illustration of conjoined TPs in which parallels are generated by Select, Merge and Copy and can be detected in LF is given in (73a, b):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.39 (2112-2167)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

(73) a.

a gray wolf chased a small rabbit Project structure, Tense, Agree, etc. ⇒ [TP [DP a [AP gray [N’ wolf ]]] [v’ chased [DP a [AP small [N’ rabbit]]]]] b. a hungry minx stalked a lowly mouse Project structure, Tense, Agree, etc. ⇒ [TP [DP a [AP hungry [N’ minx]]] [v’ stalked [DP a [AP lowly [N’ mouse]]]] c. Conjoin ⇒ A gray wolf chased a small rabbit and a hungry minx stalked a lowly mouse

Even though less symmetric coordinate structures than this one are still grammatical, the reduction of symmetry does as a rule lead to a reduction in felicity: (74) a. a wolf chased around wildly and a hungry minx stalked a field mouse b. #a hunter loaded his gun and a wolf chased a small rabbit c. ##the children went to school and a hungry minx stalked a field mouse In non-elliptical coordinate structures the grammaticality never depends on conjunction, but only on the grammaticality of each conjunct and whether the conjuncts form an interpretable coordination, as determined by the semantic features. This is expected in a model such as (72) in which a coordinating conjunction only induces Copy and Match, nothing more. The merge operation required for conjunction is independent of [&], which has no syntactic projection properties and does not perform any type of feature checking.37 It is evident from (72) how the operation Copy is able to save a considerable amount of derivational effort, if we assume that Copy creates a feature template from the first conjunct. Further implications of this will be investigated in §3.7 where we consider sequencing issues in the conjunction of V2 clauses in German. In the derivation of elliptical coordinate structures, the satisfaction of CFM as a parallelism requirement through the operations Copy and Match takes on greater significance. But CFM is important to all coordinate structures, even in the subtlest of cases in which there doesn’t seem to be much symmetry (cf. §2.4). The selection of [&] will, in my proposal, always indicate that some form of parallelism or symmetry is required in the coordinate structure that results. This coordinate symmetry lends a coordinate structure a certain property that cannot be found in even the most similar multi-clausal construction types lacking conjunction. This fact is pointed out in detail in Hornstein and Nunes (2002) who compare across-the-board (ATB) constructions to parasitic gap constructions. In their words, the “Parallelism Requirement” of a coordinate structure “functions as an enabling condition widening the derivational options within coordinate structures” (op. cit.: 39). Their study unfortunately does not explain the source of this requirement of coordinate structures. They state, “We have no idea why it is that coordinate structures should require parallelism” (op. cit.: 38). In the model outlined here, this requirement is explained as an inevitable result of the operations Copy and Match, the interface with AM, and how these interact in a phasebased derivation of coordinate structures; that the grammar is derivational must be

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.40 (2167-2231)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

emphasized, for it is the phasal sequencing of the operations for satisfying CFM within the derivation that produces the parallelism property, which thus manifests itself as a requirement. As an illustration of the central role that CFM plays in conjunction – what I will posit is a role found universally – we turn below to some Japanese and Spanish data. In §3.3 it was pointed out that an NP conjunct may move in Japanese. The constraint on the movement of one of two or more DP/NP conjuncts is therefore not absolute. Considering (22) again, repeated here as (75), we note that a single NP conjunct has moved to initial position: (75) a.

John-to Mary-ga paatii-ni kita J-conj M-nom party-to came ‘Both John and Mary came to the party’ b. Mary-ga John-to paatii-ni kita M-nom John-conj party-to came ‘Mary came to the party with John’

The acceptability of this construction versus the ungrammaticality of the English equivalent can be accounted for in this way: The Japanese connective -to occurs in its most unmarked position encliticized onto the last NP conjunct, in conformity with the OV parameter of Japanese. However, when Move applies as in (75a), the NP with the attached -to lands in a position where -to occupies a position between the conjuncts. This is the most common position for [&] in languages that have a free morpheme for [&]; this configuration is likely a universal with free morpheme [&]. The movement of the NP in (75a) results, therefore, in a configuration that is very widespread. Interestingly for the proposal outlined here, this position is optimal in terms of the application of CFM on the perceptual side of language. The reason is clear: from a central position, i.e. between conjuncts, [&] is linearly in the best position for triggering CFM. For this reason (75a) is fully acceptable, while movement of a single DP conjunct in English is not, because the resulting configuration cannot be perceptually processed as a coordinate structure according to English grammar: (76) a. I know Bill and Sue b. Move ⇒ *Bill I know and Sue38 The movement of one of two conjuncts in (76b), like the examples in (59) and (60), suggests that there is a certain amount of asymmetry in coordinate structures, a point that we discussed briefly in §3.2. Camacho (2000: 44ff.) agrees with this point, but he also argues convincingly that syntactic feature checking in coordination must be symmetric, using the Spanish constructions in (77) to support this assumption (his 52i): (77) Yo y ella salimos I and she left-1pl ‘She and I left’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.41 (2231-2286)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

Camacho points out that the first person, plural ending of salimos must be a result of a multiplicity of person features, since it does not agree with either subject individually. To accomplish the feature checking required for the agreement of the conjoined DPs with the verb in (77), Camacho proposes that the coordinating conjunction attracts salimos which checks with yo, and that its trace checks with ella (his 52ii): (78) Camacho’s analysis of (77) (p = person) IP yo [1p]

I’

y+salimos

IP

ella [3p]

I’ t [p]

VP

Although this structure meets the configurational requirements of Spec-head feature checking, it remains to be shown how salimos can be attracted to a position already occupied by a head, and how a coordinating conjunction can occupy the head of IP position. In §2.1 I argued that the feature checking requirements in coordinate structures can be better satisfied with the assumption that CFM is satisfied by the operations Copy and Match. Copy α is shown independently by Frasier and Clifton (2001) and Levelt (1989), through experiments carried out on subjects performing language processing or generation exercises, to be a part of the derivation of a coordinate structure. This copy operation in the present proposal guarantees that the necessary syntactic symmetries of a coordinate structure are in place, while Select determines the degree of symmetry between conjuncts in LF beyond the θ-roles assigned in narrow syntax. Copy also eliminates the need for Case and Agree relations to be incorporated into conjunction as proposed by Camacho (2000). Instead, syntactic relations involving formal features are extended from one conjunct to the next. In §3.4.2 some data from Ross (1967) , repeated here as (79), are discussed in connection with the argument that [&] forms a constituent with the conjunct it precedes: (79) a. John left. And he didn’t even say goodbye. b. *John left and. He didn’t even say goodbye. I point out there that although the structure [& [XP]] meets certain tests of constituenthood, it fails others. One reason [&] appears to form a constituent with the following conjunct can be explained in terms of the model for conjunction in (72). In derivation by phase, [&] gets selected with the following conjunct from the lexicon. Furthermore, [&] initiates the conjunction process, in particular Copy and Match. For

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.42 (2286-2327)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

these reasons, [&] appears to form a constituent with the conjunct it introduces, but at the same time, given the features of [&] as a non-projecting head, it does not create a syntactic domain of its own that includes this conjunct. Rather, the conjunct projects the category that dominates [&]. Therefore, the fact that and in (78) can occur at the beginning of a new conjunct, but not at the end of an initial conjunct, does not indicate a property of [&] as a projecting head which supposedly dominates the following conjunct and thereby forms a constituent with it, but rather that and has the feature [+conj] which induces Copy and Match. For this reason it must occur to the left of the constituent that is to be conjoined, if conjunction is a derivational, step-by-step process that follows linear properties evident at the PF interface. Another example of how feature matching in conjunction interacts with linearization at the PF interface is available in the fact that (80a) is a correct ordering, but (80b) is not: (80) a. I saw Peter, Paul and Mary b. *I saw Peter and Paul, Mary Kayne (1994: Chapter 6) uses this fact to support the Spec-head-complement account of coordinate structures outlined in §3.2. He argues that (80a) can result from LF raising of and to the empty [&] position between Peter and Paul for licensing purposes; since there is no equivalent lowering of and in his framework, (80b) has a phonetically unrealized [&] that remains unlicensed.39 In my proposal for conjunction, feature matching, shown independently to be a requirement of coordination, when combined with the linearization requirements of the PF interface, dictate for languages like German and English, which utilize a free morpheme (vs. a clitic) for conjunction, that [&] must be realized before the final conjunct and can optionally be realized before all but the first conjunct. There are no phonetically unrealized [&]s in the numeration which must be licensed. The matching of features in conjunction does not require a realized [&], as this matching occurs independently of phonetic realization. However, on the articulatory-perceptual side of language a realized [&] is a requirement in the position indicated in (80a). Without an audible [&], matching cannot be induced in speech, unless intonation is able to substitute for it. Coordinate structures in text are ambiguous without a realized [&], with the exception of matrix clause coordination. Matching must be induced before the last conjunct (a linear requirement) can be interpreted, as otherwise the coordinate relation between the lexical items [Peter, Paul, Mary] cannot be determined, i.e. the coordinate relation depends on [&] triggering Match:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.43 (2327-2361)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

(81) The structure of conjoined DPs with one realized [&] (phonetically and otherwise)40 DP D

N’ N

DP D

N’ N

DP &

DP N’

D N

(...)

In languages like German and English, feature matching supplies the interpretation of the DPs not preceded by [&] as symmetric with the other DPs, which are all conjuncts and the objects of the verb saw in I saw Peter, Paul and Mary. In the next section we turn to differences and similarities between feature matching in simplex sentences versus feature matching in conjunction. Although a fundamental difference exists, the basic principle is the same: matching features are a form of agreement in both cases.

.. Feature Matching in conjunction vs. in simplex sentences My proposal for CFM recognizes a core difference between feature matching in coordinate structures (for determining symmetries) and feature matching in simplex sentences (for Agree purposes). CFM determines symmetry or “sameness,” a form of agreement, whereas in simplex sentences it determines syntactic relations between contrasting heads. For CFM the Spec-head configuration is required as the relation for Case checking that determines the Case feature targeted by Copy, but on the semantic side the Spec-head relation is not for independent reasons required for matching. Furthermore, no features are eliminated in CFM. For these reasons, we can assume that matching in LF has a parallel plane structure of the sort in (82) for the string Bill and I are reading fiction this week:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.44 (2361-2418)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(82) Coordinate Matching in LF41 Bill-3 and

are reading fiction this week [1/3]

I-1

The feature resolution rules of English allow are as an acceptable form for the conjoined DPs Bill and I, since are is acceptable with either first or third person plural (we are/they are). The fact that the verb must be plural follows from the semantic combinatorial property of and.42 This kind of matching is fundamental to coordination and underlies the kind of symmetry that results in what Johannessen calls “Extraordinary Balanced Coordination.” However, the balancedness or symmetry that is evident in constructions like (81) is anything but extraordinary, given the operation Copy and its interface with AM, and the operation Match, both of which are fundamental to all coordinate structures. What remains a question is how asymmetric agreement of the sorts discussed earlier occurs, i.e. how one of two conjoined DPs can escape Case checking, whereas a single DP in a simplex sentence, cannot. In the §3.6 we take up a representative sample of asymmetric, unbalanced agreement once again to see how derivation by phase with CFM can improve our analysis. In the next subsection we consider a proposal based on work of Uriagereka (1999) and Franks and Boškovi´c (2001) dealing with Multiple Spell-Out. This theory appears to offer a number of advantages for coordinate structures, some of which will not become evident until the next chapter. A related idea that Uriagereka explores is discontinuous Merge. We begin with that idea as it relates to sequencing in the selection of conjuncts, as illustrated in the model in (72).

.. Selection and sequence issues ... Merge and sequence in selection Thus far we have been ignoring the question of how coordinate structures are selected from the lexicon and later linearized for interface with PF. The two operations are not directly related in any obvious way. In this section I will first of all delineate the issues involved and then propose a way to accommodate coordinate structures with respect to selection in the grammar model proposed in Chomsky (1999) for simplex structures. Chomsky (1995) seeks to reduce substantive principles of the grammar to interface (or bare output) conditions, and formal principles to economy conditions. Two substantive principles that pertain to conjunction are (1) the selection from the lexicon of lexical items that later in the derivation constitute a conjunct or more than one conjunct, and (2) their linearization at the interface with PF. In this section we will ex-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.45 (2418-2479)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

plore some operations that have both formal and substantive components pertaining to the selection and sequencing of lexical items in coordinate structures. The selection of lexical items from the lexicon has an implied sequence. To the extent that sequencing implies linearization, selection and linearization are connected. This connection becomes more obvious when dealing with coordinate structures: The order in which conjuncts are selected determines their eventual linear order in PF. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that not all conjuncts are selected as one lexical array from the lexicon. Of course we must ask: What conjuncts? CPs? TPs? PPs? Chomsky (1999) assumes that no more than one lexical array is selected at a time from the lexicon. This array constitutes one phase in the derivational process, so in effect the size of what is chosen from the lexicon is determined by his theory of derivation by phase. One argument that he uses against multiple access to the lexicon for selecting the lexical items of a lexical array is this: “If the derivation accesses the lexicon at every point, it must carry along this huge beast [the lexicon], rather like cars that have to replenish fuel supply constantly” (Chomsky 1998: 13). In this section we will examine this argument and how it applies to coordinate structures, keeping in mind as we do that conjuncts which are TPs or CPs constitute one phase and exhaust what can be selected from the lexicon at one time in Chomsky’s system.43 That is, following Chomsky’s assumption about access to the lexicon, each TP or CP conjunct will require a separate lexical array, and thus separate access to the lexicon. By contrast, PPs, APs and smaller conjuncts, because they constitute parts of phases, are not selected separately, but are included in a larger lexical array that corresponds to one phase. Chomsky adds flexibility to derivation by phase in two forms: (A) in the form of subarrays; and (B) in the form of active memory. Active memory (AM), also called the “work space” in Chomsky (1998: 19), is engaged after each subarray has undergone derivation; up to an entire lexical array as large as a phase can be placed in AM where it is held until the interface with PF. A possible application of this notion of subarray and AM for illustration purposes is in the selection of a lexical array containing certain modifiers. We could assume that after the selection of an array, the first items placed in AM as a subarray are the subject and verb; if the verb is transitive, an object will also be part of this subarray. The second subarray would then be the PP and AP modifiers. The question of sequencing in the placement of subarrays in AM must be carefully considered. One starting point is that embedded CPs, PPs, APs and adverbials must be placed after the subject, object (both DP/NPs) and verb have been placed. Thus, for a lexical array to have modifiers, these would, under this assumption, be merged and placed after the subject, verb and object have merged and occupy AM. In this way a sequence is required, if we assume that the placement of these items in AM doesn’t occur in one instance, but rather begins with the most basic ones (subject, object, verb) and proceeds to the more peripheral ones (modifiers). It is interesting to note that how these items are merged does not necessarily result in the linearization that is required for PF. Not until all subarrays have entered AM do we have a set of lexical items that can be linearized. We take (83) as a example of



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.46 (2479-2543)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

how placement sequence doesn’t produce the final linearization, but rather how these lexical items are merged (Merge not requiring a linear order) and linearized on the basis of their respective features: (83) Derivation of Heute liest Peter das Buch zu Hause today reads P the book at home a. Select lexical array: Peter heute zu Hause das Buch liest b. Merge subject, object, verb: [VP Peter [V’ das Buch [V liest]]] c. Extract, merge modifiers: [VP heute [VP zu Hause]] d. Merge modifiers with VP: [VP Peter [VP heute [VP zu H [V’ das Buch [V liest]]]]] e. Move, Agree: [TP Peter [T’ liest [vP das Buch [VP heute [VP zu H]]]]] f. Fronting (optional): [CP Heute [C’ liest [TP Peter [vP das Buch [VP zu H]]]]] g. Linearization of f for interface with PF: Heute liest Peter das Buch zu Hause It is obvious that neither the linear order of lexical items in (a), nor the linear order that is evident after Merge is complete in (d) corresponds to the linearization in (g). We must keep in mind that the left-to-right linear order of each line of text in (83) conforms to the writing convention of German (and English) and does not represent how text is handled in the human brain. In the syntactic component these items do not have a linear order but are rather like objects hanging from a mobile (e.g. by Calder), an analogy used in Uriagereka (1999: 251). However, there is an aspect of linearization implied in (83): unless we assume that all of the items in (d) are placed simultaneously, in one instant, in AM, there are two steps, i.e. a sequence (a form of linear order) is required. In what follows I want to suggest that conjunction must have a sequence; assuming it does has benefits for the derivation – including linearization – of coordinate structures. One argument in favor of sequencing the placement of subarrays in AM has already been suggested: the “core elements” of a lexical array can be placed in AM first, and the “peripheral” ones after that, as two subarrays. The distinction between core and peripheral elements adds order to the merge process and it corresponds to the assumptions about the positions that the peripheral elements occupy in the structure: they must be adjoined to existing structure and do not enter either a Spec-head or a head-complement relation. The kind of Merge operation just described is illustrated in (84) where we see the merging of a PP with an already-merged VP:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.47 (2543-2600)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

(84) [VP Peter [VP [PP zu Hause] [V’ das Buch [V liest]]] ↑ [PP zu Hause] → ← [VP Peter [V’ das Buch [V liest]]] ↑ [P zu] → ← [N Hause] We recall that before PF, no fixed linearization is required. For (84) we do not have to make any more assumptions about Merge than are made for the merging of the elements of the VP. Thus, merging a PP into a VP does not require linearization, only a sequencing in the placement of the lexical items in AM. In the next section we turn our attention to how this sequencing plays out in conjunction.

... Sequence in selection of conjuncts The sequencing proposed in the previous section may appear trivial. It seems unnecessary to merge the items in (84) in two separate chunks, if we can convincingly argue that the placement of all the items in AM can occur at once, in an instant so to speak, and can be merged in one continuous operation. In the following I want to explore whether it is nevertheless advantageous and possibly unavoidable for a derivational grammar to either select conjuncts of a coordinate structure separately from the lexicon, or to place them separately in AM. In the previous section I argued that the intuitive distinction “core” vs. “peripheral” might be a starting point for deciding the sequence of placement in AM. One could express this distinction in terms of subarrays, following Chomsky (1998) or in terms of Command Units (CUs, cf. Uriagereka 1999: 252 where the term is used to argue a similar point): The subject-object-verb complex is a single CU, once its elements are merged with each other. A PP is also a single CU. In the remainder of this section we consider two options: (A) whether conjuncts of a coordinate structure are selected all at once from the lexicon, but are made up of subarrays (or CUs) which are placed separately in AM and merged with each other in a discontinuous Merge operation, or (B) whether conjuncts of a coordinate structure should be selected from the lexicon separately, and thus be treated as separate phases (in which case trivially more than one merge operation is likewise required). Several theory-internal arguments for the sequenced selection of conjuncts i.e. Option B (versus sequenced placement in AM, Option A) are available: (1) Given that coordinate structures are infinitely long, lexical arrays must also be infinitely long, if all conjuncts of one coordinate structure are selected as one lexical array. (2) Conjunction does not have to be part of selection if conjuncts are selected separately. Given that the selection of [&] is assumed in the model proposed in this study to trigger Copy and Match, keeping conjunction separate from the selection process is very advantageous for design reasons (to be made clearer below). (3) Sequencing in selection simplifies the linearization process that is required at PF Spell-Out; this is especially true with conjunction, but would ideally be true for non-coordinate structures also, as implied in §3.5.6.1. The reason linearization can be simplified with multiple instances of selection and discontinuous merge has to do with the proposal made in §3.5.1 for



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.48 (2600-2626)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

conjunction: It is accomplished by pure Merge on the right branch (“right merger”) and thus does not require any Move operation. Conjunction by right-branch merger allows the resulting structure to be linearized directly without any move operations, as illustrated in (85): (85) Structure building with right-branch merge in conjunction => Merge TP as sister of X (here N): TP DP

T’ T

VP DP

V’ V

DP D

N’ N

M: Ý TP TP

&

T’

DP

VP

T DP

V’ V

DP

A direct relation between sequenced selection of conjuncts and linearization in PF is obviously desirable in a derivational model. How do the arguments for sequenced selection compare to those in favor of the other option: the sequenced placement of subarrays in AM? Arguments 1–3 can be reformulated to apply to this option (with the revised portions in italics): (1’) Given that coordinate structures are infinitely long, lexical arrays must also be infinitely long, if all conjuncts of one coordinate structure are selected as one lexical array and then placed separately in AM. (2’) Conjunction does not have to be part of placement in AM. Given that the selection of [&] is assumed in the model proposed in this study to trigger Copy and Match, keeping conjunction separate from placement in AM is very advantageous for design reasons. The same advantage can be gained from treating each conjunct as

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.49 (2626-2707)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

a subarray, in which case extraction of [&] from the lexical array will trigger Copy and Match. (3’) Sequencing of placement in AM simplifies the linearization process that is required before Spell-Out. It appears that both options offer the same advantages for the model proposed here. Unless we can find a problem with one of the options for the derivation of coordinate structures, we have no basis for favoring one over the other. Two such problems theoretically exist for Option A (conjuncts are subarrays which are merged and placed in AM separately). One is the assumption that potentially an infinite number of conjuncts must be extracted from a lexical array, as required for an infinitely long coordinate structure. This process of extraction, using Option A, requires that a lexical array also be potentially infinitely long. The second problem follows from the first one: What space does this infinitely long lexical array occupy while subarrays are being extracted from it? AM, we recall, is not engaged in Chomsky’s model until at least one subarray has been derived; it is used to keep the subarrays “active” until the last one has been derived and they all can be linearized at the PF interface. Therefore, AM is not available in Chomsky’s approach for storing a lexical array prior to the merge operation. Option B, selecting conjuncts separately, whether they be arrays or subarrays, can eliminate these problems. However, another problem exists with Option B. We recall the problem pointed out by Chomsky with the grammar needing to access the lexicon during a derivation: It requires that the lexicon be “carried along,” an unnecessary burden to the computation. In what follows we will consider which option is more suitable for the model proposed here and which has insurmountable problems. In this model for the derivation of coordinate structures, it is assumed that Match occurs post-cyclically after the items have been merged and undergone derivation. In this process a certain structure is determined, but not a linearization. This structure, combined with the features of the lexical items, forms the basis for comparison with subsequent lexical items selected from the lexicon. When [&] is selected along with the lexical items of a second conjunct, certain symmetries obtain. These symmetries are measured in terms of matching features and structures. Some examples are given in (86): (86) a.

Peter wrote [DP a novel] and [DP a short story] [D, NP] [D, NP] [DO/acc] [DO/acc] [inanimate] [inanimate] etc. b. Petra drove [PP onto the freeway] and [PP into the city] [P, DP] [P, DP] [direction] [direction] etc. c. P sent [v’ a letter to his mother] and [v’ a card to his sister] [DP, PP/IO] [DP, PP/IO] [DO/acc, direction] [DO/acc, direction] [inanimate, P+animate] [inanimate, P+animate]



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.50 (2707-2777)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

d. Paula [vP visited a friend] and [vP bought her lunch] [V, DP] [V, DP] [trans, DO/acc] [trans, DO/acc] e. [DP a man]i entered the room and [DP a woman]j went out [sg] [sg] [DP who]i+j were quite similar [pl] Each of the conjunct pairs of the constructions in (86) share features. Once the first conjunct has merged and occupies AM, its formal features are copied and pasted onto the second conjunct of its kind at merge (conjunction).44 The resulting symmetries/parallelisms can be used to simplify the derivation and generate more conjuncts. An important parallelism in the conjunction of DPs/NPs is Case: all DPs/NPs conjoined must have the same Case in “balanced” or symmetric coordinations. (We will discuss “unbalanced” coordinations pointed out in §3.3.2 again in §3.6.) Because of Copy, cyclic rule application can be simplified. For example, when a novel is conjoined with the string a short story, the copying of formal features enables the derivation of the second conjunct to bypass Merge in the VP and Agree in the vP (which requires Move); instead, the second DP is conjoined with the first one in the position that meets the interface. This simplified derivational operation is one account of the measurable difference in time it takes to generate coordinate structures, as noted by Frazier and Clifton (2001). In (86) there is just one example of conjoined clauses. In Chomsky (1998, 1999) the general assumption is made that AM stores maximally only one phase (clause) at a time. For the derivation of (86e) with a [+pl] feature on who, both conjuncts (clauses) must be held in AM until the relative clause is selected, merged and derived with who in Spec,CP. At this point the two [+sg] features are combined via conjunction and enter an agreement relation with who, inducing its [+pl] feature. Thus, for this derivation, AM must be able to hold at least two clauses, each of which requires a separate vP phase. Chomsky’s limitation on selection and what is held in AM, based on derivation by phase, poses no problem for the model proposed here. In fact, the two mesh well, as argued earlier, if we assume that multiple clauses that are conjuncts with sufficient symmetries can all be held in AM at one time. In Chapter 4 we will see that for design reasons, which have empirical support, it is necessary to assume that more than one phase can be held in AM, if the symmetry of the phases, in this case conjuncts, is high. This high degree of symmetry is a requirement of elliptical coordinate structures, the object of investigation in Chapter 4.45 Let’s return to the choice of Option A or B: Notice first that in (86b) there is the possibility of an infinite number of such PPs being selected, along the lines of (87): (87) Paul drove [pp through town], [PP across the valley], [PP into the mountains], ...

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.51 (2777-2830)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

The generability of such a construction suggests that the lexicon might be accessed for each PP. Multiple selection, however, arguably conflicts with the finding of Frazier and Clifton that coordinate structures require less time to process than equivalent noncoordinate structures. We should, therefore, pursue a different solution, one in which the PPs conjoined in one construction are all selected at once, but merged as separate subarrays. This approach to derivation requires that the lexical array be held in AM while each subarray is merged, i.e. before any derivation begins, contrary to what Chomsky assumes about when a numeration is placed in AM. In this approach the problem of potentially infinite length still arises; we will consider a solution to that problem momentarily and consider first how the derivation proceeds after selection and merger. After all of the PPs have been merged, Spell-Out with LF can occur for matching purposes to check whether parallel requirements are met; in a Multiple Spell-Out approach, Spell-Out can occur again after the vP phase is complete. PPs, we assume, are not exempt from matching – symmetry requirements must be met – and they can potentially make the size of a phase infinitely long. The same is true of adverbials and APs. Thus, the need for the matching of PPs and APs lends further support to Option B, if we assume the lexicon can be accessed for each without detriment to the computation process, but it lends support to Option A, if that is not possible. However, Option A still has the problem of an infinitely long lexical array. It is possible that this problem is mitigated in coordinate structures through their symmetry: symmetric structures are easier to maintain in AM than non-symmetric structures. This is not the whole solution to the Option A problem, however, but it is related to it. Before we consider a more complete solution, we need to return to the problem with Option B. The problem with Option B is, as described by Chomsky, the need to “carry along this huge beast,” the lexicon, so that it can be accessed more than once during a derivation. The implications of this perceived problem for coordinate structures must be considered closely, for it does not concern just the derivation of coordinate structures with a potentially infinite number of PPs or APs; rather, it concerns also the conjunction of clauses. An important question is whether all clausal conjuncts of a coordinate structure can be selected at once, following Option A, or whether they each constitute a phase, and must therefore be selected separately. The answer, following Chomsky’s phase-based approach, is clearly that each clausal conjunct must be selected separately, since every CP or TP conjunct requires a lexical array of minimally one phase. If DPs are equated with TPs or CPs, as DP-theory has argued is appropriate, then DPs also constitute a separate phase and require separate access to the lexicon. This brings us back to PPs, APs and adverbials and a solution to the problem with Option B: do these also require separate access to the lexicon just like CPs and TPs, and possibly DPs? If we assume that a lexical array is held in some work space (presumably in AM, though this is not mentioned by Chomsky) while subarrays are extracted from it, a limitation must be placed on the length of this lexical array. The appropriate source of a constraint on the length (complexity) of a syntactic object placed in AM, I will argue, should be sought in the performance side of the syntactic component. If we

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.52 (2830-2915)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

assume that there is a performance constraint on AM which limits the size of what is copied into it, we will have eliminated the problem of the infinitely-long lexical array. With this performance constraint, all conjuncts of the form PP, AP and Adv can be selected from the lexicon at once, but are extracted from the lexical array separately as subarrays. Only DP, TP and CP conjuncts constitute separate phases and require separate selection, in accordance with Chomsky’s assumption.46 Thus, the model proposed in (72) can be maintained with AM serving as a repository for copied derivations until they can be matched with others that constitute potential conjuncts. In this way the model is also made more explicit. We will now assume that the construction in (88) passes through the derivational steps outlined in (89a–g): (88) [TP P lief [VP [PP über die Brücke [PP und [pp durch den Park]]]]] P ran over the bridge and through the park (89) Derivation of (88):47 a. select lexical array: P über die Brücke und durch den Park lief b. extract and merge subarray: [VP P [V lief ]] c. Agree (requiring Move): [TP P [T’ lief i [VP [V’ ti ]]]] d. extract and merge subarray: [PP über [DP die [N’ Brücke]]] e. extract and merge subarray: [PP und [PP durch [DP den [N’ Park]]]] f. right-branch Merge (conjunction): [PP über [DP die [N’ Brücke [PP und [PP durch [DP den [N’ Park]]]]]]] g. merge (c) and (f): [TP Paul [T’ lief i [VP [PP über [DP die [N’ Brücke [PP und [PP durch [DP den [N’ Park]]]]]]] [V’ ti ]]]] The derivation of conjoined V2 clauses in constructions like (90) follows roughly the procedure outlined in (91). Because we are assuming that subject-initial V2 clauses in German are TPs, two phases are required, i.e. two lexical arrays, and thus two separate selections from the lexicon: (90) [TP Paul lief [VP [PP durch den Park] [TP und [TP Peter sprang [VP [PP über den Bach]]]]]] (91) Derivation of (90): a. select lexical array: Paul durch den Park lief

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.53 (2915-2940)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

b. extract & merge subarray: [VP Paul [V lief ]] c. Agree (requiring Move): [TP Paul [T’ lief i [VP [V ti ]]]] d. extract & merge subarray: [PP durch den Park] (see (89d) for details) e. merge (c) and (d): [TP Paul [T’ lief i [VP [PP durch den Park] [V ti ]]]] f. select lexical array: und Peter sprang über den Bach g. extract & merge subarray: [VP und [VP Peter [V sprang]]] h. Agree (requiring Move): [TP und [TP Peter [T’ sprang [VP [V ti ]]]]] i. extract & merge subarray: (see (89d) for detail) [PP über den Bach] j. merge (h) and (i): [TP und [TP Peter [T’ sprang j [VP [PP über den Bach] [V tj ]]]]] k. merge (i) and (j): [TP Paul [T’ lief i [VP [PP durch den Park] [V’ ti [TP und [TP Peter [T’ sprang j [VP [PP über den Bach] [V’ tj ]]]]]]]]] An interesting illustration of how conjunction interacts with Move in a derivation-byphase model when conjuncts themselves move, as opposed to other elements, is given in (92). This derivation supports the assumption that each subarray is placed in AM already before it enters derivation: (92) a.

John-to Mary-ga paatii-ni kita J-conj M-nom party-to came ‘Both John and Mary came to the party’ b. Mary-ga John-to paatii-ni kita M-nom John-conj party-to came ‘Mary came to the party with John’

We recall in the discussion of this construction in §3.4.2 that the connective clitic -to attaches to the second of two conjuncts in the most unmarked order, as in (92b). For the conjunct John-to to move to initial position within cyclic rule application without preventing Conjunction, which requires Copy and Match capitalizing on the interface with AM, it is necessary for Move to apply after feature matching has been completed. The sequence required is in (93):48



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.54 (2940-2997)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(93) Derivation of (92a) a. Select lexical array: Mary-ga [&] John-to paatii-ni kita b. extract, merge and derive subarray (with Agree): Mary-ga paati-ni kita; → AM c. extract and merge subarray: [&] John-to d. merge subarrays: Mary-ga [&] John-to paatii-ni kita; Spell-Out to LF e. match conjuncts (in LF): Mary-ga [&]

paatii-ni kita

John-to

f.

Move John-to: John-toi Mary-ga [&] ti paatii-ni kita g. Spell out to PF: John-to Mary-ga paatii-ni kita In this example it becomes clear that if a DP conjunct is a target of Move, then Match must be completed before Move applies. This sequence is predicted by the model outlined here, since in it the first subarray is placed in AM as soon as it is merged. Once all of the subarrays have merged, they can be matched through Spell-Out to LF, after which Move applies to the conjunct John-to (with final Spell-Out to PF thereafter). If the conjuncts did not undergo Match until after Move, there would be no basis for the cliticization of -to onto John, if we assume that this cliticization is predicated on the matching of Mary and John as conjuncts.49 Furthermore, we cannot assume that the coordinate structure meets Japanese word order parameters for conjunction unless the clitic is attached to the second of the two conjuncts. This requirement must be met before Move, and it is consistent with what we know independently about coordination to assume that it requires Match. The role of the operations Merge and Match and their interplay with AM becomes apparent in the conjunction of DPs like the ones considered in (30), repeated here as (94): (94) a.

Der Mann, sein Sohn the-nom man his-nom son den Fluss entlang the river along b. Niemand sieht den Mann, no one sees the-acc man

und ihr Hund spazieren and their-nom dog walk

seinen Sohn und ihren Hund his-acc son and their-acc dog

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.55 (2997-3060)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

c.

Niemand spricht mit dem Mann, seinem Sohn und ihrem no one speaks with the-dat man his-dat son and their-dat Hund dog

If we assume that each DP conjunct of a coordinate structure like any of those in (94) is treated as a subarray, hence merged separately and then placed in AM, then we can explain how the Case assigned to the first DP can be copied onto the others, thus assuring the same Case for all DPs. This matching assures the same Case for all DPs. When Agree applies, these Case forms are checked by the appropriate head, requiring Merge and Move: In (a) the finite verb checks from its position in [T], in (b) the same verb checks in its position in [v], its intermediate landing site on the way to [T], and in (c) the preposition mit checks Case in a head-complement relation. For each of these checking operations only the uppermost DP – in the linear representation in (94) the first DP – is checked; this checking is then copied onto the other DPs before Spell-Out. Because AM is interfaced with the syntactic component at all points within a derivation, both Copy and Match can proceed. That both must occur corresponds to the two stages in the derivation: pre- and post-cyclic rule application. Case and θ-roles are assigned in the pre-cyclic stage, and Case and φ-features must be checked in the post-cyclic stage, given that they are more “surfacy” in nature and are constrained by conditions at Spell-Out. At several points in the derivation of coordinate structures certain symmetries must obtain. For this reason the interface must be accessible at more points than just at the end of the cycle; thus, it appears to be nearly “online” in nature. One final minor point must be revisited in this section: the derivation of coordinate structures with ‘conjunction doubling’ first mentioned in §3.5.1. In languages like French which allow the repetition of a lexical connector so that one occurs before each conjunct, the derivation must include features that are mapped to PF for the realization of the appropriate intonation and accent, in addition to the realization of the lexical connector itself. The two types of features, lexical and intonational, require the interface of the syntactic and phonetic components of the grammar in such a way that the intonational features, generated in the syntactic component, are linked with the lexical features of the connector. The details of how this interface must be formally worked out will be left to other research, given the focus in this study on Germanic languages which lack ‘conjunction doubling’. In the next subsection we consider the linearization of coordinate structures at the PF-interface. If we take the assumption seriously that lexical items do not become linearized until PF, contrary to what is predicted by Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), then certain considerations must be made about coordinate structures.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.56 (3060-3151)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

... Multiple Spell-Out in conjunction A natural extension or corollary of the proposal made in the previous section for sequenced selection and discontinuous merge is Multiple Spell-Out (MSO), as proposed by Uriagereka (1999). Derivation by phase, as proposed in Chomsky’s (1998, 1999) model is conceptually the same as the MSO model. However, because MSO is a bit more explicit about linearization at the PF interface, I will use that term here and assume that the merging and derivation of arrays and subarrays does not automatically result in a linear order, if we take seriously the point made by Uriagereka that syntactic objects in the syntactic component, even after Merge and other derivational operations have applied, are not assigned fixed positions in a linear sequence, in contrast to what is required by the LCA. If CUs (command units – see Uriagereka 1999), of which certain conjuncts are the most interesting for this study, are selected and merged separately, then it would be logical for similar reasons to assume that they are spelled out separately as well, as was assumed above. The same is true if we speak of subarrays and phases as in the Chomsky (1999) model. The spelling out or linearization of CUs is not a trivial matter, i.e. it does not automatically follow from the phrasal projections, if we assume that all of the lexical items that constitute a vP phase are initially selected at once and merged, not according to any linearization principle, but merely by the operation of bringing together syntactic objects or CUs into phrase-structural relations with each other, and these relations are not constrained by any linear ordering. With MSO, linearization results without a stipulation like the LCA. We could welcome MSO for this reason alone. In what follows I will provide further support for MSO from conjunction. The model proposed in (72) must be revised to accommodate MSO along the lines of (72’): (72’) Grammar Model (revised to reflect MSO) Derivation by phase, with copy, match and MSO for coordinate structures (→ is placement in AM; ← is a copying operation from AM) L E X I C O N

→ select LA for vP phase of C-1 (= vP-1) A ↓ merge, project VP; assign Case & θ-roles C derive TP (vP phase); spell out; place in → T (optional: extract subarray; copy x ←) I (merge, project; derive; spell out; place →) V → select [&], LA (phase1) of C-2 (= vP-2) E ↓ merge and project VP; assign Case & θ-roles ↑ copy x from vP-1←; derive TP; spell out; place (select [&] and LA (ph-1) of third conjunct) (derive as second conjunct) (reiterate for xn conjuncts)

M E M O R Y

Let’s see how this model handles the derivations under discussion. The derivations in (89) and (91) end with a string of lexical items related to each other syntactically in precise ways. Given the phrase-structural asymmetry of these relations, a linear order

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.57 (3151-3203)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

can be derived. However, the linear order indicated results from language-specific parameters and is therefore not the only one possible. The English equivalents of (89) and (91) would be somewhat different, and the Japanese equivalents would be very different. Yet, linearization must occur according to universal principles. What might universal principles of linearization look like for many different possible word orders? A logical assumption is that these are principles applying to the output of the derivation which produce a string according to the features assigned to the phrase markers. The features assigned result from language-specific parameters; hence, MSO is an operation which applies these parameters to universal phrase structures, as generated by the syntactic component. Furthermore, MSO must apply locally, as dictated by minimalist principles. In effect, then, MSO applies by phase in a linear manner. Under this assumption, coordinate structures that are derived by right-branch Merge can be read and linearized directly without the need for any non-local syntactic relations. Most important for this direct reading and linearization is the derivation of conjoined structures without Move. An example of how MSO can affect the linearization of a coordinate construction is given in (95a), taken from Ross (1967: 90–91) who argues on its basis that and forms a constituent with the conjunct it precedes, a point addressed in §3.4.2. An account of (95b), a quite different construction, follows from the same assumption about MSO and conjunction: (95) a. John left. And he didn’t even say goodbye b. John bought a book yesterday, and a newspaper To account for these constructions we assume, as proposed in §3.5, that [&] is selected with the conjunct it precedes, and furthermore that each TP conjunct in (95a) requires separate selection, and that each DP conjunct in (95b) forms a separate subarray, which can first be extracted and merged and, after cyclic rule application, spelled out separately. In the Spell-Out for (95a), sentence-final intonation, notated in print with a period, is added between the conjuncts; this extra phonetic feature does nothing to reduce the coordinate relations between the two sentences, which is signaled by and. In (95b) the whole TP is spelled out before the second conjunct, a separate subarray, is merged late and spelled out. Again, this somewhat unusual sequence does nothing to reduce the coordinate relations between the two DPs, a book and a newspaper. Another example of how MSO in conjunction can simplify a derivation is (96): (96) The professor, and he is an expert, thinks the recession will continue The parenthetical conjunct and he is an expert does not require Move to displace the parenthetical conjunct to get the surface linearization; rather, this linearization can result from the sequence of steps in (97):50 (97) Derivation of (96) (not all phases indicated): a. Select LA-1: the professor thinks the recession will continue

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.58 (3203-3274)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. Derive TP-1 and place in AM: the professor thinks the recession will continue c. Select LA-2: and he is an expert d. Derive TP-2: and he is an expert; merge/conjoin with DP the professor e. Spell out and match the two matrix TPs in LF f. Spell out the two TPs in PF as the string in (96), with appropriate intonation Step (97f) requires MSO because only the subject DP can be spelled out to PF before the parenthetical clause is spelled out, after which the remainder of the first phase is spelled out. In this derivation, the primary outcome of matching is the establishment of the parenthetical status of TP-2 as a conjunct of the DP the professor. The features shared are not Case and θ-role, normally the matching features in DP-conjunction, but rather more abstract, higher-level features such as [proposition] or [declarative]. No economizing of the derivation through ellipsis is possible, but the avoidance of Move provides a measure of economy. Most importantly, derivation by phase explains why there is no independent evidence to support a derivation of (96) with Move. The derivation of (98) provides an example of the role that the extraction of subarrays plays in conjunction:51 (98) It can, must and will succeed (99) Derivation of (98) (LA = lexical array; SA = subarray): a. Select LA: it can, must and will succeed b. Merge and derive TP: it can succeed; place in AM c. Extract SA-1 must and merge with TP: it can [&] must succeed; place in AM52 d. Extract SA-2 and will and merge with string in (c): it can, must and will succeed e. Spell out as the string in (98) The advantage of this derivation over one with deletion is that only one phase is required. Given that AM is needed regardless of whether conjunction occurs or not, the utilization of AM for maintaining the string until all subarrays have been extracted and derived reduces the burden on the syntactic component, but without AM assuming any functions reserved for this component. In §3.3.2 we considered constructions like (100) with respect to breakdown of agreement: (100) There was a man in the kitchen and a cat in the bathroom An explanation for this breakdown is available from the proposal for subarrays in conjunction outlined here. The breakdown can be traced to the sequencing involved in the extraction of subarrays. Let’s consider the derivation of (100) in (101):53

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.59 (3274-3322)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

(101) Derivation of (100): a. Select LA: a man was in the kitchen and a cat in the bathroom b. Extract, merge: [VP a man was in the kitchen] c. Merge there, raise was: [TP there wasi [vP a man ti in the kitchen]], place in AM d. Extract, merge and derive SA: [TP and a cat in the bathroom] e. Merge (conjoin) TP and SA, spell out, Match in LF: [TP there wasi [vP a man ti in the kitchen and [vP a cat in the bathroom]]] f. Spell out in PF as the string in (100) In this sequence Agree applies in the derivation of the TP and is not required in the SA. The result is unbalanced agreement because once the verb has left the v◦ position and raised to T◦ , it is no longer in a position where a plural ending can be matched with the plural feature assigned to the conjunction of a man in the kitchen and a cat in the bathroom, given that conjunction doesn’t occur until after the derivation of the SA. Without merger of the expletive there in Spec,TP and the raising of was to T◦ , this breakdown in agreement does not occur: (102) A man in the kitchen and a cat in the bathroom were/*was both eating their breakfast The merger of there in T◦ in the derivation of (100) also provides an interpretive mechanism by which (100) is kept distinct from the interpretation of (102): (100) requires the interpretation in which the modifiers in the kitchen and in the bathroom provide a location of the man and the cat, respectively, whereas in (102) these PPs isolate which man and which cat were eating breakfast, with no emphasis on the location of the event. Furthermore, the merger of there and the raising of was to T◦ creates the syntactic structure in which both vPs are dominated by there was. This structure and the interpretation tied to it and the lexical items in the TP domain, there was, together eliminate the need for a second copula in the second vP conjunct, which nevertheless can be interpreted as a TP – possessing all the features of a proposition, etc. – because of matching in LF with the first vP conjunct which contains a trace of the verb was.54 This one example anticipates the topic of the next major section, the breakdown of agreement in conjunction. The objective of this section will be to account for many long-standing problems of agreement in coordinate structures using the derivational model outlined above.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.60 (3322-3374)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

. An account of breakdown in agreement using a CFM-based derivational model Now that the essential details of the model proposed here have been outlined, we return to some important empirical matters that were introduced in previous sections in the hope that the grammar model proposed will be able to provide some solutions. The issue in the first subsection is related to CFM, satisfied by Copy and Match in this model.

.. Abstract, morphological and default Case We begin this subsection with the reminder that in my proposal asymmetric Case does not occur in any variety of English, not in the morphology, and not abstractly, except in certain instances of hypercorrection.55 However, we must assume for this proposal that constructions like (103a) represent a slightly different derivation than the one which generates (103b), and that (103c) results from hypercorrection, to be defined in §3.6.3: (103) Varieties of English Case morphology with conjoined subjects a. Me and my brother play cards every weekend b. She and my brother play cards every weekend c. My brother and I play cards every weekend The default to objective Case morphology in (103a) is not restricted to coordinate structures, however, as the following illustrate: (104) Speaker A: Someone insinuated that you drink and drive. Speaker B: Me? I never drink and drive. Without a local, Case-checking head, Case checking defaults in English, resulting in the realization of [+objective] Case morphology. To account for the morphology of DPs that have default Case, Schütze (2001: 206) makes the following assumption: (105) Schütze (2001: 206) on default Case morphology The default Case forms of a language are those that are used to spell out nominal expresions (e.g. DPs) that are not associated with any Case feature assigned or otherwise determined by syntactic mechanisms. In Schütze’s model, a DP that fails to get its Case assigned or checked by a syntactic mechanism survives to LF and PF, “given that it never had any uninterpretable features that needed to be checked. . . The default Case is never assigned by anything to anything; rather, it is used to spell out a terminal node of the syntactic tree. Crucially, the presence of default Case is, by design, invisible to the syntax” (2001: 207, emphasis in the original).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.61 (3374-3443)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

This proposal might provide a solution for the morphology of the DPs in (103). We must ask: Is Case checking defaulting in coordinate structures like (103a, c), which reflect colloquial spoken usage? I am assuming that in constructions like these, both DPs have the same Case, as in (106):56 (106) a. Me and my brother play cards every weekend b. Them and their friends come over any time It seems that coordinate DPs in subject position are opaque to Case checking in this variety of English. The Case of coordinate DPs in object position is always objective, but if we assume that objective is the default Case in English, this is not necessarily due to Case checking; it could be default Case. If both subjects and objects are checked in the same manner (in the same configuration, e.g. Spec-head), we must assume that coordinate object DPs are also opaque to Case checking. This assumption is supported by the occurrence, especially in spoken usage, of coordinate structures like: (107) a. Sue will come to visit Lynn and I on the weekend b. Bill has nothing against Jim and I Unless Case checking were defaulting, there is no way to get nominative I in the object position of against, assuming that in this variety of English, the pronoun I is not the realization via some algorithm of the abstract feature [+objective]. My account of these agreement facts requires that we clarify the distinction between abstract and morphological Case. The examples in (107) illustrate that morphological Case forms in English are not reliable indicators of the underlying relation between the DP and its Case-checking head. For this reason it is necessary to distinguish between the theory of abstract Case, as developed by Vergnaud (1979), Chomsky (1980, 1981) and Franks (1981), and morphological Case, as seen in the distinction between, for instance, I and me in English, and between ich ‘I’ and mich ‘me’-acc and mir ‘me’-dat in German. It is certainly fallacious to assume that the conjoined DPs of a conjunction phrase such as Jim and I in (107b) do not get Case checked equally in some way, if (abstract) Case checking is necessary for licensing, and interpretation and Case are at all related. But if this is true, then why do we find usage like in (106)?57 Clearly the morphology of me in Me and Bill play basketball is not directly related to its abstract Case, if we assume me and its abstract Case are directly related, and that this me is the same one as in Bill likes me. We are led, rather, to the conclusion that the abstract Case of each me is somehow related to its subjecthood or objecthood and the θ-roles [+agent] or [+theme]. Yet, even though the relation between Case and θ-role is not always a one-to-one relation, the fact that *Me play basketball is not grammatical indicates that the morphology of a subject pronoun in English is not arbitrary.58 In approaching a solution to this dilemma, we could propose that in English, because of the impoverishment of its morphological Case system, the morphological form of a pronoun no longer needs to correspond directly to the abstract Case in certain configurations. My objective in this section will be to defend this argument. I will show how configurations, derivations and Case – both morphological and

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.62 (3443-3501)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

abstract – interact in colloquial varieties of English with the results seen in (106). In contrast to the impoverishment of morphological Case in English, German, we will see, has morphological Case forms that are closedly tied to interpretation, and for that reason no equivalents of (106) are possible in German.59 This assumption does not, however, exclude the possibility that abstract Case, supported or defined by structural relations (cf. Frey 1993) and θ-role, also plays a separate role in German for the interpretation of constructions like (108): (108) Paul versprach uns den Diplomaten aus Brazil P-nom promised us-dat the-acc diplomat from Brazil Even though uns is ambiguous between [acc] and [dat] and den is ambiguous between [acc],[sg],[masc] and [dat],[pl], the syntax of German, by way of derivational mechanisms that interact with its structure, abstractly checks the Cases as indicated. In the least marked interpretation of the morphology on the perceptual side, the DPs have these abstract Case features also, though theoretically the sentence is ambiguous. Abstract Case is therefore useful for disambiguation when no other features are added, such as a certain prosody, and no pragmatic cues are provided by the context. Further evidence of the need for abstract Case in German comes from data of the kind presented in §3.4; another example is given in (109a), which contrasts with (109b), analyzed earlier, in which morphological Case “overrides” abstract Case: (109) a.

Ich weiß, dass Fritz Herrn Meyer begrüßteacc und greeted and I know that F Mr.-acc/dat M danktedat thanked a.’ Ich weiß, dass Fritz Herrn Meyer dankte und begrüßte b. Ich weiß, dass Fritz *dem/*den Herrn begrüßte und dankte I know that F the-dat/the-acc g-man greeted and thanked

Because a proper name has no morphological Case marker and Herrn can be both acc and dat, no imbalance occurs in (a), while in (b) neither the accusative nor the dative Case form of the determiner can agree with both verbs. An interesting aspect of German grammar in cases like (109b) is that the morphological/surface Case forms, but not the abstract Case features, cause an unacceptable imbalance, given the acceptability of (109a). One could argue that [dat] and [acc] do not exist as underlying abstract Case features, that only the feature [+objective] exists, as in the case of NPs like Herr (nom) which lack the acc-dat distinction and use only the one ending -n for all Cases but the nominative. But this argument is undermined by the fact that DP objects of these verbs must be realized with the appropriate Case morpheme, as in (109b). In the interest of minimalist theory, we want to avoid a Case system in which NPs get one abstract Case feature, and DPs another, all else being equal. Better is to assume that a language like German determines symmetry on the basis of surface morphology, and that conflicts of abstract Case can be resolved. In this system, the DP Herrn Meyer in (109a) is assigned both [dat] and [acc], but these features are not mapped to PF for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.63 (3501-3569)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

the realization of a Case morpheme. Instead, these two features are resolved into the feature [+objective], marked by the -n morpheme on Herrn.60 In sum, symmetry occurs in (109a) but not in (109b) because the verbs sharing the DP Herrn in (109a), which lacks the dat-acc distinction, do not have to match according to the morphological Case markers that would need to be realized on a determiner, if one were present as in (109b). Rather, the abstract Case [+objective] is sufficient and is realized as the -n substantive marker, which works just fine for both [+acc] and [+dat]. There is evidence from coordinate structures to support the assumption that any combination of non-nom abstract Case features can be resolved, for instance [+acc] and [+gen] in (110a), whereas resolving [+nom] with either [+acc] or [+dat] is not possible in (110b): (110) a.

Fritz beanspruchtacc und bedarfgen mehr Zeit als F-nom demands and requires more time-acc/gen than andere others b. *Fritz gefälltdat und kauftacc das neue Auto F-dat/nom likes and buys the new car-nom/acc

There is no morpheme preventing Fritz in (110b) from being both the dative object of gefällt and the nominative subject of kauft, but the abstract features can not be resolved; an additional problem in (b) is that das Auto can not be a nominative subject of gefällt and the accusative object of kauft. The word order/configuration does not cause a problem for Fritz being the dative object of gefällt in (110b); such objects may precede or follow the verb. (111a, b) are equally grammatical and have the same meaning. As (111c) indicates, das Auto cannot be both the nominative subject of a passive verb and the accusative direct object of a transitive verb, even though the article das is appropriate for both nom and acc with neuter nouns:61 (111) a. Fritz gefällt das Auto b. Das Auto gefällt Fritz billig verkauft c. *Das Auto hat Fritz gern gefahren und wurde the car has F gladly driven and aux-passive sold cheap In the case of conjoined prepositions that share a DP, similar facts can be found: The resolution of two non-nom Case forms is acceptable in non-prescriptive usage, if the Case morphology agrees with the nearest Case assigner:62 (112) a.( *) Es gibt Sehenswürdigkeiten indat und umacc die Stadt in and around the-acc city it gives sights ‘There are tourist attractions in and around the city’ b.( *) Ilse hat Angst vordat und umacc den Nachbarn I has fear before and for the-acc neighbor ‘Ilse is afraid of and for the neighbor’



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.64 (3569-3632)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Aufführung c.( *) Ilse freut sich überacc und trotzgen der and despite the-gen performance I joys refl over ‘Ilse is happy about and despite the performance’ If morphological Case markers are not needed, no violation of a prescriptive rule occurs: (113) a. Es gibt Sehenswürdigkeiten in und um Berlin b. Ilse hat Angst vor und um Herrn Meyer c. Ilse freut sich über und trotz Marias Urlaub (vacation) My working hypothesis will be, leaving aside further investigation of this point, that morphological Case features contribute to meaning formation in languages and that these Case morphemes are realized through a mapping from narrow syntax to PF. In §2.3 evidence was presented in support of the assumption that semantic symmetry is more fundamental to the acceptability of a coordinate structure than syntactic symmetry. If much of meaning formation begins in the syntactic component, as is generally assumed in the MP, and if an abstract Case that is mapped to PF for the realization of a Case morpheme plays a role in this meaning formation, then abstract Case features must be part of the derivation of a coordinate structure, specifically of the matching of these features for meeting the symmetry requirements of coordinate structures. Given the interconnections between Case, syntactic derivation, meaning formation and the symmetry of coordinate DPs, Copy is an essential part of the derivation of conjoined DP/NPs; we will see evidence that Copy can sometimes be avoided with a particular feature, if that feature does not contribute to interpretation. By adding MSO to the model, LF matching can occur early in the derivation. In this way unacceptable asymmetries can be preempted before the PF interface. Let’s return to a construction considered earlier, repeated below as (114a). We note the existence of a c-command relation between the second of two conjoined verbs and a shared object. We consider i.a. whether c-command licenses the dative Case form dem, resulting in an acceptable asymmetric construction, asymmetric because one dative and one accusative verb share one dative DP. This asymmetry can occur in one of two possible configurations, either [Vdat & Vacc [DPacc ]], or [Vacc & Vdat [DPdat ]]. It appears as if Copy targets only the abstract Case [+objective], and that the Case morpheme realized in PF results from a mapping of one or the other Case feature [+acc] or [+dat]. But this explanation is not adequate for embedded and perfective tense constructions like (114b, c): (114) a.

Fritz begrüßteacc und danktedat dem Herrn F greeted and thanked the-dat gentleman b. Ich weiß, dass Fritz *dem/*den Herrn begrüßte und dankte I know that F the-dat/the-acc g-man greeted and thanked ‘I know that Fritz greeted and thanked the gentleman’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.65 (3632-3648)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

c.

Fritz hat *dem/*den Herrn begrüßt und gedankt F has the-dat/the-acc gentleman greeted and thanked ‘Fritz greeted and thanked the gentleman’

Let’s consider the derivations of these constructions to see what the source of the difference between matrix and embedded clauses might be. The derived structure assumed in §3.4.3 for (114b) is given in (115), with added structure for verb raising which follows the proposal of §3.5.6.2 for conjunction by Phase: (115) Derivation of the unacceptable (114b) (both dat and acc DPs indicated):63 CP o

C’ TP

C dass DP

T’

Fritzi T

vP o

v’ DPj

v’

*dem H DPk

v’

*den H v

v’

begrüßtel & und

v’ VP

v

dankte DP ti

V’ tj

V’ tk

tl

By comparison, the structure of (114a) requires V-raising into the TP domain:



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.66 (3648-3704)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(116) Derivation of the acceptably asymmetric (114a), a V2 clause with conjoined V◦ s (see vP and VP domains in 115 and n 62):64 TP NP Fritz

T’ T’

T

begrüßtei &

T’

undj T

vP v’

danktek o DP

V’

dem H o

(...)

The relevant steps in the derivation of (116) are: (117) Steps in the derivation of (116) a. Select the lexical array: Fritz dem/n Herrn begrüßt und dankt b. Merge & Project the VP: [VP Fritz [V’ [DP dem/n Herrn] begrüßt und dankt]] c. Agree (requiring Move): [TP Fritz [T’ begrüßte und dankte [vP dem Herrn]]] I assume that the two heads begrüßen and danken can be selected together out of the lexicon as part of the lexical array indicated in step 1. Conjunction, however, proceeds by phase with each V-conjunct constituting a subarray. This means that the second V is not merged until the TP is derived. At this point und triggers Copy and Match. This point is reached when [V’ begrüßen [&] danken] occupy conjoined head positions in the TP domain. The conjoined verbs begrüßen and danken, because they each have different Case requirements, sometimes cause a feature conflict when conjoined and sharing a single DP-object. This conflict occurs when conjunction, inducing Copy, occurs in the configuration in which Case feature checking also occurs, i.e. in the vP. If we assume that, because of Copy, the Case checking requirement of the upper V is transferred to the lower V, then Copy creates the conflict because the Case requirements of the conjoined verbs differ. This conflict does not occur when conjunction occurs after completion of the vP phase because then conjunction occurs in the TP. When conjunction induces Copy in the TP, it can no longer target Case feature checking because that is performed in the vP domain. At that point in the derivation no conflict occurs because the sec-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.67 (3704-3733)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

ond verb has not been conjoined yet. Because no Case checking by the conjoined verbs occurs in the TP, the configuration that meets the interface, no Case checking conflict occurs. If we assume that the Case feature checked in vP is mapped to PF for morphological Case, then we have an explanation for the grammaticality of (117). In the configuration of (117), only the second verb licenses the DP object. This asymmetry in licensing results in the permissible realization of only dem and not den. It is tolerated for reasons to be outlined momentarily. Note that this is exactly what happens in a construction considered earlier, repeated here as (118): the most local preposition determines the morphological Case of die Stadt: (118) Es gibt viele Sehenswürdigkeiten indat und umacc die Stadt it gives many sights in and around the-acc city ‘There are many worthwhile things to see in and around the city’ What is possible with prepositions in German is not necessarily possible with verbs, however, because verbs must move overtly (to the vP domain) to check Case, as indicated in (116). Interestingly the intermediate vP stage of the derivation in (116) corresponds configurationally to the final stage of the derivation of (114b), the embedded equivalent (relevant portion of 115 repeated here as 119): (119) The post-derivational structure of dass Fritz *dem/*den Herrn begrüßt und dankt 65 (...)

vP o

v’ DPi

v’

*dem H DPj

v’

*den H v

v’

begrüßtek &

v’

und

v

VP

dankte tsubj

V’ ti

V’ tj

tk

Under the assumption that both verbs pass through the vP domain before reaching the final goal in the TP domain, Case checking would proceed with both verbs, as it does



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.68 (3733-3792)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

in embedded clauses, resulting in the detection of a Case conflict, assuming that the DP were assigned both [acc] and [dat] in the VP. The fact that (116) is ok, but (119) is not, provides support for the assumption that the second of the two conjoined verbs is not merged/conjoined until the derivation of (116/117) reaches the TP (at completion of the vP phase). The source of the difference, I will argue, has to do with the point in the derivation at which the second V◦ is merged as a subarray. If we assume that the second V◦ is merged in (116) after the first V◦ raises to T◦ , then we can account for the acceptable asymmetry. In this derivation the first V◦ assigns the Case in the VP and then v◦ checks it after raising into the vP domain. Then it raises further to the T◦ position to satisfy the EPP requirement (or whatever condition one wishes to use). At this point the second V◦ is extracted and merged/conjoined, Copy is triggered and the derivation completes the cycle with the second V◦ determining the morphological Case of the DP via ccommand. In (119) the surface configuration is the same as the Spec-head configuration in the vP where Case checking occurs. Following Corver and van Riemsdijk’s (2001) and van Riemsdijk’s (1998) theories of semi-lexical categories, I assume that the vP domain is semi-lexical, possessing both functional and lexical properties. By this theory the DP dem/den Herrn in (119) must satisfy the requirements of both the lexical and the functional domains in the vP and therefore does not need to move any higher, i.e. the final stage of the derivation has been reached.66 In (116) the verb raises to T◦ because of an additional syntactic requirement, after which conjunction occurs, whereas in (119) conjunction occurs in the vP domain. An interesting aspect of the derivation of (119) in terms of my proposal is the nature of the semi-lexical category [v]: because of the Spec-head configuration in (119) and the nature of the head v◦ , the features mapped to PF for realization of a Case morpheme can be checked in this domain. When conjunction of v◦ s occurs in the vP as in (119), Copy is able to target the Case-checking operation. Because the verbs have conflicting Case requirements, Case checking fails. If conjunction doesn’t occur until the TP domain as in (116), Copy cannot target Case checking, which occurs earlier in the vP domain. Thus, no Case conflict arises, and the c-command relation of the second verb licenses the DP object by itself. In this way the asymmetry of the two verbs becomes irrelevant to Copy. Copy sees just the conjunction of two Vs which are not in a Spec-head Case-checking relation to the DP-object; Copy therefore does not see the configuration in (119). The conjunction of a dative and an accusative verb does not in itself cause an unacceptable asymmetry as long as the Case-checking conflict (asymmetry) does not meet the PF interface, or Case-feature requirements are not mapped to PF for realization. This analysis follows an assumption in the MP that all constraints must be stated as conditions on the PF and LF interfaces. In this approach, any asymmetries detected by CFM at the interface (via MSO) cause a derivation to crash. Because the configuration in (119) preserves the Spec-head relation for object Case checking until conjunction, Copy is induced in this configuration and thereby Case checking remains transparent

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.69 (3792-3863)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

until Spell-Out. In the surface configuration of (116), by contrast, Copy is not induced in the configuration in which Spec-head feature checking occurs. Hence, Case checking is not transparent at the interface, and the asymmetry is permissible. The construction in (119) has four different configurations in which CFM must be met; all fail for reasons outlined above and evident in (120): (120) Possible configurations of (119) a. *dass Fritz den Herrn begrüßtacc und danktdat that F the-acc gentleman greets and thanks b. *dass Fritz demdat Herrn begrüßt und dankt c. *dass Fritz dem Herrn dankt und begrüßt d. *dass Fritz den Herrn dankt und begrüßt If we outline the derivation of (120a) as in (121), if becomes clear why none of the constructions in (120) are grammatical: (121) Failed derivation of (120a) (ignoring details of Merge in the VP): a. select LA: dass Fritz den Herrn begrüßt und dankt b. extract, (merge), derive: [CP dass Fritz [vP [v’ den Herrn [v’ begrüßt]]]]; → AM c. extract, (merge), check ([+acc] checked on den Herrn) d. conjoin (‘conjoin’ inducing Copy, transferring formal features from V to V): *

Spell-Out to both PF and LF occurs in the configuration indicated in (121d, e). Because this is the configuration in which Conjoin and Copy also occur, the spelled-out morphology of den conflicts with the Case requirement of dankt. The problem with this derivation actually occurs earlier, however, in step d when Copy transfers the formal features of begrüßt to dankt. Because dankt inherently requires dative Case, the (structural) [+acc] cannot be transferred to it. As stated earlier, in (116) feature checking occurs between a single verb and object in the vP and avoids a crash because Spell-Out does not occur at this point; rather, it occurs once the verb raises to the TP domain and conjoins with its pair, which licenses by c-command the morphological Case of the DP. Copy cannot target Case checking



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22



F: LA8903.tex / p.70 (3863-3912)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

at this point in the derivation; therefore the Case of the shared DP is determined by minimal c-command (only the second V c-commands the DP).67 We return now to the asymmetry in (118), repeated here as (122): Stadt (122) Es gibt viele Sehenswürdigkeiten indat und umacc die it gives many sights in and around the-acc city ‘There are many worthwhile things to see in and around the city’ Spec-head feature checking does not occur, as we saw earlier, with prepositions because they license their objects in a c-command configuration. We could therefore argue, following the analysis of (119) and (121), that Copy is not able to target Case checking with prepositions. Therefore asymmetries such as in (122) are tolerated, if we assume as we did for (116) that after conjunction of the second preposition only this preposition licenses the Case of the DP object by minimal c-command. This structure is given in (122’): (122’) Conjoined prepositions with minimal c-command licensing Case PP P’ P in

P’ P’

&

DP

und P um

D

NP

die

Stadt

This analysis can be extended to the constructions in (123) involving conjoined DPs sharing a single preposition in which there is a required symmetry of the morphological Case forms: (123) Required Case symmetry in the configuration [ P [DP & DP]] a. Peter fährt gern Rad durchacc den Park und die/*der P drives gladly through the park and the-acc/the-dat Stadt city b. Paul sitzt gern indat der Bibliothek und dem/*das/*des P sits gladly in the library and the-dat/the-acc/the-gen Museum museum

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.71 (3912-3984)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

Assuming that both DPs in each of these constructions cannot be assigned Case syntactically by way of a minimal c-command relation, if we understand ‘minimal’ to mean that c-command is limited to just the first lower branch, i.e. to only one conjunct, then Case assignment to the second conjunct must rely on Copy. Case assignment by Copy predicts the symmetric Cases in (123); Copy is able to target Case assignment in (123) because the configuration in which Case is assigned is also the configuration in which conjunction occurs, and this configuration meets the PF-interface. Thus, the asymmetry in (122) appears to have the same source, i.e. be permitted for the same reasons, as the asymmetry in (116), the V2 construction with the conjoined verbs begrüßen and danken. One similarity is the sequence of the derivation: each preposition is extracted and merged separately in the order indicated in the linear sequence, as are the two verbs in (116): (124) Derivation of (122) a. Select LA: Es gibt viele Sehenswürdigkeiten in und um die/der Stadt b. Merge, derive: [TP es gibt [vP viele Sehens-keiten [P in [DP der Stadt]]]] c. Extract and merge subarray und um; overwrite the Case feature as [+acc]: [TP es gibt [vP viele Sehens-keiten [P in [DP der/die Stadt]]]] ↑ ←[P & [P um]] d. Spell out as in (122) with the [+acc] die When und um is conjoined with in, the derivation can be spelled out. Spell-Out could expose the asymmetry in the Case requirements of the two prepositions at this point, if they were realized in morphological forms on the prepositions themselves. Such forms do not exist, however; furthermore, no Spec-head feature checking occurs between either of the prepositions and the shared object. Instead, the configuration [P’ & P’ [ DP]] permits the most local of the two prepositions only to place morphological Case requirements on the DP in this particular usage of German. This asymmetry is permissible because the prepositions match on the basis of other features, e.g. that both are [+locative] in this construction. Furthermore, the asymmetry can be explained in terms of economy: requiring symmetry so that both prepositions assigned Case would force the derivation of (125): und umacc die Stadt (125) ?Es gibt Sehenswürdigkeiten indat der it gives sights in the-dat and around the-acc city ‘There are worthwhile things to see in and around the city’ This “fix” is less than perfect, however, because it results in the conjunction of two determiners, der and die, representing contrasting Case morphemes; thus, another overt asymmetry occurs.68 It is marginally acceptable only because the morphological Case requirements of each preposition are met. In a way similar to the conjunction of the two asymmetric verbs in the matrix/V2 clause of (116), the conjunction of two prepositions in (124) results in a surface con-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.72 (3984-4039)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

figuration that does not crash at the PF interface because there are no morphological asymmetries. An asymmetry exists only in the morphological Case requirements of the prepositions, but these are not spelled out on the prepositions themselves but only on the DP object of the preposition. Because prepositions do not check for Case later in the derivation like [v◦ ]-heads, any Case assigned earlier can be overwritten later in the derivation. This is what happens in (124): in first assigns [+dat] in (124b), then um assigns [+acc] in [124c). This is allowed because the first preposition no longer stands in a c-command relation to the shared DP after the second preposition has merged. At conjunction, Copy cannot target a Case feature because none is checked in a Spechead relation in this configuration. Thus, the DP shared by the prepositions does not have a Case feature pasted onto it by Copy, and matching in LF of the two prepositions determines that both prepositions have [+locative]. We have seen, therefore, that the relation of the conjoined prepositions to their shared DP in (122) is configurationally identical to the relation of the conjoined verbs to their shared DP in (116), with the more local Case-assigning head determining Case Spell-Out by c-command. In both (116) and (124) the c-command relation as a type of primitive licenses the DP-object and Copy plays no role in Case checking. This account of the role of c-command in the licensing of a Case feature is supported by Munn’s (1999) analysis of first conjunct agreement in Arabic.69 LF matching is satisfied in (116) possibly by the resolution of the θ-role [+experiencer] assigned by begrüßen and [+benefactee] assigned by danken to the more general θ-role [+recipient]. There is more to the c-command licensing relation than just the configuration. In (126b) the auxiliary hat also c-commands the DP in the matrix clause, but neither the dative nor the accusative determiner is acceptable, as in the embedded clause in (126a): (126) A comparison of [DP [Vfin & Vfin ]], [Aux [DP [Vpart & Vpart ]]], [Vfin & Vfin [DP]] a. dass Peter *den/*dem Herrn begrüßte und dankte b. Peter hat ??den/??dem Herrn begrüßt und gedankt c. Peter begrüßte und dankte dem/*den Herrn d. Peter dankte und begrüßte den/*dem Herrn It appears that an auxiliary like hat in (126b) cannot license by c-command like a full lexical verb. This deficiency might be due to its lack of Case-assigning properties. We note that in (122) the preposition um, in contrast to hat, does have Case-assigning properties, and the asymmetry is fully grammatical, just as in (126c, d) with the Case form required by the more local verb. We should also note that the asymmetry in (126c, d) appears to conflict with the proposal argued here that Case is checked by the first verb in the intermediate stage of these constructions and that Copy does not occur until the TP domain where the second verb is merged/conjoined; therefore either determiner, dem or den should be acceptable because at this point Copy cannot target Case checking. Because one or the other determiner is not acceptable, depending on the c-commanding verb, it appears that the c-command relation of the finite verb to the DP-object has a Case-checking

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.73 (4039-4107)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

function. To explain this fact, we must assume that the licensing that occurs in the ccommand relation is sensitive in German to the morphological Case requirements of the Vfin – DP-object relation. This assumption is consistent with what we have already observed about the c-command relation of prepositions to their objects in German. We will return to this point in the next subsection. Before we conclude this subsection, we must make one final observation: Although the ending -n on Herrn is suitable for both accusative and dative, the determiner dem can only be [+dat], and den only [+acc] in a DP with Herrn. For this reason (126a, b) are out. If the nominal Studenten is selected, it can satisfy both Cases, as can Herrn, but a problem arises with the determiner: (127) a.

#dass

Fritz den Studenten begrüßteacc und that F the-masc,sg,acc/pl,dat student(s) greeted and danktedat thanked-dat b. #Fritz hat den Studenten begrüßt und gedankt F has the-masc,sg,acc/pl,dat student(s) greeted and thanked

Even though these sentence are grammatically correct, they don’t meet LF symmetry requirements because of the ambiguous determiner den which can be [masc,sg,acc], or [pl,dat].70 There is no nominal determiner in German which can disambiguate between these options. Amongst the pronouns, however, there are several possibilities: (128) . . . dass Fritz uns/euch/?sich begrüßte und dankte that F us/you/himself greeted and thanked The Case and number features assigned to uns ‘us’, for instance, are the following: (129) Features of uns: [1pl,acc/dat] When morphological Case feature checking occurs in the vP, the feature [acc/dat] assigned to uns makes agreement with both verbs possible. This feature checking obviates the need for feature checking of the phonetic realization of this feature complex in PF.71 In sum, we have seen that the c-command relation between the second of two conjoined prepositions or verbs and its object as in (122) and (126c, d) licenses the Case feature that must meet conditions at the PF interface; asymmetry results in the sense that this preposition or verb is conjoined with another of its kind that has a different Case requirement. This asymmetry is acceptable at Spell-Out because the configuration of the verbs with the shared DP is not Spec-head. The asymmetry in (119), on the other hand, is unacceptable because the configuration in which conjunction occurs (and in which Copy is triggered) is also the configuration in which Case checking occurs, and this configuration meets the interface. Because the object cannot have both dative and accusative Case morphemes, as required by the Copy operation, it cannot meet the requirements of CFM, which applies at the interface.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.74 (4107-4162)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

We turn now to an account of some English data with apparent asymmetries. Following the assumptions just outlined about abstract and morphological Case and how acceptable asymmetry can arise in coordinate structures by way of derivational operations, we will find that even when a derivation causes a breakdown in symmetry, sufficient symmetry is preserved, if by default, while asymmetries are allowed for reasons of economy.

.. Symmetry and derivational economy In this section we consider the derivation of a typical English construction with conjoined subjects. In a derivational model, a subject in English always raises to Spec,TP for checking purposes. Following the proposal regarding conjuncts as either phases or subarrays in §3.5.6.2, I will assume for the conjoined DPs in (130) that featurechecking of the first DP conjunct occurs in the usual Spec-head cofiguration, and that feature checking for the second DP is accomplished by Copy when it is merged on the right branch of the first DP; in this way it satisfies CFM because Copy assumes the same Case for both DPs. Before raising, extraction of the second DP-conjunct and its merger, the structure is as in (130b). The subject pronouns me and I reflect only the surface realization of features that these pronouns have which allow one or the other realization, depending on the derivation, specifically whether it involves conjunction: (130) a. Coordinate subject DPs in Spec,TP

b. (130a) before Agree and Conjoin VP

TP DP DP D me

DP

T’ DP

&

DP D my

vP

o v

...

V’

D

V

I

play

...

NP play brother

Let’s turn to the question of feature checking as required for Agree. The DP in Spec,TP must match its φ-features with those of [T], which in turn checks the Case feature on [D] of the DP.72 Given the configuration in (130a) and assumptions about derivation by phase with separate subarray extraction, it is clear that a problem can arise in feature checking. Unless conjunction triggers morphological Case feature copying, the two DPs will not have the same morphological Case feature, given the lack of a Spec-head relation between the lower DP and [T]. In colloquial varieties of English, both DPs default to [+objective];73 the reason could be the lack of copying: when the second DP conjunct is merged with the first, which has already been checked for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.75 (4162-4226)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

[+nom] as if it were the only subject, Copy apparently does not occur. In this case the morphological Case feature of the upper DP is overwritten as the objective me after conjunction because of feature projection from the lower DP conjunct which has default Case [+objective] because it is not in a position for Spec-head feature checking. We look more closely now at the derivation of (130) and consider the assumptions just outlined. When the first DP conjunct raises, its features are checked as if the outcome of the derivation is to be a simplex sentence. But the subarray my brother, the lower DP-conjunct, still needs to be extracted and merged/conjoined. When conjunction occurs, Copy in Standard English targets the Case morphology of the upper DP-conjunct and pastes it onto the lower DP-conjunct, resulting in symmetric [+nom]. Following what was argued in the previous section about Spec-head feature checking and Copy, the Case features of the two DPs must be the same, since this configuration meets the PF interface. The reason they both default to [+objective] in colloquial varities, I have argued, could be due to one of two factors: (1) feature projection from the unchecked, lower DP overwrites the checked feature on the upper DP.74 This feature-overwrite is related, I will argue, to the nature of nominative Case morphemes in English, a language that has only remnants of morphological Case markers. (2) [+nom] morphemes are required only in the most prescriptive varieties of English, and only in the paradigmatic subject-verb, Spec-head configuration; given this status, they remain opaque to Copy in colloquial varieties of English, under the assumption that Copy can target only those features that are in transparent Spec-head checking relations in these varieties, and that the conjunction of the lower DP obscures this transparency. When Copy fails to target the [+nom] feature and paste it onto the lower DP-conjunct, the result is the projection of default Case from the lower DP.75 Note that abstract Case features, as well as θ-roles, do match in (130), given the operation Copy and the LF requirement that conjoined DPs be symmetric (have the same θ-role) for a coherent interpretation. Evidence that θ-roles do match in constructions like (130) can be found in the symmetric interpretation (italicized [nom] representing abstract nominative Case; [+objective] is assumed to be an abstract Case assigned to any object, direct or indirect, in English):76 (131) Me and my brother play basketball together [NOM ] [NOM ]/*[objective] [agent] [agent]/*[patient] In varieties of English corresponding to (131), the choice is made to go with a default Case morpheme, possibly for two reasons: (1) Copy fails to target [+nom] morphological Case forms in this variety because [+nom] is reserved only for the most transparent subject-verb, Spec-head configurations of simplex sentences, in accordance with the marginal status of [+nom] morphemes in English, and (2) Symmetry is restored by overwrite when the default Case of the lower DP-conjunct, which cannot be checked for Case, is projected onto the upper DP. The assumption that Case defaults in this variety of English is supported by the fact that (132a) is considered ungrammatical by most speakers, a point we will revisit in §3.6.3:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.76 (4226-4290)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(132) a. b.

??/*I and my brother play basketball together ( )

* My brother and I play basketball together

(132b) is not considered a good choice either in colloquial varieties. The reason is related to the uncertain status of the nominative forms I, he, she, we, they and the projection of default Case from the lower DP, as just discussed. This projection of default Case is a strategy for creating coordinate symmetry in a configuration that does not allow symmetric feature checking. Furthermore, Copy has a reduced array of features to target because the DP my brother in (132) lacks a morphological Case feature spelled out as a clearly nominative morpheme in PF. The option is chosen in colloquial varieties to overlook Case features in the Copy operation and to create symmetry using default Case. An additional benefit is the economizing of the derivation in that the mapping algorithm required for the realization of a nominative Case morpheme in PF can be eliminated. Since this algorithm is required in (132b) for only one of two conjoined DPs in the choice of I instead of me, and is thus asymmetric, it is preferable to dispense with it.77 The agreement breakdown in constructions like (133a, b) from German and Dutch respectively presents a slightly different problem because it results from different configurational factors.78 However, it is also caused, I will argue, by conjunction which creates an opaque configuration leading to agreement breakdown and the opportunity to economize: (133) a.

In Into b. In Into

den Wald the wood de kamer the room

ging der Jäger und sein Hund went-3sg the hunter and his dog kom ik en Jan vaak come-1sg I and J often

The similarity between (133a, b) is that in both a single finite verb occurs with two DPsubjects. The fact that the VS configuration causes agreement breakdown in German and Dutch, both possessing relatively rich verbal morphology, whereas no such breakdown occurs in the SV configuration (cf. 134), suggests that the surface configuration, VS, when combined with conjunction, has caused a breakdown. If we assume, however, that (133a, b) each complete subject-verb agreement checking in the TP before conjunction, which doesn’t occur until after verb raising to C◦ , then an explanation of the breakdown is available. In this derivation only the first DP subject checks with the verb, resulting in the singular verb. Assuming that the second DP-subject does not merge until the CP phase conflicts, however, with a general principle of derivation by phase adopted in this study. This principle states that a subject or subjects is/are merged as part of the vP phase, since the paradigmatic subject position in West Germanic is Spec,TP (though exceptions are allowed with certain verbs). Therefore, the breakdown has to be caused by the change in the configuration induced by verb raising, if we assume that Copy targets all formal features at conjunction of subjects in German, in contrast to what happens in colloquial varieties of English.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.77 (4290-4360)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

We note here that the asymmetry in colloquial English exemplified in (131) is not allowed in German or Dutch, if Spell-Out occurs at this stage of derivation, i.e. at the end of the vP phase, when verb raising and XP fronting doesn’t occur. This fact supports the proposal of the previous section: In Spec-head agreement (featurechecking) configurations that hold until Spell-Out, asymmetries are not allowed in German and Dutch:79 (134) Spell-Out at the derivational stage preceding (133) a. [TP [DP Der Jäger und sein Hund] gingen/*ging in den Wald] the hunter and his dog go-pl/go-sg into the wood b. [TP [DP Ik en Jan] komen/*kom vaak in de kamer] I and J come-pl/come-sg often into the room The analysis of the conjoined verbs begrüßen and danken presented earlier suffices to explain the breakdown in (133): the Spec-head feature checking configuration does not hold until Spell-Out. Furthermore, conjunction occurs in the previous stage of the derivation (in the vP phase). The combination of these two factors could be argued to be the source of the breakdown in [±pl]-agreement in the VS configuration. A problem with this analysis is that Case feature symmetry obtains in (133) and (134). There is no difference between the two configurations with respect to Case feature; in both the conjuncts both must have the feature [+nom]. Why no breakdown with Case? If we assume that [+nom] is the default Case in German – for which there is ample evidence – the apparent Case symmetry occurs by default only, following the analysis of (133). The question arises why Case feature symmetry obtains in the conjunction of DP objects, if as claimed here the Spec-head configuration required for Case-feature checking must meet the interface; this configuration is not apparent in (135a): (135) a.

[CP Im Wald [C’ schießt [TP der Jäger [vP einen Hasen und In the wood shoots the-nom hunter a-acc rabbit and einen Hirsch]]]] a-acc deer b. [CP [C’ dass (that) [TP der Jäger [vP einen Hasen und einen Hirsch schießt]]]]

Whether the DP-objects occur in a matrix clause like (135a) or an embedded clause like (135b), Case symmetry is required, even though only the embedded clause maintains the Spec-head feature-checking configuration until the PF-interface. How is Case symmetry maintained in the matrix clause, which has a c-command relation between the verb and the two objects at the PF-interface? The answer I will propose draws on a fundamental difference between (135) involving the conjunction of two DP-objects, and the conjunction of two verbs such as [begrüßen und danken]. An object must be feature-checked in the vP phase, and an object to be conjoined must be merged in the vP phase before any movement of the objects can occur. Furthermore, it occurs in the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.78 (4360-4419)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

cycle before verb raising to T, required for a matrix clause; thus conjunction must occur in the same configuration in which Case-feature checking occurs. Therefore, the conjunction of DP-objects is always in a Spec-head relation with the checking verb, which occupies the v◦ position in both matrix and embedded clauses (and remains there in embedded clauses). Because of these configurations and the timing of conjunction, the c-command relation is never required for licensing the DP-object. Keeping Case symmetry that is created when Copy is induced requires only maintaining the symmetry that occurs in the vP when conjunction, Case-feature checking and Copy all coincide. It is this combination of factors that supports the maintenance of Case symmetry with conjoined objects. Another deciding factor is the presence in v◦ of a copy of the checking verb left when the verb raises to T◦ in matrix clauses. The copy of V◦ present in the constructions in (136) does not affect Case symmetry because conjunction does occur until after the first verb has raised to T◦ :80 (136) a.

Fritz F b. Fritz F

begrüßt und [dankt [dem Herrn]] greets and thanks the-dat gentleman dankt und [begrüßt [den Herrn]] thanks and greets the-acc gentleman

We observed in the previous section that the c-comand relation in a matrix clause between the second of the conjoined verbs begrüßen and danken results in the acceptable asymmetry in which the shared object has the Case feature of the more local verb. Although the configuration of the Case-checking verb and its conjoined DP-objects in (135) is similar to the configuration of conjoined verbs and the shared DP-object in (136) – both have a c-command relation between verb and object(s) – underlyingly the construction in (135a) is fundamentally different, for reasons just discussed. At this point we can summarize our findings and unify our analysis and address the problem mentioned earlier: Why is Case symmetry preserved in (133) but not number symmetry? The partially symmetric conjunction in (136) with verbs having conflicting Case requirements is allowed, I claim, because the lower finite verb licenses the Case of the DP by c-command. In (135) Case symmetry is preserved because conjunction occurs in the Spec-head checking configuration and a copy of the checking head remains in the checking position after verb raising occurs until the interface. In (133) number agreement is [+sg/–pl] because the single finite verb c-commands just the first of two DP conjuncts.81 Breakdown in agreement is actually very common in both English and German VS configurations; in (137) are given some constructions introduced in §3.3 to illustrate asymmetry resulting from this breakdown:82 (137) a.

Aber links war die Binnenalster und die weißen But to-the-left was the Inner-Alster and the white Lichtreklamen light-billboards b. There was/*were a baby, its mother and her dog in the room

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.79 (4419-4471)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

The [+sg] verbal ending in these constructions can be explained as a result of minimal c-command, which is a reflex of economy in derivation: it eliminates the need to map morphological features to PF. Instead, the 3sg (null) ending on war and the 3sg form was can be realized according to a default algorithm that doesn’t require a separate mapping. This is permitted in German as a reflex of subject-verb inversion which creates a configuration in which a finite verb c-commands the subject, if this configuration meets the interface. This default occurs, despite the availability of number morphology that can distinguish [±pl], because c-command is able to license the features of the verb that are necessary for interpretation. The [±pl] feature on Vfin , though arguably an interpretable feature, becomes inessential to interpretation because of the availability of the feature [+pl] on the conjoined structure itself. The breakdown in agreement does not have to occur in (135) as (138) indicates: (138) a.

[CP In den Wald gingeni [TP der Jäger und sein Hund t i ]] [+pl] b. [CP In de kamer komeni [TP ik und Jan vaak t i ]] [+pl]

The [+pl] verbal ending results when the number agreement that is checked in the SV configuration holds until the derivation meets the interface. The occurrence of breakdown in such constructions points, possibly, to a performance error related to what can be stored in AM, or simply to a form of economizing (or economizing causing a performance error). One final note on this analysis of agreement breakdown is appropriate: Breakdown does not happen in a single configuration or as a result of the absence/breakdown of a single operation; rather, it results from conjunction triggering Copy too late, or from a minimal c-command relation licensing just the more local of two DPs in constructions like . . . ging der Jäger und sein Hund. . . When this c-command configuration meets the interface, the asymmetry is acceptable because all requirements for interpretation are met, including symmetric morphological Case features and θ-roles.83 C-command licensing of (Case or number) agreement utilizes a form of economy: derive with the least amount of effort needed to convey the meaning. Maintaining the formal symmetry of a coordinate structure – existent only in the formal feature matrices – requires more effort than licensing by c-command, which allows asymmetry in a coordinate structure if it is “harmless” i.e. when it does not affect the interpretation.

.. Breakdown and prescriptiveness in English At this point we return to a question raised earlier concerning the apparent breakdown of symmetric Case morphology with conjoined subject DPs in English. Earlier I suggested that the conjunction of I and my brother as subjects defaults in colloquial varieties to symmetric [+objective], realized in PF as me and my brother. This occurs, I claim, because Copy does not target the morphological Case [+nom] in these varieties, due to the status of this morpheme. In order to create coordinate symmetry, the de-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.80 (4471-4529)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

fault Case [+objective] is projected to the upper DP-conjunct. When the inverse order of these conjuncts, my brother and me, occurs as a subject, there is no morphological Case on the first DP for Copy to target; thus, the Case morpheme of the lower DP is the default [+objective].84 A point of clarification needs to be added to this analysis: When Case defaults in this manner, only the PF Spell-Out is affected, i.e. the abstract Case of the conjoined DPs remains [+nom]. In English 1sg/pl and 3sg/pl pronouns have distinct morphological Case features for [+nom] and [+acc]. However, in colloquial varieties the [+nom] morphological Case forms of these are [–interpretable]. Therefore, in these varieties the abstract Case feature [+objective] is spelled out instead. This happens in the coordinate structures we analyzed earlier, and whenever a subject pronoun is not in a Spec-head relation with a Case checking head, as is me in: (139) Me? I never forget to vote While the usage in (139) is universal in English, the usage with conjoined DPs is not; in Standard English, the use of the nominative forms I, he, she, we, they is maintained in coordinate structures. Our objective in this section is to explore briefly where this usage might come from; we do this in light of the proposal made here regarding abstract and morphological Case features and how matching occurs in conjoined DP structures.85 I will argue that we must add prescriptiveness to our analysis if any principles about the system of Case in English are to be stated. Breakdown in feature checking, including prescriptiveness, has been the topic of a revealing study by van Gelderen (1997). In her proposal for coordination in English, breakdown stems from the asymmetry of the structure which she assumes to be essentially the same as in Johannessen (1998) and Zoerner (1995). Van Gelderen assumes that in (140) NP-1 checks the D-features of [T] (or of [v] in the Case of conjoined objects): (140)

TP/vP NP-1 NP-2

T’/v’ &P

&

T/v

...

NP-3

Case-feature checking is more complex than the checking of D-features in the van Gelderen model, since each DP/NP has a set of non-interpretable Case features, but there is only one set to check this against (on T). φ-features are attracted to T, but “there is more than one candidate to be attracted” states van Gelderen (1997: 175) i.e. because of conjunction.86 In English, one of the NPs is ‘privileged’ as to Case checking – the one with [+nom] morphology – but φ-features are checked symmetrically by all NPs via NP-1 because [&] projects plurality onto this NP, argues van Gelderen. This is basically the assumption in Munn (1993) and Johannessen (1998). In this way van

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.81 (4529-4593)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

Gelderen accounts for the asymmetric Case morphology and the symmetric person and number (φ-) agreement in (141a, b) (her 24 and 25): (141) a. They gave my sister and I a TV set b. This is between you and I My position on these particular constructions will be this: They are examples of hypercorrection and do not represent any form of feature checking in the syntactic component but rather result from an over-generalized prescriptive Case rule that applies at Spell-Out, by which an abstract [+objective] Case feature is mapped to PF for Spell-Out as a [+nom] Case morpheme. We will return to this rule at the end of this section. For this reason I will eliminate constructions like (141a, b) from the set of agreement data from English coordinate DP/NPs that provide insight into principled feature checking and assume that constructions like (142) a. Bill and me play basketball every weekend b. Me and Bill play basketball every weekend actually reveal more about syntactic feature checking in coordinate DP/NP phrases. They represent English usage that has not been prescribed by grammar books but is acquired without any overt teaching. Therefore, (142a, b) do not support an account along the lines of van Gelderen that in English the Case of conjoined DPs is asymmetric while the φ-features are symmetric. An assumption that is generally held in the literature about the English Case system which van Gelderen does not support is that [+objective] is the default Case. The data in (143) support van Gelderen’s position, since no default to objective Case occurs. In these constructions the initial DP has a nominative morphological Case feature. Interestingly the grammaticality is significantly worse if the conjuncts are ordered with the nominative pronoun second, in support of van Gelderen’s position that the initial, or topmost, DP is in a ‘privileged’ position: (143) a. She and her son/??Her son and she read stories together b. He and his daughter/??His daugher and he go on trips together Our analysis takes on a new complexion, however, if we distinguish between abstract and morphological Case features. The assumption that English utilizes syntactic feature checking for the morphological Case features in constructions like (143), and that this checking operation favors one DP over another runs into problems with explaining the differences between (142a, b). Furthermore, it cannot explain the acceptability in colloquial varieties of (144a, b): (144) a. Her and her son read stories together b. Her son and her read stories together The proposal developed here so far posits that a head does not assign or check abstract Case in a coordinate structure symmetrically and simultaneously on both/all conjuncts, but rather that Case assignment to multiple DP conjuncts occurs in a se-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.82 (4593-4639)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

quence, in the order of merger of the DPs, and that Case feature checking is copied at conjunction from the initial DP conjunct, which is checked first, and pasted onto the others conjoined with it, resulting in symmetric Case. Furthermore, when the objective forms me, her, him, etc. show up in the subject position, they result from a default mechanism along the lines of Schütze (2001) when the objective morphological Case feature is spelled out, but the abstract feature remains [+nom]. In (143a, b) it appears that the top position of conjoined DP/NP subjects is a ‘privileged’ position, as van Gelderen argues. Reasons for this become evident upon examination of the structures in (145): (145) a. Coordinate subject DPs: nom at top

b. Coordinate subject DPs: nom below

TP

TP

DP D She

T’ DP

&

T DP

*DP ...

D Her

D

NP

her

son

T’ N’

N son

T

...

DP &

DP she

There is a great deal of opacity in the relation of the lower DP to the head [T], whereas the upper DP is in a transparent Spec-head relation with [T]. In this construction type, then, the asymmetry of coordinate structures comes into play, and it is arguably reflected in the pronominal morphology. This usage, we must note however, is characteristic of only careful or educated speech. We note also that it resembles the usage of languages like German with richer Case morphology. A somewhat different analysis of constructions like (145) follows from the proposal outlined earlier, with the added general principle that seems to hold in languages with morphologically-driven Case systems: In these languages there is a mapping of an abstract Case feature to PF for the realization of a Case morpheme. This mapping assures the realization of [1sg,nom] in English as I, of [1pl,nom] as we, etc. in all varieties of English when I, we, etc. occupy a Spec,TP position. The reason suggested in Chapter 2, §2.3.3, for the breakdown in coordinate structures evidenced in constructions like (131), Me and my brother play basketball together, was the configuration given in (146):87

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.83 (4639-4679)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

TP

(146) DP me

TP DP &

TP T’

DP my b. T o

v’ v

VP VP

playi NP b.b. adv a lot

V’ V

adv

ti

together

The property of this structure that makes it stand out in a comparison to those in (145) is its high degree of linearity, which translates into a high degree of asymmetry in the TP domain and arguably a more straight-forward account of the asymmetric agreement. However, this analysis cannot easily be accommodated with the assumptions about conjunction, merge, derivation by phase, and CFM outlined in this chapter. It is also questionable that additional TP phrases can be projected in the conjunction of DPs. I will therefore reject it in favor of the analysis given in the previous section in which there is a single TP projection that dominates conjoined DPs, each of which is extracted and merged separately. Let’s continue our consideration of the prescriptive and hyper-corrective varieties of English to see whether they shed any light on the issue of matching and default Case in English, staying with the structure in (145a) for conjoined DPs. In these varieties, nominative pronouns are conjoined with other DPs, sometimes having nominative morphology, sometimes lacking it. In hyper-corrective varieties, I will argue, the mapping of a Case feature to PF can sometimes be overwritten by a prescriptive rule like “always use nominative I as the second of two conjoined DPs.” Hence we get constructions like those in (141). The reason why the same person who produces hyper-correction of this kind does not use the nominative of third person in the position of I, producing constructions like ??Peter and she are going to the dance but would say She and Peter . . . can be explained with a comparison of the usage of first and third person pronouns: The use of I as the second of two conjoined subjects as in Peter and I are going to the dance is a usage that is “trained” in schools as a rule of politeness: It is more polite, the rule states, to put another person before yourself.88 I will argue in



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.84 (4679-4746)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

what follows that the order She and Peter are going to the dance is predicted by my proposal, which is also able to explain van Gelderen’s correct observation that the first/top position in structures like (145a) is “privileged.” We note first of all that the prescriptive politeness rule runs contrary to what is predicted by the assumption that the top DP is more transparent to Case checking, but the other data like she and Peter/??Peter and she support this assumption. Let’s add derivation by phase and CFM to our analysis, as outlined in the previous section. We recall that in the derivation of conjoined DPs, the first DP is derived (merged and checked) before the second one is conjoined with it and Copy is triggered. The result of Copy depends on the variety of English. In colloquial varieties the mapping of a Case feature to PF is ignored or economized out in the Copy operation. This kind of breakdown is permissible for two reasons: English Case morphology is very impoverished (an “incorrect” Case morpheme can be passed over by Copy because these morphemes have been rendered essentially non-interpretable in all but the most transparent configurations), and secondly, the structure of conjoined subject DPs is not transparent to Case feature checking with any conjunct but the first one. In prescriptive varieties the mapping algorithm becomes part of the Copy operation, resulting in matching DPs: (147) a. He and she are going to the dance tonight b. We and they are going together The process by which symmetric Case forms are generated in my proposal is this: When the first DP is merged, it is checked for [+nom] as any singlet DP is. This Case feature, when assigned to the first and third person singular pronouns, is realized later in PF via the mapping algorithm as I, she, he, we, they. When the second DP is merged and conjoined, Copy is triggered by which the features of the first DP are pasted onto the second. In prescriptive varieties the mapping algorithm is included in the copying, as it is considered an essential part of the feature matrix, whereas in colloquial usage this mapping algorithm is ignored, for reasons already stated. We are still left, however, with the ordering puzzle of Peter and I, assuming we are not convinced of the politeness rule. Why must the ordering be Peter and I, while ??Peter and she is almost totally ungrammatical? One might suspect that the prescriptive rule “place I second in the conjunction of subjects” would generalize so that all nominative pronouns would be placed second. This does not occur, as the data in (148) indicate. The ordering Peter and I stands alone, a fact which leads to the hypothesis that it is a result of a prescriptive rule which is not based on any deep grammatical principle, but rather on discourse manners:89 (148) a. b. c. d.

Peter and I/??he/??she/??we/??they are well acquainted He/she/we/they/??I and Peter are well acquainted She and I are well acquainted *I and she are well acquainted

Such usage is not learned by children and is even ignored by some well-educated speakers. In English, Case morphology is practically irrelevant except in the Spec,TP

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.85 (4746-4802)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

position of simplex sentences, where anything but nominative is ungrammatical, even in the most colloquial varieties. In varieties of English in which morphological Case defaults to [+objective] with conjoined subjects, it is equally natural to hear Me/him/her and Peter are well acquainted as it is to hear Peter and me/him/her are well acquainted. This fact supports the hypothesis that the mapping of Case features to PF for SpellOut of [+nom] is defaulting in conjunction phrases, given the asymmetry between the conjoined DPs with respect to their relation to the Case-checking head. For this reason we also find the usage in (149):90 (149) a. Me and him play basketball a lot on the weekends b. Him and I play basketball a lot . . . The usage in (149b) not only indicates the default status of Case feature realization with the lower of two conjoined DPs in English, but also the application of the prescriptive rule on the pronoun I. The ordering rule with nominative pronouns except I is not, by contrast, a non-syntactic, prescriptive rule, but results from a combination of configurational, derivational and matching factors. Van Gelderen’s argument that the topmost DP is in a “favored” position is essentially correct, if we understand that explanation to mean this: It is the non-opaque Spec-position for Case checking. Furthermore, it is the first DP in a DP conjunction phrase to be checked (a derivational factor), and finally, copying and matching proceed linearly, from left to right, i.e. from the top down. Thus, the lower DP(s) must match with the upper(most) one. All three of these factors arise out of principled, syntactic operations, primarily Select, Merge, Conjoin, Copy and Match. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ordering Peter and I get along well stands alone in contrast to the orderings in (150): (150) a. b. c. d.

She and Peter/??Peter and she get along well He and Peter/??Peter and he get along well We and Peter/??Peter and we get along well They and Peter/??Peter and they get along well

The breakdown of Copy with the morphological [+nom] Case feature stands in contrast to the matching i.e. symmetry that occurs between the verb and conjoined subjects with number agreement. This contrast stems from two sources: (1) The degree of morphological richness/impoverishment of the two systems: Case morphology that is rich enough to distinguish between [+nom] and [+objective] exists in English only in 1sg/pl and 3sg/pl pronouns; the same morphology is not available for the determiner system. Therefore, the [nom]-[objective] distinction cannot be stated as a general rule for the nominal system, and only for part of the pronominal system. (2) Copy targets formal features and does not contain an algorithm for creating [+pl] out of two [+sg] features. An algorithm independent of Copy accomplishes this feature assignment; because it is independent of Copy and is [+interpretable], it does not break down. This fact is evident in the occurrence of the [±pl] feature on all third person, present tense verbs. This algorithm targets features that are richer, in contrast to idiosyncratic English Case morphology features, and is therefore more resistant to breakdown.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.86 (4802-4860)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

The data in (150) do, however, reflect a certain general rule with Case usage: in Standard English, the first DP in the conjunction of a pronominal and a nominal DP “must” be the pronominal one. This rule applies not only to conjoined subjects as in (150), but also to conjoined objects, though with less degradation in the reverse order: (151) a. b. c. d.

We all admire him and Paul/?Paul and him We all admire her and Mary/?Mary and her They admire us and the others/?the others and us We admire them and the others/?the others and them

The proposal outlined here predicts the fully grammatical versions in (150). Because the first DP is extracted and derived before the second, in a phasal manner, the model predicts that the first of two conjoined DPs will have a morphological Case feature that is required at Spec-head feature checking, if this configuration meets the PF-interface, as is the case in (150). The verb-object structures in (151) do not have a Spec-head configuration at the PF interface. The pronoun-noun ordering is nevertheless favored because only the pronoun has a morphological Case feature; the more transparent position for it to occupy is the higher position in the coordinate DP structure. The reason goes back to the analysis in §3.6.1: The configuration of the lexical, Case-assigning verb and the conjoined objects in (151) allows the verb to minimally c-command the first object, which occupies the higher position in the coordinate structure. Furthermore, the feature copying operation for coordinate symmetry of morphological Case features does not need to be maintained, given that the lower DP cannot bear such a feature. The marginal acceptability of the ordering noun-pronoun can be explained if we assume that at Spell-Out, the morphological Case feature of the pronoun simply results from default Case realization; the slight degradation results possibly from the opacity of the Case feature on the lower DP to either c-command or Spec-head feature checking.91 In German, both determiners and pronouns can bear morphological Case features; therefore no such limitation on ordering as in (150) and (151) occurs: (152) a.

Sie und Peter / Peter und sie verstehen sich gut she and P / P and she understand refl well b. Er und Peter / Peter und er verstehen sich gut he and P / P and he understand refl well c. Wir und Peter / Peter und wir verstehen uns gut we and P / P and we understand refl well d. Sie und Peter / Peter und sie verstehen sich gut they and P / P and they understand refl well

We must keep in mind that both the German and the English constructions in (150)– (152) have symmetry based on the θ-roles. Thus, there is no interpretive confusion over what is a subject or object. Evidence that Copy targets the abstract Case feature in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.87 (4860-4918)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures

conjoined DP structures of English comes from data like those in (153) with conjoined subjects, and (154) with conjoined objects in which there is no ordering preference: (153) a. Paul and Peter / Peter and Paul get along well b. Mary and the kids / the kids and Mary get along well (154) a. We all admire Peter and Paul / Paul and Peter b. We all admire the kids and Mary / Mary and the kids Standard English constructions with conjoined 1/3-pers pronouns, i.e. those that have morphological Case features, do not, aside from the ordering of I with another DP – which follows a politeness rule – show any strong preference in the ordering: (155) a. We and they / they and we get along just fine b. She and he / he and she get along famously b.’ ??I and he get along famously c. Peter admires us and them/them and us d. Paul also admires me and him/him and me To conclude this section, we note that, although it is not readily apparent on the surface of English usage, certain principles and rules can be stated about English Case morphology, if we adopt both abstract and morphological Case features in a derivational model that is phase-based and utilizes Copy and Match for generating the required coordinate symmetries. We must also assume that at least one non-syntactic usage rule applies to the pronoun I in prescriptive Standard English, as supported by the fact that it is asymmetric to all the other nominative pronouns with respect to position in conjoined subject DP structures.92 In addition, the assumption must be made that in colloquial varieties, nominative morphological Case features of pronouns are not targeted by Copy, and therefore cannot be pasted onto a conjoined DP, possibly because the [+nom] morphemes of English are opaque to Copy in these varieties. Whatever the source of the breakdown, it can be argued that it is a strategy for economizing a derivation – avoiding the mapping of morphological Case features to PF – that takes advantage of the impoverishment of the morphological Case feature system in English.

. Chapter conclusion In this chapter we applied the grammar model outlined in Chapter 2 to the derivation of coordinate structures, making use particularly of Merge, Copy and Match for meeting the minimum symmetry requirements placed on coordinate structures for grammaticality. These symmetry requirements are widely attested in the literature and are not predicted by models which treat conjuncts of a coordinate structure as projections of [&]. Although such models, of which the Spec-head-complement model is the most widely used, have fruitfully explored the phrase-structural basis of unification between simplex and coordinate structures, they fall short empirically because they



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.88 (4918-4972)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

cannot account for certain properties of symmetry in coordination. A solution to this problem is available if we make a sharper distinction between complementizers and coordinating conjunctions, as supported by empirical evidence. I have argued that the source of the difference between [&] and a typical complementizer can be identified in the inability of [&] to project [&P] and thus to determine its own syntactic domain. It is a defective head much like a clitic. The model presented here nevertheless seeks unification; it achieves it by maintaining asymmetric syntactic relations between elements of a construction, including between elements in one conjunct and those in another. The existence of these asymmetries is empirically based and forces us to include coordinate structures in the inventory of syntactic structures that are subject to a very fundamental property of syntax, possibly of language itself, the property of asymmetry, and to avoid attempts using parallel planes or phrase structures with symmetric structural relations in order to account for coordinate symmetries. Nevertheless, I have argued that at a certain level of representation, namely in LF, parallel planes are appropriate for establishing symmetric relations between conjuncts. Whether parallel planes are justified is left to research that focuses more deeply on the semantics of coordinate symmetry. It has been argued here that Copy and Match are triggered in the derivation of a coordinate structure when [&] is merged. At conjunction, Copy guarantees a certain amount of syntactic symmetry; the amount of symmetry depends on the degree of lexical identity between the conjuncts involved in the conjunction merger: a syntactically identical phrase can “inherit” all syntactic features of the leading conjunct. Certain lexically identical items must typically be avoided in the selection stage, as these would violate a condition on lexical redundancy, a topic that will be explored more in the next chapter. Copy, when employed in a derivational model that is phase-based, results in symmetric Case features in conjoined DP/NPs, if Copy coincides with Spec-head feature checking in narrow syntax, and if the Spec-head configuration required for this checking meets the PF-interface. If Copy and conjunction occur at a later stage in the derivation, asymmetry may result. I have argued that Copy applies at conjunction (a Merge operation), but conjunction may occur later in a derivation, e.g. after Vfin → T◦ in German and Dutch, but before stylistic fronting to Spec,CP.93 Thus, the features checked on the first conjunct merged are targeted by Copy and thereby “checked” by feature transfer on all subsequent conjuncts merged, if the configuration for checking occurs in the same phase as conjunction, and this phase meets the interface. Assuming that all conjuncts of a coordinate structure are either phases or subarrays, they are not all merged at once but in a phasal sequence. This operation predicts that non-initial DPconjuncts may not be symmetric with the first one with respect to a formal feature such as [+dat] that is mapped to PF for a dative morpheme, if some breakdown in Copy occurs during conjunction merger. This breakdown is widely attested in languages and can be accounted for not as an automatic consequence of asymmetric phrasal relations – for even in coordinate structures that experience this breakdown there are more

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 12:22

F: LA8903.tex / p.89 (4972-4978)

Chapter 3. Deriving coordinate structures 

symmetries than asymmetries – but as a consequence of the derivational process and certain language-specific properties such as impoverished Case morphemes.94 In the next chapter we apply the grammar model to coordinate structures with various forms of ellipsis. These offer a particularly interesting test of the model.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.1 (47-139)

Chapter 4

Deriving coordinate ellipsis

. Introduction In this chapter we consider elliptical coordinate structures of the types analyzed in numerous other studies. Some of the most cited and/or extensive of these are (most current first): Hartmann (2000), Wilder (1999), Höhle (1991) on Right Node Raising (RNR, at term from Postal 1974, in the present proposal also referred to as “Right-Edge Ellipsis”); Hartmann (2000), Sag et al. (1985), Neijt (1979), Kuno (1976) on clauseinternal verb ellipsis (Gapping); Büring and Hartmann (1998) and Williams (1997) on Left-Edge Ellipsis (LEE).1 I argue in this chapter that an analysis of coordinate ellipsis in the minimalist framework using Select, Merge, Copy and Match can bring apparently disparate properties of these ellipsis types much closer to a unificational account that addresses the overarching challenge taken up in Chapter 1: to use a minimum number of additional syntactic operations to derive coordinate structures. To that end, the present proposal seeks to avoid the construction-specific tendencies of many studies; it is argued that some recent developments in the Minimalist Program, especially Phase Theory as a key element of a derivational grammar, bring us closer to realizing this goal. Also avoided are theories such as Gleitman (1965), Doughtery (1970, 1971), Koutsoudas (1971) and Wilder (1994, 1997) which posit a “large conjunct” approach to ellipsis, requiring extensive deletion. This approach has been refuted adequately in Munn (1999) and Hartmann (2000) and will not be critiqued further here. Additionally, the present proposal capitalizes on the architecture of the grammar as outlined in the Minimalist Program for making a more systematic incorporation of semantic and phonetic principles possible; the organization of the grammar becomes particularly critical in the derivation of elliptical coordinate structures. Coordinate ellipsis is examined here as a single phenomenon that nevertheless manifests itself in various ways, with one or the other set of properties, determined largely by syntactic configuration. We begin in §4.1 with an investigation of the core properties of coordinate ellipsis and some assumptions that follow from these. In §4.2 we consider how ellipsis sites are licensed, and in §4.3 the recovery of these gaps. A short §4.4 on VP ellipsis follows, after which we turn to the derivational aspects of coordinate ellipsis in §4.5, with special attention to Phase Theory. A conclusion follows in §4.6. As we progress, we will need to determine whether the grammar model proposed in the previous chapters is able to meet the challenge stated above while accounting for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.2 (139-180)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

the data of coordinate ellipsis. We will find that the property of symmetry, commonly referred to in the literature as the Parallelism Requirement (e.g. Chomsky 1995: 203; Hornstein & Nunes 2002: 28, 37; see also Goodall 1987; Grootveld 1994; Hendriks 1991 and Wesche 1995), comes into sharper focus in coordinate ellipsis in particular. Other properties of coordinate structures discussed in the previous chapters will be re-examined in light of coordinate ellipsis; we will find that some revision of the grammar model proposed there is necessary (see conclusion of introduction). I argue that the structural-syntactic and semantic properties of coordinate structures referred to as ‘coordinate symmetries’ in the previous chapters result from syntactic derivation that is phase-based and utilizes Multiple Spell-Out so that each conjunct of a coordinate structure reaches the PF- and LF-interfaces before the next conjunct is derived. In this model, a conjunct may be a “full” phase (if a TP or CP), or it may be a subarray of a phase (if any other projection or a head). The types of coordinate ellipsis examined here all occur, it is argued, within either the TP or CP domain; they result from the conjunction operations already outlined as they interact with the configurations and derivations of these domains. In the present model, the operations Merge, Copy and Match and the interface with active memory (AM) play a crucial role in the generation of parallel structures (coordinate symmetries) and in the licensing (narrow syntax) and recovery (LF) of gaps. This licensing will be shown to require the classic c-command relation, while the recovery of an ellipse occurs via matching with an element in another phase, i.e. it appears to occur globally, within the whole coordinate structure, suggesting that feature matching for satisfying the symmetry requirements of the recovery of gaps has the entire coordinate structure as its domain. This global appearance of feature matching in coordinate structures is actually a result, I will argue, of the sequenced derivation of conjuncts by phase with multiple instances of interface with LF and AM in each coordinate structure. The licensing of gaps in this system always occurs locally, either by a c-commanding lexical head (in LEE), or by a feature mapped to PF for focus accent (in RNR and Gapping). My proposal for RNR builds on the work of Hartmann (2000) who assumes a GB framework and draws on work of Swingle (1993), Selkirk (1997) and Truckenbrodt (1995a, b), and on the earlier work of Wilder (1994, 1997) who first applied phonological deletion to German for coordinate structures, but with a broader scope than proposed here. The present proposal advances the theory of coordinate ellipsis in two respects: (1) the theoretical framework has been improved through the adoption of minimalist principles concerning derivation: it proceeds by phase, using Merge, Copy and Match for generating elliptical coordinate structures; (2) greater empirical coverage is achieved through the incorporation of the syntactic, phonetic, semantic and pragmatic properties of coordinate ellipsis; one or more of these properties are not accounted for in previous accounts. The gap or gaps in an elliptical coordinate structure result(s), I assume, following Chomsky (1995: 202–203), from “deletion” in PF, that is, from non-spell-out of phonetic features; whether it is part of a more general operation that underlies trace

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.3 (180-238)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

deletion in certain constructions will not be explored here.2 Chomsky also assumes as a corollary to this point that parallelism, as a rule on interpretation in coordinate structures, applies in LF, as in (1) (Chomsky’s 30): (1) John said that he was looking for a cat, and so did Bill say that he was looking for a cat However, I argue that parallelism in coordination requires more than just a LF featurematching operation. I propose, adapting work of Frazier and Clifton (2001) and Kaan, Wijnen and Swaab (2004) on sentence processing to syntactic theory, that parallelism results from the copying of syntactic features relevant to the structure of the immediately foregoing conjunct and the transferring/pasting of them onto the next merged conjunct; this operation is mediated by AM. Derivations involving coordinate ellipsis occur via Multiple Spell-Out (in the sense of Uriagereka 1999) and will be argued here to be more than simply a rule of deletion under identity based on parallelism in the surface linear sequence (cf. van Oirsouw 1993: 755–757; Wilder 1997). Such a theory cannot account for (2):3 (2) Heute kauft Hans ein Auto und fährt morgen damit nach today buys H-nom a-acc car and drives tomorrow with-it to Mainz M Although my proposal does take surface order into account, it relies more on features of lexical items and elided elements, and on the derivation of the construction in which these occur. A major objective of this chapter will be to address at least some of the questions raised by Lappin and Benmamoun (1999: 5–6) and Schwabe and Winkler (2003). These include: (1) How or at what level of representation is coordinate ellipsis resolved? (2) What are the syntactic conditions which define the distribution of different sorts of elided elements? (3) What is the relation between ellipsis and pronominal anaphora? (4) Is coordinate ellipsis the result of PF deletion or the initial presence of empty categories in the derivation of a sentence? (5) To what extent can one treat distinct types of ellipsis as cases of a single phenomenon? Some preliminary remarks relevant to these questions are in order. First, because the grammar model proposed in the earlier chapters is a derivational model, levels of representation will not come into play in my account for the recovery of gaps in coordinate ellipsis. The assumption will be that a gap has all the features of a lexical item except its phonetic features. Hence, identification for interpretation proceeds as with any lexical head; the lack of the phonetic features does not change this. Second, the syntactic conditions which define the distribution of elided elements are (a) syntactic licensing in a c-command relation, and (b) recovery in LF, the latter tied closely to syntactic relations and feature matching. Licensing, as stated earlier, is accomplished in a local, syntactic c-command relation by either a lexical head or a phonetic feature mapped to PF. Third, in a derivational model, elided elements can only come about by



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.4 (238-325)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

way of the “deletion” (non-realization) of PF features; therefore, there is no need for the initial presence of empty categories in the derivation of a sentence.4 These refinements of the grammar proposed in Chapter 2, necessitate a revision of the model proposed there. This revised grammar model is given in (3): (3) Grammar Model (repeats (72’) of Chapter 3) Derivation by phase, with copy, match and MSO for coordinate structures (→ is placement in AM; ← is a copying operation from AM) L E X I C O N

→ select LA for vP phase of C-1 (= vP-1) A ↓ merge, project VP; assign Case & θ-roles C derive TP (vP phase); spell out; place in → T (optional: extract subarray; copy x ←) I (merge, project; derive; spell out; place →) V → select [&], LA (phase1) of C-2 (= vP-2) E ↓ merge and project VP; assign Case & θ-roles ↑ copy x from vP-1 ←; derive TP; spell out; place (select [&] and LA (ph-1) of third conjunct) (derive as second conjunct) (reiterate for xn conjuncts)

M E M O R Y

This model indicates only operations in narrow syntax; the recovery of gaps occurs by Match in LF. The parenthetical steps following the first vP phase (“extract subarray” etc.) are necessary when the coordinate structure consists of conjuncts that are not phases but subarrays, e.g. conjoined DPs, PPs or APs.5 The parenthetical steps after the second vP phase are necessary when there are more than two conjuncts. Not indicated here is the selection from the lexicon that is necessary for extending the coordinate structure with more conjuncts. Copy and Match are induced by the selection of a coordinating conjunction. It was shown in the previous chapters that these operations are an integral part of conjunction, required for the processing and interpretation of coordinate structures. In this chapter we will see in more detail how Copy creates key syntactic elements of parallelism (on a feature-by-feature basis) in which there may be lexical items elligible as targets of ellipsis (depending on what can be licensed, see §4.1.4.). It thus economizes the interpretive processes and eliminates ambiguities. Copy and Match rely on the interface with AM and do not constitute syntactic operations that are subject to cyclic rules or syntactic structure in the manner that, for instance, Move and Agree are, but Copy must meet conditions of the interface with PF and LF, since it does affect both what is phonetically realized and how it is interpreted. The LF matching operation required on the perceptual side for the recovery of elements that are not realized in PF (not spoken) resembles a highly sophisticated computer operation that can match both features and structures of linguistic constructions as required for the recovery of gaps. In the next section independent evidence will be presented for the existence

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.5 (325-387)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

of the operations Copy and Match as part of the derivation of elliptical coordinate structures. Match might not be restricted to LF; we could argue that it plays a role in narrow syntax as well for identifying elements that can be elided. The ability of Match to identify parallel structures would then be limited to the features that are associated with structures. For instance, the vP contains lexical heads that check Case features. Match could identify these and induce Copy, if a lexical item in the second conjunct is an appropriate candidate for this Case, e.g. a DP in Spec,VP would be an appropriate candidate for the Case [+nom], etc. We could also assume as is the practice in the previous chapters that Copy is always induced when [&] is selected and does not need Match to be induced. Furthermore, a second, symmetric DP (the degree of symmetry determined by Select) can in the present model be conjoined as a parallel subject after the VP phase is complete, since Copy, with the operation Paste, can provide the DP with the features assigned to and checked on the first DP. In this way a DP in Spec of a conjoined TP gets [+nom] by Copy, thus sparing the derivation the operation Move that was necessary in the first conjunct, i.e. the second DP-conjunct is merged after subject raising. The same copying operation occurs with any other DP in the Spec of a conjoined TP. All features copied that would otherwise need to be checked after Move applied save derivational effort, if we assume that Copy is a cheaper operation than Move and feature-checking combined. The experiments of Frazier and Clifton (2001) support this assumption, although they do not posit a separate Match operation, but rather only Copy. Whether Copy is preceded by Match, or simply copies all formal features automatically as soon as [&] is selected is a question that will be left to the side. Both Copy and Match are induced by [&]. Copy as an operation of narrow syntax creates the parallelisms/symmetries for which coordinate structures are well known and provides the features in the form of a template that set up Match in LF, necessary for the recovery of a gap. Thus, both Copy and Match make a derivation cheaper and faster. We turn now to coordinate ellipsis itself, looking first at some basic assumptions, followed in §4.1.2 by more concrete implementations of the grammar model in (3).

. Some core properties of and basic assumptions about ellipsis To begin our analysis, we consider some core properties of coordinate ellipsis and what they suggest about the assumptions that should be made in proposing a grammar that can derive the relevant constructions. Let’s begin with a recent proposal made by Williams (1997) for coordinate ellipsis that arises out of a theory of blocking and anaphora and as such presents a novel approach to the complexity and diversity of the problems posed by gaps in coordination.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.6 (387-446)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

.. Core properties Williams’ proposal offers a good starting point not only because of its novelty, but also because he identifies some fundamental properties of coordinate ellipsis, and in so doing introduces some simple, basic cases for consideration. He begins his outline of coordinate ellipsis with the following statement: “The first property is that coordinate ellipsis always includes, and is sometimes limited to, the head of the second conjunct” (p. 620). His example (128) of this property is given in (4): (4) a. John [gave Mary a record] and [0v Bill a book] b. *John [mailed Mary a record] and [handed 0N a book] He states further (op. cit.), “I will take the deletion of the head of the second conjunct as the central case of coordinate ellipsis, the ellipsis licensed by the coordinate structure itself.” The phrase structure that he proposes for coordination arises from the projection of a binary lexical item by the following rule: (5) [X,X]P → XP and XP The variant of (5) in (6a), where the second V is 0, yields the primary cases of coordinate ellipsis identified by Williams, as in (6b): (6) a. [V,0]P → VP and 0P b. [give the book to Mary]VP and [0V the record to Sue]VP Williams explains that the 0V is identical to the V with which it forms the complex projection: in [X,0], 0 = X. With this proposal Williams aims to account for the first property of coordinate ellipsis that he identifies, that it always includes the head of the second conjunct. It thus explains, he claims, why the antecedent for the missing head must be local, i.e. it must be the head of the paired conjuncts (his 133): (7) *John [thought Mary liked beets for lunch]VP and [0V carrots for dinner]VP (0V = liked) ‘John thought Mary liked beets for lunch and he liked carrots for dinner’ Williams’ proposal is appealing because of its general simplicity and its unification with his theory of blocking and anaphora, and because it identifies gaps at the left edge of non-initial conjuncts – the most common location of various types of gaps.6 It also brings up an interesting question about coordinate ellipsis: Is it is always an optional operation, or are there cases in which the non-elliptical equivalent must be “fixed” to create full grammaticality? The answer to this question depends on the definition of ‘full grammaticality’ and ‘redundancy’. If we assume that redundancy leading to ambiguous anaphoric relations, then we have a different definition than one that defines redundancy as “merely” over-repetition. Let’s examine the type of redundancy of Williams’ “central case” of coordinate ellipsis involving the deletion of the head of the second conjunct, exemplified in (8) with my judgments:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.7 (446-508)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

(8) a. John [gave Mary a record] and [gave Bill a book] a.’ ??John [gave Mary a record] and [gave Bill a book] b. Mary [liked beets for lunch] and [liked carrots for dinner] b.’ ??Mary [liked beets for lunch] and [liked carrots for dinner] The redudant lexical items in (8) do not cause any ambiguity, only an ungrammatical redundancy stemming not from ambiguity but rather superfluity. Therefore, following the suggested guideline, they are not required instances of coordinate ellipsis. But without ellipsis, we are left with constructions that are offensively redundant, leading us to the only other solution to this problem: a derivation that does not require a deletion operation because the redundant element never occurs. This creates another problem for the derivation of (8), however: we are left with a remnant, the [IO DO] complex, that has been argued not to be a single constituent. This problem will be taken up below, after further arguments regarding redundancy are presented.7 Another argument against a deletion approach to (8) is based on the fact that the offending redundancies in (8) do not occur with the non-elliptical versions of welldocumented cases of coordinate ellipsis, such as Gapping and subject deletion, shown in (9a, b) respectively. In these the non-elliptical versions are just as grammatical or acceptable as the elliptical ones: (9) a. John gave a record to Mary and Sue (gave) a book to Bill b. John gave a record to Mary and (he) will soon present a book to Bill Elliptical coordinate structures that I will argue belong in the category of the “central case” have left-edge gaps in the non-initial conjunct, as exemplified in (10): (10) a.

subject gap in conjunction of [TP & TP]: [TP Pauli often makes a salad and [TP ei will then go out to eat]] b. object and subject gaps in [TP & TP]: [TP This winei a New Yorkerj loves ti and [TP ei ej will usually buy t i by the case]]8 c. object gap in the [CP & CP]:9 [CP Diesen Aufsatzi schrieb Peter an einem Tag t i und this essay wrote P in one day and [CP ei wollte er nie wieder t i lesen]] wanted he never again (to) read

In comparing the constructions in (10) with Williams’ example given in (8a), we note that the ellipses in (10) do not represent the head of the second conjunct. We consider further some typical cases of ellipsis in (11): (11) a.

A womani was head of state in England and ei will soon be secretary of state in the U.S.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.8 (508-571)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. Den Beamteni kenne ich t i nicht und ei will ich auch t i know I The-acc,m official not and want I also nicht kennen not (to) know The subject gap in (11a) and the object gap in (11b) are clearly not heads of the respective conjuncts. Yet, there is solid evidence to support the existence of both gaps.10 In (11a) the gap does not refer to the same individual as the antecedent. A woman is an antecedent only in a phonetic sense, not semantically/existentially. This noncoreferentiality is not possible if a pronoun occurs instead of a gap, as then binding requires coreferentiality: (12) A woman was head of state in England and she will soon be secretary of state in the U.S. A subject gap, but not a subject pronoun, in a coordinate structure like (11a) can optionally be interpreted as non-coreferential with its phonetic antecedent because it is a gap (the properties of subject gaps will be discussed further in §4.3). If a woman occurred in place of she in (12), it would have the same interpretive options as the gap: coreferential or non-coreferential. Although coreferentiality may be the default reference relation in subject-gap constructions, it is not the only possible one. It makes good theoretical sense to assume that a subject gap exists, sometimes with special referential properties, rather than to assume that the one subject of the initial conjunct is shared by both, and that a subject gap occurs only in constructions like (11a) which can be interpreted as having non-coreferential subjects.11 In (11b) we know a gap occurs for two reasons: (1) The V2 rule must be satisfied in the second conjunct; the gap satisfies this requirement by occupying the first position.12 (2) The existence of the gap in (11b) is supported by (13b) where the presence of heute in first position renders the sentence ungrammatical:13 (13) a.

Den Beamteni kenne ich t i nicht und *(ei ) will ich auch the-acc,m official not and want I also know I t i nicht kennen not (to) know b. Den Beamteni traf ich gestern t i nicht und *heute/ei the-acc,m official met I yesterday not and today will ich auch t i nicht treffen want I also not (to) meet

These data support the assumption of the Minimalist Program about phases and movement: the edge of the phase must be targeted; in coordinate structures, phasal derivation combined with Copy and Match determine where the antecedent of the gap is located; the location is crucial to licensing for ellipsis. More details on this type of structure will be presented in §4.5.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.9 (571-639)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

A significant difference between Williams’ constructions and the ones in (13) can be illustrated another way. An interesting property of those in (13) is that they do not require any marked intonational pattern. Compare this with the intonation required for Williams’ example of ellipsis given in (14) (focus accent indicated with small capital letters): (14) John [gave Mary a record] and [0V Bill a book] Without an intonational pattern that supports the parallelism in this structure, it becomes ungrammatical, i.e. the pattern used in the first conjunct must be repeated in the second. Why should this restriction exist? I will argue that it indicates that Bill a book must be interpreted in parallel with Mary a record, i.e. both DP-complexes share the verb gave. This kind of intonational marking is typical of many constructions, which incidentally do not necessarily have any form of ellipsis: (15) a.

[Over the river] and [through the woods] was not the best route (Ps accented) b. Bill saw [the horror film] and [the sex flick] (Adj’s accented) c. Sue screamed [very loudly] and [extremely shockingly] (D-Adv’s accented)

Intonation (prosody) will be shown in §4.2 to play a central role in the licensing of ellipsis.14 What role does it play in (14) and (15)? I argue in §4.2 that it is not needed in LEE for licensing. Its requirement in (14) and (15) suggests that there may not be an ellipse in (14) at all, i.e. that the interpretion of (14) as the conjunction of two [DPdat + DPacc ] complexes without Vfin ellipsis is facilitated by the prosody which “assists” the parallel reading. As part of his theory of blocking and anaphora, Williams develops a subtheory of disanaphora that accounts for why gaps appear in certain configurations in coordinate ellipsis and not in others. For instance, he shows that the configurations in (16a, b) are ok, but not the one in (16c): (16) a. [saw Bill yesterday] and [ 0V Mary today] b. [saw Bill yesterday] and [ 0V 0NP today] c. *John gave to Billi a book today and 0V to himi a record yesterday Along with the concerns raised earlier about the lack of evidence for the gaps in constructions like (16a, b), we also have the fact that the non-elliptical version of (16c) is also not acceptable: (17) *John gave to Billi a book today and gave to himi a record yesterday Even the non-coordinate version of (16c) is not acceptable: (18) *John gave to Bill a book today

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.10 (639-698)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

If we attempt to avoid the sequence problem associated with the direct and indirect objects in (18), using instead the dative, the disanaphora condition still seems to apply: (18’) ??John gave Bill a book today and a record to him yesterday The disanaphora condition pointed out by Williams can be analyzed as a result of two conditions on coordinate symmetry. These are: (1) Avoid Redundancy leading to ambiguity: Redundant lexical items in coordinate structures causing ambiguity must either be licensed for ellipsis, or avoided through the establishment of sharing relations between domains, cf. 2 below and §4.1.4, or be pronominalized; failure to do one of these results in interpretational conflicts. (2) Share whenever possible: A lexical head in a dominant domain can satisfy the lexical requirements of multiple symmetric domains of dominated conjuncts. In (19a), examined earlier, gave dominates both pairs of direct and indirect objects, and has given does the same in (19b): (19) a. a.’ b. b.’

John gave Bill a book today and a record yesterday *John gave Bill a book today and gave a record yesterday Has John given Bill a book today and a record yesterday? *Has John given Bill a book today and given a record yesterday?

The repetition of gave in (19a’) and of given in (19b’) results in an unacceptable redundancy that is on par with the disanaphoric relation of to him to to Bill in (17). These offending redundancies, I will claim, arise from the general condition on coordination just stated: avoid redundancy. This condition is far too vague to be useful to a formal grammar, however. It can be made more precise through formulation as syntactic and semantic principles. These will be taken up in §4.1.4. and 4.3. In the next section we turn to a closer look at parallelism in elliptical coordinate structures to see what constitutes parallelism, what its sources might be, and the role that parallelism plays in coordinate ellipsis.

.. Parallelism: Its properties, source and role in coordinate ellipsis The property of coordinate structures which is characterized by the requirement that some of the elements and structures – how many depends on a number of factors – be identical or very similar to equivalent elements and structures in the other conjuncts has been referred to in the literature as the Parallelism Requirement (see Chomsky 1995: 203; Hornstein & Nunes 2002; van Oirsouw 1993: 755).15 The role of parallelism in coordinate structures is relatively clear from a minimalist perspective. It serves primarily two fundamental principles: economy and clarity (disambiguation).16 What is lacking in formal analyses of coordinate ellipsis, to my knowledge, is an explanation in minimalist terms for why the Parallelism Requirement exists: Is it merely a epiphenomenon of coordinate structures, or does it result from the derivational processes required for an elliptical coordinate construction? Secondly, what operations are required for satisfying the Parallelism Requirement? A recent study by Kehler (2000), who employs both syntactic and semantic principles, comes closer to answering these

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.11 (698-785)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

questions than possibly any other study. But I will show that Kehler’s principles of Coherence and Resolution do not take certain syntactic requirements into consideration and therefore do not capture at least one key property of ellipsis: only syntactically licensed gaps are allowed. My proposal, to be applied to the various types of coordinate ellipsis, has as its central claim that derivations of coordinate structures occur by phase, and that CP and TP conjuncts are “full” phases, and all others are subarrays of phases. In derivation by phase, the interface with AM is not only required, it can also be used advantageously for generating parallel or symmetric elements and structures. In this way a leading or initial phase, which may constitute an independent conjunct, provides syntactic information for the generation of subsequent phases. This phase-based approach guarantees that subsequent conjuncts have parallel elements by way of copying from the initial conjunct (either a phase or a subarray of a phase). AM, I argue, is able to retain at least one phase/conjunct of a coordinate structure, until Copy applies and it can be spelled out. The symmetries present in coordinate structures help reduce memory load. Coordinate ellipsis has been analyzed as the output of the operation Move which must then occur in ATB fashion, certainly when there are more than two conjuncts. ATB movement is thus one way to account for the parallelisms of coordinate structures. A recent example of this approach is Johnson’s (2002) account of Gapping, in which he proposes that all the verbs in all the conjuncts must move (at least initially) in ATB fashion. A similar analysis is presented in Abgayani and Zoerner (2000). Any movement approach to coordinate ellipsis – and to the generation of conjoined clauses in general – I argue in §4.3 is not compatible with a phase-based approach.17 We begin our introductory look at parallelisms with an examination of the properties of coordinate ellipsis. The first has to do with matching interpretations. Lakoff (1969: 23) points out that the interpretation given the first of two ambiguous conjuncts must also be given the second: (20) John likes visiting relatives, and so does Sue must be interpreted as a or b: a. John likes going to visit relatives and Sue likes going to visit relatives b. John likes relatives coming to visit and Sue likes relatives coming to visit can not be interpreted as a’ or b’: a.’ John likes relatives coming to visit and Sue likes going to visit relatives b.’ John likes going to visit relatives and Sue likes relatives coming to visit Because the two conjuncts must be linearly ordered, left-to-right linearity of antecedent and gap appears to be a prerequisite of the licensing and recovery of an ellipse in coordination in languages like English with a left-to-right writing convention. Indeed this requirement is very pervasive; it is found in left-edge subject and object gap constructions, in Gapping, in VP ellipsis, and in the related but not strictly coordinate constructions with sluicing and stripping; see Merchant (2001, 2003) for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.12 (785-818)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

recent analyses. However, in the RNR construction, a gap precedes the element required for recovery of the gap; this configuration provides counter-evidence to the assumption that recovery requires left-to-right asymmetry. In the present proposal, Match, required for recovery, occurs in parallel planes in LF and is thus not subject to left-to-right linearity or asymmetry. The licensing of the gap, however, as an operation of narrow syntax, is subject to asymmetry in this proposal. In RNR a prosodic feature asymmetrically licenses the gap in a c-command relation. If we assume that Kayne’s (1994) theory of asymmetry and antisymmetry extends to coordinate structures, then we would expect the licensing of ellipsis to be subject to asymmetric syntactic relations. Interpretation of gaps, by contrast, relies on the symmetry of features, determined by matching. Matching occurs independently of (asymmetric) phrase structure. Thus, coordinate symmetry can coexist with syntactic asymmetry (see discussion in Chapters 2 and 3). In short, coordinate ellipsis, I will argue, cannot defy syntactic asymmetry – indeed it relies on it for the syntactic licensing of gaps – but it nevertheless has an additional property, coordinate symmetry, also referred to as the Parallelism Requirement. This property of coordinate structures comes in my proposal by way of derivation by phase, when combined with conjunction, as described earlier. We will again in this chapter consider aspects of coordinate symmetry because it gives evidence of the operations that generate elliptical coordinate structures. The operations required were suggested at the outset of this chapter. They are the same as those required for any syntactic derivation: Merge, Copy and Match, though in coordinate structures all three are subject to symmetry requirements. These become most obvious in coordinate ellipsis, which is an optimal form of economy in derivation: lexical elements may completely avoid PF realization. We turn now to consider whether parallelism in coordinate ellipsis can be defined in terms of feature matching, what we would expect, if the proposal of Chapter 2 has any validity for coordinate ellipsis. Lang (1984) takes up the observation of Lakoff regarding (20) and proposes a semantically-based account of matching; his proposal forms the basis of the theory of recovery to be proposed here. A phonetically-based account is clearly not sufficient, as has been pointed out frequently in the literature on Gapping. In (21) are typical examples (b is a translation of a):18 (21) a. Jack lovesi soccer and his parents ei /love golf b. Hans liebti Fußball und seine Eltern ei /lieben Golf Less noted in the literature is that such non-phonetic identity between antecedent and gap is also possible, if much rarer, in RNR. (22) is from Postal (1998: 173; his judgment): (22) The pilot claimed that the first nurse e and the sailor proved that the second nurse *was a spy / were spies Constructions of this sort do not always, probably not even generally, require plural agreement as in Postal’s example. Note (23):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.13 (818-889)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

(23) Peter stated that Sue and Paul that Sally has/*have enrolled in ROTC We will return to these constructions in §4.5 where a derivational approach to the RNR construction will be outlined in some detail. Another form of non-phonetic identity possible in coordinate ellipsis is pointed out in Williams (1977) where it is referred to as “sloppy identity”: the interpretation of does too can by sloppy identity include a pronoun that is phonetically distinct from the equivalent in the full version, which is presumably the antecedent: (24) John thinks that Bill likes himi and Mary does too can mean: Mary thinks that Bill likes John/himi , too or: Mary thinks that Bill likes her, too The examples in (21), (22) and (24) indicate that an attempt to capture the Parallelism Requirement with a theory of phonetic feature matching, using it as a basis for deletion, will fail. A theory of ellipsis must therefore take syntactic and semantic features into consideration as well, at the very least in those cases in which phonetic identity is insufficient. We will return to this point in the next section. Further evidence that phonetic feature matching without regard to syntactic structure or semantic interpretation will produce ungrammatical results comes from (25):19 (25) a. *Peter had a wreck because he was driving drunk and Paul had a wreck because he was sleeping b. ?Peter had a wreck because he missed ei and Paul (had a wreck) because he ignored [a seminar on responsible driving habits] On the basis of (25) we can conclude that matching is not blind to syntactic and semantic features. If ellipsis occurs by feature transfer from one conjunct to another, as suggested in Lang (1984), then it must – at least for some cases of coordinate ellipsis – be linked in some way with the syntactic structure and, as I will propose, with the syntactic derivation. It cannot be only phonetically or only semantically or only structurally based. Kehler (2000) claims correctly that structural parallelism is crucial to the resolution of certain types of coordinate ellipsis, but in §4.2 we will see that structural parallelism, even when combined with principles of semantic resolution and coherence, is not enough. The syntactic licensing of gaps is also required. We return in the next section to an important consideration in the analysis of coordinate ellipsis that was raised in §4.1.1: The fact that non-elliptical and elliptical versions of the same constructions can have different readings, sometimes by sloppy identity.

.. Coordinate ellipsis, matching and sloppy identity In the previous section we noted that (26) can have two interpretations, one by matching exactly (phonetically, semantically, syntactically) the interpretation of does with



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.14 (889-956)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

corresponding items in the preceding conjunct, and the other by ignoring a mismatch in the phonetics signaling a different gender: (26) John thinks that Bill likes himi and Mary does too can mean: Mary thinks that Bill likes John, too or: Mary thinks that Bill likes her, too Aside from the gender mismatch, the interpretation by sloppy identity is exact or symmetric. It is not imperfect enough to be rejected, though clearly not the most natural or “least effort” interpretation. The possibility of sloppy identity raises the question of whether a PF-deletion approach to coordinate ellipsis is appropriate. Lobeck (1999) argues on the basis of the data in (27) from Fiengo and May (1994: 2) against such an approach: (27) a. Max said he saw his mother, and Oscar did e too b. Max said he saw his mother, and Oscar said he saw his mother Lobeck points out that in (27b), but not in (27a), the reading and Oscari said Max saw hisi mother is available, i.e. there is a mixture of strict and sloppy identity, he is strict, his is sloppy. Lobeck claims that this difference could not exist, if the elided VP in (27a) resulted from PF-deletion, since in this approach a syntactic copy is the input to interpretive rules in LF and therefore all the possible readings of (27b) should be available in (27a). Although this argument is sound in itself, it nevertheless fails to fully account for the difference between (27a) and (27b) because it does not take into consideration the existence of disanaphora in coordinate ellipsis, investigated in Williams (1997). As we saw earlier, Williams points out quite clearly that different principles apply in the interpretation of anaphors in elliptical coordinate structures versus in non-elliptical equivalents. These principles are independent of the operation which creates the ellipse, whether they be phonetically based as in a PF-deletion account, or semantically based, as in Lobeck’s account. Therefore the difference between (27a) and (27b) does not stem from the operation itself which creates the ellipse, whether it be deletion or the generation of empty pronominal categories in the derivation required in Lobeck’s account. Lobeck’s objection to a PF-deletion approach is therefore misdirected for this reason. A fact about the interpretation in (27b) which supports rather than weakens a PF-deletion approach is that the interpretation is phonetically identical to the antecedent. The sloppy identity in (27b) is of a different kind than in Williams’ example in (24): it doesn’t require an unmatched gender because of unmatched phonetic features. The sloppiness is clearly in the interpretation and has nothing to do with the operation which creates the ellipse. Williams’ example of sloppy identity in (24) must be considered for another reason: The fact that it exists casts doubt on the assumption that the recovery of gaps – at least in this case of VP ellipsis – is based primarily on the phonetic form of the antecedent and suggests that it is based on an additional set of features.20 What we cannot conclude from (24), contrary to Williams’ (1997: 622) assertion, is that the coordinate

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.15 (956-1021)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

structure itself plays no role in the licensing or recovery of the elliptical VP. If that were true, sloppy identity would be possible in (28):21 (28) John thinks that Bill likes himi because Mary does too can mean: Mary thinks that Bill likes John, too can not mean: Mary thinks that Bill likes her, too The prohibition on sloppy identity when the elided VP is in an embedded clause – but not on VP ellipsis itself – provides evidence against Williams’ assertion on the one hand, and in favor of the assumption that feature matching underlies sloppy identity (i.e. some, but not all, of the features must match). In other words, if we assume that feature matching is not possible when the elided VP is embedded, as in (28), then the lack of feature matching results in the lack of sloppy identity, because not even some of the features can be matched. I assume that in the recovery of elliptical VPs in embedded clauses, as in (28), there are other mechanisms at work, as outlined in Merchant (2001). Because I am focussing only on coordinate structures, I will not be concerned here with what these mechanisms might be, or with any other form of non-coordinate ellipsis. It may be that a certain type of feature matching also operates in non-coordinate ellipsis; I will leave that possibility open. For the present study the following question is relevant: How is sloppy identity possible? If we follow the feature-based approach to symmetry argued in the present study, it is not surprising. In (28) John and Mary/her share several core features; the only relevant one that they don’t share is a particular gender: (29) John: [experiencer, accusative, human, male] Mary: [experiencer, accusative, human, female] We only need to assume that in this construction the features [male/female] are not significant enough to cause asymmetry as determined by feature matching. Given the high degree of symmetry between John/him and Mary/her, it is unlikely that the imperfect symmetry itself is the cause for the prohibition on sloppy identity in (28). We are compelled to assume that feature matching – at least in the form discussed here – does not exist in non-coordinate ellipsis. Before we can logically determine the mechanism required for the licensing of gaps, we must consider evidence for the existence of gaps in certain coordinate structures.

.. Asymmetry versus coordinate symmetry: Gap or no gap? We must be clear on asymmetric syntactic relations in coordinate structures and how they interact with principles of conjunction before the presence or absence of gaps can be determined. One principle of asymmetry that is particularly relevant to the analysis of coordinate structures is the principle of dominance. In a sentence the order

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.16 (1021-1087)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of dominance is CP, TP, vP, and VP. Therefore, an element in Spec,CP, for instance, has dominance over all the elements in the other categories. Just what that means for the relations in the sentence depends on what that element is. In some structures, dominance relations prevent redundancy. In §4.1.2 a redundancy was pointed out in coordinate structures of the kind in (30a, b); in (30a’, b’) are given the gaps proposed by Williams (1997): (30) a. ??John gave Billi a book today and gave himi a record yesterday a.’ John gavei Billj a book today and ei ej a record yesterday b. *Has John given Bill a book today and has given him a record yesterday? b.’ Hasi Johnj givenk Billl a book today and ei ej ek el a record yesterday? Such redundancies are offensive stylistically and border on (total) ungrammaticality because they can easily be avoided with more economic syntactic derivation, and they pose problems for interpretation.22 Given the principles of dominance and precedence in phrase structure, the repetition of gave and to him in (a), and of has given him in (b) can be avoided. Syntactic relations within coordinate structures do not necessarily place an absolute prohibition on the redundant repetition of lexical items, but as we can see in (30), redundancies can create problems of interpretation. The avoidance of redundancy in coordinate structures cannot be expressed as a principle that applies anywhere. Note that in the examples in (31) of the Copy Construction found in Frisian, German and Romani (see Hiemstra 1986 and Höhle 1990), the copy may not elide:23 (31) a.

Wer denken Sie, wer/*e Sie sind? Who think you who you are ‘Who do you think you are?’ b. Wen denkst Du, wen/*e sie meint, wen/*e Harald liebt? Who think you who she believes who H loves ‘Who do you think that she believes that Harald loves?’

The prohibition on ellipsis in (31) is due in my account to the lack of conjunction. Despite the lack of ellipsis, these constructions do have a property also found in coordinate constructions. Note that in both (31) and in the cases of left-edge deletion in coordinate structures, the “redundant” element occurs on the left edge of a phase. The reason the left edge in all clauses harbors a redundancy can be traced to the derivational properties of clauses: the left edge is the target of movement for a DP that leaves a copy or trace behind in the original position. The lexical item at the left edge in many coordinate structures is therefore redundant. We will take up this point again in §4.2.1. Let’s consider next the relations of adverbs to the sentence with respect to relations of dominance and precedence and how they can eliminate redundancies. An adverb like quickly, for instance, can have scope over more aspects of the sentence if fronted than if it occurs in the VP. In English, it is assumed that a fronted adverb lands in a position adjoined to the TP position, with this result:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.17 (1087-1155)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(32) a. Quickly Bill [vP answered the phone and [vP began to write]] b. Bill answered the phone quickly and began to write b.’ [TP Billi [vP answered the phone quickly and [TP ei [vP began to write]]]] In (32a), Bill answers and writes quickly, because quickly has scope over the entire sentence, including the second, conjoined vP, whereas in (32b) Bill only answers quickly because the scope of quickly is limited to the first vP. But why should this be, if the structure of (32b) is as indicated in (32b’)? The explanation that follows from my proposal is that Match determines the scope of the adverb. In (32a) two vPs are matched, whereas in (32b) two TPs are matched. Only in (32a) does quickly occupy a position that dominates the matched conjuncts. The scope of adverbs in coordinate structures brings to light some interesting properties of both adverbs and coordinate structures. In (33), it is clear that the position and type of adverb in the first conjunct can sometimes determine whether its scope extends into the second conjunct, but often the position of the adverbial makes no difference as to its scope:24 (33) a. a.’ b. b.’ b.” c. c.’ d.

In this town, people don’t drink too much and few stay out all night People don’t drink too much in this town and few stay out all night Sometimes people drink a lot, but they don’t stay up all night People sometimes drink a lot, but they don’t stay up all night People drink a lot sometimes, but they don’t stay up all night Fortunately people don’t drink too much and few stay up all night People don’t drink too much, fortunately, and few stay up all night In this town the mayori knows everyone, and #ei /he chairs all meetings in that one d.’ In this town the mayor knows everyone and has chaired all meetings so far

A comparison of (33a) and (33a’) indicates that the position of the adverbial PP in this town does not affect whether it can be interpreted in the second conjunct, a TP. The adverbial sometimes in (33b, b’, b”), by contrast, does not have scope into the second conjunct, regardless of position. The scope of fortunately in (33c) and (33c’) appears to be affected by position, but actually its limited scope in (33c’) is due to the properties of fortunately as a parenthetical when positioned sentence-finally (its unmarked position as a sentence adverb is the sentence-initial position). A comparison of (33d) and (33d’) indicates that the scope of the adverbial PP in this town can be limited by another symmetric adverbial PP in the next conjunct, even if this adverbial is in sentence-final position. Interestingly, if a subject gap occurs in the second conjunct of (33d), the interpretation requires coreferentiality because the DP antecedent has a definite determiner. This coreferential interpretation is not possible, however, when the symmetric adverbial in that one is introduced in the second conjunct; therefore, the subject gap is ill-formed. The spelled-out subject he does not have to be coreferential with the the major if major is not interpreted restrictively as the ‘major of this town’ but

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.18 (1155-1222)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

rather as a “generic” major (of any town). There is nothing in the dominance or precedence relations that limits the interpretation in (33d) in this way; it must be traced to the symmetry requirements on the recovery of the gap by matching and to the matching of the two adverbials. These matchings limit the interpretation of the subject gap to the subject of the first conjunct, thus rendering the gap ill-formed because the matching of the adverbials conflicts with the matching of the subject gap with the major. In short, the adverbial in the second conjunct forces a switch to a different town with a different mayor, whereas the matching required for the recovery of the subject gap requires the same mayor, hence the ill-formedness of the subject gap in the conjunct with the adverbial in that one. These examples give evidence of at least two properties of coordinate ellipsis and how it interacts with syntactic relations in which dominance and precedence form the basis: (1) the syntactic relations of adverbials to the sentence are irrelevant in matching for recovery, though the scope of an adverb may extend to a second conjunct; (2) matching for the recovery of a gap requires not only the symmetry of gap and antecedent; this symmetry includes more than just phonetic identity. Other elements which have counterparts in the other conjunct must also meet symmetry requirements and their (non-)matching determines whether a gap is recoverable with the available antecedent in the first conjunt. Point 2 confirms what was hypothesized earlier; point 1 is an interesting finding because it indicates that syntactic asymmetry inherent in phrase structure becomes irrelevant at the point of recovery, i.e. matching for recovery is carried out independently of asymmetric phrase structure; it seems to confirm what was hypothesized earlier: matching occurs in parallel planes that do not have dominance and precedence relations. What matters is the semantic feature set assigned to each adverbial. Dominance relations can sometimes determine whether an element can be shared by two or more conjuncts. An element in the D-position dominates the remainder of the DP and can thereby have certain syntactic and semantic relations to the rest of the DP that it wouldn’t have in a lower position. In (34a) the AP Frühlings- in the head (D◦ ) of DP position has the same syntactic relation to -blumen, in the N◦ position, as Herbst- because they are in symmetric positions with respect to the modified NP -blumen. In a sense, the two adjectives “share” the one NP. In (34b) the APs spring and newborn do not share anything, but in (34c) flowers and animals share spring by way of a dominance relation: (34) a. [DP [AP Frühlings- und [AP Herbst- [NP blumen]]] b. [DP the [AP spring [NP flowers and [AP newborn [NP animals]]]]] c. [DP the [AP spring [NP flowers and [NP animals]]]] Even though the AP spring has linear precedence over newborn, it is not syntactically dominant over it, only equal, as are Frühlings and Herbst in (34a). The occurrence of a second AP, newborn, precludes a modifying relation of spring to animals, in contrast to what is possible in (34c) where spring clearly modifies animals. The symmetry between the two APs in (34b) is determined by the symmetry of the coordinate structure:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.19 (1222-1275)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

both APs occupy the same syntactic position. This is also true in (34a) but with different results because there the APs share a single NP. These relations are sorted out in coordinate structures by the derivational process. Each conjunct is merged separately. When [&] is merged along with the second conjunct, matching is induced which identifies symmetric elements. In (34a) the two APs are symmetric, in (34b) the two AP-NP combinations are symmetric, whereas in (34c) the two NPs are. When the AP of the second DP in (34b) is merged, along with and and the rest of the DP, it is not possible for spring to modify animals, simply because spring and newborn are identified as equals or symmetric, with neither modifying the other NP. The asymmetric structure automatically precludes newborn from modifying flowers, but it is the operation Match that cuts short spring’s modification of animals, since nothing in the phrase structure itself prevents this relation. When considered this way, it becomes apparent that there is no need for any ellipsis in DPs like Frühlings- und Herbstblumen, or in the compounds in (35) which can be analyzed along the same lines (from Hartmann 2000: 57, her 6c, d; see also an analysis in Toman 1984): (35) a.

be- und entladen on- and off-load b. über- und unterschätzen over- and underestimate

Hartmann argues for ellipsis in the first conjunct of these compounds, i.e. beladen und entladen; überschätzen und unterschätzen, but no close analysis is made of their structure.25 The better choice for a minimalist grammar is to avoid ellipsis – which requires recovery, at some cost to the derivation – and allow the syntactic and semantic relations inherent in the construction to provide what is needed for intepretation, with the minimum of lexical redundancy. In the next section we turn to the licensing of gaps in coordinate structures. We will see that licensing is a syntactic requirement which relies on asymmetric phrasestructural relations of the kind we just saw. Then in §4.3 we turn to the recovery of the licensed gap; there we will see that the interesting property of symmetry and the operation Match in conjunction play key roles.

. Licensing of gaps .. Williams’ proposal and an alternative Williams’ account of coordinate ellipsis is based on the assumption that deletion is licensed locally and not by the coordinate structure itself. My proposal for licensing supports this assumption; however, there are fundamental differences. In Williams’ proposal the licensing and recovery of gaps is subject to the Blocking Principle which

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.20 (1275-1337)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

determines, for instance, what can be the antecedent of the anaphor his in constructions like (36) (see Williams 1997: 585, ex. (20)): (36) a. b. c. d.

Maxi said hei saw hisi mother and Oscark did {hei saw hisi mother} too Maxi said hei saw hisi mother and Oscark did {hek saw hisi mother} too *Maxi said hei saw hisi mother and Oscark did {hei saw hisk mother} too Maxi said hei saw hisi mother and Oscark did {hek saw hisk mother} too

As Williams points out, both pronouns in the ellipsis site (within the curly brackets) can be sloppy (as in (36d)), or both strict (as in (36a)), and one mixed reading is allowed (as in (36b)). In (36c) the second pronoun, his, cannot be sloppy if the first pronoun, he, is strict. Williams assumes that the reason is due to blocking: the first pronoun is the only possible antecedent of the second, since its interpretation determines the interpretations that the second one can get. He explains (op. cit.) that “Oscar (or, in the first conjunct, Max) is not directly the antecedent of the second pronoun, since otherwise it should not be expected that the interpretation of the first should limit the interpretation of the second.” Furthermore, he assumes that the principle holds that the antecedent closer to x is “more specifically available to x” than any higher antecedent and therefore must be chosen. In Williams (1997), a way to explain how the first pronoun limits the interpretation of the second is suggested. We do not have to consider this account in detail here; it involves the condition that a sloppy pronoun can be the antecedent for a strict one as in (36b), but the reverse is not possible. Of interest to us is the fact that in the “typical” case, those without a mixed reading, both pronouns must have either a sloppy or a strict interpretation. This fact, I will argue, results from matching in coordinate ellipsis. A deletion site must in the typical case match its antecedent. This matching includes in the case of bound pronouns the requirement that all pronouns within the deletion site must be interpreted as either sloppy or strict (with the exception noted earlier that results from a binding relation within the deletion site itself and is therefore independent of the coordinate relations). The requirements of matching do not allow (36c) because, for the indicated binding to be possible, the deletion site would require a strict reading of the first pronoun, and a sloppy reading of the second one. The mixing of strict and sloppy violates matching, and the sequence of the pronouns in the deletion site, strict-sloppy, violates general principles of binding, if we include in these Williams’ condition prohibiting this type of mixing. Matching cannot by itself account completely for the mixed reading in (36b); resolution rules are needed for its interpretation, as they are in many other coordinate structures in which there is the possibility within the structure for more than one interpretation. As stated in Chapter 2, §2.4, there are numerous interesting studies on resolution rules in coordinate structures; for this reason, this aspect of feature matching will not be taken up here, even though undoubtedly such rules are needed in the present proposal for cases such as (36b). Their formalization within this proposal would, however, add considerable length and complexity to the presentation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.21 (1337-1412)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

Returning to Williams’ (1997) Blocking Principle, there is another problem adapting it to the present proposal. As evidence for his principle, Williams uses data from VP Ellipsis (VPE) like those in (36), but some of his examples involve VPE in embedded clauses. Such examples are problematic for a theory of coordinate ellipsis because VPE has been shown to be free of certain conditions that hold in “pure” forms of coordinate ellipsis, the focus of the present study. The most obvious is the condition preventing coordinate ellipsis in embedded clauses. The examples in (37) indicate that LEE, RNR and Gapping are not possible in embedded clauses, but VPE is in all of the corresponding constructions: (37) a. *Joei gave Bill a book because ei will give Mary a record (embedded LEE) a.’ Joei gave Bill a book and ei will give Mary a record (coordinate LEE) (embedded VPE) a.” Joe [gave Bill a book]i because Sue didi b. *Joe analyzed ei because Bill ignored [the LI article]i (embedded RNR) b.’ Joe analyzed e but Bill ignored [the LI article]i (coordinate RNR) b.” Joe [analyzed the LI article]i because Bill didi (embedded VPE) c. *Joe [wants to decapitate]i Fred because Bill 0i Pierre (embedded Gapping) c.’ Joe [wants to decapitate]i Fred and Bill 0i Pierre (coordinate Gapping) c.” Joe [wants to decapite Fred]i because Bill doesi too (embedded VPE) (37) clearly indicates that pure coordinate ellipsis is not possible in embedded contexts, but VPE is, because it is anaphorically based, while pure coordinate ellipsis requires matching. Because pure coordinate ellipsis has a distinguishing property marked by a contrast requirement (remnants must contrast with elements in the fully lexical conjunct, cf. §4.3), Williams proposes to account for this property as a case of disanaphora.26 However, because his proposal is based largely on data from VPE, it does not correctly characterize the conditions on remnants in pure coordinate ellipsis, nor can it capture the distinctions in (37). Williams’ proposal for licensing, that it is local and always involves the head of the elided conjunct and proceeds from left to right (antecedent on left, gap on right), is unsuitable for any case of RNR, which appears to be a universal. A typical example of RNR is given in (38):27 (38) Peter sang ei and Paul hummed [DP an old folk song]i This typical RNR construction is the mirror opposite of Williams’ central case of coordinate ellipsis with respect to configuration, and its properties are very different because the head of the elided conjunct is not deleted. Although his theory seems to be ideally suited to Gapping constructions, since they always have an elided finite verb, Gapping poses at least one problem for Williams’ theory in that it allows multiple gaps of more than one category, both/all of which are not heads of the conjunct. Furthermore, a property of both RNR and Gapping about which Williams’ proposal has nothing to say is the very salient prosody that is a requirement for grammaticality. The present proposal takes this property as most indicative of how licensing and recovery of gaps in RNR and Gapping occurs.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.22 (1412-1473)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Another problem with adapting Williams’ proposal to mine stems from the general approach to ellipsis as an LF phenomenon and the claim that the coordinate structure itself plays no role. In the proposal outlined in the following sections, I show that we must take the coordinate structure into account when proposing a theory of recovery – that indeed an aspect of parallelism is the structure itself.28 Furthermore, I will argue that licensing and recovery must be assigned to two different components of the grammar, licensing to narrow syntax, and recovery to LF. This approach differs markedly from Williams’ proposal which incorporates licensing into LF interpretation. A question relevant to licensing and recovery that arises when considering an alternative to Williams’ proposal for coordinate ellipsis is: Should there be a constraint on non-constituent conjuncts such as in (39), repeated here without any ellipsis indicated: (39) John gave [Mary a record] and [Bill a book] If we can prove that there is no evidence of a gap in this construction and that it can be derived using the core operations Conjunction, Merge, Copy and Match, following what was stated earlier, then there is no need to posit a gap and a way to license it. A problem with this solution is that we are left with the conjunct Bill a book, which is clearly not a single constituent and cannot be the object of a syntactic operation; as such it becomes more of a challenge for a derivational grammar like the one proposed here. Let’s consider the derivation in (40), following the assumptions about derivation by phase outlined in Chapter 3:29 (40) Derivation of (39) by Phase a. Select the array John gave Mary a record and Bill a book b. merge the elements up to [&], projecting a VP:30 [VP John [V’ gave [V’ [DP Mary] [V’ [DP a record]]]]] c. vP Phase (feature checking for Agree, Tense, rec = recipient); place in AM: [TP J [vP[v’ gavei [v’ [DP Mdat.rec ]j [v’ [DP a recordacc.theme ]k [VP [V’ t i [V’ t j ][V’ t k ]]]]]]]] d. Extract conjunct 2 (C-2) and Bill a book; copy and paste formal features of C-1: [v’ and [v’ [DP Billdat.rec ]l [v’ [DP a bookacc.theme ]m [VP [V’ t l ][V’ t m ]]]]]] (t l ≈ tj , tm ≈ tk) e. Merge conjuncts, with output as in (a) When Copy applies in (40d), the formal features of the first conjunct Mary a record are targeted and transferred over to the subarray Bill a book. The entire vP phase derived in (40c) is held in AM where it is available for copying. The traces/copies as formal features are also copied; these features make merger of the two DPs Bill a book in the VP and their subsequent movement out of VP superfluous; with Copy available, Bill a book merges in the vP domain with copies of the formal features of the corresponding elements in the previous conjunct. In this way the same syntactic relations between

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.23 (1473-1530)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

gave and Bill a book as between gave and Mary a record are established. Futhermore, the Case features are already checked because they are copies of the checked features in the first conjunct. In this way a second occurrence of gave is not necessary, which we noted earlier was ungrammatical. The avoidance of the second occurrence of gave and the movement of the IO and DO by Copy also economizes the derivation. This derivation provides theory-internal support for the independent evidence available from prosody that there is no gap in (39). Additional evidence is available from the fact that the parallel objects Bill a book in C-2 can converge at the interface without an additional realization of gave. The second pair of objects are then phonetically realized and logically interpreted in parallel with the first pair. The only features in the second conjunct, the gender features, that are not identical to those in the first are not relevant to coordinate symmetry and are therefore not targeted by Copy: (41) a.

Mary [dat] [human] [fem] b. Bill [dat] [human] [masc]

a record [D] [acc] [inanimate] [(other semantic features)] a book [D] [acc] [inanimate] [(other semantic features)]

Categorial features, if part of syntactic derivation, would be included in a complete matrix and be targeted by Copy, with the result that the projections and syntactic relations are the same in each conjunct. This derivation, like any of a coordinate structure, must combine copied with new lexical features when the new items are conjoined, as indicated in the matrix in (41): even though they share several formal and semantic features, Mary and Bill each have at least one feature of their own beyond the distinct phonetic features. The same is true of record and book. This derivation follows the general principle of a minimalist grammar, as applied to coordination, that copies of features are cheaper than new ones, particularly when a new formal feature enters an Agree relation and would otherwise trigger a Move operation. A copy of a Case feature, for instance, does not require verb raising, as the verb has already raised for checking the original Case feature from which the copy is made before conjunction (cf. (42) where the Case feature of the lower DP does not induce verb raising). This derivation satisfies all the conditions on the interface with PF and LF and can converge. The fact that the second conjunct Bill a book is not a constituent does not prevent it from conjoining. The projections and corresponding tree structure for (39) is given in (42):31

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.24 (1530-1569)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries TP

(42)

T’

DP X

o

vP v’

o gavei

v’

DPj

v’

N Mary

v’

DPk D

N’

&

a

N

and

record

v’ DP

v’

N

VP

DP

Bill D

N’

a

N book

VP

ti tj

VP tk

...

In sum, the derivation in (40) accounts for the prosodic properties of this construction, specifically the fact that parallel intonation and accent accompany the conjuncts in speech. This kind of prosody is not needed in LEE, suggesting that (39) does not involve deletion of the verb gave. The fact that the conjuncts are not syntactic constituents does not present a problem for this derivation, or for the interface when Copy and Match, the basis of coordinate symmetry, occur. These operations and Extract, unlike Move and Merge, do not target constituents, as they are not structure-building operations; they are completely structure preserving. Thus Copy, when combined with Merge, overcomes the limitations of constituenthood to establish relations in coordinate structures that could not be established with a derivational operation that targets only constituents. This derivation thus eliminates the need for the licensing and recovery of the verb gap that Williams’ proposal requires and as such does not provide for the licensing of a left-edge gap that I have posited exists in similar, but crucially different, constructions. We turn therefore in the next section to a proposal for licensing the left-edge gap in these constructions.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.25 (1569-1620)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

.. Licensing locally by a lexical head at the left edge Williams begins appropriately with left-edge gaps; they are indeed the most common.32 In my proposal the explanation for this property of coordinate ellipsis, that left-edge gaps are more common and less marked than for instance RNR gaps or finite verb gaps in Gapping constructions, is based on the nature of the licensing relation: left-edge gaps are licensed by a lexical item, the coordinating conjunction, which has the formal properties of a weak probe (see Chomsky 1999). As a weak probe, it does not induce Move, unlike, for instance, verbal heads. Furthermore, its goal is the next (minimally c-commanded) Spec position:33 XP

(43) &

(X = [T] or [C]) XP

DP=>e

(→ = licensing of gap in Spec,XP) ...

This form of licensing, the licensing of a gap in the Spec,CP or Spec,TP position, occurs, I will claim, in constructions of the sort in (44) (a’, b’ translate a, b respectively): (44) a. b. a.’ b.’

Bill got a book and e will soon start reading it Mary has seldom gotten a CD and e has never heard this one Willi bekam ein Buch und e wird bald anfangen es zu lesen Marie hat selten eine CD bekommen und e hat diese noch nie gehört

In (45) the gaps occur in Spec,TP (for Spec,CP gaps see (46); a’ translates a; the correlative never. . . nor has no equivalent in a’; noch nie translates as ‘never yet’): (45) a. This wine Bill has never drunk nor e would he recommend to anyone a.’ Diesen Wein hat Willi noch nie getrunken und e würde er keinem empfehlen Left-edge gaps also occur in constructions, such as those in (46), with a slightly different structure, but in all of them, we have the configuration diagrammed in (47): the gap occurs in a Spec position at the left edge of a second conjunct. If the gap occurs anywhere else, the construction is ungrammatical: (46) a.

Diesen Weini hat Willij noch nie getrunken und ej würde ihn keinem empfehlen a.’ Diesen Weini hat Wj noch nie getrunken und erj würde ihni /*ei keinem empfehlen b. Diesen Weini hat Wj noch nie getrunken und ei würde er keinem t i empfehlen b.’ Diesen Weini hat Wj noch nie getrunken und deni würde er/*ej keinem t i empfehlen

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.26 (1620-1666)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

This winei Billj has always drunk but ei ej has never recommended t i to anyone c.’ This wine Billi has always drunk but ei has never recommended it/*ei to anyone c.” This winei Bill has always drunk but he has never recommended it/*ei to anyone The left-edge requirement manifests the licensing configuration illustrated in (43). (46c”) points to a syntactic difference between German and English that affects what is available for licensing: because English does not have V-to-C in declaratives lacking negation (except possibly with “locative inversion”), a fronted DP targeted by left-edge deletion occupies the Spec position of a higher, left-adjoined TP.34 When this deletion occurs, the subject must also be targeted, resulting in two left-edge gaps, as in (46c). Both can be licensed by [&] because there is no intervening category that blocks it. Why both the object and subject in (46c) must be elided together can be explained by comparison with German: (47) Structure in German (a), versus English (b) allowing left-edge object deletion:35 CP a. &

CP (→ = licensing of object gap in Spec,CP) e 

C’ C

TP

VFIN DP

...



b.

TP &

TP (→ = licensing of object and subject gaps) e 

TP e

T’ ...



The double-deletion requirement in constructions like (46c) has to do with the nature of the adjunct position as a goal of DP fronting. The fronted DP must “piggy-back” on the subject DP for feature-checking, as there is only one lexical head in a feature-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.27 (1666-1714)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

checking position for both DPs. Each of these has a different feature to be checked: the lower Spec position must be checked for the EPP-feature, and the upper Spec position for [Topic], if we assume that feature checking is required for optional DP fronting. Because both features must be checked by one head, [T], the disambiguation of the checking relations is dependent on both DPs, the subject and object, remaining in the numeration, or both being targeted for deletion and then recovered by matching with the previous conjunct. If just one or the other DP is targeted, the numeration becomes opaque at the interface: if just the object is deleted, the numeration looks identical to a subject-initial clause in English, aside from the lack of a lexical object (only a PFinvisible trace of the object remains). Object-deletion (alone) in (46c) will therefore not meet the interface conditions either because it is opaque with respect to structure, or because it lacks a PF-visible object. If only the the subject is deleted, it cannot be licensed because the fronted object blocks the licensing relation. An unlicensed subject gap will not meet either the PF or LF interface conditions. The ungrammaticality of (30b), used earlier in our discussion of Williams (1997), can now be explained, as well as a related construction, given here as (48a, b):36 (48) a.

[CP Has [TP Johni given Bill a book today and [CP has [TP *ei /he given him a record yesterday]]]]? a.’ [CP Has John given Bill [v’ a book today and [v’ a record yesterday]]]? b. [CP Did [TP Johni give Bill a book today and [CP did [TP *ei /he loan him a record yesterday]]]]? b.’ [CP Did John give Bill [v’ a book today and [v’ a record yesterday]]]?

The phrase markers indicate that the ungrammatical subject gap is not at the left edge and cannot therefore be licensed. In the present proposal, that is sufficient cause for ungrammaticality; the lexical redundancy discussed earlier simply adds to the lack of felicity and clarity. We turn finally to some constructions that are ungrammatical for very different reasons: (49) a.

Peteri is playing the piano today and [TP this evening ei /he [T will] play the guitar a.’ Peteri is playing the piano today and [TP ei /*he this evening [T will] play the guitar b. [TP After Boston [TP wei will pass through Providence and [TP then finally [TP *ei /we can begin the last leg to NYC]]]] b.’ [TP After Boston [TP wei will pass through Providence and [TP ei /we can then finally begin the last leg to NYC]]]]

(49a, b) appear to support conflicting arguments, (49a) that adverbials do not block subject gap licensing as proposed here, and (49b) the opposite claim. Interestingly, the two adverbials are not alike in their blocking properties: emphatic, but not temporal, adverbs appear to block subject gap licensing. (49a’) shows that pronominal subjects may not precede a temporal adverbial because they must be adjacent to their checking

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.28 (1714-1774)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

head, but the possibility exists that a left-edge gap is fine. (49b), in comparison with (49b’), suggests that subject gap licensing might be blocked by an emphatic (temporal) adverbial. Before we consider why emphatic stress appears to cause blocking of the licensing required for subject gaps, and why in (49a) the subject gap appears not to have to be at the left edge, we consider other adverbials that have blocking properties: (50) a. a.’ b. b.’ c. c.’ d. d.’

Bill doesn’t want to write the short story and truthfully *e/he won’t consider a novel Billi doesn’t want to write the s. s. and Sam/*ei truthfully won’t consider a novel Apparently Bill doesn’t want to write the s. s. and definitely *e/he won’t consider. . . Apparently Billi doesn’t want to write the s. s. and Sam/*ei definitely won’t . . . Billi doesn’t want to write the short story and Sam/ei definitely won’t consider a novel Billi doesn’t want to write the short story and definitely ei /he won’t consider a novel Billi doesn’t want to write the short story and probably ei /he won’t consider a novel Billi doesn’t want to write the short story and Sam/ei probably won’t consider a novel

(50a, b) indicate that two factors come into play for determining whether a fronted adverbial requires emphatic accent: (1) the type of adverbial – whether it is emphatic, like truthfully and definitely, and (2) coordinate symmetry, which can require emphatic or focus accent for the contrast between the symmetric elements, in (50b) between apparently and definitely. This contrast is lacking in (50c, d).37 Furthermore, whether we posit a subject gap at the left edge or after the emphatic adverbial, it is ungrammatical. Clearly, emphatic stress and the licensing of subject gaps interact with each other. Given this linkage, the data in (49) and (50) do not provide evidence of where the subject gap occurs in these constructions, only that emphatic stress and subject gap licensing may not co-occur. Based on these data, we have no reason to assume that the presence of an adverbial causes a subject gap to fail, and that the licensing relation posited in (47b) is false; we only have evidence that emphatic stress causes the breakdown of subject gap licensing. More on focus and how it interacts with intepretation can be found in Rooth (1992a). Conclusions we can draw from (49) and (50) about fronted adverbials are the following: (1) fronted adverbials with neutral prosodic properties do not have blocking effects for the licensing of a subject gap in a conjoined clause; (2) any fronted adverbial requiring emphatic or focus accent has blocking properties for the licensing of subject gaps, and (3) it is not the lexical or phonetic properties (presence) of a fronted adverbial that causes blocking, but rather its prosodic properties. This last conclusion, if

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.29 (1774-1828)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

correct, suggests two interesting properties of the licensing relation for left-edge gaps: (1) it is goal-oriented, and (2) it is sensitive to prosody. By ‘goal-oriented’ is meant that licensing seeks an appropriate goal from among other potential goals and is in doing so “oblivious” to the presence of non-appropriate lexical elements. Examples of these properties from German Gapping constructions will be analyzed in §4.2.3. A final observation can be fruitfully made at this point: While the licensing of left-edge gaps is not dependent on prosody for licensing, it is nevertheless sensitive to it. This suggests that both lexical items and prosody have licensing properties, as claimed here. We will return to the recovery operation that is necessary for these constructions in §4.3. We move on now to licensing at the right edge.

.. Licensing locally by a prosodic feature at the right edge There are at least two cases of coordinate ellipsis that quite clearly depend on a certain prosody for grammaticality; they simply cannot be processed correctly without it.38 These two cases are Gapping and RNR. In this section we consider RNR constructions; I argue that the gap in RNR must be licensed by a prosodic feature at the right edge. In the next section we will consider Gapping, requiring a clause-internal prosodic feature. My account of licensing in RNR constructions is based on the analysis of Hartmann (2000) who derives the properties of RNR and Gapping from the interplay of two theories: (a) a theory of the informational structure of a sentence, and (b) a theory of the tonal structure of a sentence. Hartmann considers these two theories two sides of the same coin, focus, which has two aspects, one semantic and the other phonological. I argue, building on these claims, that the ‘tonal structure’ (prosody) required for RNR must be realized in narrow syntax as a formal feature that is mapped to PF for realization of the prosody. Furthermore, I formalize the ‘informational structure’ (parallel structure requirement) that Hartmann describes, using the operations Copy and Match as described earlier. Both proposals, Hartmann’s and mine, analyze the ellipsis operation as phonological in nature, but constrained by other components of core grammar, syntax and semantics. These constraints exist as conditions on the interface with these components.39 In this section we consider just the licensing formalism of my proposal for RNR. A more comprehensive analysis of the RNR construction will be taken up in §4.3.2 where this formalism will be put to the test. The RNR construction, which appears to occur universally (see further examples in the appendix) is unique amongst the types of coordinate ellipsis, mainly because the RNR gap occurs in the first (and, with more than two conjuncts, in all but the final) conjunct (b glosses a): (51) a.

Bill loves e (Sue hates e, Erica admires e) and Peter tolerates [temperamental Italians]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.30 (1828-1896)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. Willi liebt e (S hasst e, E bewundert e) und P toleriert [temperamentvolle Italiener] Assuming the ellipse(s) at the right edge of the conjunct(s) is/are recovered on the basis of the bracketed portion, it is impossible in asymmetric phrase structure for the bracketed portion to c-command the gap(s). Hartmann (2000) gives sufficient arguments against a raising analysis that positions the pendant where it can c-command the ellipse; these will not be reinterated here. The challenge for an account of RNR constructions taking a syntactic approach to licensing lies in finding evidence that a syntactic element of some sort exists in a c-command position for licensing the gap. I argue in what follows that independent evidence of such an element can only be found in the prosody. Of course, we must assume for this evidence that prosodic features are appropriate syntactic licensing elements. Theory-internal evidence strongly supports the following argumentation: All gaps in coordinate structures must be licensed in the narrow syntax; that is the domain of syntactic licensing. Therefore we must assume that the RNR gap is licensed in narrow syntax, as are all gaps in coordinate ellipsis. Furthermore, the element that licenses the gap must come from the lexicon. If these assumptions hold, then the feature realized as prosody in PF must be present in narrow syntax and is indeed capable of licensing a gap, given the appropriate syntactic relations. The fact that prosody is realized in PF as focus accent does not preclude it from having a syntactic function in narrow syntax for licensing a gap. Based on this argumentation and the prosodic evidence of RNR constructions, my proposal for the licensing of the RNR gap is the following: the prosody of RNR constructions is realized through the mapping of a syntactic feature, which c-commands the gap, to the PF component where it is realized as focus accent, required for the articulatory-perceptual processing of the RNR construction. In essence I am claiming that the information required by PF for focus accent is not only present, but syntactically functional, in the syntactic derivation.40 This claim is not unique or new to syntactic theory. Cheng and Rooryck (2000) propose that a prosodic feature of whin situ constructions plays a central role in the licensing of wh-in situ in French. In their theory licensing occurs by way of a specifier-head relation: a Q-morpheme in C licenses a gap in its specifier position. In RNR constructions, no Spec-head relation exists between the prosodic feature and the gap. The difference between the construction that Cheng and Rooryck analyze and RNR constructions can be identified very easily: their construction does not require conjunction. Lacking conjunction, the operations Copy and Match play no role in French wh-in situ constructions; in RNR constructions, these operations play a central role. The c-command relation for licensing that I am proposing for RNR is appropriate because of the coordinate relations. It also parallels the c-command relation between [&] and the gap found in LEE outlined in the previous section. In (52) is an illustration of the prosody of RNR constructions and an indication of where the syntactic feature mapped to PF for prosodic realization is located:41

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.31 (1896-1953)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

[C1 The by-standers related [e]i and [C2 the police recorded → [the (C = conjunct) details of the accident]i]] b. [C1 Die Beistehenden erzählten [e]i und [C2 die Polizei dokumentierte → [die Einzelheiten des Unfalls]i ]] (translation/gloss of a)

(52) a.

The arrows /→/ indicate rising/steady/falling intonation. The pause () in the second conjunct is used to signal the location of the pendant. It arguably also occurs in the first conjunct; I do not indicate one in that position and will leave to further research what evidence supports its existence. If its existence can be verified, it constitutes any interesting parallelism with the pause in the second conjunct. These prosodic features immediately precede another parallel: a gap in the first, and its pendant in the second conjunct; this configuration appears to be a universal (see the Appendix for more data). In my proposal I assume that the prosodic features of RNR are realized in PF, but unless they have been selected in narrow syntax, they cannot be realized in the grammar model proposed here, because narrow syntax feeds the interface with PF. I assume furthermore that the feature mapped to PF for prosody comes from the lexicon and is merged in narrow syntax along with the other features of the lexical array.42 A related matter concerns the structural properties necessary for licensing a gap. Licensing, as a syntactic relation which allows an element to occur in a certain position, is somewhat broadly defined in the syntactic literature, but it is generally assumed that lexical items license, and not prosodic features. However, the notion of licensing is closely tied to a syntactic configuration. In government-binding (GB) theory, a relation of government between a governing head and a trace, for instance, was assumed necessary for licensing the trace.43 In minimalist approaches, the central relation for licensing is c-command; any element that c-commands and has the right properties can license a gap. The “right properties” are those which allow a gap to occur in the c-commanded position. Both [&] and the prosodic feature of RNR are thus supported in their licensing by the configuration of coordinate structures. Further support comes in RNR from the prosody of natural languages. It is a property of natural languages that rising or steady intonation, followed by a break, signals some form of non-completion.44 In coordinate structures, the prosodically-signaled noncompletion is syntactically tied to [&] occurring between the structures, and to the parallelisms of those structures. These parallelisms supply, by matching, the lexical items necessary for recovering the non-completion. The recovery operation in RNR will be left to §4.3.2. Our objective here is to identify the role that the rising/steady intonation plays in the syntactic licensing of a RNR gap.45 It is interesting to consider how the properties of the prosodic feature ‘rising/steady intonation’ in RNR compare to those of [&]. First of all, [&] is not tied in-and-of itself to any distinct prosody. However, whenever [&] conjoins clauses, it occurs in a prosodically strategic position, as observed in the previous section. Furthermore, the prosody of RNR actually serves two functions: (1) to license the gap, and (2) to signal non-completion, i.e. that the lexical items needed for recovery have

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.32 (1953-1995)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

not yet occurred. Despite these differences, [&] and RNR prosody share one key property: they both c-command a gap, if we assume that the syntactic feature mapped to PF for RNR prosody occupies the position indicated in (53):46 (53) (TP. . .) vP v’

(...)

VP

v

(...)

V’

eP

V

P

e’ e

(P = prosody feature) TP

&

TP (...)

Another relevant similarity between [Pros] and [&] is that neither is a projecting head. Both are dominated by the projection of the category to their right, as determined by the coordinate structure. Implied here is that every RNR construction requires minimally the conjunction of TPs.47 We will consider later whether the conjunction of vPs also allows RNR. It is clear that the constructions in (54) are not cases of RNR, supported by the fact that RNR prosody is not required for their processing or interpretation: (54) a. I know both over- and underinsured motorists b. Wir haben alle Türen auf- und wieder zugeschlossen we have all doors up and again to-closed ‘We opened and closed all the doors’ c. Bill is writing and editing many books on climate change d. Erik kender og holder af Karen E know and be-fond of K

(Ger)

(Danish)

We recall also the discussion in §4.1.4 where it was shown that if asymmetric phrase structure is assumed, with its dominance and precedence relations and the domains defined in them, there is no need to posit ellipsis in coordinate structures like those in (54). The requirement that the element immediately preceding the gap must, according to Hartmann (2000: 112–113), contrast with the element immediately preceding the pendant needs examination, as it pertains to the licensing of the RNR gap. The contrast

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.33 (1995-2066)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

is needed in order for the focus accent to be appropriate. Hartmann points out that the lack of contrast can lead to ungrammaticality (her 7; small capital letters indicate focus accent):48 (55) a. *weil Maria dem Hans gestern ein belegtes Brötchen kaufte because M the-dat H yesterday a prepared bread bought und Klaus dem Peter gestern ein belegtes Brötchen kaufte and K the-dat P yesterday a prepared bread bought a.’ weil Maria gestern dem Hans ein belegtes Brötchen kaufte und Klaus gestern dem Peter ein belegtes Brötchen kaufte b. *weil Maria dem Hans ein großes Stück Kuchen kaufte . . . a large piece (of) cake. . . und Klaus dem Peter ein belegtes Brötchen kaufte b.’ weil Maria ein großes Stück Kuchen dem Hans kaufte und Klaus ein belegtes Brötchen dem Peter kaufte It is clear from (55), however, that not just one, but two properties of RNR constructions must be in place for grammaticality: (1) Contrast between the pre-gap and the pre-pendant elements, and (2) adjacency of the focus accent and the gap. The former reflects a general interpretational condition on coordinate ellipsis that will be taken up in §4.3; it is unrelated to licensing. It is the latter that guarantees the licensing relation proposed here. An interesting property of RNR is that it appears to target more than one phrase, and these phrases don’t appear to constitute a single constituent. The following data and analysis of the RNR gaps are from Hartmann (2000: 64, her examples 6a, b): (56) a.

Peter verspricht seiner Mutter in die Kirche zu gehen P promises his mother in the church to go und Maria (verspricht) ihrer (her) Mutter in die Kirche zu gehen b. Ramona hat Peter gefragt wann der Niklaus endlich kommt, R has P asked when the Santa-Claus finally arrives und Ramona hat Martin gefragt, wann der Niklaus endlich kommt

Hartmann claims these examples are evidence that RNR can target non-constituents. Although it is true that the elided portions of each construction do not form a single constituent, is it really the case that all of these lexical items are licensed for deletion? Let’s assume a phase-based derivation of (56a): (57) A phase-based approach to the derivation of (56a): a. Select lexical items for first Phase: Peter seiner Mutter verspricht b. Extract and merge first VP: [VP P [V’ [DP.dat seiner M][V’ [DP.acc ø] verspricht]]] c. Derive TP1: [TP P verspricht [vP [v’ seiner M [DP.acc ø] [VP t t t]]]] → AM



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.34 (2066-2121)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

d. Extract and merge second TP: [VP [PP in die Kirche] zu gehen] e. Derive TP2: [TP2 PRO [vP [PP in die K] [VP zu gehen]]]] f. Merge TP2 with TP1: [TP1 P verspricht seiner M [DP ø]i [TP2 PRO [vP [PP in die K] [VP zu gehen]]]i ] → AM After derivation of the first conjunct is completed with the merger of the two TPs, as indicated in step 6, the derivation is placed in AM and the derivation of the second conjunct begins with the selection of its lexical items: Maria ihrer Mutter verspricht in die Kirche zu gehen. The derivation of the second conjunct proceeds as with the first, up to step 3 where copying precedes “derive TP” because of the selection of [&]. At this point the option can be taken to elide redundant lexical items. Given the clause-final location of the redundancies, the RNR option can be taken.49 The first step in taking this option is the licensing of the ellipsis. For licensing, the syntactic feature that is spelled out as focus accent must be positioned appropriately (see (53)).50 Our main concern here is the licensing of the ellipse and how it is targeted. In the derivation outlined in (57), I included [DP ø] to indicate the phonetically non-realized element that anticipates the infinitival clause, which in constructions like (58) would be realized as es ‘it’: (58) Ich habe es dir doch versprochen! I have it you-dat though promised ‘But I promised it to you!’ Versprechen selects an accusative object that must be lexically realized when no infinitival clause is selected. It is this object that must be licensed in (56a) along with the NP Mutter, a dative object. With the licensing of the null accusative object, the infinitival phrase is also licensed, since it is bound by the null object. With the binding relation established, all elements can be licensed that need to be licensed for the ellipsis to occur. How unusual is it to target two objects of one verb, one dative and one accusative, for ellipsis? Given the fact that they can both be targets of Move, it is not surprising:51 (59) a.

[Meiner Tochter my-dat daughter versprochen! promised b. Dem Fremden the stranger-dat

das Auto] habe ich bestimmt nicht t the car have I certainly not

die Schlüssel hat er sicherlich nicht t gegeben. the keys has he surely not given

Let’s consider Hartmann’s other example in (56b), repeated here as (60), to see what needs to be licensed for ellipsis.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.35 (2121-2185)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(60) Ramona hat Peter gefragt wann der Niklaus endlich kommt, R has P asked when the Santa-Claus finally arrives und Ramona hat Martin gefragt, wann der Niklaus endlich kommt The verb fragen is similar to versprechen in one interesting way: it does not have to have a lexically-realized anticipatory DP object when it selects a CP as an object, as in (60). When no CP occurs, a DP object must occur; it may not be elided (* when the object is not lexically realized and is not “merely” anticipatory): (61) a.

Ramona hat R has b. Martin fragt M asks

*(das) oft gefragt (that) often asked *(es) nicht (it) not

An anticipatory, non-lexically realized object of versprechen or fragen must be licensed. Only a licensed null object can bind the CP. That the null gefragt can be licensed along with the null object in (60) comes as no surprise. Verbs and their direct objects easily form a constituent according to the principle of complementation (which can be defined syntactically or semantically): (62) a.

Das that b. Das that

fragen wollte Hans nicht ask wanted H not (to) sagen wollte Hans auch nicht say wanted H also not (to)

These analyses have led us to the conclusion that licensing in RNR can target no more than one constituent. To reinforce this conclusion, we consider some negative evidence. It is relatively easy to find strings of lexical items which cannot be licensed in an RNR construction, even though apparently all other requirements are met, most importantly the focus accent requirement (except in (63a)): (63) a. *Paul had a wreck at the ei and Peter lost his job in the [Bank First building]i a.’ Paul had a wreck at ei and Peter lost his job in [the Bank First building]i b. *Sue was writing about ei and Sally (was) discussing [the latest scandal, sitting on the front porch]i b.’ Sue was writing about the latest scandal, sitting on the front porch, and Sally was discussing it, sitting on the front porch c. *Sue wrote ei and Sally fumed [a great deal about the topic in the afternoon]i c.’ Sue wrote a great deal about the topic in the afternoon, and Sally fumed a great deal about it In (63a) the problem is the inability of the as a non-contrastive element to carry focus accent, required for licensing the RNR gap; in (63b, c) the pendant does not form a

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.36 (2185-2248)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

single constituent. These facts are consistent with the principle of licensing proposed here for RNR gaps: it is syntactic, i.e. established in narrow syntax, and it targets a single constituent (which may be comprised of more than one constituent), as do all syntactic operations. Licensing by a syntactic feature mapped to PF for realization as focus accent does not appear to differ from licensing by a lexical head. The importance of focus accent can be reinforced with (64) in which all requirements for RNR are met except the type of focus accent for licensing the gap (b translates a): (64) a. *Bill fell (down) over the easy- and next to the desk-chair b. ??Willi fiel über den Lehn- und neben den Schreibtischstuhl (herunter) This type of coordinate structure, the conjunction of PPs, differs from the conjunction of TPs in one significant way: each conjunct does not constitute a separate theme for the sentence. Rather, the whole coordinate structure is the theme. Therefore, focus accent cannot be applied to just one conjunct. By contrast, combining a left-edge subject gap with an RNR gap produces a perfect result, as then TPs are conjoined and the typical RNR focus accent is required, as in (65a, a’), whereas in the conjunction of vPs with an elided NP object, the necessary focus accent is possible when a sufficiently strong contrast between pre-gap and pre-pendant elements occurs as in (65b, c) (German equivalents of b and c not available because of the OV parameter):52 (65) a. a.’ b. c.

Billi will soon ej and ei should immediately [make plans for the summer]j Willii wird bald ej und ei sollte sofort [Sommerpläne machen]j Bill will soon make these ei and revise those plansi Sue has recently made these ei and revised those plansi

Given (65b, c), we must revise the earlier assertion in which it was claimed that RNR requires minimally TP conjuncts by stating that the “size” of the conjunct is not the issue but rather whether a gap must be licensed as required by the phrase structure, or whether a gap can be avoided by sharing. If a gap must be licensed, then two requirements must be met: (1) There must be a contrast between the pre-gap and pre-pendant elements (for which an explanation will be proposed in §4.3), and (2) There must be focus accent on the pre-gap element, of the kind that is used to mark a theme. The second requirement, it has been argued here, is a licensing requirement. We turn now to the licensing of the elided finite verb (and optionally elements that form a constituent with it) in Gapping constructions.

.. Licensing by a prosodic feature conjunct-internally Gapping constructions share one major property with RNR constructions: they require a certain prosody, as Hartmann (2000) has convincingly shown.53 They are different, however, in two significant ways: (1) The prosody in Gapping occurs clauseinternally and licenses only a finite verb and one or two redundant objects immediately following it, whereas in RNR prosody can license any type of clause-final element. (2)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.37 (2248-2260)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

The lexical items required for recovery precede the gap in Gapping. Despite these two differences, prosody signals non-completion in both types of ellipsis, and in both, the prosodic feature licenses in a c-command relation, as we expect in asymmetric phrase structure. In the present proposal the structure of the licensing relation itself in Gapping constructions differs only slightly from the relation in RNR; in Gapping, the prosodic feature occupies a position dominated by [T’] in the second (and all subsequent) conjunct(s):54 (66) Prosodic licensing in German Gapping constructions: TP T’

DP

T

vP (...) TP

TP

&

DP

T’ P

T’

Licensing e

vP ...



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.38 (2260-2298)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(67) Prosodic licensing in English Gapping constructions:55 TP T’

DP

T

vP (...) TP

TP

&

DP

T’ P

T’

Licensing T’

vP o

v’ e

...

If licensing occurs as in (67), then it is puzzling why Gapping is not allowed in (68a’, b’). It seems as if the CP node in these constructions is blocking the licensing, but this blocking cannot occur in the licensing relation proposed in (67):56 (68) a. a.’ b. b.’

Bill likes spaghetti and Barb e lasagne *Bill likes spaghetti because Barb e lasagne Willi mag Spaghetti und Bärbel e Lasagne *Willi mag Spaghetti, weil Bärbel e Lasagne

RNR gaps are also not acceptable when a CP node with a lexical head that projects CP dominates the conjunct with the pendant:57 (69) a. a.’ b. b.’

Bill loves e but Barb hates spaghetti *Bill loves e [CP because Barb hates spaghetti] Willi liebt e aber Bärbel hasst Spaghetti *Willi liebt e [CP weil Bärbel hasst Spaghetti]

However, because the gap and the prosodic feature licensing it both occur within the domain of just one conjunct in my proposal for RNR and Gapping (in RNR in the first and all but the last conjuncts, in Gapping in the second and all subsequent conjuncts), a CP node dominating the second conjunct does not block the licensing in either form of coordinate ellipsis. The blocking effect of a CP node occurs in recovery, for reasons

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.39 (2298-2352)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

I will take up in §4.3. We will return to the blocking of licensing in Gapping later in this section, and to the blocking of recovery in Gapping in §4.3.3.58 In sum, prosody plays a key role in the processing and interpretation of the gap in both RNR and Gapping. In §4.3 we will return to (68a’, b’) and (69a’, b’) to consider the cause of the ungrammaticality. We turn now to whether more than one constituent may be licensed for deletion in a Gapping construction. Gapping, argues Hartmann, who follows a number of earlier studies, may target more than one constituent. This phenomenon is also analyzed in recent studies of Johnson (1994, 2002), whose approach differs significantly from Hartmann’s. Because my approach bears more similarity to Hartmann’s, I will leave discussion of Johnson’s until §4.5 where in the discussion of the phase-based approach to coordinate ellipsis proposed here, the movement and somewhat representational approach of Johnson can be better addressed. Hartmann’s account of Gapping follows many assumptions of earlier studies, most notably Jackendoff (1971), Kuno (1976), Neijt (1979) and Ross (1970). One of these assumptions that pertains to licensing is that Gapping may target non-constituents. Some of the evidence presented for this is given in (70) and (71) (taken from Hartmann 2000: 146–147, who draws them from Jackendoff 1971 and Ross 1970, respectively): (70) Peter caught an eel for Mary in the Charles River and a. John caught a flounder for Betty in the Missisquoui b. John caught a flounder for Mary in the Missisquoui c. John caught a flounder for Betty in the Charles River d. John caught a flounder for Mary in the Charles River (71) I want to try to begin to write a novel and a. you want to try to begin to write a play b. you want to try to begin to write a play c. you want to try to begin to write a play d. you want to try to begin to write a play A couple of observations, that to my knowledge have not been made, are needed before a clear picture of these data can be gained: (1) the PPs for Mary and in the Charles River have scopal properties which, particularly through the matching of the conjuncts, allow them to have scope into the next conjunct. I will argue, therefore, that the non-adjacent gaps of these PPs in (70) do not actually exist. (2) I have not found any native speakers of English who particularly like the versions in (71a–c); by far the most acceptable construction is (71d). I will, however, assume that the other versions are marginally acceptable. More data need to be considered before all potential evidence against the adjacency requirement can be laid to rest. Let’s consider the constructions in (72), slight variations on those in (70):59

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.40 (2352-2389)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(72) Peter caught Mary an eel in the Charles River and a. *John caught Betty an eel in the Missisquoui b. ?John caught Mary an eel in the Missisquoui c. John caught Mary a flounder What is suggested by (72) is supported by similar data from German: (73) Der Peter fing Maria einen Aal in der Elbe und the.nom P caught M an.acc eel in the Elbe and a. *der Paul fing der Beate einen Aal im Rhein b. ?der Paul fing Maria einen Aal im Rhein c. der Paul fing Maria eine Flunder These data support the relation of licensing proposed above, that prosodic licensing in Gapping constructions, because it is associated with syntactic properties of the left periphery (see n. 59), targets the finite verb as indicated in (66), but licensing can extend to the argument(s) of this verb, if these arguments are local to the finite verb, i.e. follow it immediately. Both an indirect and a direct object may be licensed, but not just the direct without the indirect, as then the indirect object blocks licensing of the direct object.60 Let’s assume that the licensing of the finite verb and its arguments occurs in the German vP as illustrated in (74). (74) Licensing of finite verb and its arguments in German Gapping constructions TP T’

DP

Pros

T’ VFIN

vP v’

o

v’

DP IO

DP

...

DO

The licensing in English is, following (74), structurally almost identical:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.41 (2389-2426)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(75) Licensing in English Gapping constructions: TP T’

DP

PROS

vP

o

v’ v’

VFIN

v’

DP IO

DP

...

DO

The comparisons in (76) and (77) indicate that an element in the Spec,vP position of English Gapping constructions blocks the licensing relation indicated in (75):61 (76) Peter caught Mary an eel in the Charles River yesterday and a. *John last night caught Mary a flounder in the Missisquoui a.’ John last night caught Mary a flounder in the M. b. John caught Mary a flounder in the Missisquoui the day before (77) Peter caught an eel for Mary yesterday and a. *John last night caught a flounder for Barb a.’ John last night caught a flounder for Barb b. John caught a flounder for Barb last night In German, a temporal, adverbial PP does not cause blocking because the finite verb and often the indirect object are above the adverbial, i.e. local to the prosodic feature which licenses the gap(s):62 (78) Peter fing Maria gestern einen Aal, und Paul fing Beate heute Nacht eine Flunder If, however, the direct object is gapped, both the adverbial and the dative object intervene between the prosodic feature and the direct object gap, rendering the construction ungrammatical, even if the dative morphology for the indirect object is used as in (79b):63

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.42 (2426-2494)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(79) a. *Peter fing Maria gestern einen Aal und Paul fing Beate heute Nacht einen Aal b. *P fing der M gestern einen Aal und Paul fing der Beate heute Nacht einen Aal b.’ Peter fing der M gestern einen Aal und Paul fing der Beate heute Nacht einen Aal The same blocking effect occurs in (80) where just the indirect object der Beate intervenes:64 (80) *Peter fing der Maria gestern einen Aal und Paul fing der Beate einen Aal These data, therefore, support the proposal for licensing in (74) and (75) for German and English respectively. Before all factors in the grammaticality of Gapping constructions can be accounted for, forms of parallelism/symmetry must be considered, e.g. why in (81), (a) is grammatical, but all other variants are not, even though no blocking of any sort occurs: (81) Peter fing der Maria gestern einen Aal in der Elbe und a. Paul fing der Beate heute Nacht eine Flunder im Rhein b. #Paul fing der Beate eine Flunder im Rhein heute Nacht c. *Paul fing heute Nacht eine Flunder I will argue in §4.3.3 that the ill-formedness and ungrammaticality in (81b, c) respectively are not due to a failure of licensing, but to the nature of recovery in LF; they will therefore be left to the side here. Relevant to licensing are the data in (71), repeated here as (82): (82) I want to try to begin to write a novel and a. you want to try to begin to write a play b. you want to try to begin to write a play c. you want to try to begin to write a play d. you want to try to begin to write a play If we assume, according to standard assumptions, that the verbs want, try and begin can all select to+infinitive as an object (infinitival complement), then this object can be licensed for ellipsis in the same manner that a DP object can. The somewhat degraded grammaticality of (82a–c) results, I will assume, without further investigation, from the fact that the strings you to try to begin . . . / you to begin . . . / you to write can be interpreted as direct objects of want: (83) a. I want you to try to begin . . . b. I want you to begin to write . . . c. I want you to write a play The degraded grammaticality of (82a–c) for many speakers stems from the fact that the interpretations in (83) are actually easier to obtain (no ellipsis required, and thus

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.43 (2494-2562)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

no recovery operation); yet, this easier interpretation produces a coordinate asymmetry, seen in the fact that two different objects of want, the first an infinitive, the second a DP, are conjoined, resulting in the degradation (bracketing indicates the two conjuncts only): (84) a.

I want [INF to try to begin to write a novel] and [DP.acc you [INF to try . . . a play] b. I want [INF to try to begin to write a novel] and [DP.acc you [INF to begin . . . a play] c. I want [INF to try to begin to write a novel] and [DP.acc you [INF to write a play]

The reason (82d) is far better than the others can now be explained: it does not leave the option open that you is the object of want, since the remnant you a play must be interpreted with a gapped finite verb. Further evidence supporting my proposal is in (85), adapted from Neijt (1979, ex. (85b)): (85) a. b. c. d. e.

John came up with evidence against that proposal and Max came up with arguments in support of that proposal *John came up with evidence against that proposal and Max came up with arguments in support of that proposal *John came up with evidence against that proposal and Max came up with arguments in support of that proposal *John came up with arguments against that proposal and Max came up with arguments in support of that proposal John presented arguments against that proposal and Max presented arguments in support of that proposal

Hartmann (2000: 147), following earlier studies, states that the ungrammaticality of (85b) is caused by violation of the Major Constituent Condition (cf. Sag 1980; Hankamer 1973). An explanation is needed for this constraint which prohibits the remnants of Gapping to be anything less than a “major constituent,” defined either as a node immediately dominated by S (TP) or by VP, if VP is immediately dominated by S. Although it is imprecise comparing the phrase structure of these earlier studies with today’s, we saw in (76) and (77) that DP gaps in the vP can be prosodically licensed, if they are selected by the gapped verb, and no element intervenes between the prosodic feature and the gap, as in (86): (86) a. *Paul caught Mary an eel and Peter caught Barb an eel b. Paul caught Mary an eel and Peter caught Mary a flounder In (85) the ungrammatical cases do not meet these criteria. (85a) indicates that with arguments is a prepositional object selected by came up; for this reason (85b) is out because arguments is selected by with, not by the gapped verb itself. The idiomatic V+P+P construction came up with must be decomposed into [v’ [V+P][P+DP]], for

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.44 (2562-2607)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Gapping to occur, thus allowing only the gapping of the second component, [P+DP] with arguments as the complement of came up, but not the gapping of came up with. In (85c) that proposal is not only not selected by came up with, it is also not licensable in that position by the prosodic feature. In (85d) the remnant in support of that proposal is simply not selected by came up with arguments. By contrast, in (85e) arguments is clearly selected by presented. Selection must be defined in terms of individual verbs or a verb and maximally one P+DP complement. Thus, idioms like come up with, as these data suggest, do not constitute a single constituent that selects a DP object. Another example is (87) ((87a) from Hartmann 2000: 147, ex. (6a)): (87) a. *John spoke to Fred and Mark spoke to Peter a.’ John spoke to Fred and Mark spoke to Peter b. John addessed Fred and Mark addressed Peter The [V+P] speak to doesn’t have selectional properties for assigning Case or a θ-role to a DP. For this reason, spoke to cannot be licensed for deletion as a single Vfin constituent. The verb speak is more like address, the only difference being that speak selects to+DP as a complement, whereas address selects just a DP. We note also that the grammatical (87b) conflicts with the Major Constituent Constraint if we assume that the remnant Peter is dominated immediately by v’, following the structures outlined earlier for licensing in Gapping. Thus, this constraint does not hold in my proposal. Some condition does, however, apply to Gapping that restricts what can occur as a remnant, beyond what is restricted by syntactic licensing. This condition, I propose, does not apply to the syntactic structure, but rather to matching, the basis of recovery. For this reason, we will take up this condition in §4.3.3. Let’s consider next some unusual cases of Gapping in which the elements licensed do not remain adjacent to each other and V-to-C occurs with object fronting. This occurs in (88): (88) ?[CP Den Bus the-acc bus und [CP den and the-acc

verpassti misses Zug ei train

meine Schwester jeden Tag, my sister every day mein Bruder jeden Abend]] my brother every evening

We begin with the observation that a CP node does not block the prosodic licensing of the gap in C, if we assume the position of Pros and its licensing relation to Vfin indicated in (89a):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.45 (2607-2671)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(89) a.

Licensing of a finite verb in a German CP clause (a), vs. in a German TP clause (b):

a.

b.

CP C’

XP

Pros

TP T’

XP

Pros

C’ TP

VFIN

DP

VFIN

T’ tV FIN

T’ vP ...

...

To account for this case of licensing in the present proposal, we must assume that the prosodic feature does not enter the numeration until after V-to-C movement. This assumption follows from the assumption that licensing relations are established postcyclically, as they must meet conditions of the PF- and LF-interfaces. The licensing structure in (89a) suggests that the licensing of VP arguments in vP is not possible, since the subject in Spec,TP blocks it. This is confirmed by (90a):65 (90) a. *Einen Aal fing der Peter der Maria und eine Flunder fing der Paul der Maria b. ?Einen Aal fing der Peter der Maria und eine Flunder fing der Paul der Beate The degradation in the grammar in (90b) is due, I claim, not to a breakdown in licensing for whatever reason. Rather, it is due to the increase in the processing burden and ambiguous stress accent patterns. The increased processing burden is brought about by the parallel DP-fronting: in addition to the matching of the gap with an antecedent, and of the remnants with equivalents in the initial conjunct, the two fronted DPs (one in each conjunct) must be contrasted with each other, a requirement that stress accent on an element in Spec,CP satisfies. DP-fronting itself, and the addition of stress accent on the fronted DP, increase the processing burden. In addition, because stress accent is also a requirement for the licensing of the gap, ambiguity arises with the nearly adjacent stresses. The licensing of the gap in (90b) can itself proceed without a problem, if we assume that the prosodic feature is merged in C◦ . When the CP phase occurs, additional prosody is added as required for stress accent on the fronted DP. This is the point at which the grammaticality of (90b) degrades because of the conflict in the interpretation of two prosodic features, one for DP-fronting, realized on the fronted DP (in parallel with the prosody in the first conjunct), and the other for Gapping, realized in a position projected by the category dominating the gap:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.46 (2671-2709)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(91) Licensing a finite verb in a German CP clause: CP-1 DP+P

C’

C

... CP &

CP-2 DP+P

C’

P

C’ e

TP DP

T’ tV FIN

vP DP

...

IO

This licensing relation predicts that a post-Vfin subject may be licensed for deletion along with the verb. This is indeed possible: (92) Gestern Abend fing Peter der Maria einen Aal und heute Morgen fing Paul der Beate eine Flunder Supporting the analysis of the breakdown of licensing in Gapping when DP-fronting occurs in German as in (90a) is the breakdown evident in (93a) (from Ross 1970 with my phrase structure analysis):66 (93) a. *John [didn’t write]i a novel and Sue ei a short story a.’ John did writei a novel but Sue didn’t (*ei /write a short story) b. John didn’t writei a novel [CP nor Sue ei a short story] Licensing of the gap in (93a) fails for a somewhat different reason than in (90a); it is because the prosodic feature required for negation cannot be realized when the verb is gapped. The only option for realizing the prosodic feature for negation is with the realization of did in (93a’). But this construction does not allow Gapping because the negation prosody required for did cannot also license the verb for deletion. Thus, the only option is VP ellipsis (cf. §4.4 on VPE). Gapping may occur when no prosodic

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.47 (2709-2780)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

feature is required for negation as in (93b) with nor (and thus did does not occur in the numeration). Only the prosody required for licensing the gap needs to occur. We have not yet considered how the clause-final gap in (94) is licensed: (94) Hans mussi heute kochenj und Maria ei morgen ej Following the licensing relation proposed earlier, licensing of the clause-final verb is blocked by morgen. We might presume that a second feature [Pros] exists after morgen; the prosody of the construction does not, however, support this presumption: (95) a. Hans mussi heute kochenj und Maria ei morgen ej b. Heute mussi Hans kochenj und morgen ei Maria ej The falling intonation at the end is required for general prosodic requirements of indicative constructions; it is unrelated to Gapping. The absence of a prosodic feature before the clause-final gap – equivalent to the prosodic feature required before the finite verb – suggests the hypothesis that the one prosodic feature is enough for licensing the gaps of both the auxiliary muss and the infinitive kochen because they are related syntactically. A possibility is that the T◦ position attracts features of the infinitive, which are then moved to C◦ in case of V → C. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that the intervening element morgen does not block licensing of kochen in (95a). This fact, and the falling intonation in clause-final position, rather than rising intonation required for licensing in Gapping, lead to the conclusion that just one prosodic feature is required in (95) because of some mechanism like feature attraction which makes possible the licensing of the infinitive simulatenous with the licensing of the Vfin , whether it occupies T◦ as in (95a), or C◦ as in (95b). This analysis is revisited in Chapter 5 where other aspects of German syntax are taken into consideration, thereby enabling a more comprehensive account. We move on now to the question of recovery, returning to licensing as needed.

. Recovery of gaps by matching in LF Without question the key to recovering a gap in a coordinate structure is the ability to match it with an appropriate lexical item or phrase in the coordinate structure. Given the grammar model assumed in the present study, which follows basic assumptions of the MP, there is no “recovery” on the intentional side of language processing where constructions are generated, given that gaps of coordinate ellipsis have all the linguistic features of any lexical item except realized phonetic features. Therefore, recovery occurs only on the perceptual side of language. Hartmann (2000: 34) states a Principle of Interpretation for coordinate structures that relates to the recovery of an ellipse: (96) Coordinated structures must be compositionally interpretable

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.48 (2780-2851)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

My proposal for coordinate ellipsis supports this principle and aims to account for it through feature matching. In my proposal, matching begins already in the syntax with the operation Copy which targets all features recognizable to the syntactic component. These features, along with the features possessed by the lexical items themselves from the lexicon, form the basis for phonetic realization and interpretation, both essential to recovery. Copy therefore plays an important role in LF-interpretation by matching, particularly under the assumption made here that all conjuncts after the first one receive their syntactic features by Copy. Several issues arise when considering an account of recovery: (1) Does the syntactic object matched with a gap have to be a constituent? A phrase? (2) Can it be located anywhere in the coordinate structure? (3) What other syntactic and semantic constraints apply to recovery? Kehler (2000) expresses the semantic requirements of recovery in terms of coherence and resolution. The model he uses does not make a distinction, however, between coordinate and subordinate constructions. Data indicate that the same principles cannot be applied to both, a fact that will be explored briefly in §4.4.67 We already noted in the previous section that a CP node headed by an element that projects features of [C] causes ungrammaticality when it intervenes between a gap and its pendant in a coordinate structure. A similar blocking effect also occurs in constructions with left-edge gaps (97c, d translate 97a, b respectively): (97) a. *[TP Pauli often makes a salad [CP even though [TP ei goes out to eat later]] a.’ [TP Paul often makes a salad [TP and ei then goes out to eat later]] b. *[TP This winei a New Yorkerj loves ti [CP because [TP ei ej will usually buy t i in large volume]] b.’ [TP This winei a New Yorkerj loves ti [TP and [TP ei ej will usually buy t i in large volume]] c. *Pauli macht oft einen Salat [CP obwohl ei später auswärts essen geht] c.’ Pauli macht oft einen Salat [TP und ei geht dann später auswärts essen] d. *Diesen Weini mag ein Mainzer t i [CP ei weil er t i in großen Mengen kauft] d.’ Diesen Weini mag ein Mainzer t i [CP und ei kauft er t i in großen Mengen] An intervening CP node is not, however, automatically a blocking node for recovery. In (98), for instance, a CP node may occur between gap and pendant in both English and German: (98) a.

[TP That booki Peter would never read t i nor [CP ei wouldj [TP he t j recommend t i to anyone]] b. [CP Diesen Aufsatzi hat Peter an einem Tag t i geschrieben this essay has P in one day written und [CP ei wollte er nie wieder t i lesen]] and wanted he never again (to) read

Quite clearly, there are features involved in the blocking that occurs in (97a, b, c, d) which are not present in (98): the lexical and formal features of a complementizer like

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.49 (2851-2908)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

because/weil differ significantly from those of and/und, and the features of CP headed by Vfin . Based on (97), CP blocks when headed by a lexical complementizer. When Vfin occupies the head-of-CP position as in (98), no blocking occurs. The C◦ position is inherently a complementizer position; its projection possesses all of its properties only when a complementizer occupies the C◦ position. Only when the projection has the central features of a complementizer can it block in the way evident in (97a, b, c, d).68 The blocking effect induced when certain features are projected up to CP can be compared and contrasted with the matching that occurs when a coordinating conjunction is present. The key to matching is the coordinate relation between conjuncts; the element that induces matching is the coordinating conjunction; it must be present for matching to occur, unless an appropriate prosody is present instead.69 When a CP headed by a complementizer (subordinating conjunction) occurs between two structures, the feature set necessary for matching is lacking; when and/und occurs between the two clauses, but in a different syntactic position – dominated not by CP but by a left-adjoined TP projection – matching, not blocking, is induced: (99) a. a.’ b. b.’

*Bill likes spaghetti [CP because Barb e lasagne] Bill likes spaghetti [TP and [TP Barb e lasagne]] *Willi mag Spaghetti [CP weil Bärbel Lasagne e] Willi mag Spaghetti und Bärbel e Lasagne

A CP node lacking a head which projects features of [C], we recall, does not block Gapping as in (88) repeated here as (100):70 (100) ?[CP Den Bus verpassti meine Schwester jeden Tag, und [CP den Zug ei mein Bruder jeden Abend]] However, proper licensing is only the beginning of a good coordinate gap. The gap must also be recovered; here parallelism (symmetry) requirements apply. This is supported by (101), in which the gaps can be licensed according to the proposal made in the previous section, but the construction is nevertheless not acceptable for most German speakers: (101) a.( *) [TP Peter fingi der Maria einen Aal und [CP eine Flunder ei Peter der Beate]] b.( *) [CP Gestern fingi Peter der Maria einen Aal und [CP eine Flunder ei Peter der Beate]] Because the second conjunct has a DP fronted to Spec,CP (with Peter the intended subject of both clauses in both constructions) it is not parallel/symmetric with the first one. A significant part of the parallelism requirement is the prosody: a fronted object DP must be stressed; this stress conflicts (for most of my informants) with the prosody required for licensing the Vfin gap in second position. Those who find these constructions acceptable are able to interpret the focus accent on eine Flunder as having two functions: (1) to mark this DP as a topic (required for all fronted objects or any

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.50 (2908-2987)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

other fronted element) and (2), to license the Vfin gap that occurs immediately after the DP.71 That the matching of semantic features in LF is central to grammaticality and clarity of interpretation in Gapping, as to any form of ellipsis, can be illustrated with (102): (102) a. *Erika lässti immer die Tür offen und Marie ei ihre Schwester E leaves always the door open and M her sister das Auto waschen the car wash ‘Erika always leaves the door open and Marie has her sister wash the car’ (intended reading) b. *Paul [is writing]i on whales and Peter ei on the computer c. *Paul shootsi migrating birds and Peter ei the breeze Because the semantic (and syntactic) features of lässt in the first conjunct of (102a) differ substantially from those required in the second conjunct for Marie lässt ihre Schwester das Auto waschen, the recovery of the gap fails to meet the requirements of non-ambiguity, even though the gap can be syntactically licensed as proposed here. In (102b) the two different meanings of write on make matching of the gap with the antecedent in the first clause impossible: computer must be interpreted as the location, not the topic of the writing. In (102c) the interpretation of shoots and the gap cannot be symmetric because of the asymmetric objects; thus, ellipsis is unacceptable. Our discussion of the division of labor in grammar for the generation of elliptical coordinate structures will continue in each of the following subsections dealing with recovery in the various types of ellipsis.

.. Recovery in LEE In §4.2 we noted that the licensing of gaps can be either lexical (in LEE) or prosodic (in Gapping and RNR), but both of these licensing mechanisms occur in a c-command relation. In this section we will find that anything that can be licensed can be recovered, as long as the conditions on recovery are met. The recovery of a left-edge gap appears to be restricted in a way that the recovery of a right-edge gap in RNR appears not to be. The source of this restriction, I will argue, is not due to a constraint on recovery itself, but rather derives from general constraints on syntactic structure. Thus, I will maintain that it is necessary to distinguish between the licensing of gaps on the one hand, and the recovery of gaps on the other; the two are subject to separate conditions. We noted in §4.2.1 that left-edge gaps occurring in either the Spec,TP or Spec,CP position of a conjoined clause can be licensed. An automatic syntactic limitation comes with this approach to licensing because these left edges are goals of movement: only an element fronted to one of these positions can be licensed for ellipsis. Thus, there is automatically a language-specific limitation on LEE: only languages that front elements in this way allow LEE. The licensing relation proposed for ellipsis is a c-command re-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.51 (2987-3021)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

lation; in German it is limited to just one Spec,TP or Spec,CP position, as indicated in (103):72 (103) Licensing of left-edge gaps in German (a) in Spec,TP, (b) in Spec,CP: a.

b.

TP DP

CP DP

T’ (...) TP

C’ C

&

TP

TP (...) CP

licensing DP =>e

T’ ...

&

CP

licensing DP =>e

C’ ...

We recall that both an object and a subject gap may be licensed in English, as indicated in (104): TP

(104) &

TP DP =>e 

TP

DP =>e

T’ ...



With these licensing relations in mind, we turn to recovery. In the present proposal, recovery requires matching. Note, however, that this matching does not have to be perfect, i.e. perfect symmetry is not required. Van Oirsouw (1993) points out that a fronted VP argument can be the antecedent of a subject gap in (105a) (his example (36) with his grammaticality judgment, which can vary from speaker to speaker), and Zwart (1991b) points out that both object-subject and subject-object matching is relatively acceptable in Dutch (Zwart’s 13a, b):73 (105) a.

[CP Käsei mag ich cheese like I mich]] me b. [CP Die treini had That train had

nicht und [TP ei ist auch nicht gut für not and is also not good for

ik makkelijk kunnen halen, maar [TP ei is I easily can catch but is

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.52 (3021-3084)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

veel te vroeg vertrokken]] much too early left ‘That train I could have caught, but it left much too early’ [TP Die treini is veel te vroeg vertrokken, maar [CP ei had ik makkelijk kunnen halen]]

Even though Käse in (105a) and trein in (105b) are direct objects and have the abstract Case feature [+acc], they can be matched with their gapped counterparts, which are clearly subjects, on the basis of other features. In (105c) the antecedent is [+nom] and the gap [+acc]; matching proceeds the same way as in (105b). Another aspect of symmetry aiding recovery in (105) is the isometricity of the configurations: both gap and antecedent are at the left edge.74 The categories dominating the two edges are different in the analysis assumed here, but the edges of both CP and TP have a key similarity: they are both targets of movement and both edges of phases and are therefore syntactically on a par with respect to recovery in LEE. Thus, symmetry, aiding recovery, is based on a number of features and structures which in effect overcome the one non-symmetric Case feature, i.e. recovery does not require perfect symmetry, but it does require “perfect” licensing. Constructions that have an element other than a fronted VP argument in initial position raise the question of whether that element is licensed for deletion along with the subject. In (106) I notate only a subject gap, but does a gap of the temporal adverb also occur?75 (106) a. a.’ b. b.’ c. c.’

In the summer Bill really prefers tacos and e will usually eat them every day In the summer Bill really prefers tacos and e will usually eat them every day in the fall Sometimes Bill eats them for breakfast and e has been known to put milk on them Sometimes Bill eats them for br-fast and e has been known to put milk on them at times Usually Bill bakes in a brickoven and e will devote a whole Saturday to it Usually Bill bakes in a brickoven and e will devote a whole Saturday to it occasionally

The adverbials in initial position have scopal properties that can extend over the entire coordinate structure. The scope of an adverb can, however, be cut short, as indicated in (106a’, b’, c’). Furthermore, if the second conjunct has a contrasting (but parallel) adverbial in initial position that receives stress accent, the subject cannot be deleted, as pointed out in §4.2.1: (107) a.

In the summer Bill prefers tacos and in the fall *e/he will usually eat potatoes a.’ In the summer Bill prefers tacos at noon and at night ?e/he will usually eat potatoes

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.53 (3084-3144)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

b. Occasionally he eats tacos for breakfast but usually *e/he doesn’t put milk on them b.’ Sometimes he eats tacos for breakfast and occasionally ?e/he will put milk on them c. Usually Bill bakes in a brickoven and amazingly *e/he will devote a whole day to it c.’ Often Bill bakes in a brickoven and sometimes ?e/he will devote a whole day to it The structure in (103) for licensing predicts that any element intervening between [&] and the gap blocks licensing; this is not quite correct, as (107a’, b’, c’) indicate.76 This raises the question of whether there is a gap of an adverbial in (106a, b, c) that has been licensed along with the subject, in the same manner that a fronted VP argument is licensed in left-edge object deletion. If it were not licensed, it would presumably block subject-gap licensing. Speaking against this analysis is the fact that an adverbial does not need to be checked by a feature of [T] in English, unlike a fronted VP argument. We recall that English [T] can check for both the EPP feature of subjects as well as the Topic feature of fronted VP arguments, making the double deletion at the left edge of constructions like (108) possible:77 (108) This wine Bill has always drunk but e e has never recommended to anyone We recall that constructions like (108), having two left-edge gaps, must always have two gaps; a gap of just the object is not possible: (109) *This winei Bill has always drunk but ei he has never recommended t i to anyone This requirement, I claim, indicates that a fronted DP object “piggy-backs” on the subject when fronted to Spec,TP; it is a requirement of the licensing that one head license both DPs.78 If there were a gap of the adverbial in the summer in (106), then we would expect the same requirement to apply. But as (110) indicates, the subject does not have to delete: (110) In the summer Bill really prefers tacos, and he will usually eat them every day It is therefore highly unlikely – assuming a gap of an adverb is licensed only if a gap of the subject is also licensed as in (108) – that a gap of the adverb exists to the left of the subject in (110). Given this evidence, and the fact that in the summer clearly has scope into the second conjunct, I will assume that the scopal properties of adverbials eliminates the need for a gap of the adverb in constructions like (106).79 We turn now to the recovery of the “double deletion” in constructions like (111): (111) a.

This winei Billj has always drunk but ei ej /*he has never recommended t i to anyone b. This wine Billi has always drunk, but that one *ei /he has never served t i to anyone

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.54 (3144-3212)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

This wine Bill has always drunk but he has never recommended it to anyone

In order to account for the recovery of the gaps in (111a), we must consider the derivation that underlies the “double-deletion requirement.” After the first conjunct has been selected and derived (see §4.5 for details), the second conjunct is selected and merged, along with [&]. At this point the operation Copy is induced (before the vP phase begins). When Copy applies, the second conjunct is assigned the formal features of the first conjunct wherever possible. Most important for the derivation of (111a) is that both conjuncts have a VP argument that can move to the front of the respective clause. Parallel structures result in which both conjuncts have a fronted VP argument. Structurally the licensing of both the fronted VP argument and the subject is possible, as no lexical item occurs between [&] and the two DPs targeted for deletion. At this point the derivation moves to the interface. In LF, the gaps are recovered by matching; it is here that the Parallelism Requirement applies. If the two conjuncts did not both have a fronted VP argument, matching would be problematic, but of course, no recovery is necessary unless the second conjunct has a matching fronted VP argument that is licensed for deletion. The significance of structural matching for recovery is supported by a comparison of (112a, b): (112) a. *Bill has always drunk this winei but ei ej has never recommended t i to anyone b. This winei Billj has always drunk but ei ej has never recommended t j to anyone Unless the first conjunct has a fronted VP argument, the gap of the second fronted VP argument cannot be recovered, even though it can be licensed for deletion. This matching requirement has nothing to do with licensing; it is only a requirement for the recovery of the gaps. Comparing German briefly, we find the same requirement, even though German, because of its consistent use of Spec,CP for fronted VP arguments, has less room for ambiguity in that only one gap is allowed:80 (113) a.

[CP Diesen Weini hat [TP Willi noch nie getrunken und this wine has W yet never drunk and [CP ei würde [TP er keinem empfehlen]]]] would he no-one recommend b. [TP Willi hat diesen Weini noch nie getrunken und [CP deni /*ei würde [TP er keinem empfehlen]]] (den = ‘that one’)

Even though the initial DP of the second conjunct in (113b) can be licensed just as the gap in (113a) is licensed, it cannot be recovered unless its antecedent also occurs in Spec,CP. Given this property of recovery, we can tighten up the statement made at the

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.55 (3212-3284)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

outset of this section: “. . .anything that can be licensed can be recovered, as long as the conditions on recovery are met.” A more precise formulation is: (114) Principle of Interpretation (Recovery) on Coordinate Gaps Any element that can be licensed for ellipsis can be recovered, iff it has a symmetric antecedent in a symmetric position. The properties of licensing in coordinate ellipsis are subject to syntactic relations and the derivation of coordinate structures, as well as conditions of the PF- and LF-interfaces, while the properties of recovery are subject to principles of PF and LF. We move on now to recovery in RNR to examine whether the generalization stated in (114) is apparent there.

.. Recovery in RNR When considering the generalization in (114), we recall from §4.1.4 that matching in coordinate structures with ellipsis can be “oblivious” to asymmetric phrase structure, suggesting that this matching occurs in parallel planes. This property is evident in (115): (115) In this town the mayori knows everyone, and #ei /he chairs all meetings in that one Although the syntactic licensing of the gap is clearly possible in the way proposed here, the gap cannot be coreferential with the definite DP the major because of the adverbial in that one. Coordinate matching requires “full coreferentiality” of the gap and the mayor i.e. that there be only one mayor because the antecedent is [+definite], whereas the pronoun he, although it has mayor as its antecedent, can be interpreted generically as another individual.81 The required interpretation, that there be two different mayors, results from the scope of the adverbial in that one: its scope over the second conjunct requires the subject to be different from the subject of the first conjunct. The important point for the present discussion is that the adverbial has this scope, despite its low position in the syntactic hierarchy of the second conjunct. Furthermore, the scope of in that one is determined by coordinate matching with in this town in the first conjunct. Without the matching of these two adverbials, a non-coreferentiality requirement would not be placed on the subject of the second conjunct.82 In short, coordinate feature matching is required for the recovery of a gap; it places a “tighter” interpretation such as “complete coreferentiality” on the antecedent – gap relation than the binding relation between the mayor and he. Furthermore, coordinate (feature) matching is possible between elements that are in very different positions, if these elements are scopal like adverbials. Thus, the coordinate matching of adverbials gives us one piece of evidence that coordinate feature matching in LF is at least sometimes “oblivious” to the asymmetry of phrase structure, supporting the claim that it occurs in parallel planes.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.56 (3284-3342)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Let’s move on now in light of the foregoing discussion to RNR. The fact that the recovery of a RNR gap is not prevented by asymmetric phrase structure is important to keep in mind: despite the “reverse” structure of RNR as compared to LEE, i.e. despite the impossibility for the elements which recover the gap (the pendant) in RNR to c-command the gap, recovery can proceed, as long as coordinate symmetry obtains. In this respect, RNR differs significantly from (115), where the two matched adverbials are first of all both lexically/phonetically realized, and secondly, the first adverbial with this acts as an antecedent for the second with that. In RNR, there is no antecedent at all. Nevertheless, recovery can proceed because of symmetry. In this respect RNR and and its mirror opposite, LEE, are the same: they are both coordinate structures; they both must meet the same condition: symmetry. Just as in LEE, we find RNR constructions that have licensed gaps (the required prosody is there) but are nevertheless unacceptable due to lack of symmetry. The striking property of RNR constructions remains the configuration: the pendant follows the gap, i.e. it has neither dominance nor precedence over the gap. The key property of conjunction illustrated in §4.1.4, the symmetry/parallelism requirement, and the key property of matching, that it occurs independently of asymmetric phrase structure, combine to produce the RNR construction. It shares certain properties with other forms of right-edge ellipsis, those that occur in post-initial conjuncts: VP ellipsis and sluicing. Unlike the latter, however, RNR is not possible in embedded clauses for reasons explored in §4.4. Somewhat more complex examples in which RNR is blocked are given in (116): (116) a. *Sue was writing about and Sally (was) discussing the latest scandal while listening to her favorite band b. *Paul had a wreck because he was listening to ei and Peter lost his job because he was reading [pulp fiction with sex and violence]i b.’ Paul was listening to ei and Peter was reading [pulp fiction with sex and violence]i c. *Paul had a wreck ei and Peter lost his job [in one afternoon]i (116a) is counter-evidence to the claim that RNR can target multiple constituents; here the participial clause while. . . cannot be licensed because it does not form a constituent with the preceding DP. Without being licensed, it cannot be recovered. If the while-clause is made into an adjunct – in which case it is merged later and is not interpreted as part of the gap – then acceptability increases (note that the possessive their is also acceptable in this interpretation, an indication that the adjunct is not part of the deletion target): (117) ?Sue was writing about ei and Sally (was) discussing [the latest scandal]i all while listening to their favorite band In (116b) we have the conjunction of TPs, each with an embedded clause in which the gap and pendant are located; thus two CPs occur between gap and pendant. Because the construction has a number of coordinate symmetries and the gap, a single

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.57 (3342-3391)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

constituent, can be licensed, we might expect it to be grammatical. However, there is one main obstacle to recovery: The gap occurs in an embedded clause. The features of the complementizer because, projected up to CP, interfere with the recovery of the gap, even though the matrix clauses are conjoined with and; as long as matching of the embedded clauses is prevented, recovery of the gap is prevented.83 This obstacle, combined with the fact that the elements to and reading in the embedded clauses do not support the kind of focus accent necessary for licensing the RNR gap, eliminates the possibility of recovery. Without the embedded clauses, recovery is possible as indicated in (116b’). In (116c) the semantics prevent the recovery of the pendant in the first conjunct. However, the construction is almost completely grammatical without the gap; just the addition of all in (118) makes it clear that the PP in the afternoon is not a pendant of a gap: (118) Paul had a wreck and Peter lost his job, all in one afternoon Confirming the evidence presented in §4.2 regarding the scope of PPs, all in one afternoon in (118) has scope over the entire coordinate structure, even though it is in final position. This scope is possible because of the coordinate symmetries of the construction: once they are established in LF by matching, scope is assigned to the matching domains. We return now to the question posed at the outset, whether the principle stated in (119) applies to RNR: (119) Principle of Interpretation (Recovery) on Coordinate Gaps Any element that can be licensed for ellipsis can be recovered, iff it has a symmetric antecedent in a symmetric position. Whether (119) can be satisfied in RNR depends, as we saw above, on the coordinate symmetries and adverbial scope. It also depends on the derivational operations employed, as these operations determine what elements are included in the pendant. A phase-based approach to (117) reveals that the segment beginning with all is not part of the pendant, but is selected and merged after the coordinate structure is derived: (117’) Derivation by phase of (117) (ignoring irrelevant aspects, e.g. binding) a. Output of phase 1: Sue was writing about the latest scandal (→ AM) b. Output of phase 2: Sally was discussing the latest scandal (match in LF with a) c. Conjoin (a) and (b), license for deletion: Sue was writing about the latest scandal and Sally was discussing the latest scandal d. Output of phase 3: all while PRO listening to their favorite band

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.58 (3391-3452)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

e.

Merge (conjoin) conjuncts, interface with PF, producing the output: was writing about and Sally was discussing the latest scandal, all while listening to their favorite band

?Sue

The somewhat degraded grammaticality of the final output in speech is due to the infelicitous prosody: when the adverbial modifier in (120e) is merged with the coordinate structure, the falling intonational pattern before the pendant, required for RNR, is not very appropriate. Inserting a heavy pause before the modifier improves the prosody somewhat. The analysis in (120) in any case confirms the application of the principle in (119), if we substitute the word ‘pendant’ for ‘antecedent’. This substitution is possible because recovery is an LF operation; in LF the notion of antecedent is irrelevant because the representation is in parallel planes. In the next section we conclude our discussion of recovery in coordinate ellipsis with a look at clause-internal gaps.

.. Recovery in Gapping Let’s consider the differences in the recovery operation in Gapping vs. RNR, as expressed in derivational terms.84 In the grammar model chosen here, each clausal conjunct is a phase, and AM is utilized for the retention of features and structures, thereby facilitating copying. In RNR, the first conjunct, containing lexical items licensed for deletion, is placed in AM before the derivation of the conjunct containing the pendant, the lexical items required for recovery of the gap, begins. This gap is not created, however, until after the derivation in narrow syntax is complete and the interface with PF has resulted in the non-realization of the lexical items licensed for deletion.85 Recovery occurs once the second conjunct is interfaced with LF and matched with the first conjunct. In Gapping, the recovery also occurs in LF, but the lexical items needed for it are located in the first conjunct and are thus spelled out in LF before the derivation in narrow syntax of the second conjunct. Hence, the only difference in the recovery operations is the “direction” of the matching for the recovery of the gap: in RNR, matching proceeds from the second conjunct to the first, in Gapping, from the first to the second.86 In both RNR and Gapping, the focus accent immediately precedes the gap; thus we can say that in both, the intonation signals non-completion at that point in the string of lexical items, and that in both, the intonation plays a key role in the licensing of the gap. This prosody does not determine how recovery proceeds, however, as that is an LF operation. The importance of recovery as an LF operation in which the matching of elements is required can be illustrated in another way. I suggested in §4.2.3 that a condition exists on what can occur as a remnant of Gapping that is not syntactic in nature, but rather applies to matching for recovery purposes. Examples of constructions in which this condition applies are: (120) a. *Paul wrote Mary a letter and Peter wrote Mary a letter today

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.59 (3452-3524)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

a.’ Paul wrote Mary a letter yesterday and Peter wrote Mary a letter today b. *Paul wrote Mary a letter and Peter wrote Mary a postcard today b.’ Paul wrote Mary a letter yesterday and Peter wrote Mary a postcard today The Major Constituent Constraint of Hankamer (1973) and Sag (1980) is able to prevent (120a), but not (120b) – if we assume that a postcard is immediately dominated by the VP in the syntactic structure used to formulate this constraint, and therefore should be an allowable remnant. In the phrase structure assumed here, this condition can no longer apply. The condition which prevents (120b) in my proposal – which also applies to (120a) – must be stated as a condition on the LF interface. According to this condition, a remnant that cannot be interpretively/logically matched with a lexical item in the first conjunct is not interpretable, thus rendering the ellipsis in that conjunct unrecoverable. What constitutes an element that is “interpretively/logically” matchable has already been identified by Hartmann, though her analysis is couched in a somewhat different proposal. According to Hartmann, who uses the term Maximal Contrast Principle, the key property of the remnant must be contrast. We saw the importance of this property in RNR constructions. Essentially the same interpretive principle is operative in Gapping. This principle states roughly the following: (121) Principle of Interpretation (Recovery) on Remnants in Coordinate Ellipsis To be logically interpretable, a remnant of clause-internal ellipsis must contrast with an element in the fully-realized conjunct of the coordinate structure The logic of this principle can be explained in this way: only a contrasting remnant is logically interpretable because any other will either be redundant due to the matching that occurs in coordinate structures, or licensable for deletion. Redundant DPs, because of their referential properties which can lead to interpretive ambiguity, must often be avoided in coordinate structures, as indicated in a comparison of (122a, b): (122) a. *Peteri fingj M einen Aal in der Elbe und Peteri ej B P caught M an eel in the Elbe and P (caught) B eine Flunder im Rhein a flouder in-the Rhine b. Peter fing Marie einen Aal in der Elbe und Paul ei Beate eine Flunder im Rhein c. Peter fingi der Mariaj einen Aal in der Elbe und Paul ei *(ej ) eine Flunder d. #Peter fingi der Mariaj gestern einen Aal in der Elbe und Paul ei ej eine Flunder im Rhein heute Nacht The only offending element in (122a) is the redundant subject. Redundancy of this kind is unacceptable in coordinate structures, especially those with ellipsis, simply because recovery requires matching, and the matching of identical DPs creates a logical dilemma: when both are realized in PF, the logic of interpretation dictates that they can not be coreferent, as otherwise one would be realized by a coindexed gap or a pronoun. This principle also serves economy in derivation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.60 (3524-3582)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

In (122c), considered earlier as (81c), we have evidence that interpretation of an elliptical conjunct requires full redundancy between the antecedent and the elliptical conjuncts: The referential elements of the first conjunct must all be interpreted in the second. Just a gap of the verb (alone) is not possible; there must be a gap of the IO also, and the adverbial in der Elbe must also have scope into the second conjunct. In (122d), the repetition of (81b), we have evidence that structural redundancy (symmetry) plays a role in the well-formedness of an elided conjunct: because the two temporal adverbials do not occur in the same structural position (the second position is not redundant with the first), the construction is less than well-formed.87 Redundancy also occurs with verbs which, because they select DPs as arguments and can be licensed for ellipsis, are also subject to the requirements on redundancy and ellipsis that apply to DPs. In (120a’) the lexical items wrote Mary a letter are perfectly redundant and licensable; therefore, ellipsis is a viable option. The element today, on the other hand, is not redundant; furthermore, it contrasts with yesterday and can therefore be matched with it and interpreted on the basis of this contrast. It is therefore a good remnant. The non-syntactic principle of contrast stated in (121) is intended to exclude those cases of ungrammatical ellipsis that are licensable with the syntactic licensing relation proposed here, but do not have remnants or gaps that constitute logical matches. This division of the grammar – conditions on licensing (syntactic) and conditions on recovery (semantic) – seeks, first of all, to better address the properties of coordinate ellipsis in that it accounts for more data; at the same time it demonstrates that the minimalist organization of the grammar, with constraints stated as conditions on the PF- and LF-interfaces, is on the right track. The question that arises now is why the principle in (121) does not apply to the remnants of LEE like those in (113a), repeated here as (123): (123) Diesen this keinem no-one

Weini hat Willi noch nie getrunken und ei würde er wine has W yet never drunk and would he empfehlen recommend

The remaining elements in the second conjunct do not contrast in any distinct way with corresponding elements in the first conjunct. What does LEE not share with RNR and Gapping that allows it to be free of this condition? A possible answer is the form of licensing: LEE does not rely on prosody, as do the other two forms of ellipsis.88 We recall that sometimes restrictions on remnants do appear to apply in LEE. Take for example (124): (124) a.

Diesen Weini empfiehlt Peter seinem Onkel t i und ei this-acc wine recommends P his-dat uncle and schenkt Paul seiner Tante t i presents P his-dat aunt a.’ *Diesen Weini empfiehlt Peter seinem Onkel t i und ei schenkt Paul gern t i

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.61 (3582-3637)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

b. Diesen Weini trinkt Peter oft t i und ei kauft Paul immer ... drinks P often and buys P always am Wochenende t i on-the weekend b.’ Diesen Weini trinkt P oft und ei schenkt Paul seiner Tante t i The reason for the ungrammaticality in (124a’) is clear: the two conjuncts are not symmetric enough for the unambiguous interpretation of the elliptical conjunct; we expect a double object construction (DOC) because of the initial conjunct. The reverse problem does not occur: an elliptical conjunct may be a DOC, even when the initial conjunct is not, as in (124b’). This asymmetry is allowable because the initial conjunct can still be used as a template for the subsequent conjunct that differs with respect to the first one only in that it requires a new argument in accordance with the selectional properties of the verb, i.e. the template provides syntactic features for only the elements that are elided. Any other/additional elements need only satisfy the requirements of the immediate conjunct. This restriction on asymmetry in LEE does not apply to RNR. In (125a) the two verbs trinken ‘drink’ and kaufen ‘buy’ select two and three arguments respectively: (125) a.

Meistens trinkt Peter diesen ei und Paul kauft seiner Tante and P buys his aunt mostly drinks P this-acc den Weini that-acc wine b. Meistens kauft Paul seiner Tante diesen ei und Peter trinkt den Weini

However, if an RNR construction has two verbs, one of which must select three arguments, while the other may in certain contexts select only two, then a symmetric interpretation of the two verbs is highly favored, as in (126a). However, this kind of symmetry is not an absolute requirement, as indicated in (126b, b’) (in b, b’ the additional element is the reflexive sich): (126) a.

??Peter

hat den Rotwein ei und Paul seiner Tante den P has the-acc red-wine and P his aunt the-acc Weißwein gekaufti white-wine bought ‘Peter bought the red wine and Paul bought his aunt the white wine’ a.’ P hat seinem Onkel den Rotwein ei und Paul seiner Tante den Weißwein gekaufti b. Peter wartet ruhig ei und Paul freut sich riesig [auf die P waits quietly and P joys refl immensely at the Ankunft des Zuges]i arrival of-the train ‘Peter waits quietly and Paul looks forward immensely to the arrival of the train’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.62 (3637-3694)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b.’ Peter freut sich ei und Paul wartet ruhig [auf die Ankunft des Zuges]i The lack of a strict restriction on asymmetry of this sort in RNR can be explained as the lack of a need to create symmetry based on selectional properties of verbs. Because RNR is prosodically licensed, its symmetry requirements apply only to the elements receiving focus accent and their pendants, which must be highly symmetric, while the remnant must contrast, for reasons explored above. Selectional properties of verbs, however, do not fall within the symmetry requirements of RNR; rather, a type of asymmetry is allowed because prosody apparently cannot target selectional features of verbs, only prosodic groupings.89 In sum, the principle in (121) does not apply to LEE as it does to Gapping and RNR, forcing us to revise (121) with the exclusion of LEE from the symmetry requirement on RNR. A more appropriate formulation of this principle is given in (127), consisting of two parts, one for contrast (asymmetry), and the other, more general one, for symmetry. The reference to remnants in the title of (121) can therefore be deleted; in this way the principle has broader application and generality, as it at least indirectly applies to the gap(s) as well as the remnants of coordinate ellipsis constructions (cf. 119): (127) Principle of Interpretation (Recovery) in Coordinate Ellipsis To be logically interpretable, remnants of prosodically licensed ellipsis (Gapping and RNR) must contrast with equivalents in the fully realized conjunct, and in all forms of coordinate ellipsis the remnants must provide a minimum template for the interpretation of the gap(s). The first part of (127) on asymmetry describes the need for avoiding unacceptable redundancy in coordinate ellipsis (the need for a type of asymmetry), which we will return to in §4.5, and the second part states the symmetry requirements that must apply for copying and matching. Because one fully realized conjunct serves as a template for the other and all additional conjunct(s), the syntactic properties of this conjunct determine not only the structure of its immediate conjunct, but also the minimal structure of the second and all subsequent conjuncts. A verb in the second conjunct of a LEE construction that can optionally select a DOC, for instance, must be interpreted with a DOC, if the first conjunct has a DOC (cf. 124a’). Adding arguments into the numeration of the second conjunct in accordance with the selectional properties of its verb is allowed in LEE, as the verbs are always lexically present in LEE (cf. 124b’). At this point we can fruitfully return to the Principle of Interpretation on Coordinate Gaps in (118), repeated here as (128): (128) Principle of Interpretation (Recovery) on Coordinate Gaps Any element that can be licensed for ellipsis can be recovered, iff it has a symmetric antecedent in a symmetric position.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.63 (3694-3758)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

Because Gapping targets finite verbs, we can expect that certain features come into play that do not in LEE, which targets DPs. For instance, the matching required in Gapping must extend to selectional properties (see n. 89). In (129) are given additional examples; the same requirements presumably apply in English and any other language in which Gapping occurs: (129) a. *Peter schreibt gern Kurzgeschichten und P ei am Computer P writes gladly short-stories and P at-the computer a.’ Peter schreibt Kurzgeschichten und P ei Romane (novels) b. *Peter schenkt Rotwein und Paul ei seiner Tante Weißwein P gives red-wine and P his aunt white-wine (cf. (126a)) b.’ Peter schenkt gern Rotwein und Paul ei Weißwein c. *Erika stellti-1 sich einen Urlaub am See vori-2 , und Ilse E places refl a vacation-acc at-the lake fore and I ei-1 ihrer Mutter den-acc Professor ei-2 her mother the professor c.’ E [stellt sich]i-1 einen Urlaub am See vori-2 , und I ei-1 einen in den . . .I one in the Bergen ei-2 mountains ‘Erika imagines a vacation at the lake and Ilse one in the mountains’ In (129a) the verb schreiben is a simple transitive in the first conjunct, but in the second it requires the complement am (‘at the’) + DP. In (129b) schenken is a simple transitive in the first conjunct, but in the second it requires a DOC. In (129c) vorstellen is used with a reflexive dative object in the first conjunct and in the second with a non-reflexive dative.90 The absolute symmetry requirement on selectional properties contrasts with the comparative freedom allowed in the matching of φ-features (cf. 130a), but not with the matching of T-features, which, like selectional properties, must be identical (cf. 130b): (130) a.

Peter schreibti gern Kurzgeschichten und seine writes gladly short-stories and his P ei /schreiben Romane write novels b. *Peter schrieb gestern eine Kurzgeschichte und P wrote yesterday a short-story and einen Aufsatz an essay

Freunde friends

P ei morgen P tomorrow

These differences do not falsify the principle in (128), however, if we interpret “symmetry” as proposed in Chapter 2, i.e. as a minimum number of matching features in matching positions. Clearly not all the same features are relevant in the matching of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.64 (3758-3823)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

DPs as in the matching of finite verbs. Interpreted this way, (128) applies to all types of coordinate ellipsis investigated here. To conclude this section, let’s return briefly to the role of prosody in licensing and interpretation. A requirement of prosodic licensing in RNR and Gapping is focus accent. This focus accent must interact with contrast, as Hartmann convincingly argues. This is indicated once again in (131): Peter hat ein Buch e und Paul einen Artikel → P has a book and P an article geschrieben written b. Peter schreibt viel, aber Paul e nur wenig P writes (a) lot but P only (a) little

(131) a.

(RNR) (Gapping)

The arrows must be associated with the immediately preceding element, i.e. the rising and steady intonation occurs with the pronunciation of these words. In RNR the contrasting intonational patterns (the rising pattern, i.e. focus accent) correspond perfectly with the contrasting lexical items. In Gapping the prosody is simpler because the element(s) required for recovery precede the gap(s): only rising intonation is required before the gap. The focus accent preceding the gap in Gapping is required only for syntactic licensing purposes. Once again, we see how the separation of licensing from recovery can lead to a more precise explanation of the properties of coordinate ellipsis. In the next section we turn again to VP Ellipsis (VPE) very briefly to consider other ways besides those pointed out in §4.1 in which it differs from “pure” cases of coordinate ellipsis.

. VPE .. Binding, not matching Studies on VPE – which comes in many forms – abound. Some of the most notable are Lobeck (1995), Merchant (2001) and Schwarz (2000). An interesting discussion of approaches to VPE can be found in Schwabe and Winkler (2003). Kehler (2000) combines syntactic and semantic approaches to VPE for solving puzzling questions about recovery and interpretation, analyzed in terms of coherence and resolution. The attempt will not be made here to review or summarize these accounts, for reasons that will become clear momentarily. Consider the contrasts in (132):91 (132) a. *Joei defended himselfi against the accusations, and his lawyer did too [defend himi ] a.’ Joei defended himselfi against the accusations because his lawyer couldn’t [defend himi ]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.65 (3823-3882)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

b. b.’ c. c.’

*Billi voted for himselfi and so did everyone else [vote for himi ] Billi voted for himselfi even though no one else did [vote for himi ] *The lawyer defended Billi against the accusations, but hei didn’t The lawyer defended Billi against the accusations because hei couldn’t

The contrasts between (132a, a’) and (132b, b’) indicate that binding conditions do not hold the same in coordination as they do in subordination.92 It appears that in coordinate structures with VPE, binding is based on matching – anaphors with anaphors, pronouns with pronouns – whereas normal binding conditions hold in a matrix-embedded clausal relation. With Condition C binding as in (132c), the nonnominative R-expression Bill cannot bind the pronoun he, even though it is within its binding domain, because coordinate feature matching requires he to be bound (via matching) by the lawyer, but in (132c’) with an embedded clause, Bill binds he according to the normal principles of asymmetric binding. In place of feature matching, an anaphoric relation is established between an auxiliary verb in the elliptical VP and the “full” antecedent VP for the recovery of the missing lexical items, as Williams (1997: 591) points out. Because the anaphoric relation required for recovery is facilitated by an auxiliary in T◦ , VPE is unavailable in German in the exact same form in which it occurs in English. German auxiliaries in the T◦ position seem to have a feature that English auxiliaries in the same position lack; this feature prevents the anaphoric relation required for the recovery of the ellipse. However, an adverb can suffice for recovery purposes:93 (133) a. Peter bought a white suit and so did Paul a.’ Peter kaufte einen weißen Anzug und Paul auch . . .and P too b. Peter has seen many foreign films, and so has Paul b.’ Peter hat viele ausländische Filme gesehen, und Paul auch P has many foreign films seen and P too Although hat in (133b’) is an auxiliary, it occupies a position, T◦ , that has at least one more feature in German than it does in English. For this reason, (134a, b) are ungrammatical with the parenthetical auxiliary, even though both hat and ist are auxiliaries for the past participles indicated: (134) a. Peter hat schon viele ausländische Filme gesehen, und Paul (*hat) auch b. Peter ist schon mehrmals in die USA geflogen und Paul (*ist) P is already more-times in the USA flown and P is auch too ‘Peter has already flown to the USA several times and Paul has too’ The feature that T◦ possesses in German that T◦ lacks in English is apparently a feature which lexical verbs require that purely functional verbs do not. I will not speculate on what this feature might be; that would take us too far afield, as it is not a topic directly

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.66 (3882-3944)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

related to coordinate ellipsis. In any case, the German examples add support to the account of VPE based on the anaphoric relation of an auxiliary to a previous VP.

.. Some additional contrasts and a conclusion The core difference according to the present approach between VPE and coordinate ellipsis can be identified, therefore, in the anaphoric relation in VPE which obviates the need for matching in the recovery operation. For this reason, we do not find VPE, containing an anaphor, in a position that the antecedent does not c-command, cf. (135a) vs. (135a’). Interestingly a trace of an anaphor suffices, as indicated in (135b), but only if VPE occurs in an embedded clause, cf. (135a’) vs. (135b). The ungrammaticality of (135a’) can be explained as due to the lack of movement. As posited in Chapter 3, conjuncts, in contrast to embedded clauses, may not move. Thus, there is no trace of an anaphor in (135a’) that can be c-commanded. In (135) we see that the linear sequence antecedent – anaphor must be preserved for the adverb too, both in coordinate and subordinate contexts. However, the properties of too are not related to VPE itself and therefore do not reflect a point on which VPE and coordinate ellipsis converge: (135) a. a.’ b. b.’

Sally has written many good articles, and Sue has too *Sue has e (too), and Sally has written many good articles [Because S has *too]i Sally has written many good articles t i [Because Sue has written many good articles]i Sally has t i too

The c-command requirement for the antecedent-anaphor relation does not apply in coordinate ellipsis because of coordinate feature matching, and for this reason RNR gaps may occur without the pendant c-commanding the gap, as we saw in the previous two sections. In VPE, c-command must always be preserved for the antecedent – anaphor relation. The existence of this difference supports the account proposed there, that feature matching is required for the recovery of gaps in coordinate ellipsis and that binding conditions in coordinate ellipsis do not hold as they do in a matrix – embedded relation with ellipsis. In brief, feature matching accomplishes the same thing for recovery that antecedent-anaphor binding does in VPE. It is therefore expected that symmetry requirements do not apply in VPE as they do in coordinate ellipsis. Given this fundamental difference between VPE and “pure” coordinate ellipsis, no account of VPE will be proposed here. We can come to the following two conclusions: (1) VPE utilizes an antecedent – anaphor relation for recovery that allows it to occur in non-coordinate contexts, and (2) A fruitful treatment in minimalist terms would require a whole different study. Such a study might explore whether VPE has properties not found in cases of strictly coordinate ellipsis because it combines prosodic properties and anaphoric recovery with the licensing capabilities of LEE. RNR and VPE constructions are, with respect to the antecedent – gap configuration, mirror images of each other: in RNR the antecedent follows the gap, whereas in VPE the reverse is the case. Thus, different properties are not unexpected, such as the grammaticality of VPE in non-coordinate structures.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.67 (3944-3980)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

In the next section we consider derivational aspects of coordinate ellipsis that did not surface in our discussions of licensing and recovery. In the application of derivation by phase with the possibility of copying and matching as outlined in the previous chapters, new solutions can be found for some long-standing problems.

. Coordinate ellipsis and derivation by phase with Copy and Match In this section I argue that the assumptions made thus far about the structural properties of conjoined elliptical clauses in English, German and Dutch are predicted, if we employ a derivational grammar for generating them, specifically one which is phase-based and is able to copy and match with the assistance of AM. These structural properties are: (1) antecedent and gap are in parallel or symmetric positions; (2) gaps licensed by [&] must be at the left edge of the second (and all subsequent) conjunct(s); this position is c-commanded by [&]; 3) gaps licensed by prosody, specifically focus accent, must occur in a position c-commanded by this prosodic feature, which is assigned to a position dominated by a maximal projection of the category that dominates the gap in RNR and clause-internal ellipsis (Gapping). These structural properties are illustrated in (136)–(138): (136) Licensing of left-edge gaps in Spec,TP (a), in Spec,CP (b): a.

CP-1

b.

TP-1 DPi

DPi

T’ (...) TP &

C’ C

TP (...) CP

TP-2

licensing ei

T’ (...)

&

CP-2 ei

C’ (...)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.68 (3980-4012)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(137) Licensing of right-edge gaps: (CP ...) TP-1 (...) vP v’

(...)

VP

v

(...)

V’

eP

V

P

e’ e

TP &

TP-2 (...)

(138) Licensing in Gapping in German (a), in English (b): a.

b.

(...)

(...) TP

DP

TP T’

P

DP T’

V⇒ e

T’ P

vP

o

DP⇒ e

v’

DP⇒ e DO

v’ VFIN⇒ e

v’

o

IO

vP

v’

DP⇒ e (...)

IO

v’

DP⇒ e

(...)

DO

The LEE configurations in (136) result from Move, i.e. they require minimally the vP phase. Thus, whether or not LEE occurs is not decided at the beginning of the derivation or determined by the initial structure. This sequence is predicted if we assume, as we have done, that coordinate ellipsis results from the non-realization of phonetic features in PF, and that its recovery depends on LF interpretation requiring matching,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.69 (4012-4103)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

i.e. that it is subject to PF- and LF-interface conditions and to any requirements of PF and LF beyond the interface conditions. The configurations indicated in (137) and (138) for the licensing of right-edge and clause-internal gaps are also predicted by a derivational account. In German, a V2 clause that becomes an initial conjunct in a RNR construction must be derived before a clause-final or clause-internal gap is licensed, particularly if we assume that the tense is not determined until verb raising to [T]. We turn now to a closer look at these derivations.

.. Deriving coordinate ellipsis ... LEE The derivational sequence required for the realization of a gap at the left edge, described briefly above, is itself relatively straight-forward: the linearly first conjunct is derived as any simplex sentence would be and placed in AM. Then the second conjunct is derived in the same manner; it does not need to be placed in AM for the purposes of conjunction (I won’t speculate on whether it enters AM for other reasons) but can be merged (conjoined) with the first conjunct, which is retrieved/copied from AM at this point. At conjunction Copy is induced so that features relevant to the syntactic processing and semantic well-formedness of the elliptical conjunct are transferred to the second conjunct. Wherever duplicate phonetic features occur in positions that can be licensed, a licensing relation is identified and the duplicate features are mapped to PF for non-realization. The derivation at this point meets the LF interface where matching features are identified and interpreted (recovered) accordingly. At the PF interface, matching/duplicate features skip phonetic realization, resulting in the now familiar gap. This sequence is outlined in (139): (139) Phase-based derivation of: Die Briefmarken zeigt [TP Karl dem Onkel und [TP Karl bietet sie ihm zum Verkauf an]] a. Select and merge lexical items for the first conjunct: [VP Karl [V’ [DP dem Onkel] [V’ [DP die Briefmarken] zeigt]]] b. vP phase: [TP Karl [T’ zeigt i [vP [v’ [DP dem Onkel]j [v’ [DP die Briefmarken]k [VP tj tk ti ]]]]]] c. CP phase: DP-object fronting, V → C (thereafter → AM): [CP [DP die B.]k [C’ zeigt i [TP Karl ti [vP [v’ [DP dem Onkel]j [v’ tk [VP tj tk ti ]]]]]]] d. Select and merge LA for the second conjunct, cf. (a): [VP Karl [V’ [DP ihm] [V’ [DP sie] [V’ [Adv zum Verkauf ] [VP anbietet]]]]] e. vP Phase in conjunct 2: [TP Karl [T’ bietet i [vP [v’ [DP sie]j [v’ [DP ihm]k [VP [Adv zum Verkauf ] tk tj ti an]]]]]]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.70 (4103-4154)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Merger of und and conjuncts; copying of subject features:94 [CP [TP [v’ ]]] (Die Briefmarkenk zeigt i Karl dem Onkelj tj tk ti ) ↑ | [nom/agent] und → [TP [TP K bietet l siem ihmn zum V tn tm tl an]] | [nom/agent] g. Ellipsis: und licensing for “deletion”: [CP [DP d B]j [C’ zeigt i [TP Karl ti [v’ [DP dem O]j ti [VP tj tk ti [TP und [TP Karl bietet l [v’ siem [v’ ihmn [VP z V tn tm tl an]]]]]]]]]] h. PF-realization with ellipse (recovered in LF): Die Briefmarken zeigt Karl dem Onkel und Karl bietet sie ihm zum Verkauf an f.

The properties of the left edge have been captured in minimalist syntax with the assumption that only these elements can be targets of further syntactic operations. We must include in these, for the derivation of LEE, the licensing of a left-edge gap by [&]. This licensing relation is always “available” whenever the need for it arises, i.e. whenever a redundant lexical item occurs in a left-edge position (Spec,TP or Spec,CP). Presumably, this redundancy must be identified in narrow syntax where the licensing of the lexical item for deletion takes place so that its features mapped to PF are not realized.95 Copy in narrow syntax is able to read only those features that are visible to the syntactic component. When merger of the two conjuncts occurs (preceded by merger of [&]), a feature template of the first conjunct is created by Copy from the first conjunct held in AM. This template, consisting of minimally the Case features and θ-roles, provides a basis for the licensing of a redundant lexical item; the extent to which the copy becomes a “good” template for ellipsis depends on the number of features that match, i.e. the degree of symmetry. In LEE the left-edge lexical item in the second conjunct must have the same phonetic features, but not necessarily all the same formal features. Examples from German and Dutch which allow non-matching Case features with matching phonetic features are (repeating (105a, b)): mag ich nicht, und ei ist auch nicht gut für Käsei cheese-acc like I not and e-nom is also not good for (Ger) mich me b. Die treini had ik makkelijk kunnen halen, maar ei is the train-acc had I easily can catch but e-nom is (Dt) veel te vroeg vertrokken much too early departed ‘That train I could have easily caught, but it departed much too early’

(140) a.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.71 (4154-4222)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

Despite the non-matching Case features, the ellipse can be licensed because the matching phonetic features satisfy PF symmetry requirements. Recovery of the gap occurs on the basis of shared semantic features. (140) supports the assumption, therefore, that the matching needed for identifying a redundancy, the prerequisite for licensing, occurs on the basis of phonetic and semantic features, which are present in narrow syntax, even though they are not spelled out until the interface.96 Clearly this sequence could not be facilitated without derivation by Phase. An important aspect of the derivation in (139) that warrants repeating here is that the establishment of the licensing relation relies on the temporary storage of the output of a phase (conjunct one) in AM. A template of the features contained in this output is copied for matching with the output of a second phase. Copy and Match are triggered by the selection of the element [&].97 This derivational sequence supports what has been shown to be a property of LEE, captured in van Oirsouw (1987) with a “Peripherality Constraint.” The present proposal predicts that coordinate structures can easily capitalize on the lexical and structural redundancies of coordinate structures, particulary when these occur at the left edge. The left edge is particularly suited to coordinate ellipsis for two reasons that are independent of the coordinate structure: (1) It is the domain accessible to further syntactic operations, and (2) it contains lexical items that have copies elsewhere in the derivation. In §4.5.3 we will take up LEE again in the context of a discussion of the Coordinate Structure Constraint and across-the-board operations. We move on now to a closer look at the derivation of RNR.

... RNR Much of what was just stated about the derivation of LEE clearly applies to the mirror image configuration: RNR in the first (and all but the last) conjunct. The reverse configuration doesn’t actually change the function or output of Copy and its corollary Match and how they “set up” and recover ellipsis, since these operations are integral to narrow syntax and LF respectively, and follow the same sequence as in LEE. The reverse configuration is determined by the licensing mechanism. I argue, following Hartmann (2000), that RNR requires prosodic licensing at the right edge of a clause.98 As in LEE, copying occurs in narrow syntax at the point of conjunction which, in the phase-based approach assumed here, follows derivation of each conjunct, including fronting to Spec,CP where necessary. This sequence is illustrated in a derivation in (141) of a construction that has a duplicate DO at the right edge of the first conjunct which may be elided: (141) Ellipsis of a duplicate right-edge DO (NFI = Non-Final-Intonation): Ilse schreibt ei und Erika liest [viele Aufsätze]i a. Lexical array-1: Ilse viele Aufsätze schreibt I many essays writes b. Agree and Tense: Ilse schreibt viele Aufsätze (→ AM)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.72 (4222-4281)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

Lexical array-2: und Erika viele Aufsätze liest and E many essays reads d. Agree and Tense: und Erika liest viele Aufsätze e. Conjoin; copy features:99 Ilse schreibt [viele Aufsätze]acc,th und Erika liest [viele Aufsätze]acc,th f. Merge NFI-feature and license duplicates for ellipsis: Ilse schreibt [viele Aufsätze] und Erika liest → [viele Aufsätze] g. PF realization: Ilse schreibt und Erika liest viele Aufsätze To gain some insight into the importance of the proper sequence in RNR, we consider the result of ellipsis that occurs before the derivation enters the CP phase, elected in (141’) for the fronting of an object DP: (141’) RNR prior to fronting to Spec,CP in German: a. Lexical array-1: Ilse viele Aufsätze schreibt I many essays writes b. Agree and Tense; Spell-Out (→ AM): Ilse schreibt viele Aufsätze c. Lexical array-2: und Erika viele Aufsätz liest and E many essays reads d. Agree and Tense: und Erika liest viele Aufsätze e. Conjoin; copy features; Spell-Out: Ilse schreibt [viele Aufsätze]acc,th und Erika liest [viele Aufsätze]acc,th f. Merge NFI-feature and license duplicates from Copy: Ilse schreibt [viele Aufsätze] und Erika liest → [viele Aufsätze] g. Front to Spec,CP: [Viele Aufsätze]i schreibt j I tj ti und E liest → viele Aufsätze h. PF realization: *Schreibt Ilse und Erika liest → viele Aufsätze The derivation in (141’) crashes because the ellipse at the left edge of the first conjunct, licensed in step g, cannot be recovered by matching in LF because the prosody does not indicate the correct location of the gap to be matched with the pendant.100 The crash can be prevented if further syntactic derivation is blocked after the NFIfeature is merged, resulting in the grammatical derivation of Ilse schreibt ei und Erika liest [viele Aufsätze]i outlined in (141). Whether the merger of the NFI-feature can, by some independent principle of the grammar, preempt further syntactic derivation, or whether the merging of this prosodic feature, as part of the discourse phase of the derivation, can only occur post-cyclically, are questions that I will leave to further research. However it is implemented, the sequence in which the merging of the feature, the licensing of the ellipse, and the matching for its recovery occur, must be assured. An interesting aspect of the sequence for RNR is the interface with LF in a model that assumes Multiple Spell-Out, argued in the last chapter to be necessary for cer-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.73 (4281-4336)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis

tain coordinate structures. As indicated in steps b and e, the derivation interfaces with LF. In step e the spell-out indicated in b is matched with the spell-out of the second conjunct and duplicates are determined. This matching operation is required for the recovery of the ellipse. A question that might arise is whether Spell-Out at the PF-interface must occur when Spell-Out at the LF-interface occurs, and if it does, what ramification PF Spell-Out has for the derivation. The answer that I will offer is that both PF and LF can interface at the same time without any undesirable consequences. We might (erroneously) conclude from the application of Multiple Spell-Out that a premature deletion occurs as a result of the first conjunct interfacing with PF before the second conjunct is derived. This problem does not arise, however, precisely because the second conjunct is not yet derived, for it is only on the basis of Select and Copy that duplicate features occur of which the phonetic ones are mapped to PF for non-realization. Thus, we can conclude that a model with Multiple Spell-Out is fully compatible with the assumptions about coordinate ellipsis made in this chapter.

... Gapping We consider next the derivation of Gapping constructions, beginning with the same consideration regarding the sequence, in particular the point at which the NFI-feature must be inserted. In the derivation of Germanic V2 structures, verb raising must clearly precede prosodic licensing of the ellipse by the NFI-feature. This sequence is outlined in (142): (142) Derivation of the Gapping construction: Ilse schreibt Aufsätze und Erika schreibt Bücher: a. Lexical array-1: Ilse Aufsätze schreibt I essays writes b. Agree and Tense: Ilse schreibt Aufsätze c. Lexical array-2: Erika Bücher schreibt E books writes d. Conjoin and Copy features x/y/z: Ilse[schreibt]x/y/z Aufsätze und Erika [schreibt]x/y/z Bücher e. Merge Pros feature ( ); license for ellipsis:101 Ilse schreibt Aufsätze und Erika schreibt Bücher f. PF realization: Ilse schreibt Aufsätze und Erika Bücher One step in the sequence outlined in (142) involves the merging of the prosodic feature: if it is merged too early and licenses at the point of merger, it will be in the wrong position for licensing the gap in narrow syntax, and for signaling the presence of a gap when the derivation reaches the articulatory-perceptual stage. An example of a failed derivation with an incorrect sequence is given in (142’):102



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.74 (4336-4404)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(142’) Failed Gapping when licensing occurs prior to verb raising in German: a. Lexical array-1: Ilse Aufsätze schreibt I essays writes b. Lexical array-2: und Erika Bücher schreibt and E books writes c. Conjoin and Copy: Ilse Aufsätze [schreibt]x/y/z und Erika Bücher [schreibt]x/y/z d. Merge Pros feature; License duplicates: Ilse Aufsätze schreibt und Erika Bücher schreibt e. Agree and Tense: Ilse schreibt Aufsätze und Erika schreibt Bücher

f. PF realization: *Ilse schreibt Aufsätze und Erika Bücher

In step (142’e), the verb is raised, but the prosodic feature does not raise with it, as it cannot be targeted for movement. But with the Pros-feature in the lower position at Spell-Out, matching for recovery is not possible because the antecedent is no longer in that position. This failure can be prevented, if we assume that the merger of the Pros-feature is post-cyclic, but within narrow syntax. This can be accomplished with the assumption that matching is always post-cyclic. However, earlier the assumption was made that matching is an LF operation. A solution to this dilemma is Multiple Spell-Out: the first conjunct is spelled out before the second conjunct is derived. This spelled-out initial conjunct becomes the template by Copy for the second conjunct when [&] is merged. As a template, the first conjunct provides a feature matrix (minimally Case features and θ-roles) for the second conjunct, once it is derived. If the second conjunct has the right duplicate features, these can, when licensing is satisfied, be mapped to PF for non-realization, as previously discussed. Because duplicates are not determined until after derivation (but before the interface), the Pros-feature can be merged at the point in the derivation when it can syntactically license the proper duplicate in the right position. It needs to be noted that a spelled-out numeration of a foregoing conjunct can provide a template for a subsequent conjunct only if the output of Spell-Out is placed in AM where it can be copied back into the derivation when conjunction occurs, at which point the duplicate phonetic features can be licensed for ellipsis. In the following sections further examples are given. A point of clarification must be made before we begin the next section. The determination of where duplicates occur in the numeration of a second conjunct is not the same operation as matching in LF. The latter is a recovery operation in parallel planes for the interpretation of gaps, while the former is a prerequisite for the licensing operation that targets the duplicate phonetic features of lexical items within its licensing domain. If redundant phonetic features occur, these can or must be licensed for deletion, whereas redundant semantic features lead to parallel interpretation.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.75 (4404-4465)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

... Comparing other proposals and data The present proposal is, beyond its theoretical advantages, also able to account for data that are troublesome in other proposals. Höhle (1991) points out that in a ternary coordinate structure with Gapping using or, both verbs in the non-initial conjuncts must be gapped (Höhle’s 16): (143) a.

Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz ei den Kater oder Walter ei den K feeds the dog H the tom-cat or W the Ochsen ox b. *Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz ei den Kater oder Walter füttert den Ochsen c. *Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz füttert den Kater oder Walter ei den Ochsen

Höhle proposes two “Homogeneity Conditions” to account for this restriction: (144) a.

External Homogeneity Condition: The combinatorial properties of each i B are satisfied by 1 A, . . ., m A in the same way as the combinatorial properties of every other j B are. (where A is an element external to the conjuncts and each B is a conjunct) b. Internal Homogeneity Condition: If in a conjunct i B there is an elision site licensed by an expression contained in a conjunct j B, then there is a corresponding elision site in each conjunct k B (k = i), where k B is a sister of j B.

These conditions essentially state that certain symmetry requirements apply in coordinate structures. They can be paraphrased as follows: (144) a.’ The properties that determine how an element external to a coordinate structure relates syntactically and semantically to one conjunct of the coordinate structure are the same properties as those that determine how the external element relates to every other conjunct of the coordinate structure. b.’ If one conjunct of a coordinate structure has a gap that is recovered by an element in another conjunct, then every other conjunct in the same coordinate structure has such a gap recovered by the same element. The present proposal captures Höhle’s homogeneity conditions in primarily two ways: (1) with Copy and Match, and (2) derivation by phase. When Copy and Match apply in Gapping, the previous conjunct provides the template for the next conjunct; it therefore predicts that a third conjunct must have a gapped verb, if the second conjunct does. The present proposal also predicts additional facts about Gapping. Consider first the fact that the same construction with and is not subject to the same restrictions: (145) a. Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz ei den Kater und Walter ei den Ochsen b. *Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz ei den Kater und Walter füttert den Ochsen

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.76 (4465-4528)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

Karl fütterti den Hund, Heinz füttert den Kater und Walter ei den Ochsen

It is predicted by my proposal that a third conjunct may have a gapped verb without the second one being gapped, since Gapping is an operation that may apply optionally in each phase, as long as the preceding phase provides the necessary template for Copy and has a proper antecedent for recovery purposes. These conditions are obviously met in (145c) because the second conjunct provides the proper template for the third conjunct; it is as if Gapping is “postponed” until the third conjunct – and this “postponement” is allowed because Gapping, like all forms of coordinate ellipsis, is an optional operation, as long as the condition on lexical redundancy discussed in §4.2 and §4.3 is not violated. (145b) is unacceptable precisely because it violates this condition: because füttert does not contrast with the finite verb in the initial conjunct, it constitutes a lexical redundancy that must be avoided for clarity in elliptical coordinate structures consisting of more than two conjuncts when the second one has an ellipse. When Gapping occurs in the second conjunct, we automatically expect it to occur in the third also, as predicted by my proposal which is based on the operation Copy. When it does not – permitted with an optional operation – it must meet conditions on lexical contrast and redundancy. My proposal does not predict that a second conjunct must be gapped, if it has a redundant lexical item that can be licensed. Why Gapping is optional (as are other forms of coordinate ellipsis), i.e. why füttert does not have to elide in the second conjunct of (145c), can be explained as an option of language: repetition is allowed as long as there is interpretational clarity, i.e. as long as the redundant lexical items can be interpreted identically. However, redundancy sometimes causes ambiguity; deletion is therefore required in some coordinate structure for well-formedness. This is the case when a parallel ellipse has already occurred as in (145b). This condition follows a principle like (146): (146) Principle of interpretation in coordinate structures: Identical elements in symmetric positions must either be interpreted identically, or elided. Once ellipsis has occurred, it is required for well-formedness in all further symmetric occurrences of this element. The fact that (145b) but not (145c) is ungrammatical supports the principle in (146). The picture becomes more complex with the addition of another conjunction. Consider the semantics of conjunction with or/oder, which requires a choice between equals, when it is used to conjoin clauses conjoined by und, as indicated in (147): (147) a.

Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz ei den Kater, oder Walter ei den Ochsen und Paul ei die Katze b. Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz ei den Kater, oder Walter füttert den Ochsen und Paul ei die Katze c. Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz füttert den Kater, oder Walter ei den Ochsen und Paul ei die Katze

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.77 (4528-4590)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

d. *Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz ei den Kater, oder Walter ei den Ochsen und Paul füttert die Katze The symmetries of (147), required for determining a choice between equals, can be identified in two types of structures, as predicted by the two coordinating conjunctions: symmetry between conjuncts joined by und, and symmetry between the two conjuncts joined by oder; each of the oder-conjuncts has an und-coordination. These symmetry requirements are met by matching operations as illustrated in (148); odermatching occurs the same way in (148a–d), while und-matching varies from one construction to the next: oder-matching

(148)

und-matching a.

[[lex] und [e]] oder [[e] und [e]]

b.

[[lex]

[e]]

[[lex]

[e]]

c.

[[lex]

[lex]]

[[e]

[e]] *

d.

[[lex]

[e]]

[e]

[lex]]

Two types of matching (both in LF) are required in (147) as illustrated in (148): odermatching for determining a choice between equals, and und-matching for recovery of gaps. Two types of symmetric structures occur, as predicted by the two coordinating conjunctions: (1) symmetry between conjuncts joined by und (und-pairs); (2) symmetry between und-pairs joined by oder. These symmetry requirements are predicted because matching must occur for recovery in each conjunct set with a gap. Oder-matching in (147/148) requires that an und-set may not have the gap – lex configuration present in (147d) for the same reason (145b) is not acceptable: once deletion occurs, it must for clarity of interpretation continue to occur in all remaining conjuncts, unless it can by another matching operation, as in (147b) be disambiguated. In (147b) füttert recurs in the third conjunct after ellipsis in the second. This is allowed only because the first and second conjuncts are matched as an und-set, and the third and fourth as another und-set. In each conjunct following the initial conjunct, the option is available to elide because of duplicate features in licensable positions; in (147a) matching (for recovery) occurs between the first two conjuncts of the und-coordination (the elided verb is recovered within the und-coordination); this is repeated in the second und-pair with the first conjunct of the first und-pair providing the template (one lexical item used to recover three gaps). In (147b), the option is chosen not to elide in the first conjunct of the second und-pair. This choice does not violate the condition in (146), even though the finite verb in the first conjunct of the second oder-pair seems to constitute

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.78 (4590-4648)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

an unacceptable redundancy; it does not because of oder-matching which establishes a symmetry that is independent of the symmetry required for recovery, the latter indicated with the square lines in (148). In (147c) the option is chosen not to elide in the second conjunct of the first und-pair; thus, the recovery in the first conjunct of the second und-pair occurs via matching with the second conjunct of the first und-pair. The requirements of oder-matching are met because the second oder-conjunct is symmetric with the first, despite the configuration of the gaps, i.e. the gaps do not change the status of this oder-conjunct because gaps are interpreted, when properly recovered, in the same way as lexical items. In (147d) the condition in (146) is violated because, as just discussed, in the second und-pair the first verb is gapped. Therefore the second verb of the second und-set must be realized as a gap; otherwise a problem with lexical redundancy occurs.103 We could also account for the problem with (147d) as a lack of symmetry, since the second oder-conjunct is not symmetric with the first one and thus does not provide an appropriate template. The lack of symmetry is due to the lack of focus accent where it is required for acceptable symmetry: (149) Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz ei den Kater, oder Walter füttert den Ochsen und Paul *füttert/ ei die Katze With a gap in the second und-conjunct of the second oder-conjunct, symmetry is restored and acceptability results, simply because prosodic and lexical symmetry are prerequisites for parallel interpretations. The model outlined in the present study using Phase Theory with Copy and Match will not generate (147d) because the first oder-conjunct must be a template for the derivation of the second oder-conjunct, both for Copy to provide the right features, and for recovery in LF by matching. In a phase-based derivation, oder-matching follows the matching required for the second und-pair; this sequence is required because the oder-matching involves two derived conjunct pairs (the und-pairs); they must be derived in order to have prosodic features, required for Gapping, which are merged in syntactic derivation after cyclic rule application, as pointed out in §4.5.1.3. Höhle points out that one of two possible interpretations of (150a), indicated by the bracketing in (150b, c), is blocked by his Homogeneity Condition: Karl fütterti den Hund und Heinz ei den Kater oder Walter füttert den Ochsen b. [[Karl fütterti den Hund] und [Heinz ei den Kater]] oder [Walter füttert den Ochsen] c. *[Karl fütterti den Hund] und [[Heinz ei den Kater oder Walter füttert den Ochsen]]

(150) a.

The ungrammatical (150c) is also blocked in my proposal, but no extra condition is required; it is prevented by the lack of LF matching, which in this case must satisfy the semantics of the coordinating conjunction oder. The bracketing in (150c) requires the matching between just one of the two conjuncts of the und-pair and the conjunct

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.79 (4648-4728)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

following oder. This kind of matching is not possible because of the semantics of oder, i.e. Walter feeding the ox is one possibility; the other is that Karl feeds the dog and Heinz feeds the cat. Thus, the entire und-pair must be matched with the conjunct following oder as in (150b). (150) indicates once again the two instantiations of matching outlined above. They can be summarized as in (151): (151) The two instantiations of Match: a. Matchund : local (from one conjunct to the next) b. Matchoder : may include und-pairs (150c) is blocked by independent principles of Phase and Match: The conjunction of Conjunct 1 (C1 ) and C2 satisfies (151a) resulting in [C1 ∧ C2 ]. [C1 ∧ C2 ] conjoining with C3 satisfies (151b): [[C1 ∧ C2 ] ∨ C3 ]. The reverse conjunction sequence, C1 conjoining with [C2 ∨ C3 ], cannot satisfy (151b); this sequence results in: *[C1 ∧ [C2 ∨ C3 ]]. (150c) has a logical matching problem: oder-matching requires und-pairs on both sides to match as a single oder-pair. In (150c) this results in an unacceptable asymmetry: the single C before und cannot be logically matched with [C2 ∨ C3 ]. This problem can be avoided in a phased-based derivation: The derivation producing (150c) does not reach the interface with LF because of Phase which requires this sequence: (152) Required Sequence (by Phase) for the derivation of (150): a. conjoin C1 (phase 1) and C2 (phase 2): [C1 ∧ C2 ] b. conjoin [C1 ∧ C2 ] with C3 (phase 3) => [[C1 ∧ C2 ] ∨ C3 ] The conclusion we can draw from this is that Phase Theory prevents the derivation in narrow syntax of a coordinate structure that cannot satisfy LF requirements. A similar analysis can be applied to RNR-versions of these constructions:104 (153) a.

Karl füttert ei und Heinz tränkt den Kateri oder Walter füttert ej und Hans tränkt den Ochsenj b. Karl füttert ei und Heinz tränkt ei oder Walter füttert ej und Hans tränkt den Ochsenj c. *Karl füttert den Kateri und Heinz tränkt ei oder Walter füttert ej und Hans tränkt den Ochsenj d. *Karl füttert ei und Heinz tränkt den Kateri oder Walter füttert den Ochsen und Heinz tränkt den Kater

In (153a), each und-pair has a pendant for recovery at the right edge of the second conjunct, as required by RNR (because of prosodic licensing), and the semantic symmetry requirements are met for oder, since the two und-pairs are equivalent options. In (b), all gaps can be recovered by matching with the pendant in the final conjunct; symmetry is satisfied with recovery of the gaps because the two und-pairs constitute equivalent options. In (c) the gap in the second conjunct cannot be recovered by the pendant of the last conjunct; this is somewhat surprising, since in (b) this is possible. The difference between (b) and (c) that prevents this recovery is reflected in the lack

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.80 (4728-4782)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of prosodic symmetry between the first two conjuncts which, as components of an und-pair, must be symmetric. In (b), focus accent licenses a gap in both conjuncts of the first und-pair; in (c) focus accent cannot license a gap in the second conjunct of the first und-pair because the first conjunct does not also have a gap. In short, the first und-pair does not satisfy the prosodic licensing requirements of RNR: the prosodic feature must occur (minimally) at the right edge of the first conjunct, according to independent principles of prosody. This comparison of (b) and (c) illustrates that the gap in the second conjunct of the first und-pair cannot be recovered with a pendant of the second und-pair, unless the gap in the first conjunct of the first und-pair is also recovered in this way. This parallelism requirement of RNR, linked to the prosodic licensing mechanism, dictates this form of symmetry. There is an additional problem with (153c) beyond the lack of proper prosodic licensing. It also fails to satisfy the semantic symmetry requirements of oder: even if the derivation is able to converge in narrow syntax, recovery of the gap in LF will lead to unintelligibility: (154) *Karl füttert den Kater und Heinz tränkt den Ochsen oder Walter füttert den Ochsen und Hans tränkt den Ochsen As (154) makes clear, two individuals tending to two animals (first und-pair) is not equivalent to two individuals tending to one animal (second und-pair). A shift in focus accent is required for the interpretation, but this shift constitutes a violation of the symmetry requirements of oder-matching. In (153d) the lack of symmetry also results from unequivalent options, with the reverse configuration of (153c): in the first und-pair, we have two individuals tending to one animal, but in the second, two individuals are tending to two animals. Thus, the semantic symmetry requirements of oder are not met. The symmetry and matching requirements for the RNR constructions in (153) are illustrated in (153’): (153’) Recovery of the right-edge gap Matching patterns in (153) P = pendant:

a. [[C…e] ∧ [C … P]] ∨ [[C…e] ∧ [C … P]]

(cf. 153a)

b. [[C…e] ∧ [C…e]] ∨ [[C…e] ∧ [C …P]] *

(cf. 153b)

c. [[C … P] ∧ [C…e]] ∨ [[C…e] ∧ [C…P ]] (oder-matching * ill-formed) d. [[C…e] ∧ [C…P]] ∨ [[C …] ∧ [C …]]

(cf. 153c) (cf. 153d)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.81 (4782-4821)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

In sum, (153a) is grammatical because each und-pair has a gap at the right edge of the initial conjunct; focus accent in this position for licensing the gap meets independent requirements of prosody, and the gaps can be matched for recovery with the pendant at the corresponding right edge; the two und-pairs match, satisfying the requirements for oder-matching. (153b) is grammatical because the gap – pendant configuration allows licensing and recovery (cf. 153a), though here with only one pendant for all gaps; the und-pairs match, satisfying oder-matching because the second conjunct of the second und-pair has a pendant in clause-final position, in structural symmetry with the focus accent in the other conjuncts. (153c) is ungrammatical because of the gap – pendant configuration in the first und-pair: no focus accent is possible because it conflicts with independent principles of prosody. (153d) is ungrammatical because oder-matching fails: the und-pairs do not match because in the first und-pair two individuals are tending to one animal, but in the second, two individuals are tending to two animals, one of which is the same as in the first und-pair (logical asymmetry). There is also asymmetry in the prosody which contributes to the over-all asymmetry at the level of oder-matching. Another RNR construction that can be accounted for with the proposal outlined here is (155a). The ungrammatical (155b) is also avoided: (155) a. John sold the neighbor e and Bill gave the visitor the same set of paintings b. *John sold the neighbor the same set of paintings and Bill gave the visitor the same. . . The derivation of (155a) looks roughly like (156): (156) a.

Select and derive C-1: [TP John sold the neighbor [a set of paintings]1 ] (→ AM) b. Select C2 and apply Copy: and [TP Bill gave the visitor [a set of paintings]2 ] c. Interface with LF; Match C1 & C2: set of paintings1 = set of paintings2 (→AM) d. Conjoin C1 & C2, with merger of the same105 and the Pros-feature: John sold the neighbor a set of paintings and Bill gave the visitor the same set of paintings

The copying required for this derivation, in particular the merger of the same after matching, can occur off a derived enumeration held in AM, just as in any RNR construction. However, the insertion of the same at the right point in the derivation requires that the two TPs first conjoin and then enter the LF-interface so that matching can occur, after which the anaphor the same is merged, as required for the proper interpretation of the elliptical coordinate structure. This sequence is possible with Multiple Spell-Out and derivation by phase.106

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.82 (4821-4883)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

We continue with some other constructions that pose problems for other accounts. In §4.1.2 two troublesome cases of RNR were pointed out, given here in (157a, b): (157) a.

The pilot claimed that the first nurse e and the sailor proved that the second nurse *was a spy / were spies b. Peter stated that Sue and Paul that Sally has/*have enrolled in ROTC

It appears from these that subject-verb agreement, as spelled out in PF, can be determined in each individual conjunct as in (157b), or across conjuncts, resulting in plural agreement, as in (157a). If we take a phase-based approach to these constructions, the variation in the agreement can be accounted for. The agreement in (b) is determined, as we would expect, in the phase in which the conjunct is derived. In (a), however, the agreement morpheme is not determined until after Conjunction and Match. Matching determines that the two subjects the first nurse and the second nurse share the same verb, located in the pendant. Sharing is indeed possible because the subjects are in their respective Spec,TP positions, and the verb were is in the VP (or certainly no higher than vP). Since the TP domain dominates the domain in which were is located, sharing is indeed possible. In (157b) the structure is significantly different, and correspondingly the derivation as well. Here the verb bearing the agreement morpheme, has, is an auxiliary and occupies the [T] position. Because this position is located in the functional domain, unlike were in (a), it can be merged in that position at the appropriate point in the derivation. That point is reached in the vP phase, whose output is the TP headed by has. Both conjuncts reach this point in the derivation before conjunction in the present proposal; thus, two mergers of has occur, one in each conjunct. The first one can be licensed for ellipsis as an RNR gap. In (157a), on the other hand, the feature matrix of the copular verb realized in PF as were is not merged in the vP phase but occurs already in the lexical array selected from the lexicon initially – and because of its low position in the syntactic hierarchy, sharing of it by the subjects is possible. This sharing is not determined until late in the derivation, which looks roughly like (158): (158) Phase-based derivation of (157a) a. Select and derive C1: The pilot claimed that the first nurse was a spy (→ AM) b. Select and derive C2: and the sailor proved that the second nurse was a spy c. Copy formal features and conjoin C1 & C2; LF matching: identify redundant was d. merge ; create coordinate subject – verb agreement (sharing of was → were): [TP . . . [DP the first nurse] ei & [TP . . . [DP the second nurse] [VP werepl spypl ]i ]]:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.83 (4883-4952)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

The pilot claimed that the first nurse was a spy and the sailor proved that the second nurse were spies This derivation determines agreement after LF matching, via Multiple Spell-Out, making cross-conjunct agreement possible through the asymmetric phrase structure relations indicated, i.e. were is shared by both subjects because they are in a phrasestructurally superior position to the VP. As noted earlier, this kind of cross-conjunct agreement is not possible in (152b) because the syntactic relation between the subject and the auxiliary has does not allow it: in both conjuncts the subject and has are in the same domain and must agree with each other, as in (159):107 (159) Peter stated that [TP Sue and [T’ has [v’ enrolled in ROTC Paul stated that [TP Sally [T’ has [v’ enrolled in ROTC]]]]]] Regardless of how we propose that agreement is determined in the first conjunct of (157a), the syntactic relation between the subject first nurse and was is not the same as between Sue and has in (157b). The details of agreement in (157a) need to be worked out in a detailed proposal.108 No matter what theory of agreement is used, the fundamental relation between nurse and [Vbe ] remains the same, and it is this relation which I claim makes the kind of cross-conjunct agreement proposed here possible. We note also that the lexically realized plural form were in (157a) is not phonetically identical with the gap, which has a [–pl] feature, and would be realized as was in PF if no deletion occurred. The non-phonetic identity does not prevent recovery, however, just as non-phonetic identity in Gapping doesn’t, as pointed out in §4.3.3. In both Gapping and RNR, φ-features do not have to match.109 We move on in the next section to cases of coordinate-like ellipsis that are somewhat unusual because they occur in constructions that are not strictly coordinate.

.. Symmetric ellipsis in non-coordinate structures ... The structural properties of non-coordinate ellipsis A type of ellipsis that occurs in somewhat rare, but perfectly grammatical noncoordinate constructions presents a potential challenge for the present proposal which posits the importance of coordinate symmetry for the recovery of gaps. An example of this construction type is (160):110 (160) The people who liked ei outnumbered by the thousands the people who disliked [Stephen King’s new novel]i Despite the lack of a coordinating conjunction in this construction, it has many of the properties of an elliptical coordinate structure, the most obvious being the symmetric matrix clauses, which contain equally symmetric relative clauses. The main question, then, is: What properties does (160) share with an elliptical coordinate construction consisting of conjoined clauses? More specifically, can the relative clauses in (160) be compared to clausal conjuncts? Do relative clauses share properties of con-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.84 (4952-4985)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

juncts? A comparison of the structure of conjoined clauses with the structure of a typical matrix-relative clause construction indicates that they share some structural properties (ignoring irrelevant details): (161) a. conjoined CPs:

b. matrix-relative clauses

CP C’

XP

(relp = relative phrase, rp = relative pronoun):

CP

TP

C

C’

XP

T’

DP T

TP

C

T’

DP

vP

vP

T

v’

v’ (...) V’ V

DP D

CP &

N’ N

CP XP

CP ()

C’ C

(...)

(...)

C’ 

(...)

The bracketed portions are the most relevant for our comparison. In both (161a, b), the highest maximal projection is the same; (161a) could also be the conjunction of TPs, but the differences between TP and CP conjuncts can be ignored in our comparison. The most significant difference between the two structures is the element dominated by the CP: in (161a) it is [&], in (161b) it is the relative phrase (relp), reflecting the fact that a relative pronoun can be phrasal. In West Germanic, most relative pronouns are heads that do not project a phrase. I argue in Chapter 3 for the status of [&] as a non-projecting head; it thus differs from a relative pronoun when the relative pronoun projects a phrase. Other differences between coordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns exist on the feature level, but we will ignore them, as they do not carry over into the structural properties associated with each element.111 Several similarities are evident in (161). Both [&] and the relative pronoun have a clause as a sister; for neither can it be considered a complement as a DP, for instance, is a complement of V. Neither the relative pronoun nor [&] projects the phrase that dominates it; both are dominated by a phrase projected by an external head. The similarities in the structural properties would not occur, we must keep in mind, if co-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.85 (4985-5035)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

ordinate structures were not considered to be structurally asymmetric to each other in much the same way that an embedded clause (of any type) is structurally asymmetric to the matrix clause containing it. Although these similarities between relative clauses and clausal conjuncts are interesting and informative – and some studies argue that the two should be analyzed in a unified way (cf. Boškovi´c & Franks 2000; Kayne 1994) – I will maintain that the two structures are fundamentally different, and that the properties of (160) that allow it to have a right-edge gap like a typical RNR construction can be traced to the features of a single lexical item. The comparisons in (162) indicate that certain constructions allow a right-edge gap like RNR in a non-coordinate structure, if the verb is transitive and the proper prosody is assigned: (162) a.

The people who contacted ei outnumbered/(x+trans ) the people who didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i a.’ *The people who contacted ei succeeded/failed/(x-trans ) the people who didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i b. The number of computers that passed ei exceeded/(x+trans ) the number of computers that failed [the factory’s exit inspection]i b.’ *The computers that passed e arrived/shipped out/(x-trans ) the computers that failled [the factory’s exit inspection]i

These constructions suggest that parallelism and ellipsis are closely related to transitivity. The feature [+transitive] can be compared to the core feature of [&], [+conjunctive]. Both features enable the respective lexical item to connect two structures. Although the semantics of transitivity vs. conjunction and some of the categories projected are different in each case, the structures are close to equivalent (the parenthetical portions required with and):112 (163) a.

The people who contacted ei outnumbered / and the people who didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i (all stood the same chance) b. The computers that passed ei outperformed / and the computers that failed [the factory’s exit inspection]i (all got shipped together)

The relevant structures in a combined tree diagramm are given in (164):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.86 (5035-5069)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(164) Structure common to (162) and (163), (TP with conjoining [V+trans ]; DP with [&]) TP/DP

N’

D

(DP = the people)

T’/o

DP

CP

N

who

v‘/o

Vtrans/&

DP

C’

o

([&] does not project, unlike [v])

vP/DP

T/o

TP

(v+ = outnumbered) (DP = the people)

(...)

CP (...) who

C’

v’ didn’t

TP (...)

v’

contacted

v’ DPi

(...) contact

v’

e DPi

(...)

their family lawyer

Aside from the projections in the above overlapped tree structures that don’t occur with conjunction, the two structures are identical. It might appear in this analysis to be irrelevant to the requirements of ellipsis whether or not the relative clauses occur. This is the case in the version with a coordinating conjunction, but it is not the case in the version with the transitive verb in place of the coordinating conjunction: (165) a.

The rich contacted ei but the poor didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i b. *The rich contacted ei outnumbered the poor didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i

The contrast in (165) is due to a major syntactic difference between transitive verbs and coordinating conjunctions, one that comes as no surprise: the category [&] does not select a DP complement; it has no selectional properties of its own and thus can have any projection that creates an appropriate match with the foregoing structure as a complement, whereas the transitive outnumbered cannot select a TP, but must select a DP.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.87 (5069-5123)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

A significant property of both (162a) and (163) that accompanies the clause-final position of the gap and pendant is the prosody: in both, focus accent is required on the element preceding the gap for its licensing , and non-final intonation before the pendant: (166) Prosodic structure of (162a) in (a), of (163) in (b): a. The people who contacted ei outnumbered the people who didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i b. The people who contacted ei and the people who didn’t contact [their family lawyer]i (all stood the same chance) The properties shared by these construction types underscores the importance of the overarching objective of this study: to design a grammar for coordinate structures that is highly unified with the grammar of matrix and embedded clauses, but which does not overlook the unique properties of coordination. Another construction type, given in (167) with my analysis, differs only slightly from the one in (164). It is discussed in Chomsky (1982: 67) in connection with chains and θ-role assignment:113 (167) John offended e by not recognizing immediately his favorite uncle from Cleveland This construction is also characterized by the same prosody as the one in (160); this is expected, if we analyze both as consisting of parallel structures. In (168) we have, in place of a second matrix clause, the gerund phrase by not recognizing immediately, which has a PRO subject and projects a TP (ignoring the [P] which heads the gerund): (168) [TP PRO not recognize DP immediately] In this analysis, (167) consists of parallel TPs “conjoined” by a preposition: (169) [TP John offended ei by [TP PRO not recognizing immediately [his favorite uncle from Cleveland]i] A finer phrase structure analysis of (169) as in (170a) indicates that it differs from the coordinate structure in (170b) in only superficial ways:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.88 (5123-5172)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

(170) a. Parallel TPs with [P]-link

b. Parallel TPs conjoined by [&]

TP XP

TP T’

T

XP vP

T’ T

vP

v’ v

v’ v

v’ v’

DP e

P by

TP

DP e

TP 

v’

T’ (...)

& and DP

TP T’ (...)

In this analysis the two structures are essentially identical; the differences remaining are not structural and do not affect the parallelisms/symmetries, which are required for the right-edge gaps and are predicted by the prosody, which is the same for both.114

... Deriving non-coordinate ellipsis A question remaining regarding the above cases of non-coordinate ellipsis concerns their derivation: Are these constructions derived in multiple phases as proposed for their coordinate equivalents? The answer is yes for constructions like those in (171), as they clearly consist of more than one TP/CP clause: (171) a.

[TP The people [CP who liked e] outnumbered by the thousands the people [CP who disliked Stephen King’s new novel]] b. [TP The number of computers [CP that passed e] exceeded the number [CP that failed the factory’s exit inspection]]

We recall that the derivation of RNR-type structures by phase (in multiple phases) is required in the present proposal for the recovery of the gap(s), which is based on the matching of the output of the phases, enabled by the interface with AM. The copying of the output of the vP phase for the initial conjunct, placed in AM, onto either the lexical array of the second conjunct (input for a vP phase), or onto the output of the second vP phase (for the second conjunct), with matching in LF after Spell-Out, was argued to be the appropriate derivation for all constructions with coordinate ellipsis. In this type of derivation, the constructions in (171) actually require five phases, versus two for the closest equivalent in a coordinate construction, if we assume one phase for the matrix clause and two phases for each relative clause (vP and CP).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.89 (5172-5230)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

The question arises: When does matching occur? In the coordinate equivalents, it occurs when conjunction occurs, but those in (171) do not require conjunction; the closest equivalent is the embedding of the relative clauses. A related question is: What triggers Copy and Match in these constructions? There is no [&] present as a trigger. My suggestion will be, leaving further investigation aside, that the closest equivalent to [&] is the parallelism itself; parallel structures are capable of inducing Copy and Match in the same way that [&] does when accompanied by the appropriate prosody. Under this assumption, the derivation of (171a) proceeds roughly as outlined in (172): (172) Derivation by phase of parallel relative clauses a. vP phase-1: [TP the people-x outnumbered by the thousands the people-y] b. vP phase-2: [TP who liked Stephen King’s new novel] c. CP phase-1: [CP whoi [TP t i liked Stephen King’s new novel]] d. vP phase-3: [TP who disliked Stephen King’s new novel] e. CP phase-2: [CP whoi [TP t i disliked Stephen King’s new novel]] f. Merge and license for ellipsis (merge and →); spell out: the people who liked Stephen King’s new novel outnumbered by the thousands the people who disliked → Stephen King’s new novel Copy precedes step d (and possibly also step e), as discussed above for coordinate structures. After Spell-Out in step f, matching is required between the output of steps b and c. Let’s consider now the construction in (173): (173) John offended e by not recognizing immediately his favorite uncle from Cleveland This construction requires fewer steps, as no relativization (CP phase) is required: (174) a.

vP phase-1: [TP Johni offended his favorite uncle from Cleveland] b. vP phase-2: [TP proi not recognize his favorite uncle from Cleveland]] c. merge by: [TP by proi not recognizing his favorite uncle from C]] d. Merge and license for ellipsis (merge and →): John offended his favorite uncle from C by not recognizing → his favorite uncle from C

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.90 (5230-5302)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

At Spell-Out in LF, matching occurs between the phonetically identical segments. This matching is induced by the parallelisms/symmetries: both clauses have a transitive verb and the same subject. Thus, in terms of symmetries and their role in ellipsis, this derivation is identical to the derivation of any RNR construction with [&]. In the next section we turn to some constructions that are very similar to those just considered, with the nevertheless distinct difference that they involve what has traditionally been considered to be across-the-board (ATB) wh-movement.

.. ATB phenomena and the CSC: Ross’s generalization and what it accounts for ... Comparing the structure of wh- and LEE constructions The wh-construction can be found in various forms in virtually all documented languages. In English and all Germanic languages it has the basic form of the construction in (175) when more than one clausal conjunct shares a single fronted wh-element: (175) Which book did Paul read t in one day and Peter ignore t altogether? In (175) I have indicated two traces of the fronted element which book, following traditional assumptions. In this section I argue that such ATB movement is not compatible with derivation by phase, and that it is not predicted by the present proposal. Furthermore, because the derivation of (175) moves two elements into one position, Spec,CP, it requires a mechanism for “collapsing” these two elemens into one. We must ask whether this form of “collapsing” is the syntactic and semantic equivalent of the licensing for non-realization in PF that the present proposal posits for explaining the gaps that are licensable when redundant elements occur in symmetric positions. In this section we will explore this question, looking in particular for any independent evidence that might favor one or the other theoretical solution to the “problem” of redundant elements in parallel structures. We begin with a consideration of structural/configurational properties. There are some significant similarities between the construction in (175) and LEE; these come to light if we analyze (175) as we have LEE: (176) [CP [Which book]i didj [TP Paul read t i in one day and [CP ei ej [TP Peter ignore t i altogether]]]] As in LEE, the antecedent of both/all the gaps must occupy the Spec,CP position at the left edge of the first conjunct, and the gap(s) must be in the equivalent position in the second (and all subsequent) conjunct(s). Following the claims of the present proposal, we would not expect prosody to play a role in the licensing of the gaps, given that the gap(s) are c-commanded by [&]. Indeed this appears to be the case, as there are no prosody requirements for constructions like (176) other than those required for a normal, simplex wh-question. The licensing of the left-edge gap(s) thus appears to be lexical.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.91 (5302-5375)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

In the typical, ATB analysis of this construction, licensing of wh-gaps occurs by way of a single chain relation between the wh-element at the far left edge and the traces left from movement. In my proposal, this assumption must be modified slightly to reflect the phase-based approach to the derivation: each phase (conjunct) has a chain between a fronted wh-element in Spec,CP and its trace; in all but the first conjunct the wh-element is licensed for deletion by [&]. The realized wh-element in the first Spec,CP and the gap(s) all have the same index, i.e. the same feature set by Copy and Match. This analysis parallels the analysis of LEE with DP objects outlined in §4.2.1: (177) That booki Paul read t i in one day and ei Peter ignored t i altogether In this analysis wh-fronting occurs in each conjunct, but not from one conjunct to another, in parallel with the account of DP-fronting with LEE. The left-edge gap of the second wh-element in (176) is licensed by [&]. Justification for the claim in the analysis of (176) that the left-edge wh-gap actually exists can be gathered from the same evidence used to justify the existence of the DP gap in LEE. In both construction types, the antecedent does not have be coreferential with the gaps in the other conjunct(s): [A book of political satire]x/y Paul loves to read t x and Paula loves to illustrate t y ey b. [Which book]x/y/z does Paul love to read t ? and (does) Paula love to illustrate t ? e?

(178) a.

Although wh-constructions favor an interpretation in which the gaps are coreferential, this is due to the semantic features of wh which are less compatible with the feature [–definite], required on the antecedent of a non-coreferential gap. Constructions with non-coreferential interpretations do not require different binding relations than those with a coreferential interpretation, if we assume that binding relations are defined by feature matrices, and that coreferentiality or noncoreferentiality results from a particular combination of features and not from binding itself. It is clear that an analysis like the present one which requires only one derivation for both coreferential and non-coreferential interpretations is minimalistically superior to one which requires two derivations.115 We consider next arguments for the gap of the finite verb in the second conjunct in (176). We note first of all that the finite verb may be phonetically realized: (179) [CP [Which book]i didj [TP Paul read t i in one day and [CP ei did [TP Peter ignore t i altogether]]]] Further support for the syntactic reality of the gap in (176) comes from similar constructions in which only the left-edge wh-gap is possible, and the finite verb must be phonetically realised because the lexical redundancy required for ellipsis doesn’t occur. That such constructions, as in (180), occur supports the assumption that a gap of the finite verb exists in (176), if we assume that the wh-gap must occupy the Spec,CP po-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.92 (5375-5450)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

sition, and that a finite verb must occupy the C◦ position for checking the features of the wh-element, whether it is phonetically realized or not: (180) [CP [Which book]i has [TP Paul never read t i and [CP ei will [TP Peter ignore t i altogether]]]] Further support comes from a comparison of the ellipsis of did in (176) with LEE of the finite verb in constructions like (181) which lack a wh-element (gloss for both German and Dutch): (Ger) (181) a. Läufti Paul t i nach Hause und ei Peter t i zur Schule? b. Loopti Paul t i naar huis en ei Piet t i naar school? (Dt) walks P to(ward) house and P to(ward) school English equivalents of (181) are also acceptable; they can occur with or without Gapping. I assume that since do alone may elide as an auxiliary without ellipsis of the main verb (Gapping), we have evidence that finite verb gaps occur at the left edge in English, as they do in German and Dutch, i.e. they are not licensed as part of Gapping: (182) a. Doesi Paul walkj home and ei Peter walk/ej to school? b. Doesi Paul walk home and ei Peter ride with his mother? A unificational approach to the data in (176), (181) and (182) leads to the conclusion that the gap of the finite verb exists in (176) and is elided by means of the same operations as the finite verbs in (181) and (182).116

... Does the CSC apply to coordinate DP-fronting? The question of whether ATB movement occurs in coordinate structures like (178), and whether it should be constrained by the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC, Ross 1967: 161) must be addressed when considering the approach presented here. Ross formulates the CSC as follows: (183) The Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967: 161) In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct. Ross’ constraint allows ATB movement because it does not move an element from just one conjunct of a coordinate structure, but from all of them. Fox (2000: 52ff.) argues, using data and analyses presented in Ruys (1992), that the CSC can be violated with Quantifier Raising.117 Fox’s conclusion is that the principles from which the CSC follows do not require ATB movement. Rather, they require that each of the “component structures” obey all grammatical constraints, in particular the ban on vacuous quantification. Vacuous quantification occurs in constructions like (184) which contain an unnecessary resumptive pronoun: (184) Which book did Paul read t in one day and e Peter ignore *it/t altogether?

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.93 (5450-5522)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

The same degree of ungrammaticality does not result when the equivalent of a resumptive pronoun is used in cases of LEE with DP fronting (a translates b and b’):118 (185) a. That book Paul read t in one day and e Peter ignored it/t completely b. Dieses Buchi las Paul an einem Tag t i und Peter ignorierte es ganz b.’ Dieses Buchi las Paul an einem Tag t i und ei ignorierte Peter ganz t i However, we must note that each version of (185) is ungrammatical unless a certain prosody accompanies it. In the elliptical version, the prosody must be such that the second conjunct is interpreted as a parallel structure to the first conjunct. This is accomplished by a rising intonation at the end of the first conjunct. In the non-elliptical version, a falling intonation at the same point is required, producing the effect that the second clause is more or less an added comment and doesn’t require matching for interpretation. This contrast between wh- and non-wh-elements in LEE is not an indication, however, that the respective constructions are structurally or derivationally different. Unless this assumption is made, many if not all cases of DP-fronting with LEE – depending on one’s analysis – constitute CSC violations. The phase-based approach to coordinate ellipsis presented in this chapter predicts that ATB movement does not occur in LEE, whether or not they involve wh-elements, because each conjunct (each “component structure” in Fox’s terminology) places certain requirements or constraints on its elements that do not necessarily apply in other conjuncts, or if they do, then independently of each other. For instance, in (186), even though an object DP has been fronted in just the first conjunct – in the (a’, b’) versions with subject ellipsis in the second conjunct – there is no CSC violation in the present proposal because all of the syntactic requirements of feature checking associated with the fronted DP are met in the immediate conjunct (a-versions from German, b-versions from Dutch; the gloss applies to both): (186) a.

[dieses Buch]i hat Peter t i noch nicht gelesen und Paul wird es this book has P yet not read and (P) will it auch nicht lesen also not read a.’ [dieses Buch]i hat Peterj t i noch nicht gelesen und ej wird es auch nicht lesen b. [dit boek]i heeft Peter t i nog niet gelezen en Paul zal het ook nooit lezen b.’ [dit boek]i heeft Peterj t i nog niet gelezen en ej zal het ook nooit lezen

In other words, in this proposal, the CSC is analyzed not as an independent condition or constraint, but rather as an epiphenomenon of underlying principles. These principles apply to syntactic requirements of Case, Agree, Move and Merge; in (186), no syntactic principle is violated, because [&] licenses the gap syntactically, and Match establishes the semantic relations necessary for recovering the gap, as outlined in §4.3.1. Johnson (2002) bases his analysis of certain cases of coordinate ellipsis in German on the assumption that the CSC applies to the phrase structure of coordinate structures like those in (186).119 He uses the examples given in (187), with the indicated analysis,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.94 (5522-5579)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

to illustrate CSC violations (a from Schwarz 1998: 213, ex. (54b), b from Büring & Hartmann 1998: 179, ex. (17a)):120 (187) a.

Den Hund [C’ hat einer gefüttert] und [C’ hat ihn geschlagen] the dog has someone fed and has it hit ‘Someone has both fed the dog and hit it’ b. Nach Angaben der Polizei [C’ kennt kein Opfer according-to information of-the police knows no victim seinen Peiniger] und [C’ schweigt stille] his tormentor and keeps-quiet silently ‘According to police reports, no victim recognizes his tormentor and remains silent’

Johnson claims these constructions present the following two problems: (1) Because a topicalized DP in (187a) and a topicalized PP in (187b) have moved from just one of the C’ conjuncts, these movements are in violation of the CSC; (2) How can the subject in the first conjunct have scope over the entire coordination, if the semantic scope is expressed syntactically in the way indicated by the bracketing? Johnson’s solution to these problems involves a proposal in which he outlines a “Model of German Word Order” that requires i.a. verb projection raising: (188) Johnson’s (2002) Model of German Word Order a. The verb-final Germanic languages embed VP within (a head-initial) FP. b. F◦ has a strong V-feature. c. Strong features must be checked by Spell-Out.121 d. A feature on X◦ can be checked iff something with that feature adjoins to X◦ or moves into the specifier of XP. Johnson adds this clarification: “The situations in which the verb projection raising word order is allowed or disallowed can be described in terms of preferences for the options expressed in [188d]” (p. 115).122 Let’s focus here on Johnson’s proposal for constructions like (187). We note first of all that it requires the following movement operations: (189) a. b. c. d.

verb-raising to F in both conjuncts (but not in ATB-fashion123 ) VP-raising to Spec,FP out of first conjunct verb-raising to C from the raised VP DP-fronting to Spec,CP from the raised VP

Thus, the derivation of (187a) proceeds as in (190):124 (190) a.

[IP einer [FP [F’ [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]] und [F’ [VP ihn geschlagen hat]]]] b. [IP einer [FP [F’ [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.95 (5579-5642)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

c.

[IP einer [FP [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]2 [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] d. [CP hat3 [IP einer [FP [VP den Hund gefüttert t 3 ] [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] e. [CP den H4 hat3 [IP einer [FP [VP t 4 gefüttert t 3 ] [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] It is important to note the following points about this derivation: (1) The coordinate structure does not meet the requirements of asymmetric phrase structure; it in fact requires potentially n-ary relations of the kind in (191):125 (191)

XP XP

XP

XP

XP ...

(2) The movements required for the derivation in (190) are unexpectedly not symmetric, despite the “symmetric” phrase structure: In (190b) hat moves in just the second conjunct, and in (c) the VP moves in just the first conjunct, and in (d) hat moves out of just the first conjunct. Although the asymmetric movements in (b) and (c) do not violate the CSC, which Johnson takes seriously, they are unexpected in the phrase structure assumed which predicts symmetric, ATB movements. The movement in (d) does constitute a violation of the CSC; Johnson justifies it with the provision in (188c): “Strong features must be checked by Spell-Out” i.e. feature-checking trumps the CSC. This leaves the question of what status the CSC has in syntactic theory: What purpose does it serve? Does it constitute a necessary condition on the interface? We will take up this point after we consider further points of the derivation in (190). Probably the most serious shortcoming of Johnson’s proposal, because it is a purely empirical matter, is this: (3) It cannot account for left-edge object gaps of the kind in (192) because it provides no operation for topicalization in the second conjunct and the subsequent deletion of the topicalized DP: (192) Die Briefmarkeni zeigt Karl der Tante t i und ei verkauft Heinz dem Onkel t i Johnson argues that left-edge gaps are ungrammatical, using the example in (193): (193) *Den Hundi [C’ hat keiner t i gefüttert] und [C’ hat er t i geschlagen] The ungrammaticality of this construction has nothing to do, however, with the leftedge gap, but with the scopal properties of the negative quantifier keiner. We note the grammatical (194), identical except for the subjects:126 (194) Den Hund hat Heinz gefüttert und hat Karl geschlagen Both of the problems that Johnson cites surrounding constructions like (193), and which his proposal seeks to solve, stem from the syntactic analysis indicated in (193). If another syntactic analysis is available, then these problems might be avoided. I will argue that there is a better alternative, based on the foregoing analyses of coordinate

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.96 (5642-5708)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

ellipsis in this chapter. In this alternative, the syntactic structure of (193) is as indicated in (195) with the conjunction of TPs, the first of which has a VP object fronted to Spec,CP:127 (195) [CP Den Hundi hatj [TP einerk t j t i gefüttert] und [TP ek hat ihni geschlagen] As argued earlier in this section, the fronting of den Hund and hat out of just the first conjunct escapes the CSC, if the CSC is understood as a condition on vacuous quantification and the licensing of DPs in coordinate structures. Because no quantification is involved in (195) and the features of den Hund and hat have been properly checked in the derivation, no syntactic constraint or condition is violated. Thus, the numeration can enter the interface without crashing. Turning now to (187b), the scopal problem with keiner stems from semantic features whose scope is limited by the syntactic structure that Johnson proposes.128 Let’s consider the structure outlined in (196):129 (196) Nach Angaben der Polizei kennti [TP kein Opferj t i according-to information of-the police knows no victim seinen Peiniger] und [TP ej schweigt stille] his tormentor and keeps-quiet silently There are two possible readings of this construction; the first is preferred: (1) ‘According to police reports, it is never the case that a victim knows his tormenter and remains silent’ (2) ‘According to police reports, no victim knows his tormenter and no victim remains silent’. To explain the two possible readings of this construction, we must assume that the negative element kein can either extend or not extend its scope to the second TP conjunct. The extension of scope to the second conjunct in the less preferred reading follows from the assumptions about the recovery of gaps in LEE made in §4.3.1: the gap in the second conjunct in (196) is interpreted exactly as the lexical items with which it is indexed, i.e. with the negation. The preferred interpretation does not, however, extend the scope of negation in this way. Rather, negation is not part of what is matched but rather remains independent of the feature matrix of Opfer; only the features of the NP Opfer are matched. This interpretation is possible because of feature-based matching, but also because the scope of negation does not automatically extend to a second conjunct. It is the preferred reading because matching in coordinate NP structures targets the features of the NP first, and only by some other interpretational mechanism also targets the features of a negative element like kein. The preferred reading of (196) in which the scope of kein does not extend to the second conjunct can be better understood by comparison to (197). We note that the scope of nicht and nie does not extend to the following conjunct(s):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.97 (5708-5759)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(197) a.

Peter füttert den Hund nicht, tränkt die Katze manchmal, und P feeds the dog not waters the cat sometimes and streichelt nur die Gans strokes only the goose a.’ Petra füttert den Hund immer (always), tränkt die Katze nie (never), und streichelt die Gans selten (seldom)

Let’s compare the scope of negation with the scope of quantification as exemplied in (198): (198) a. a.’ b. b.’

Many victims see their tormenters and remain silent Many victims see their tormenters and many victims remain silent No victims see their tormenters and remain silent No victims see their tormenters and no victims remain silent

The quantificational scope in (198a) and (198a’) favors the interpretation in which both constructions have the same meaning (with the alternate interpretion of (198a’) that the set of ‘many’ in conjunct 1 = the set of many in conjunct 2). The (strongly) preferred interpretation of (198b’) is one that is distinct from (198b), i.e. one in which the first event ‘see their tormenters’ is not connected or related to the other event ‘remain silent’. The source of the difference between (198b) and (198b’) is not due to quantification, but to negation, which could be called zero quantification. Since it was already established in (197) that negation does not necessarily extend from a dominant conjunct to a dominated one, then we have to look to the properties of negation and conjunction, and not to the structural properties to find the difference between (198b) and (198b’). The important properties, I will claim, are (1) that the scope of negation can extend beyond one conjunct, and (2) it is conjunction which enables the extension of the scope of negation. Specifically, it is the matching that is required for the interpretation of coordinate structures that extends the scope of kein in (196) to the second conjunct, and it is matching that requires the interpretation of (198b) in which the two events are connected because the subject of the first vP conjunct is shared by the second vP conjunct (see discussion in §4.1.4). Scope must be seen also from a derivational perspective. When the first conjunct is derived and its formal features have been copied to the next conjunct, it is determined by LF matching that the negative scope of the element kein can be extended to the second conjunct. Therefore, either the DP das Opfer ‘the victim’ or es ‘s/he’ is selected as the subject of the second conjunct. These can be coindexed with the antecedent kein Opfer, whose feature [+neg] is copied to the second conjunct. Evidence that such copying exists is available in a comparison of (199a, b, c): (199) a.

Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opferi seinen Peiniger und ei schweigt stille b. Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opferi seinen P und esi schweigt stille

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.98 (5759-5831)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c.

?Nach

Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opferi seinen P und das Opferi schweigt stille

All three of these sentences have the same interpretation. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that just the derivation of (199a) must avoid a CSC violation and be derived in a certain way so that the resulting structure allows the subject in the first conjunct to have scope into the second conjunct for the recovery of the gap.130 Another construction whose derivation can be substantially simplified in comparison with the proposal of Johnson (2002) and Schwarz (1998) is: (200) Die Suppe wird der Hans essen und sich hinlegen Johnson proposes the analysis in (201) – which is essentially the same as his derivation of (187) in (190) – based on the assumption that a CSC violation must somehow be justified:131 (201) Johnson’s derivation of (200) a. [IP der Hans [I’ [FP [F’ [VP [VP die Suppe essen wird] und [F’ [VP [VP sich hinlegen wird]]]]]]]] b. [IP der Hans [I’ [FP [F’ wirdi [VP [VP die Suppe essen t i ] und [F’ wirdi [VP [VP sich hinlegen t i ]]]]]]]] c. [IP der H [I’ [FP [die S essen]j [F’ wirdi [VP [VP t j t i ] und [F’ wirdi [VP [VP sich h-l t i ]]]]]]]] d. [CP wirdi [IP der H [I’ [FP [die S essen]j [F’ t i [VP [VP t j t i ] und [F’ t i [VP [VP sich hinlegen t i ]]]]]]]]] e. [CP [die S]k wirdi [IP der H [I’ [FP [t k essen]j [F’ t i [VP [VP t j t i ] und [F’ t i [VP [VP sich hinlegen t i ]]]]]]]]] This derivation differs in one respect from Johnson’s derivation of (187): it requires ATB movement of wird which moves both occurrences of wird into one position in C◦ . This difference underscores a problem with (190) mentioned earlier: we expect symmetric (ATB) movement as in (201), but that is not possible in the derivation that Johnson chooses. However, I am not advocating ATB movement as a requirement on the derivation of any of these constructions. A serious problem with ATB movement can be illustrated with (202): If this construction were extended by n-number of conjuncts, then n-number of occurrences of wird would need to be moved into one C◦ position. It is very possible to extend this construction without any loss of grammaticality: (202) Die Suppe wirdi der H [essen] t i , [sich hinlegen] t i , [fernsehen] the soup will the-nom H eat refl down-lay far-see

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.99 (5831-5907)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

t i und [einschlafen] t i and in-sleep ‘Hans will eat the soup, lie down, watch TV and fall asleep’ There are at least two theoretical reasons for questioning ATB movement. One, it requires the movement of multiple items into one position, for which the opposite or reverse operation of iteration, the expected derivational mechanism of coordinate structures, is required. Two, in the conjunction of clauses, each of which is a phase, movement of an element like wen ‘whom’ in Wen mag Maria nicht ei liebt Erika ei und ignoriert Luise ei ? (‘Whom doesn’t Mary like, does Erica love and Louise ignore?’) movement of wen must occur from one phase to the next. This type of ATB movement conflicts with the assumptions of derivation by phase argued in Chomsky (1999) and adopted here for the present proposal. In the derivation of (200) that I will outline below, an ATB movement operation can be avoided. Furthermore, fewer steps are required, and in each step there is a construction that corresponds to a linguistic reality of German. In Johnson’s proposal, the derivation of (201c) from (201b) is actually regressive: from a V2 first conjunct comes a verb-final conjunct. If we assume, as does Johnson, that German is underlyingly an OV language, then this derivational step has no theoretical or empirical support. Additionally, the verb-final first conjunct in (201c) is conjoined with a verb-second conjunct; although such constructions occur in German, they are possible only when the initial, verb-final clause is embedded: (203) a.

Wenn Hans die Suppe isst und legt sich hin, dann. . . if H the soup eats and lays refl down, then. . . ‘If Hans eats the soup and lies down, then. . .’ b. *Hans die Suppe isst und legt sich hin H the soup eats and lays refl down

Although the constructions Johnson proposes are only “underlying” in a derivation, it remains a question why they do not occur as the final output of a derivation, if the operations needed to generate them actually existed. This point is controversial, but not unwarranted; it relates to the basic objectives of this study, which has the core assumptions of the Minimalist Program as a starting point in which unnecessary operations must be assumed to be invalid. Following this principle, I propose the following derivation of (200): (204) Phase-based derivation of (200): Die Suppei wird der Hans ti essen und sich hinlegen a. Select lexical array: Hansi die Suppe essen Hansi hinlegen b. Merge lexical items for the first conjunct: [VP Hansi [V’ [DP die Suppe] essen]] c. vP phase generating a TP (with merger of aux-fut in T◦ ) [TP Hans [T’ wird [vP [v’ [DP die Suppe] [VP t t essen]]]]]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.100 (5907-5951)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

d. Extract and merge lexical items for C-2 (subarray): [VP [V’ [DP Hans] hinlegen]] Note: Hans as DO e. Derive conjunct 2 (as subphase of the vP Phase in c): [vP [v’ [DP Hansi ] [VP ti hinlegen]]] f. Merge conjuncts (with merger of und and reflexivization): [TP H i [T’ [vP [v’ [DP ] [VP t t [V’ ]]]]]] (H wird die S essen) ↑ und → [vP [vP [v’ [DP sichi ] [VP ti hinlegen]]]]] In terms of number of steps, this derivation has no advantage over Johnson’s; however, what constitutes a step is not always precise. More importantly, in none of the steps in (204) is a numeration derived which conflicts with assumptions about German syntax, or which requires a derivational operation that generates non-existing constructions. The most important advantage of the derivation proposed here is an empirical one: it is able to capture a set of data that Johnson’s cannot, namely V2 constructions with a left-edge object gap (either direct or indirect).132 In the last analysis of this chapter, we take a brief look at the parasitic gap construction, which has some properties of conjoined wh-constructions (those requiring ATB movement in the standard analysis). We will see that, once again, the property lacking is coordinate symmetry; thus, this construction cannot be derived using the operations central to coordinate ellipsis: Copy and Match.

.. Comparing the parasitic gap construction to the ATB construction In a highly revealing analysis, Hornstein and Nunes (2002, hereafter H&N) come to the conclusion that parasitic gap constructions (PGCs) lack the “Parallelism Requirement” that allows ATB constructions to be more “permissive” in the sense that sideward movement, used in their analysis to derive both PGCs and ATB constructions, can be triggered by either the Parallelism Requirement or by Last Resort in ATB constructions, but not in PGCs.133 This conclusion converges with the proposal outlined here in that in both, some form of parallelism (or symmetry) is considered to be a unique property of coordinate structures, and for this reason, PGCs cannot be derived in exactly the same way as ATB constructions. We will not look at the details of their derivation of PGCs using sideward movement. Of interest here is the so-called “Parallelism Requirement” – a term used by Chomsky (1995: 203) also – and the way it triggers sideward movement in ATB constructions. Sideward movement is outlined in (205), and consists of two steps: a simple Merge operation, and the sideward movement operation which merges “a copy of α with . . . a syntactic object L, which has been independently assembled and is unconnected to K” (H&N, p. 27, their 4):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.101 (5951-6014)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

(205)

For their derivation to work, H&N must posit that the coordinating conjunction in a construction like (206) heads its own projection (cf. Munn 1987), and that the computational system selects lexical items of N and forms the two objects in (207): (206) a. Which book did you read and Mary recommend? b. N = {which1 , book1 , did1 , Q1 , you1, read1 , and1 , Mary1 , recommend1 } (207) a. K = [andP and [Mary did recommend [which book]]] b. L = read This derivation can converge only if which book is copied from K and merged with read. They assume that the Tense element did has already been used to build K in (207a); thus, “a convergent continuation of the stage in [207] will also require sideward movement of did” (op. cit.: 32). Further computations beyond these two instances of sideward movement yield the structure in (208a). Then the strong features of Q trigger additional copies of did and which book, and the CP in (208b) results. In PF the traces of each chain involving did and which book delete in order for the CP to be linearized as in (208c) (their 20): [CP Q [didk [andP [you read [which book]i ] [and’ [Mary didk recommend [which book]i ]]]] CP b.

(208) a.

[which book]i didk+Q

C’ andP

[ you didk read [which book]i] and’ and

c.

[ Mary didk recommend [which book]i]

[CP [which book]i [C’ didk +Q [andP [you didk read [which book]i] [and’ and [Mary didk recommend [which book]i]]]]]

Three observations on (208) can be made at this point: (1) The assumption of Munn (1987) that [&] projects its own phrase was refuted by Munn (1993) himself, and challenged by the present study in Chapter 2. (2) It is not clear what role the Parallelism Requirement plays in this derivation. Despite the highly detailed analysis, it seems to lack an explanation for what triggers Merge and Delete and how these operations target the proper elements: Is the trigger the Parallelism Requirement? Does it identify the target? If so, how? Although the Parallelism Requirement is assumed to

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.102 (6014-6091)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

trigger sideward movement, of which Copy is a central operation, it is not stated that it triggers Delete. These specific questions raise a more general one: What is the Parallelism Requirement as assumed by H&N? In my reading, they do not provide an explanation for the source of this requirement. We can approach this question by way of two points about the H&N proposal: (1) Even though they assume the Parallelism Requirement, the two conjuncts that their derivation generates are not parallel with respect to verb position. (2) The conjunction of these two clauses results in the ungrammatical construction in (209a) before did-deletion occurs. The derivation doesn’t appear to be able to generate (209b), however, which is fully grammatical: (209) a. *Which book did you read and Mary did recommend? b. Which book did you read and did Mary recommend? The ungrammaticality of an enumeration may not be a problem in the grammar that H&N assume. However, a theory-independent question needs to be raised: Must deletion in the derivation of coordinate ellipsis be required? According to the data investigated in this study, only in those cases in which a redundant DP causes unacceptable ambiguity (constitutes an unacceptable redundancy) is deletion a requirement for grammaticality. In none of the cases of coordinate ellipsis involving verb gaps investigated in this study was deletion a requirement. This fact draws a sharp contrast between the present approach, and the approach of H&N. In other respects, however, the two studies converge, specifically in the pursuit of the very worthwhile goal of unifying the derivation of ATB constructions with certain non-coordinate constructions (in their case the derivation of PGCs), and more broadly with the derivation of any construction that requires Merge, Move, Copy and Delete. A solution to the problems with the H&N proposal that I have raised has already been given in this study. It is also based on the assumption that the derivation of coordinate structures should be unified with the derivation of non-coordinate structures. However, in the present proposal the Parallelism Requirement is taken a bit more seriously, and the attempt has been made to explain it and how it should be captured in a generative grammar. The claim is made that [&] triggers Copy, which is the source of the Parallelism Requirement, following the logic that the central property of [&] is a trigger of Copy and Match for coordinate iteration and interpretation. This approach predicts conjuncts that are indeed parallel, and it is able to capitalize on the fact that a matching operation is required for the interpretation of, most notably, elliptical coordinate constructions. For this reason, this approach posits a derivation that does not require the enumeration in (209a), but rather posits the analysis in (210): (210) [CP [Which book]i did [TP you read t i and [CP ei did [TP Mary recommend t i ]]]]? This analysis was the focus of detailed investigation earlier in this section.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.103 (6091-6135)

Chapter 4. Deriving coordinate ellipsis 

. Chapter summary and conclusion Much of what needs to be stated as summary and conclusion was outlined briefly at the end of the previous section: In this chapter I have argued that symmetry in coordinate structures with ellipsis derives from the operations Select, Copy and Match. These operations guarantee in the appropriate conjoined structures that certain lexical items in one structure are reiterated (on a feature-by-feature basis) in a parallel structure by Copy and are interpreted identically by Match in LF. This reiteration produces redundancies that can sometimes be licensed ellipsis via the non-realization of phonetic features in PF, and must be if ambiguity results from redundancy. What can be licensed depends on the structure, and the element that licenses does not have to be a lexical item; it may be a prosodic feature that is mapped from narrow syntax – where it exists necessarily as a syntactic feature – to PF for realization in the prosodic contours of the construction, thus satisfying the requirements of the articulatory-perceptual side of language generation. The role of derivation by phase in this proposal must be underscored. The H&N account does not assume a phase-based approach; it cannot, therefore, be extended in a unified way to the types of coordinate ellipsis investigated here, for which it must be assumed that the first clausal conjunct needs to be derived before the second conjunct, if the first conjunct is to be a template for Copy. Their account does not posit a Copy operation that targets an entire preceding conjunct, unlike the present proposal. A central claim here is that parallelism/symmetry results from Copy, and that it is not found in just individual elements of a conjunct, but in structures as well. This notion of parallelism does not, however, posit that coordinate structures will always be structurally symmetric or isometric, but that coordinate constructions with ellipsis do have to meet minimum requirements on symmetry (which vary slightly from construction to construction), both featural and structural. These requirements have been outlined in the various sections of this chapter dealing with the three types of coordinate ellipsis: LEE, RNR and Gapping, representing left-edge, right-edge and clause-internal positions, respectively. The breakdown of coordinate ellipsis into three types does not require, however, that the operations needed to derive each type differ, i.e. the derivations are not construction-specific. All three types require syntactic licensing of the gap (either prosodic or lexical), and all three require LF recovery of the gap via coordinate feature matching, for which there is independent evidence. Furthermore, all three rely on derivation by phase for setting up the sequence that is needed for generating the symmetries that distinguish each type. In short, derivation by phase with Copy and Match offers the flexibility that is needed for capturing the distinctive properties of each ellipsis type, while at the same time drawing on general principles that underlie all three types. At the outset of this chapter several questions were raised to which answers are now available. These were: (1) How or at what level of representation is coordinate ellipsis resolved? (2) What are the syntactic conditions which define the distribution

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 15:25

F: LA8904.tex / p.104 (6135-6158)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of different sorts of elided elements? (3) What is the relation between ellipsis and pronominal anaphora? (4) Is coordinate ellipsis the result of PF deletion or the initial presence of empty categories in the derivation of a sentence? (5) To what extent can one treat distinct types of ellipsis as cases of a single phenomenon? The answer to the first two questions was provided on numerous occasions: Coordinate ellipsis is licensed in narrow syntax by either [&] or a prosodic feature (focus accent of some degree), and recovered in LF. Thus, in my proposal, the availability of an appropriate licensing element defines the distribution of elided elements; their resolution is an LF matter. The short section on VPE addressed the third question; there it was determined that pure coordinate ellipsis does not rely on an anaphoric relation for recovery, unlike VPE. The answer to the fourth question is the former option: PF deletion; positing the presence of empty categories in a numeration before the interface with PF fails to account for the function that elements licensed for non-realization in PF have in the derivation, on par with other elements. The last major section addressed the fifth question. We have seen that pure coordinate ellipsis, in contrast to both parasitic gaps and VPE, must meet requirements of parallelism/symmetry that these other cases of ellipsis do not. Furthermore, parallelism/symmetry plays a central role in the recovery of the ellipse, a hypothesis that is supported by independent evidence that matching occurs in the interpretation of elliptical coordinate structures.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.1 (47-127)

Chapter 5

Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic

. Introduction Certain assumptions about the syntactic structure of German and Dutch are made in the previous chapter that are not explicitly defended or brought up for discussion. The purpose of this final chapter is to do that, if ever so briefly, building on te Velde (1992). Several additional studies could be devoted to these assumptions, and many studies already exist that deal with them. Therefore, my analysis will be restricted to the question of whether these assumptions need to be revised or replaced in light of the data presented in Chapter 4, and additionally whether coordinate structures can more conclusively reveal something about the syntactic structure of West Germanic, the primary focus of this study, and whether they provide support for a particular syntactic theory. Both empirical and theoretical considerations will come into play in answering these questions. To a certain extent, the success of the proposal made to account for coordinate ellipsis is dependent on what assumptions have been made about the syntactic structure of German, Dutch and English. It is therefore imperative that we consider whether these assumptions are defensible, in particular, to test whether they are compatible with properties of not only coordinate, but more importantly with simplex structures in these languages. Given the emphasis placed in this study on unification, specifically on constructing a model that can account for coordinate structures with few additional rule mechanisms or operations specifically for coordination, this chapter’s evaluation should help measure the success of the preceding chapter. The assumptions made here do not depart substantially from those in the generative literature on the syntax of Germanic languages. Of course, this literature is not uniform; therefore, the conclusions drawn here will hopefully help make better choices amongst the many proposals available in this literature. The wide variety of proposals in one sense leads to greater difficulty for studies on coordination, which arguably should be built on these studies, assuming, as I have, that coordinate structures should not require a separate grammar. But this variety also provides a window of opportunity for studies such as this one to contribute to the discussion of what a derivational grammar of Germanic might look like. It is this window that I would like to take advantage of in what follows.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.2 (127-183)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

With this purpose in mind, we begin in §5.1 with probably the most interesting area of the sentence, the left periphery, with its now-familiar left-edge gaps. In §5.2 we turn to evidence from other forms of coordinate ellipsis and what it reveals about the CP-domain, and then in §5.3 we consider whether this evidence leads us to the conclusion that this domain actually contains more than one head position, as argued by Rizzi (1997) for Romance. In §5.4 we take up very briefly what Gapping constructions suggest about the structure of the German vP/VP. A short conclusion follows in §5.5.

. The left edge and coordinate ellipsis The left edge is particularly interesting because it is the “slot” in the sentence that is targeted by Move, and as such the area where the functional features of the lexical items are checked before Spell-Out. Germanic languages, because of their V2 properties, utilize the CP phase in a somewhat different manner than non-V2 languages. They therefore provide a correspondingly different array of data for the investigation of the left periphery.1 One of the most interesting debates in the literature on the Germanic left periphery centers around subject-initial declaratives: Do their properties lead us to the conclusion that the CP phase is not needed to derive them? i.e. Is it possible that the Germanic languages have two distinct V2 domain, TP and CP? Furthermore, is it possible that this division is two simplistic, i.e. is the left periphery actually more finely structured than what can be identified with these two categories, as argued by Rizzi (1997)? My position thus far has been that subject-initial verb-second clauses are TPs. In the next sections I will elucidate some arguments based on coordinate structures and their derivation to defend this position, argued first for German by Travis (1984) and then for Dutch by Zwart (1993, 1997). As noted above, we will explore in §5.3 whether a system like Rizzi’s can better account for the observed properties of both subject-initial and various other (non-subject-initial) declaratives. The most notable studies defending the generalized V-to-C analysis – by which all declaratives, like all interrogatives, imperatives and subjunctives, are CPs – are presented in Vikner (1995) and Vikner and Schwartz (1996).2 Platzack (1996, 1998) also argues for this analysis, using a theory of CP that requires three projections above TP: ForceP, FinP and µP, the last of these a feature-less phrase existing only if something is raised to its head position (1998: 65). It would seem that the simplicity of the den Besten (1977) uniform V-to-C theory, in which the V2 requirement results from the availability of just one Spec position to the left of [C], would be more appealing to a minimalist theory, as then V2 is merely a matter of the complementary distribution of the finite verb and the complementizer: both “compete” for the same position. By comparison, a theory such as Rizzi’s, with a much finer structure at the left periphery (CP domain), would seem to lead away from minimalist objectives and further complicate accounts of the V2 rule. My final conclusion will be that, regardless of how the V2 requirement is met, we need to assume, based on coordinate structures, that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.3 (183-269)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

there is an asymmetry between subject-initial and object-initial V2 clauses. Furthermore, a theory of licensing is needed for left-edge gaps; the theory proposed in §4.2, we will see, supports this subject-object asymmetry. And finally, the data from coordinate structures in West Germanic do indeed appear to require a finer structure than what has been assumed in this study, though not as refined a structure as proposed by Rizzi. However, his system is not necessarily incompatible with the present proposal.

.. LEE and the left edge in Germanic: Reviewing the data It is an interesting fact that RNR can occur universally – supporting data are provided in the appendix of this chapter – but left-edge deletion of DP-objects in declarative sentences, clearly grammatical in German, Dutch and English, and to a more limited extent in the North Germanic languages, does not occur in, for instance, the Romance languages.3 The absence of left-edge object gaps in Romance, if due to the lack of V2 in these languages, would provide support for the present analysis and is therefore an interesting area for further research.4 The contrasts and similarities between Germanic and Romance declaratives could be viewed as primarily one between the targets of subject raising and object fronting, Spec,TP and Spec,CP respectively. In this chapter I argue, based on coordinate structures, that Germanic utilizes two targets and, crucially, that the V2 effect in subject-initial declaratives obtains without subject fronting to some domain in CP. For this reason left-edge object gaps occupy a different position than left-edge subject gaps, as assumed in the previous chapter. However, the same syntactic licensing relation underlies both subject and object gaps: [&] licenses both by c-command. The deletion site in LEE, at the left edge of a TP or CP, and the licensing mechanism, by [&] without the need for any prosody, lie at the basis of its unique properties.5 Although both subject and object gaps at the left edge can be licensed by [&] in my proposal, a central feature of coordinate ellipsis in my account is that the two gaps are not in the same position. If this assumption can be convincingly argued, then coordinate structures have contributed to our understanding of the syntactic structure of Germanic. Another way to get at this point is through this question: Is it possible to account for both subject and object gaps with one and the same structure, as argued in the generalized V-to-C analysis? In other words, does the left-edge gap always occur in Spec,CP (or Spec,TopP)? More concretely, are all of the left-edge gaps in (1) in some Spec of CP? (1) a.

Peter liest gern Werke des Sturm und Drang und ei P reads gladly works of-the Storm and Stress and schwärmt für Goethes Werther “swarms” for G’s Werther ‘Peter likes reading works of the Storm and Stress and raves about Werther’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.4 (269-289)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b. Den Werther liest Peteri jeden Tag und ei will jetzt ein every day and wants now a the-acc Werther reads P Referat dazu schreiben paper it-to write ‘Werther Peter reads every day and now he wants to write a paper on it’ c. Wann hat Peteri Werther gelesen und ei konnte sich nicht when has P Werther read and could refl not erholen? recover ‘When did Peter read Werther and wasn’t able to recover?’ d. Den Wertheri hat Paul nicht gelesen und ei wird Paula auch the Werther has P not read and will P also nicht lesen not read ‘Paul hasn’t read Werther and Paula won’t read it either’ e. Weni küsste Peter auf der Party, ei ignoriert Paul seit Who-acc kissed P at the party ignores P for Wochen, und ei wird Hans heiraten? weeks and will H marry ‘Who did Peter kiss at the party, has Paul ignored for weeks and will Hans marry? f. Deze treini rijdt verder als IC naar Groningen en ei zal alleen this train travels farther as IC to G and will only stoppen te Assen stop in A g. Die treini had ik makkelijk kunnen halen, maar ei heb ik That train had I easily can catch but have I gemist omdat de St. Annastraat opgebroken was missed because the St. Anna-Street up-broken was ‘That train I could have easily caught, but I missed it because St. Anne’s Street was broken up’ h. This winei a New Yorkerj loves and ei ej will usually buy in large volume i. This winei New Yorkers will not drink nor ei would they serve to friends The answer to both of the above questions in my proposal is: no, we need two positions in two distinct domains, each of which can occur at the left edge, in order to account for the properties of LEE, particularly if we choose to analyze them in a minimalist framework, using derivation by phase. This latter point we will take up again in §5.1.4. Let’s consider first of all some independent evidence that supports the structure in (2a) for subject-initial declaratives, and the structure in (2b) for declaratives with a fronted VP argument.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.5 (289-345)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(2) a. subject-initial declaratives

b. object-initial declaratives

TP DP

CP T’

subject T

DP object C

vP XP

TP DP

v’ v

C’

VP (...)

subject T

T’ vP (...)

Several arguments can be constructed using the data in (1) to support the assumption that both (2a) and (2b) form the basis of Germanic V2 constructions. The first has already been suggested: Subject raising to Spec,TP is arguably a universal, or at least an operation that occurs in the majority of sentences of all types (not just V2 declaratives) in English, German and Dutch.6 The rather rare exceptions in German and Dutch are found in constructions that have somewhat unique properties, such as those in (3) (3a from German, 3b from Dutch): (3) a.

[CP Beim Vortrag isti [TP ihm t i [vP ein Fehler unterlaufen]]] at-the lecture is him a mistake underrun ‘At the lecture he made a mistake’ b. [CP Tijdens de lezing isi [TP hem t i [vP iets raars during the lecture is him something strange overkomen]]] overcome ‘During the lecture something strange came over him’

This assumption about subject raising to Spec,TP is not controversial. What all syntacticians do not agree on is whether the Spec,TP position is ever a “terminal” position in German and Dutch. There are several forms of evidence that it is. Zwart (1994: 5) points out that in Dutch, weak subject pronouns may be clause initial, but weak object pronouns may not: (4) a.

Ze/Zij komen they-wk/st come b. *Ze/Hen ken ik niet them-wk/st know I not

The same is true in German:7 (5) a.

Sie/SIE kommen they-wk/st come b. *Sie/SIE kenne ich nicht them-wk/st know I not

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.6 (345-400)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

The assumption that only strong object pronouns (those that can be stressed) may be fronted because only strong pronouns have the properties necessary for occupying Spec,CP is supported by the proposal made here that object fronting requires the CP phase, which is a phase that is required for topicalization and other non-agreement requirements, the latter satisfied in the vP phase (TP domain). Furthermore, the assumption that left-edge gaps in conjoined V2 structures must be licensed by the coordinating conjunction requires the triggering of DP-fronting to Spec,CP for leftedge object gaps. Important to note is that identity of structural position between gap and antecedent alone is not enough for licensing the gap in a conjoined V2 clause. If it were, as proposed in Zwart (1993: 252), then we would expect the gaps in (6) to be permissible:8 (6) a.

[CP Gestern ging [TP eri in die Stadt und [CP da kaufte yesterday went he into the city and there bought [TP *ei /er ein neues Auto]]]] he a new car ‘Yesterday he went to town and there he bought a new car’ a.’ [CP Gestern ging [TP eri in die Stadt und [TP ei kaufte da ein neues Auto]]] b. [TP Eri ging in die Stadt und [CP da kaufte [TP *ei /er ein neues Auto]]] b.’ [TP Eri ging in die Stadt und [TP ei kaufte da ein neues Auto]]

Zwart’s assumption, that both antecedent and gap must be in the same position, is correct; what is needed in addition is licensing by [&]. Conversely, if only licensing mattered, then the gaps in (7) would be predicted: (7) a.

Paul hat den Wertheri nicht gelesen und *ei /deni wird Paula P has the W not read and that-one will P auch nicht t i lesen also not read a.’ Den Wertheri hat Paul nicht t i gelesen und ei /den wird Paula auch nicht t i lesen b. Peter zeigt seinem Onkeli die Briefmarken und *ei /demi P shows his-dat uncle the-acc/pl stamps and that-one verkauft er auch t i die Puppen sells he also the-acc,pl dolls b.’ Seinem Onkeli zeigt Peter t i die Briefmarken und ei /demi verkauft er auch t i die Puppen

Combining the evidence in (6) and (7), we conclude that both licensing by [&] – seen in the left-edge requirement – and recovery of the gap in LF – made possible by the structural symmetry of the matching positions – must obtain for legitimate left-edge gaps. Most important for this chapter is the observation that these requirements cannot be met, if we do not assume the subject-object asymmetry outlined in (2) with respect to goal of movement.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.7 (400-455)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

Further evidence that structural symmetry is one requirement for LEE comes from constructions in which a matrix clause like those in (3) with a “psych” verb and a “dative subject” is conjoined with a clause that has a verb requiring subject raising to Spec,TP. Interestingly, these structures do not allow a left-edge subject gap, if the antecedent hasn’t raised to the structurally equivalent position as in (8a, b); after raising, seen in (8a’, b’), the gaps are fine:9 (8) a. *[CP Beim Vortrag isti [TP ihm t i [vP [ein Fehler]j unterlaufen at-the lecture is him a-nom mistake underrun und [TP ej brachte ihn zum Stillstand]] and brought him to-the standstill ‘During the lecture he made a mistake and came to a standstill’ (intended reading) a.’ [TP Ein Fehleri ist ihm beim Vortrag unterlaufen und [TP ei brachte ihn zum Stillstand]] b. *[CP Tijdens de lezing isi [TP hem t i [vP [iets raars]j during the lecture is him something strange over- komen en [TP ej bracht hem helemaal uit zijn overcome and brought him completely out-of his evenwicht]]] balance ‘During the lecture something strange came over him and threw him off balance’ (intended reading) b.’ [TP Iets raarsi is hem tijdens de lezing overkomen en [TP ei bracht hem helemaal uit zijn evenwicht]] Returning to the role of subject-object asymmetries in left-edge gaps, we note that the antecedent (nominative subject) in (8a’, b’) is arguably in Spec,TP, and not Spec,CP, if we assume that this DP satisfies the EPP requirement as a nominative element, and thereafter is not subject to any prosodic (focus accent) or discourse requirements for further raising to Spec,CP. By contrast, in (8a, b), the dative DP satisfies the EPP requirement in Spec,TP, due to the lack of nominative DP raising, which results in the subject remaining in Spec,vP where it must be able to satisfy Agree. The assumption that ein Fehler and iets raars raise all the way to Spec,CP in (8a’, b’), as required in the generalized V-to-C analysis, is not supported by any feature-checking, prosodic or discourse requirement, if we assume that [nom] and/or EPP features are checked in Spec,TP, and φ-features are checked in Spec,vP with these particular verbs. If we assume, as proposed here, that the gaps and their antecedents are in Spec,TP in (8a’, b’), but only the gaps are in this position in (8a, b), then we can explain the ungrammaticality of (8a, b) using the theory of coordinate ellipsis based on the matching of symmetric elements in symmetric positions, as proposed in Chapter 4: Because the antecedent of the gap in each is not in the same position, matching for recovery of the gap is not possible. Analyzed this way, (8) provides support for the structures in (2). If

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.8 (455-535)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

the subject ein Fehler and iets raars must front to Spec,CP, following the generalized V → C approach, they must first check features for Agree in Spec,TP and then vacate this position for fronting to Spec,CP. The fronting operation would have to be motivated by some pragmatic requirement. This requirement cannot, however, be the need for focus accent, as these subjects do not have to be accented when occurring at the left edge, as in (8a’, b’), in contrast to the stress requirement on fronted objects. Another argument in support of the structures in (2) comes from the way in which the gap in the elliptical conjuncts in (9) satisfies the V2 requirement (a’ translates a, b’ translates b):10 (9) a. A red wine won a prize in Paris and e brought a vintner fame in Rome a.’ Ein Rotwein gewann einen Preis in Paris und e brachte einem Winzer Ruhm in Rom b. Only this wine did a French vintner produce and e has no other vintner matched b.’ Nur diesen Wein produzierte ein Französischer Winzer und e machte kein anderer nach This evidence of a gap – which has all the properties of a lexical item except its phonetic features – supports the assumption that these elliptical conjuncts are full clauses, i.e. they have all the properties of the fully lexical equivalents to their left. It is not surprising, then, that the V2 requirement is satisfied within the elliptical conjunct, and not through the sharing of the lexical subject in the initial conjunct, as argued by Heycock and Kroch (1994). This evidence for the gap in turn supports the argument that conjuncts with a subject gap are TPs, when combined with the evidence in (8a’, b’) that subject gaps occur in Spec,TP.

.. Büring and Hartmann (1998) on left-edge subject gaps We turn now to Büring and Hartmann’s account (hereafter B&H) of left-edge subject gaps; this account takes the generalized V-to-C analysis as a starting point. As an orientation, we consider the following constructions and my analyses (the Dutch examples adapted from Zwart 1991b): (10) a.

[TP Lutz liest eine alte Studie und [TP ei /er schreibt L reads an old study and he writes darüber eine neue Analyse]] it-about (about it) a new analysis a.’ [TP Lutz liest eine alte Studie und [CP darüber schreibt *ei /er eine neue Analyse]] b. [CP Die neue Analyse schreibt [TP Lutzi langsam und [TP ei /er zeigt sie niemandem]]] (see gloss for b’)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.9 (535-575)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

b.’ [TP Lutz schreibt die neue Analysei langsam und [TP *ei /diei it-acc L writes the new analysis slowly and zeigt er niemandem]] shows he no-one-dat b.” [CP Die neue Analysei schreibt Lutz langsam und [CP ei /die zeigt er niemandem]] c. [TP Deze treini rijdt verder als IC naar G en [TP ei /het zal this train travels farther as (an) IC to G and it will alleen stoppen te A]] only stop at A c.’ [TP Deze treini rijdt verder als IC naar G en [CP te Assen zal *ei /het alleen stoppen]] c.” [TP Die treini had [TP ik makkelijk kunnen that train had I easily can halen, maar [CP ei heb [TP ik gemist omdat de catch (could have caught) but have I missed because the St. Annastraat opgebroken was]]]] St. Anna Street up-broken was d. [TP After Boston [TP wei will pass through Providence and [TP ei /we can then begin the last leg to NYC]]]] d.’ [TP After Boston [TP we will pass through Providence and [CP not until then [C’ do [TP *e/we begin the last leg to NYC]]]] d.” [CP Only this winei would [TP a New Yorker drink and [CP ei /none other would [TP s/he recommend to a friend]]]] The analyses in (10) posit that German, Dutch and English share certain properties: (1) all three use TPs for subject-initial declaratives,11 (2) all three use V-to-C in declaratives according to language-specific discourse principles, and (3) in all three deletion at the left edge of either TP or CP is possible, if the antecedent of the gap is in a symmetric position. A particularly interesting aspect of the B&H analysis is the way it accommodates the generalized V-to-C analysis with the subject gap construction, specifically the licensing of the gap. B&H propose that a subject gap must be licensed by an empty Operator (OP) which occupies the Spec,CP position: Rotwein und [CP OPi (11) [CP In Italien [C’ [C◦ schätzt] [TP mani in Italy treasures one-nom red-wine and hasst [TP ei die Franzosen]]]]]] hates the French Several questions are raised by this analysis: (1) What triggers the merger of OP in Spec,CP? (2) What are the properties of OP? How does it license the gap? If purely by coindexation, how does this coindexation get established? (3) What independent evidence is there for the existence of OP? Can OP be dispensed with, if a movement

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.10 (575-633)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

approach is chosen? (in this regard see Nunes 1995; Manzini 1997; Hornstein 2000; Boeckx 2003a, b).12 (4) What triggers the movement of hasst to C◦ in (11)? We can assume that the fronting of in Italien in the first conjunct triggers the movement of schätzt to C◦ , but no such fronting occurs in the second conjunct. (5) How does this analysis account for coordinate symmetries, which we have seen play a role in the recovery of gaps? Although the subject and the gap are in symmetric positions, OP has no equivalent in the initial conjunct. (6) How is the V2 requirement met in the second conjunct? Does OP have the properties of a lexical item for satisfying the V2 requirement? In the analysis of LEE presented earlier in this section and in Chapter 4, no extra element like OP is required, and the properties of V2 can be accounted for straightforwardly under the assumption that a gap has all the features of a full, lexical item except its phonetic features, i.e. it is fully capable of satisfying the V2 requirement, if we understand the central requirement as the need for an element in the Spec position of the finite verb for performing the necessary feature checking on the finite verb. Following standard assumptions, there should be a checking relation between OP and hasst in (11). What this relation might be is not clear, however. It cannot be prosodically based, as OP has no phonetic realization; yet, in all other V2 declarative clauses with a CP projection, the element in Spec,CP must bear focus accent or, if a gap, be coindexed with an element that bears focus accent.13 OP in (11) does not meet these requirements. It, in fact, does not have any of the properties that elements in Spec,CP normally have. Furthermore, with OP in the pre-V2 position and the subject gap in a post-V2 position as in (11), there is no clear syntactic explanation for why a lexical item/phrase cannot occur in the pre-V2 position, other than that OP is there. But given its lack of lexical properties, it should not exclude this arrangement. As (12) indicates, however, the occurrence of an element to the left of the finite verb in the second conjunct is not possible, even though the antecedent and gap are in symmetric positions: (12) a. *In Italien schätzen die Bauerni Rotwein und oft hassen ei in Italy treasure the-nom farmers red-wine and often hate die Franzosen the French b. In Italien schätzen die Bauerni Rotwein und ei hassen oft die Franzosen The present analysis using phase-based derivation provides a simple explanation for the ungrammaticality of (12a): the gap is not at the left edge where it needs to be to be licensed. It also explains why the gap in (12b) exists: in a phase-based derivation, a subject at the edge of a second conjunct is not only licensable, it is also recoverable and redundant, and thus dispensable. B&H’s analysis does not have these advantages, since the gap is not at the left edge. Another aspect of the B&H analysis, assumed also by Hartmann (2000), that relates to our discussion of the left edge in V2 clauses is the nature of the relation between the initial and second clause in constructions like (13). Both B&H and Hartmann

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.11 (633-687)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(2000) assume that the second conjunct is adjoined to the first conjunct in constructions like (12a), rather than conjoined with it. Hartmann explains the assumption this way: “Assuming that the attachment site of the adjunct clause may vary has the effect of bringing it into the scope of all kinds of elements from [sic] the main clause. Interestingly, elements in the middle-field [the segment in a V2 clause between the finite verb in second position and the non-finite verb/particle in clause-final position, jtv] of an Empty Subject Coordination exhibit real ATB-effects. Quantified subjects, for instance, take scope over the coordination” (Hartmann 2000: 46). As an example of this, Hartmann gives (13), her (50): (13) a.

Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt Paul seinen according-to info of-the police knows P his-acc Peiniger und schweigt trotzdem stille tormentor and keeps-quiet despite-this silently ‘According to police information, Paul knows his tormentor, but he is remaining silent anyway’ b. Paul kennt seinen Peiniger, und Paul schweigt trotzdem still

Hartmann points out that it is possible to infer (13b) from (13a), but this inference is not possible with a quantified subject as in (14), her (51): (14) Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer (no victim) seinen Peiniger und schweigt stille Hartmann explains that (14) does not imply that no victim knows his tormentor. Rather, the preferred reading is that victims who know their tormentor do not remain silent. She claims that the correct reading follows automatically in the adjunction analysis because the adjunct clause is dominated by the overt matrix subject. An analysis which does not have this relation of dominance predicts the reading in (15) which doesn’t exist: (15) Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und kein Opfer schweigt stille Further support for the adjunction analysis is claimed from subject-gap constructions with negation, such as the one in (16), her (53): (16) a.

Malte kam noch nie nach Hause und war betrunken M came yet never to house and was drunk ‘Malte has never come home drunk’ = b. Malte kam noch nie nach Hause und er (he) war betrunken c. Malte kam noch nie nach Hause und er war noch nie betrunken =

The fact that (16b, c) are impossible interpretations of (16a) is interpreted by Hartmann as support for the adjunction analysis. Below I will argue that constructions like (16) support an alternate analysis which is less problematic.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.12 (687-752)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Hartmann’s proposal that subject-gap conjuncts are adjoined rather than conjoined is problematic for several reasons, even though it is in at least one fundamental respect on the right track. First of all, it is problematic because it doesn’t explain how subject gap constructions can have more than two conjuncts. Such constructions are very natural, regardless of what scopal elements are added and where these elements occur: (17) a.

Paul füttert den Hund, tränkt die Katze und streichelt beide P feeds the dog, waters the cat and strokes both jeden Tag every day a.’ Jeden Tag füttert Paul den Hund, tränkt die Katze und streichelt beide b. Peter füttert den Hund, vergisst die Katze nicht und streichelt P feeds the dog, forgets the cat not and strokes die beiden the both c. Petra füttert den Hund nicht, tränkt die Katze manchmal und P feeds the dog not, waters the cat sometimes and streichelt immer die Gans strokes always the goose

In Hartmann’s proposal, the second and third conjuncts must be adjoined to the first. This predicts that a scopal element occurring in a second or third conjunct would not have the same domain as a scopal element in the first conjunct. But this kind of asymmetry does not occur between (17a, a’) where jeden Tag has the same scope whether it occurs at the very beginning (of the first conjunct) or at the very end (of the third conjunct). Hartmann’s analysis predicts a mixture of asymmetry and symmetry: the first two conjuncts are asymmetric as matrix-adjunct, but the second and third are symmetric as adjunct-adjunct. The symmetry between the second and third conjuncts is not addressed by Hartmann because no coordinate structure with more than two conjoined clauses are considered. This kind of symmetry is not predicted by an adjunction analysis, which is inherently asymmetric. This point recalls a discussion in Chapter 2 where we observed that in the present proposal coordinate symmetry is preserved within syntactic asymmetry as the more appropriate way to account for the properties of coordinate structures. Hartmann’s adjunction analysis, though similar to the proposal made in Chapter 2, assumes phrase-structural asymmetry in coordination without accommodating the clearly identifiable symmetries. It therefore differs significantly from my proposal which, like Camacho (1997), seeks to preserve coordinate symmetry – in my proposal through the use of Copy and Match – which can be independently shown to be a central property of coordinate structures.14 Another problem with Hartmann’s analysis is the assumption that the scope of negation necessarily extends from the main-clause conjunct to the adjoined one. As

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.13 (752-801)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(17a, b, c) indicate, scope is not determined solely by position; it can be limited in ways not predicted by Hartmann’s adjunction analysis. This limitation of scopal domains indicates that, in addition to structural properties, scope is determined by the matching of conjuncts, as is the case with jeden Tag, which has scope over the entire structure, despite its clause-final position in the final conjunct. Scope is also determined by the semantics of other elements, as in (17b) where the verb vergisst, because of its inherent negation, results in a positive interpretation because of the presence of nicht in the same conjunct. The scope of [vergisst + nicht] can therefore be matched symmetrically with the verb tränkt, which is not negated and therefore interpreted positively. The scope of negation can also be curtailed by other elements, as in (17b’) where manchmal limits the scope of nicht to the first conjunct. By matching, nicht is interpreted along with (and therefore in a limiting way) the contrasting adverbs manchmal and immer in the final conjunct. A third problem with Hartmann’s proposal, directly related to negation, scope and coordinate structures, is the use of phrase structure to explain the properties of a quantified subject as in (14). The quantification of this subject is determined by the negative modifier kein ‘no’. The fact that the scope of the quantifier kein extends into the second conjunct does not force us to assume an adjunction analysis, however. Given that the scope of negation may, but does not necessarily, extend into a second conjunct, we should look beyond the phrase structure to properties of either quantification or negation or both. In Chapter 4 we considered (18) in this regard: (18) a. a.’ b. b.’

Many victims see their tormenters and remain silent Many victims see their tormenters and many victims remain silent No victims see their tormenters and remain silent No victims see their tormentors and no victims remain silent

It was observed there that although (18a) and (18a’) can easily be interpreted without any difference in meaning, with the alternate interpretion of (18a’) that the set of ‘many’ in conjunct 1 = the set of many of conjunct 2, the (strongly) preferred interpretations of (18b) and (18b’) are ones in which the meanings are not the same (i.e. in b, but not in b’, the events ‘see’ and ‘remain’ are connected). Therefore, the source of the difference between (18b) and (18b’) is not due to quantification, but to negation. Since it was already established in (17) that negation does not necessarily extend from a dominant conjunct to a dominated one, we have to look to the properties of negation and conjunction, and not to the proposed adjunction structure for the difference between (18b) and (18b’). I argue in Chapter 4 that the important properties of constructions like (14) are: (1) That the scope of negation can or cannot, depending on syntactic and semantic factors, extend beyond one conjunct, and (2) It is conjunction, not adjunction (or some other type of asymmetry) which enables the extension of the scope of negation in coordinate structures. Furthermore, scope must be seen from a derivational perspective. When the first conjunct is derived and its formal features have been copied to the next conjunct, it is determined by LF matching that the negative scope of the element kein can be ex-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.14 (801-856)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

tended to the second conjunct. Therefore, either the DP das Opfer ‘the victim’ or es ‘s/he’ is selected as the subject of the second conjunct. These can be coindexed with the antecedent kein Opfer, whose feature [+neg] is copied to the second conjunct. Evidence that such copying exists, even without a subject gap in the second conjunct, is available in a comparison of (19a, b, c): (19) a.

Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und schweigt stille b. Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und es schweigt stille c. ?Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und das Opfer schweigt stille

The basic interpretation of all three of these sentences must be rendered the same. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the interpretation of the subject gap in (19a) results from adjunction, but the interpretation of (19b, c) requires conjunction, if we assume that conjunction and adjunction play different roles in the interpretation of a sentence. An important aspect of the proposal presented in this study is that the interpretation of a coordinate structure depends at least to some extent, sometimes to a great extent, on the matching of features and positions. Such matching relies on Spell-Out in LF.15 In my proposal, all of the conjuncts in subject- or object-gap, or non-elliptical coordinate structures are symmetric in terms of the feature sets assigned to the lexical items that enter into the ellipsis, i.e. the left-edge lexical items. The fact that the over-all syntactic structure is asymmetric – as determined by the X’ schema – does not change this symmetry, as argued in Chapter 2. What guarantees the required symmetry of e.g. conjoined clauses in constructions like the one in (14) is primarily the copying and matching of feature sets, but also the matching of syntactic positions. In Hartmann’s (2000) adjunction approach to such constructions, symmetry of positions is also possible. Reviewing (11), given here as (20), we note that the position of the antecedent man and the gap is the same: Rotwein [und [CP OPi (20) [CP In Italien [C’ [C◦ schätzt] [TP mani treasures one-nom red-wine and in Italy hasst [TP ei die Franzosen]]]]]] hates the French This similarity between the present proposal and Hartmann’s indicates the common ground that the two proposals share. Indeed, it is no coincidence that the two proposals share some fundamental properties. The reason is that neither one assumes the category &P whose Spec and complement positions are occupied by conjuncts (see discussion in Chapter 2). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between my proposal and Hartmann’s, evident in a comparison of (20) and (21):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.15 (856-919)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(21) [CP In Italien [C’ [C◦ schätzt] [TP mani Rotwein und [TP ei hasst die Franzosen]]]]] This difference stems from the assumption that the second conjunct in (20) is necessarily a CP, i.e. V → C is obligatory in that conjunct. Evidence against this assumption is available in a comparison of the constructions in (22):16 (22) a. In Italien schätzt man Rotwein und man hasst die Franzosen a.’ [CP In Italien [C’ schätzt [TP mani Rotwein und [TP man hasst die Franzosen]]]] b. */??In Italien schätzt man Rotwein und hasst man die Franzosen b.’ */??[CP In Italien [C’ schätzt [TP mani Rotwein und [CP [C’ hasst [TP man die Franzosen]]]]]] b.” [CP In Italien [C’ schätzt [TP mani Rotwein und [CP OPi [C’ hasst [TP ei die Franzosen]]]]]] In one respect (22a), if analyzed as in (22a’), is less symmetric than (20) because the finite verbs are in different positions. We might expect that the asymmetry of the spellout positions of the verbs in (22a), C◦ in the first conjunct, T◦ in the second, would lead to some degradation of the acceptability level. That is not the case, however; (22a) is just as acceptable as the sentence in (20). Of particular interest to our analysis is the fact that the equivalent of (20) with a spelled-out subject, given in (22b), is indeed much less acceptable than (20) – for some informants completely unacceptable – even though both verbs in (22b) must be in the same position, C◦ . This fact provides us with solid evidence that the analysis in (20) is incorrect, and that the analysis in (21), which has a gap in the same position as man in (22a’), is on the right track with respect to the subject position. Given that (22b) is much less acceptable than (20), it can hardly be that (20) has the phrase structure in (22b’), which is parallel to the structure proposed by Hartmann for (20), given in (22b”). The option to phonetically realize a lexical item should not affect the acceptability level, but that is the clear result, if we use Hartmann’s analysis. The same difference exists, as we just saw, between (22a) and (22b), the former having a structure parallel to the one indicated in (21), the only difference being the phonetically realized subject in (22a). How do we explain this acceptability difference? The answer can be found in the symmetry of the string in (20) when it is analyzed as in (21). To understand the source of this symmetry, we note first of all that the positions of the finite verbs in (21) are only the spell-out positions of the verbs; the underlying positions of the verbs are parallel because schätzt leaves a trace in its conjunct that parallels the position of hasst. Thus, on a more fundamental level, (21) is symmetric, as in this analysis both conjuncts are TPs, and both conjuncts are within the scope of the initial adverbial, in Italien because of its dominant position in Spec,CP. Furthermore, for the analysis in (21) it is assumed that T◦ and not C◦ is the position where the declarativeness of the clause is determined and that V → C in the first conjunct of (21) is an optional movement for checking the feature [Topic] of the element in Spec,CP.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.16 (919-993)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Thus, the verbal position around which the core property of the clause, its declarativeness, revolves is T◦ and not C◦ . It is therefore predicted that the symmetry of the two clauses also revolves around this position. By comparison, the structure in (22b’) has two CP conjuncts, with both verbs spelled out in C◦ . This kind of symmetry, based on surface-level spell-out positions, is conducive to a high level of acceptability, if the remainder of the structure does not degrade the symmetry and the acceptability in general.17 This is not the case, however, in (22b) which has a scope problem that degrades the symmetry: the scope of the adverbial in Italien, intended to be over both conjuncts, is not as transparent under the analysis in (22b’) as in (21) because the second conjunct has the same projection as the first, and this projection is a CP. CP typically delineates the domain of adverbial scope. Another factor in the degradation of (22b) is the repetition of the subject man. This repetition constitutes a redundancy that can be avoided; as shown in §4.5, this kind of redundancy – arising from the coordinate structure – can lead to severe degradation of acceptability, if it results in semantic opacity. In (21), by comparison, no lexical redundancy of this sort occurs, giving it an advantage over (22b). These data thus provide support for the central hypothesis of this chapter: that subject-initial V2 clauses in German and Dutch are TPs. It also supports a central hypothesis of this study: that symmetry in coordinate structures must obtain to some degree, in some constructions, notably those with elliptical coordinate structures, more than in others. We recall at this point the observation made earlier, that Hartmann’s adjunction analysis does not address how the conjunction of additional clauses would be handled, as in (23): (23) [CP In Italien schätzen in Italy prize Weißwein und [TP die the French and the

die Männer Rotwein [TP die Bauern hassen the men red-wine, the farmers hate Winzer trinken alle guten Weine]]] vintners drink all good wines

The phrase-structure analysis of (23) may imply that all coordinate clause constructions in German are of this type, i.e. that all second and third (and fourth. . .) clausal conjuncts must be TPs. This is not the case, though it is the required structure if the element occupying Spec,CP is to be interpretable with scope over all of the conjuncts. The construction in (23) indicates that in the case of left-edge DP-object ellipsis, symmetric CPs are required: (24) [CP Diesen Rotweini this-acc red-wine auch die Frauen t i also the women-nom teuer]]] expensive

schätzen alle Geschäftsmänner t i [CP ei trinken prize all business-men-nom drink und [CP ei finden die Bauern t i zu and find the farmers-nom too

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.17 (993-1042)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

The only differences between (24) and (20), following Hartmann’s analysis, is the choice of element in the Spec,CP of the initial conjunct and the element in the two following Spec,CP positions, which in Hartmann’s analysis would presumably have an empty OP.18 If all clauses were CPs in both (20) and (24), as in Hartmann’s proposal, the difference between in Italien and diesen Rotwein as fronted elements should be minimized. A fundamental difference exists between these elements, however: the adverbial is a scopal element whereas the DP binds a parallel, phonetically null DP. This difference can be more straight-forwardly explained if we assume, following the proposal of Chapter 4, that (23) has the same structure as (22): an initial TP conjunct with a CP projection is conjoined with one (or more) TP conjunct(s). Only (24) consists of conjoined CPs. It is interesting that (24) is less natural than (20), even though the only difference between (24) and Hartmann’s analysis of (20) in (22b’) is the phonetic realization of the subject man. In stark contrast to this judgment is the judgment on (22a), which no speakers find unacceptable. It is highly unlikely that these judgments would differ so much if both constructions had the same syntactic structure as they do in Hartmann’s analysis, i.e. if both consisted of conjoined CPs, with either a gap or a phonetically realized subject in Spec,CP. A final problem with Hartmann’s analysis is a strictly empirical one and is therefore the most serious: It does not address, presumably because it has no way to account for, constructions with a left-edge object gap like the numerous such constructions analyzed in Chapter 4. These have the same structure as the construction in (24). Hartmann’s proposal cannot account for such constructions because the OP element she proposes to be necessary for subject-gap constructions would have to occupy the same position as the gap of the fronted object in (24). If the OP element has any syntactic reality, it cannot occupy the same position as another syntactic element, in this case the object gap, which can be independently shown (cf. Chapter 4) to have syntactic reality.19 For these reasons, we can conclude that an alternate analysis is necessary. The point about the alternate analysis proposed here that is interesting to this chapter is that it is one which is based on the syntactic structures proposed in (2): subject-initial V2 clauses are TPs, whereas all other V2 clauses are CPs. There is one other very recent analysis in the syntactic literature that claims to account for subject-gap constructions. This is proposed by Johnson (2002), who relies on verb-projection raising (VPR) for generating this type of construction. In the next subsection we consider this proposal in some detail.

.. Comparing a VPR account of left-edge subject gaps In the previous chapter, certain questions were raised about Johnson’s (2002) account of subject-gap constructions in German in which VPR is proposed to bring what he calls “exotic coordinations” into the realm of more or less normal elliptical constructions. In Chapter 4 we noted that his proposal, like Hartmann’s, is not able to account for object-gap constructions. Unlike Hartmann, who doesn’t mention them, Johnson

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.18 (1042-1112)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

claims that they are ungrammatical and does not consider them further (cf. §4.5.3.2 for further discussion). We are therefore limited in our consideration of their analyses to their proposals for the subject-gap construction only. Both Johnson and Hartmann are motivated in their analyses by what they observe to be a scopal problem in the analysis of a typical subject-gap construction: How can it be that a subject in a construction like (25a) has scope into the second conjunct, if the subject is within the TP of the first C’-conjunct, as the phrase markers in (25b) indicate?20 (25) a.

Den Hund hat einer gefüttert und hat ihn geschlagen the-acc dog has one-nom fed and has him beaten ‘Someone fed the dog and (then) beat him’ b. [CP Den Hund [C’ hat [TP einer gefüttert und [C’ hat ihn geschlagen]]]]

In this section we briefly consider Johnson’s VPR account for solving the subject scope problem and compare it with an account that lacks VPR and makes the assumption that V2 in Germanic occurs in both the TP and the CP domains. In Chapter 4 it is pointed out that Johnson’s proposal requires the following movement operations: (26) a. b. c. d.

verb-raising to F in both conjuncts (but not in ATB-fashion) VP-raising to Spec,FP out of the first conjunct verb-raising to C from the raised VP DP-fronting to Spec,CP from the raised VP

Thus, the derivation of (25a) proceeds as in (27):21 (27) a.

[IP einer [FP [F’ [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]] und [F’ [VP ihn geschlagen hat]]]] b. [IP einer [FP [F’ [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] c. [IP einer [FP [VP den Hund gefüttert hat]2 [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] d. [CP hat3 [IP einer [FP [VP den H gefüttert t 3 ]2 [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]] e. [CP den H4 hat3 [IP einer [FP [VP t 4 gefüttert t 3 ]2 [F’ t 2 ] und [F’ hat1 [VP ihn geschlagen t 1 ]]]]

Several observations can be made that are relevant to our comparison: First, Johnson’s derivation involves both clauses “at once” i.e. there are no phases. This approach thus raises the question of how manageable the derivation would be with n-number of conjuncts and whether a very different type of derivation would be necessary; it is very easy to increase the number of conjuncts to three or four (or more):22

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.19 (1112-1164)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(28) Den Hund hat einer gefüttert, ein zweiter getränkt, ein the-acc dog has one-nom fed, a second-nom watered, a dritter gestreichelt, und ein vierter hat ihn geschlagen third-nom stroked and a fourth-nom has him beaten ‘Someone fed the dog, a second person watered him, a third stroked him and a fourth beat him’ A second observation concerns the assumption that the auxiliary hat raises to C◦ in one conjunct, but only to F◦ in the other, and that the raising of hat does not occur in ATB fashion. These differences constitute unexpected asymmetries in a derivation that strives for coordinate symmetry in that it otherwise takes the CSC and ATB movement and its properties seriously and uses “symmetric” phrase structure for the conjuncts, as in (29): (29) Johnson’s “symmetric” conjuncts F’ F’

und

F’

As noted in §4.5.3.2, this kind of coordinate structure does not follow from normal minimalist assumptions about phrase structure, nor can it accommodate coordinate structures with more than two conjuncts. A final observation concerns the assumption that a VPR analysis is suitable for Standard German. Johnson presents data from West Flemish, but none from Standard German, that independently support this analysis. Although certain German dialects might share properties with West Flemish, it is not readily apparent that these dialects give us valuable insights into the derivation of Standard German structures. This is a point that can be debated, but no further space will be devoted to that end here.23 In summary, Johnson’s analysis appears less than satisfactory, particularly the empirical shortcoming of not being able to account for all the data, namely, cases of LEE other than subject-gap constructions. These problems can be avoided if the central assumptions of the present proposal are implemented. How we can eliminate the empirical problem, accounting for all cases of LEE, is outlined in Chapter 4; further examples and explanation will be given here in what follows.

.. Phase Theory, subject-object asymmetries and LEE In the previous section I identified briefly some points on which LEE, as accounted for here, follows directly from assumptions underlying derivation by phase. They are: (1) Derivation by phase posits two phases, vP and CP, generating TP and CP respectively. TP and CP are the domains of LEE. (2) Derivation by phase posits that displaced elements target a position at the left edge of TP and CP, the Spec positions of these phrases. These are precisely the positions licensed for “deletion” in LEE, given that [&]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.20 (1164-1238)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

licenses the deletion. (3) TP and CP, the two phrases generated by derivation by phase, are clauses; LEE occurs only in the conjunction of clauses. In this section we consider how derivation by phase and my account of LEE lead directly to the assumptions about the structure of West Germanic that were made in the previous chapters. We note first of all that the assumption just outlined about derivation by phase leads to the conclusion that V2 occcurs in both the TP and the CP domains. If we assume that (most) subjects in Germanic raise to Spec,TP to meet the requirements of the EPP, and that they need not raise to Spec,CP for any featurechecking requirements, then V2 is present in TP, for it is clear that subject-initial declaratives in German and Dutch must adhere to V2 (b glosses a): (30) a.

Peter liest oft Werke von Goethe P reads often works of G a.’ *Peter oft liest Werke von Goethe b. Peter leest vaak werken van Goethe b.’ *Peter vaak leest werken van Goethe

The assumption that V2 is not confined to the CP domain is essential to the account of LEE in Chapter 4. From this assumption it follows that the gap in a subject-gap construction is at the left edge of TP, and the gap of an object-gap construction is at the left edge of CP. The edge requirement on the gaps occurs, I claim, because [&] licenses both subject and object gaps. This assumption follows directly from the (related) assumption that German and Dutch V2 clauses do not utilize the CP domain in subject-initial clauses, i.e. subjects do not need to move any higher than Spec,TP, and no extra syntactic element such as an empty operator is needed to license a left-edge subject gap, if [&] has the properties to license this gap. Arguments were presented in Chapters 3 and 4 for the status of [&] as a weak probe that licenses a right-adjacent empty Spec position. These assumptions can be unified very straightforwardly with Phase Theory. Following Phase Theory, each TP generated requires a vP phase, and each CP a CP phase. For coordinate structures this means that each TP or CP conjunct must be generated separately, one before the other. Returning to (25a), we note that two phases are required, one for each conjunct, and the derivation of the first conjunct Den Hund hat einer gefüttert is complete before the second conjunct is derived. It follows that verb raising and DP fronting in the first conjunct are completed independently of any syntactic operation in the second conjunct. The derivation of (26) using Phase Theory thus proceeds as in (31): (31) Phase Theory derivation of (25a) a. [VP einer den Hund gefüttert] (LA for C-1) (DO checked in vP) b. [vP einer [den Hund]i [VP t i gefüttert]] c. [TP einer hat [vP [den Hund]i [VP t i gefüttert]]] (subject raising; hat merged in T◦ )

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.21 (1238-1296)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

d. [CP [den Hund]i hatj [TP einer t j [vP t i [VP t i gefüttert]]]] (DP fronting, V → C; Spell-Out, → AM) e. [VP einer ihn geschlagen] (LA for C-2) f. [vP einer ihni [VP t i geschlagen]] (repeats step b) (repeats step c) g. [TP einer hat [vP ihni [VP t i geschlagen]]] h. Conjunction, with merger of und, and einer marked for non-realization: [CP den Hundi hatj [TP einer t j [vP t i [VP t i gefüttert und [TP einer hat [vP ihni [VP t i geschlagen]]]]]]] This derivation results in the conjunction of two TPs, the first of which has a CP projection to provide a position for the fronting of the DP den Hund. This fronting operation, I assume, satisfies a pragmatic requirement for creating topic prominence and has nothing to do with conjunction. It does not place any syntactic or semantic symmetry requirement on the second conjunct which would cause the same operation to be induced in that conjunct, i.e. no ATB requirements must be met with this DP fronting operation. The symmetry of this construction obtains in the fact that both conjuncts are TPs, despite the asymmetry between the positions in which the verbs are spelled out. Because the trace of hat is in T◦ , the two verbs are in parallel positions underlyingly; thus, symmetry obtains on a more abstract level. This construction is not highly symmetric, however. It achieves minimal symmetry, for the reason just outlined, and remains rather asymmetric for two reasons: (1) the spell-out positions of the finite verbs are different, and (2) the fronted DP den Hund is not shared by both conjuncts, as it could be in a different version, such as (32a) with the structure in (32b): (32) a. Den Hund hat Hans gefüttert und (hat) Peter geschlagen b. [CP den Hundi hatj [TP Hans t j [vP t i [VP t i gefüttert und [CP ei hatk [TP Peter t k [vP t i [VP t i geschlagen]]]]]]]] In this construction, the fronting of den Hund is chosen as a means made available by coordinate symmetry to economize the Spell-Out in PF: a redundant DP does not need to be phonetically realized, if it is fronted to a position (Spec,CP) that parallels the position of the antecedent.24 This derivation illustrates how a syntactic operation can conspire with conjunction to create a more economical construction. Important to note is that the operations used to generate this structure, DP fronting and conjunction, remain independent of each other in this derivation. Coordinate symmetry does not drive DP fronting, nor does DP fronting in the first conjunct somehow drive coordinate symmetry and thereby require DP fronting in the second conjunct. Furthermore, we note that this independence of syntactic operations follows directly from Phase Theory, whereas in Johnson’s analysis the two conjuncts are not derivationally independent of each other because they must adhere (with some exception) to the CSC, which is inherently a cross-conjunctive principle.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.22 (1296-1369)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Most importantly for this chapter, we note that the analysis of the left-edge in Germanic outlined in (2) supports the derivation outlined in (31) in which V2 obtains in both the TP and the CP domain. Using Johnson’s or a similar analysis with a generalized V → C rule, it cannot be explained without some stipulation why a V2 requirement applies in the second conjunct: (33) Den Hund hat einer gefüttert und *(einer/e) hat ihn geschlagen In Johnson’s analysis, there is no option of spelling out einer in the second conjunct, as there is no position available for it (cf. 27). The option of spelling out einer before hat in the second conjunct indicates that a V2 requirement applies in that conjunct. It is satisfied in my analysis either by einer or by the subject gap, which has all the properties of einer except its phonetic features.25 So far we have focused on left-edge gaps and what the structures they occur in indicate about the left periphery of Germanic. In the next section we turn to other forms of ellipsis for the same reason.

. Other types of coordinate ellipsis and the West Germanic CP-domain .. RNR and subject-object asymmetries In §4.2.2 we noted that lexically-filled CP-heads can lead to a degradation in the acceptability of RNR constructions, if the head is occupied by a complementizer, and the CP-conjuncts are not highly symmetric; (34a) has CP-conjuncts headed by complementizers and is nearly perfect, while (34b) has Comp-headed CP-conjuncts and these conjuncts are structurally asymmetric: (34) a.

?Joe claims that Jill likes e and Jack insists that Sue hates short stories about

horses b. */??Paul had a wreck because he was listening to ei and Peter lost his job because he constantly read ei pulp fiction with sex and violence If CPs headed by complementizers intervening between the gap and pendant of an RNR construction cause a breakdown in the recovery of an RNR gap, then we might expect the same result with CPs headed by Vfin . This appears not to be the case necessarily: (35) a.

Die Polizei behauptete [TP sie habe diesen the police asserted it had this-acc mehrmals e und der Zeuge versicherte [TP several-times and the witness affirmed in der örtlichen Bank gesehen]] in the local bank seen

Angeklagten accused-man er habe ihn nie he had him never

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.23 (1369-1412)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

b.

c.

c.’

d.

‘The police asserted they had seen the accused man several times in the local bank and the witness affirmed he had never seen him in the local bank’ ?Die Polizei behauptete [ diesen Angeklagten habe sie mehrmals e und CP der Zeuge versicherte [CP den anderen (the other one) habe er nie in der örtlichen B gesehen]] ??Die Polizei behauptete, [ diesen Angeklagten habe sie mehrmals e und CP der Zeuge versicherte, [CP diesen Angeklagten habe er nie in der örtlichen B gesehen]] Die Polizei behauptete, [TP sie habe den Angeklagten gestern (yesterday) e und der Zeuge versicherte, [TP er habe den Angeklagten heute (today) in der örtlichen Bank gesehen]] *Die Polizei behauptete, [CP den Angeklagten habe sie gestern e und der Zeuge versicherte, [CP den Angeklagten habe er gestern in der örtlichen Bank gesehen]]

(35a) indicates that a RNR gap may occur in the conjunction of embedded TPs without any degradation in the acceptability. In (35b), with embedded CP-conjunts, the RNR gap causes some degradation, apparently because of the embeddedness itself, which creates more complexity in LF matching for recovery. If the symmetry is not optimal, as in (35c) – where the two fronted DPs do not contrast with each other – the acceptability is somewhat more degraded. By comparison, the same lexical items – with the same lack of contrasts – occurring in the conjunction of TPs in (35c’) is perfectly acceptable. (35d) confirms that if two CPs are conjoined, the ellipse becomes unrecoverable if the proper contrasts and parallels are not present: gestern in the first CP-conjunct does not contrast with gestern in the second CP-conjunct, and the identical DP den Angeklagten occurs in both conjuncts. Lacking these contrasts and parallels, this construction does not induce the prosody required for RNR.26 Although the properties of these constructions are complex, these judgments indicate i.a. that a fronted object in a RNR construction, requiring a CP-projection, at the very least requires that the conjuncts meet stricter symmetry requirements (‘symmetry’ including contrasts such as those just mentioned).27 Furthermore, subject-initial embedded (TP) conjuncts do not need to meet such strict symmetry requirements with obvious contrasts, so in (35a) the DPs den Angeklagten and ihn are fine, even though they do not contrast with each other in terms of referent. In short, the data in (35) point to subject-object asymmetries in German which manifest themselves in RNR with the requirement that such asymmetries must be countered with a greater degree of symmetry in the coordinate structure itself. I have argued that this situation is caused by the different projections in subject- versus object-initial V2-clauses, as presented in the previous section. Subject-initial embedded V2-clauses as conjuncts present less of a challenge to matching in LF than the object-initial equivalents because subject-initial V2-clauses have no displaced element at the left edge and no CP-projection. Two CP-projections with displaced DPs in their

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.24 (1412-1478)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Spec positions are predicted to require more processing in LF for coordinate matching than equivalent TP projections.

.. Gapping, RNR and subject-object asymmetries Further evidence that subject-initial and object-initial V2 clauses have different structural, and correspondingly, different prosodic properties comes from conjoined V2 structures that combine Gapping and RNR:28 (36) a.

Peter hati den Hund ej und Paul ei die Katze gefüttertj P has the-acc dog and P the-acc cat fed b. Den Hundi hatj Peter ej ei ek und die Katzel ej Paul t j t l gefüttertk c. ?Den Hundi hatj Peter ej ek und Paul ej die Katze gefüttertk d.% *Peter hati den Hund ej und die Katzek ei Paul t i ek gefüttertj 29

Of the four coordinate constructions, (36a) is unmistakably the most acceptable and “neutral” in terms of word order and prosody. (36b) is arguably equally acceptable, but stress accent is required on the fronted DP in each conjunct. (36c) is relatively acceptable, even though the two conjuncts are not symmetric with each other. The coordinate asymmetry does not degrade the whole construction to the point of marginality, however, for a very interesting reason: the second conjunct is a subject-initial V2 clause, and for this reason a syntactically neutral construction. Because of its inherent syntactic neutrality, it may be conjoined with a V2 clause that has a CP projection, even though this V2 clause precedes it and – according to the theory proposed in Chapter 4, which is based on independent evidence (see Frazier & Clifton 2001 and Frazier, Munn, & Clifton 2000) – is copied as a template for the derivation of the second conjunct. This copy operation does not become superfluous in the derivation of (36c), however, because the first conjunct has a derivational history that has a structure within it that is identical to the structure of the second conjunct. In (37) is given an analysis of (36c) with traces and gaps spelled out in parentheses; the second conjunct is given in parallel with the first one: (37) [CP den Hund hat [TP Peter (hat) (den Hund) (gefüttert) und [TP Paul (hat) die Katze gefüttert]]] The structure in (36d), by contrast, cannot be rescued through matching in the same way because in (36d) the first conjunct is a subject-initial V2 clause. As such, it has no derivational history that can be matched with the spelled-out version of the second conjunct.30 It should be noted that (36d) is perfectly acceptable with a different interpretation, though this interpretation is arguably not semantically well-formed, not only because it doesn’t correspond with the real world, but also because it is not symmetric with the interpretation of the first conjunct:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.25 (1478-1548)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

(38) ##Peter hat den Hund und die Katze Paul gefüttert P-nom has the-acc dog and the-nom cat P-acc fed The slight degradation in (36c) does not stem from this kind of unexpected interpretation but from a pure lack of symmetry: the subject and object are not in the same position in the second conjunct as in the first. Despite this asymmetry, matching can proceed for reasons argued above, and no “surprise interpretation” is necessary. Another interesting property of (36b, c) is the prosody: the position of the gapped auxiliary must be as indicated, as this is where the prosody indicates it is, just like in a Gapping construction without any scrambling: (39) Peter füttert den Hund und Paul→ e die Katze Thus, the prosody of (36c) is as follows: (40) ?Den Hund hati Peter ej und Paul→ ei die Katze gefüttertj Following the generalized V → C hypothesis, we would expect the gap in the second conjunct of (40) to be before the subject, in parallel with the position of hat in the first conjunct. The prosody indicates, however, that the gap does not raise to C ◦ in the second conjunct but is licensed in T◦ . The assumption that no V → C occurs in the second conjunct is internally supported by the assumption that V→C must be triggered by a movement operation like object-DP fronting to Spec,CP. Subject raising does not trigger it. Instead, the subject remains in its default position, Spec,TP. Thus, the prosody of coordinate ellipsis supports the structures outlined in (2). The central claim that I make, based on these data, is that we have further evidence for the analysis of German clause structure proposed in (2). Although the issues that contribute to the judgments are sometimes complex, an explanation presents itself if we assume that structural asymmetries between subject-initial and object-initial V2clauses as outlined in (2) contribute to the degrees of acceptability to the extent that syntactic structure, prosody and semantic interpretation are intertwined. My proposal addresses their interrelations within the framework of a grammar that captures the key properties of coordinate ellipsis as a derivational, phase-based process. In the next section we turn to certain refinements of the structure of the left periphery proposed in the generative literature. We will find that the data analyzed in Chapter 4 support some of these refinements.

. Coordination and a finely-structured CP-domain The question we will address in this section is whether a CP with a finer structure, as proposed by Rizzi (1997), can provide better or more insights into the structure of conjoined clauses. Rizzi suggests the following structure (op. cit.: 297): (41) [ForceP C [TopP Top [FocP Foc [TopP Top [FinP F [IP Infl]]]]]]

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.26 (1548-1614)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

To begin our discussion, we consider Rizzi’s assumption that no free preposing and adjunction to IP (=TP) is permissible in the system he proposes. This eliminates the possibility of adjunction to IP of object DPs that I propose in Chapter 4 in LEE constructions like: (42) This book Paul has just read and/but e e would never recommend to anyone Rizzi follows Cinque’s (1990) updating of Chomsky’s (1977) analysis of English topicalization; these analyses all follow the assumption that topicalization involves a null operator identified by the topic: (43) This book OP Paul has just read The null operator (a non-quantificational anaphoric operator) licenses the null constant under the principle in (44): (44) A null constant is licensed by an anaphoric operator This analysis is based on the assumption that the parameter differentiating English and Romance topic-comment structures resides in the non-availability of the null anaphoric operator in Romance topic-comment structures. Null operators and clitics are functionally equivalent, it is assumed, in that they establish the connection between the topic and the open position in the comment; Romance has clitics freely available, while English, which lacks clitics in general, reverts to the first device. If this analysis and the assumptions upon which it is based are correct, then Topics in German must be non-quantificational, and there must be an OP somewhere to license a null constant. Consider the structure in (45): (45) [CP Dieses Buch hat [TP Paul gerade gelesen]] What position could OP occupy in (45)? There must be more positions available than in the standard analyses. Rizzi’s answer to this problem is his proposal for a “fine structure” – an expanded CP domain – at the left periphery, as outlined in (41). We will explore in this section what kind of fine structure is needed to account for the coordination data of Germanic. Another matter must first be dealt with: Is a theory assuming an empty operator the most appropriate for the approach used here, which aims to follow minimalist assumptions as closely as possible? The nature of OP is relevant to this question and the proposal made in Chapter 4: If it has any syntactic reality as would be suggested by the fact that it occupies a syntactic position, then OP should block licensing in LEE constructions like (42). The fact that it doesn’t leads to the conclusion that either my proposal is incorrect, or OP lacks properties of “normal” syntactic elements, or there is no OP present at all. Grohmann (2003: Ch. 4) pursues a different analysis of DP-fronting in a broader discussion of topicalization. He argues that a left-edge topic is a moved element that undergoes Copy Spell Out; in this way an empty OP is not needed. The evidence he presents for his analysis are the usual diagnostics of movement: The topic matches in

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.27 (1614-1684)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic 

Case with a resumptive pronoun that may occur (evident in e.g. German Case morphology), it is sensitive to weak crossover and Condition A, it does not show Condition C effects, the topic may be an idiom chunk, it obeys islands, and it is restricted to root contexts. Grohmann assumes the existence of a TopP projection below CP (which corresponds to ForceP in Rizzi’s system). This projection, he concedes, is a convenience, for in his system topicalization as a movement operation must meet feature-checking requirements, i.e. a feature of Top must be checked. Although his system is based on Rizzi’s (1997) work, Grohmann is able to do away with empty operators in accounting for the data supporting the existence of additional positions in a split CP.31 In doing so, he reduces Rizzi’s CP domain outlined in (41) down to the structure in (46), based on extensive analyses of various types of V2 clauses with displaced elements at the left periphery:32 (46) [CP C [TopP Top [TP ]]] An advantage to the present study of using Grohmann’s analysis of the left periphery, i.e. using movement rather than OP to account for left-edge gaps, is that this movement operation uses Copy. It can therefore be more easily unified with my theory of LEE, which uses a variant of Copy that conforms to conditions on coordinate symmetry for deriving a conjoined clause. Another advantage is that DP-fronting in German and Dutch, with the accompanying V2 effect, can be better unified with DP-fronting in English. Using Grohmann’s system, we can posit that all three languages move dislocated DPs to Spec,TopP, but only German and Dutch almost always require the Vfin to raise to Top◦ when such fronting occurs (some exceptions given below), thereby producing the V2 effect. Examples are (b and c are translations of a): (47) a.

[TopP This booki [Top◦ ø] [TP Billj has read t i and [TopP ei [TP ej will recommended t i to his friends]]]] b. [TopP Dieses Buchi [Top◦ hatj ] [TP Willi t j t i gelesen und [TopP ei [Top◦ wird]k [TP er t k seinen Freunden t i empfehlen]]]] c. [TopP Dit boeki [Top◦ heeftj ] [TP Willi t j t i gelezen en [TopP ei [Top◦ zal]k hij t k zijn vrienden t i aanbevelen]]]]

Rizzi’s system and his assumption that an empty OP is required for DP-fronting at the very least complicates, if not renders inexplicable, the V2 effect in German. Grohmann’s analysis is also compatible with the explanation given in Chapter 4 for why “double deletion” of the type in (48a) is not allowed in German (48b) and Dutch (48c) (b and c are translations of a): (48) a. This booki Billj has read and ei ej will recommended to his friends b. *Dieses Buchi hat Willij gelesen, und ei wird ej seinen Freunden empfehlen b.’ Dieses Buchi hat Willi gelesen und ei wird er seinen Freunden empfehlen

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.28 (1684-1777)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

c. *Dit boeki heeft Willij gelezen en ei zal ej zijn vrienden aanbevelen c.’ Dit boeki heeft Willi gelezen en ei zal hij zijn vrienden aanbevelen The reason given in Chapter 4 for the prohibition against double deletion is partly theory-internal: both gaps cannot be licensed by [&] because Vfin intervenes between the licenser, [&], and the second gap following Vfin . This explanation is supported theory-internally by the proposal that [&] must license the left-edge gap. Independent evidence comes from (48b, c) where the presence of an intervening Vfin coincides with an unacceptable deletion. It is also noteworthy for our discussion that this analysis of the CP is not compatible with the analysis of LEE in (49), which relies on an empty OP in a position to the left of Vfin , as this element, if present in the numeration, blocks the licensing of the gap, just as the finite verb blocks the licensing of the second gap in (48b, c): (49) [CP C [TopP Dieses Buch hat [TP W gelesen und [CP OP [TopP ei wird [TP er . . .]]]]]] In this analysis, OP blocks [&] from licensing the object gap. Since the sentence in (49) is acceptable, it forces us to either question the existence of OP, or the requirement that [&] license the gap. Given that the licensing of a second gap is blocked in (48b, c) for reasons unrelated to OP, we have evidence that [&] plays a role in the licensing of left-edge gaps, and evidence against the existence of OP in (49).33 This discussion and Grohmann’s analysis of the CP domain outlined in (46) is of particular interest to a central argument of this chapter: that coordinate structures support a clearly-defined subject-object asymmetry in Germanic, and this asymmetry can be expressed in the asymmetries between the TP and CP domains: that “normally” objects land in Spec,TopP when a DP is topicalized and that subjects need not be topicalized (fronted to Spec,TopP) in “normal” subject-initial V2 clauses. By “normal” is meant the unmarked, neutral case; subjects can be topicalized, but then the construction becomes marked (though no less acceptable): (50) a. [TopP [Only Bill]i [TP t i has read this book]] b. [TopP [Nur Willi]i [TP t i hat dieses Buch gelesen]] c. [TopP [Enig Willi]i [TP t i heeft dit boek gelezen]] These constructions are more marked than their equivalents without ‘only’, if we use the amount of stress accent required on the topicalized element as a basis of judgment. This markedness points arguably to the topicalization operation. Further investigation reveals evidence that indeed both the CP- and TopP-domains are required in West Germanic. The constructions in (51) indicate that subjects do not normally raise to Spec,TopP and that fronted [+cond]-clauses target Spec,CP, whereas adverbials and fronted DP-objects target Spec,TopP, unless they do not induce V → Top◦ , in which case they are merged late:34

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.29 (1777-1817)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic

(51) a.

[CP [CP Hätten die Terroristen sich mit ihm beraten] [TopP ø[TP had the terrorists refl with him conferred er hätte ihnen ein neues Konzept gegeben]]] he had them a new concept given ‘If the terrorists had conferred with him, he would have given them a new plan’ b. [CP [CP Hätten die T sich über Konzepte beraten] [TopP had the terrorists refl about concepts conferred sein Konzept hätten [TP sie bestimmt nie akzeptiert]]] his concept had they certainly never accepted ‘If the terrorists had conferred about plans, they certainly would not have accepted his plan’ sich voriges Jahr beraten] [TopP c. [CP [CP Hätten die T had the terrorists refl previous year conferred dieses Jahr hätten [TP sie sein Konzept bestimmt nie this year had they his concept certainly never akzeptiert]]] accepted d. [CP Gingen in 2003 nog maar 91 Afghanen terug [TopP vorig went in 2003 yet just 91 Afghans back previous jaar waren [TP dat er 248]]] year were that pl 248 ‘Whereas in 2003 just 91 Afghans returned, the previous year it was 248’ e. [TopP In der Tat [TP wir haben die Differenzen, die wir hatten, in the deed we have the differences that we had hinter uns gelassen]] behind us left ‘Indeeed, we have left the differences that we had behind us’

If we assume that in (51a) the first clause, a fronted, embedded [+cond]-clause, occupies the Spec,CP position, the Spec,TP position is still available for the subject, which does not need to raise to the CP domain for feature checking. In (51b) the same structure occurs with a DP in the Spec,TopP position. (51c, d) indicate that, along with the fronted, embedded [+cond]-clause targeting Spec,CP, an adverbial can target Spec,TopP. (51e) indicates that some fronted adverbials do not induce verb raising, i.e. the verb remains in T. It therefore provides support for the version of the Split CP advocated by Grohmann, as outlined in (46). All of these constructions – none of them involving coordination – can be directly unified with the analysis in Chapter 4 of LEE, in which the structural asymmetry between subject- and object-gap constructions plays a central role. An important related matter concerns the nature of the V2 requirement in German and Dutch.35 The constructions in (51) indicate that V2 is not simply a result of complementary distribution of Vfin and Comp in matrix clauses, i.e. that only one



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03



F: LA8905.tex / p.30 (1817-1865)

Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

or the other may occupy the C◦ position. Rather, V2 is a relation between an XP and a Vfin that defines the left periphery of West Germanic, but it is not an absolute, i.e. “violations” are permitted in certain constructions. This relation can be subject-verb agreement, as in subject-initial V2s, or it can be a Topic-Vfin relation, or a wh-Vfin relation in direct questions. The first occurs in the unmarked case in the TP domain, the second in the TopP-domain, and the last in the CP-domain. As the constructions in (51) indicate, movement over the subject-Vfin relation as well as the Topic-Vfin relation is possible under certain conditions. Just what the exact properties of these three V2-relations and the movement or merge operations that create them are must be left to further research.36 However, we can conclude with certainty here that the existence of structures like those in (51) provides support for the central thesis argued in this chapter, that subject-initial V2 sentences do not have a CP projection. For this thesis to be defended, the V2 rule must be relativized to some condition that cannot be as structurally simple as a complementary distribution rule of the kind assumed in the generalized V → C analysis. In conclusion, we have seen in this section that a finer CP structure, when combined with a Copy theory of DP fronting, is necessary for a full account of V2 structures in German, and it offers a simple and compatible account of a parametric difference seen in the “double-deletion” construction of LEE between English on the one hand, and German and Dutch on the other. We note also that none of the constructions analyzed here require a more refined CP domain than the one assumed by Grohmann, outlined in (46). This does not mean, of course, that Rizzi’s system will necessarily make wrong predictions. However, for the adoption of this system, a thorough analysis of the nature of the V2 constraint must be undertaken, as a finer CP means more potential landing positions for verb raising which do not appear to be attested in Germanic. In the next section we leave the left periphery and consider what coordinate ellipsis in other domains reveals about the structure of Germanic.

. Gapping and the structure of the German VP In Chapter 4 a Gapping construction type exemplified in (52) is mentioned for which no account is given (b translates a): (52) a. Harry mussi heute kochenj und Marie ei morgen ej b. Harry musti cookj today and Mary ei ej tomorrow The assumption throughout this study has been that the German VP has an object – verb (OV) ordering. Does this assumption have to be questioned in light of data like (52a)? That is, do we have to assume that the two gaps in (52) are actually adjacent as in the English equivalent in (52b)? This question arises because of the proposal made for the licensing of the gap in Gapping: Following Hartmann (2000), I assume prosodic licensing by which a prosodic feature licenses the gap. In Chapter 4, constructions of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.31 (1865-1935)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic

the type in (53) with the indicated prosody were considered (b translates a, but without the indirect object Beate of the second conjunct):37 (53) a. Peter fingi der Maria einen Aal, und Paul ei der Beate eine Flunder b. Peter caught Mary an eel and Paul ei a flounder It was also assumed that an intervening lexical item blocks this prosodic licensing. Therefore, constructions like (54a) are unacceptable because the gap of einen Aal cannot be licensed. Licensing of the indirect object der Maria in (54b), however, is possible: (54) a. *Peter fing der Maria einen Aal und Paul fing der Beate einen Aal b. Peter fing der Maria einen Aal und Paul fing der Maria eine Flunder This proposal cannot as it stands account for (52) in which morgen intervenes between the gap of the finite verb and the gap of the dependent infinitive, a problem brought up in Chapter 4 where feature attraction was suggested to be playing a role (cf. end of §4.2.4). There are two approaches to solving this problem. One is to refine the theory of prosodic licensing so that deaccenting as well as accenting licenses. Thus, both the up and down arrows in (55) represent features that can license a gap in Gapping: (55) Hans mussi heute kochenj und Marie ei morgen ej Deaccenting in this theory is assumed appropriate for sentence/clause-final gaps where deaccenting naturally occurs. Licensing with deaccenting therefore does not conflict with the natural contour of the sentence but rather capitalizes on it, using pronounced or “stressed” deaccenting for the perceptual side of language processing to signal where matching is required for the recovery of the gap. This theory conflicts in at least one respect, however, with the behavior of deaccenting in RNR: (56) Hans mussi heute ej und Marie → ei morgen kochenj In this RNR version of (52), which does not differ from any other RNR construction, focus (rising) accent occurs clause-finally in the first conjunct. We note also that steady accenting is required clause-internally for the Gapping ellipsis in the second conjunct. We can conclude from (56) that rising accent may occur clause-finally, leading us to the conclusion that a particular accent does not necessarily correspond to a particular clause position in a coordinate structure with ellipsis; rather, the contour of the entire coordinate construction dictates where each type of accent must fall. A theory that assigns accent based on the entire construction can, therefore, account for both the Gapping construction in (55) and the RNR-Gapping construction in (56). There is one remaining detail of this theory that needs an explanation: Why does deaccenting in (55) license a gap, but deaccenting in (56), also required for acceptability, does not? An interesting aspect of the contour of (56) is the “two-stage” deaccenting that seems to be required. The first stage is where the arrow for deaccenting



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.32 (1935-2003)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

occurs in (56), but a second, non-stressed deaccenting also occurs at the very end, as part of the sentence coda. In Chapter 4 I proposed that the first component of the deaccenting, which is arguably completely separate from the sentence-coda deaccenting, triggers matching, required for recovery of the gap in the first conjunct. Following this analysis, rising accenting (focus accent) has the syntactic function of licensing a gap, while deaccenting signals the need (on the perceptual side) for a LF operation, matching for recovery of the gap.38 An alternate solution to the problem posed by (52a) is to assume that the two gaps are not actually separated by morgen. Rather, they occur as in (57), which parallels (52b): (57) Harry mussi heute kochenj und Marie ei ej morgen In this analysis, the gap of the dependent infinitive raises to the v◦ position, adjacent to the T◦ position; thus, no intervening lexical item blocks prosodic licensing. This would suggest that the German vP has the same structure as the TP: it is head-initial. Although this analysis solves the problem with prosodic licensing of the second gap, it creates another problem seen in the fact that this kind of verb raising occurs only with gaps, and is unacceptable when a phonetically-realized verb occurs: (58) *Harry mussi heute kochenj und Marie muss kochen morgen This construction is unacceptable for two reasons: (1) It violates the OV parameter of German, and (2) It results in an unacceptable asymmetry between the positions of the two infinitives. A related problem with this alternate analysis is the lack of any data which suggest that the German vP is head-initial. If that were the case, we would expect constructions like (59) to be acceptable: (59) a. *Harry muss kochen den Braten b. *Marie muss kochen die Suppe Given the assumption that definite object DPs raise to vP in German, a head-initial vP would generate structures like those in (59). An additional theoretical consideration against the alternate analysis is that in a unified theory of phrase structure, the German VP should also have a VO structure. Solid, independent evidence of this structure is lacking, however. With the analysis of accenting in Gapping and RNR proposed earlier, there is no need to assume that the gaps in (52a) are adjacent, i.e that morgen does not intervene. Instead, a unified theory of accent in coordinate ellipsis which includes deaccenting as a licensing feature eliminates the need to make the problematic conclusion that both English and German are VO languages. The position assumed throughout this study will therefore be maintained: German and Dutch are OV, while English and the other Germanic languages are clearly VO languages; all of these, however, have V2 – English lacking it in the indicative unless subject topicalization is required because of stress

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:03

F: LA8905.tex / p.33 (2003-2036)

Chapter 5. Coordinate ellipsis and the structure of West Germanic

accent on an emphatic quantifier like only (cf. 50), or in certain negations like those in (60):39 (60) a. a.’ b. b.’

[TopP Never have [TP I seen anything like it in my life]] [TopP Truly [TP I have never seen anything like it in my life]] [TopP Never will [TP I do that again]] [TopP Certainly [TP I will never do that again]]

This analysis depends, as stated above, on a theory of V2 that is unified with the pragmatic features of Germanic sentences. Just what these are would require an investigation that extends beyond the scope of this study.

. Chapter conclusion In this chapter we have considered data from elliptical coordinate structures for the purpose of re-examining certain assumptions made throughout this study about the structure of Germanic. A spin-off of this re-examination has been the discovery that theories which to date have focused primarily on the fine structure of the Romance CP can also account, in slightly revised form, for certain properties of the West Germanic CP-domain. Although the data considered here do not give support to the full array of positions advocated for Romance by Rizzi (1997), a modified version of this theory appears necessary for certain coordinate and matrix-embedded structures in Germanic. The conclusions drawn are (1) that German requires two head positions in the CP domain, C◦ and Top◦ , for realizing the full array of possible structures, (2) the subject remains in Spec,TP unless it occurs with emphatic stress (cf. 50), and (3) the German vP and VP are head-final, i.e. have an OV structure. These conclusions are based in this chapter on analyses of coordinate structures with an ellipse in some location. It is claimed that all ellipsis types, whether left-edge, right-edge or clause-internal, can be more easily accounted for, if these conclusions are adopted.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.1 (46-151)

Notes

Chapter 1 . Chametzky (1987) presents an interesting extension of Goodall’s idea of using parallel, 3-D planes for coordinate structures, substituting an operation of set union for Goodall’s transformational operations. . Schwabe and Winkler (2003: 8) state that what is lacking in an approach to coordinate ellipsis which utilizes PF-deletion (ellipsis via the non-realization of the phonetic features of a lexical item) is a trigger for the deletion process. In my proposal no such trigger is needed; rather, ellipsis occurs as a reflex of economy in derivation: avoiding the realization of phonetic features (ellipsis) offers a very advantageous way to economize a derivation. . I will argue that strong syntactic symmetry can sometimes overcome weak semantic symmetry and vice versa. Optimal syntactic symmetry obtains when the same syntactic categories are conjoined, and there are no morphological Case conflicts. Optimal semantic symmetry obtains when there is no lexical ambiguity (equivalent lexical items in the conjuncts share obvious semantic features), and there are corresponding presuppositions. . Ungrammatical under the reading without the underlying relative pronoun that. If the coordinating conjunction and is inserted before the second conjunct, the sentence is not much better, and then only under a different reading: (i)

?? Paul

wrote the lengthy book on dinosaurs, and Peter edited (i.e. intransitive edit)

. A result of the application of derivation by phase with Multiple Spell-Out is that the inverted Y model used above with the interface following syntactic derivation will no longer be suitable. Rather, portions of the derivation are sent to the interface as the derivation proceeds. . In the matching of likes visiting relatives with the elided VP, the phonetic features of the two matched strings are not identical, as in the elided VP, like occurs because the 3SG ending is realized on does. This phonetic non-identity does not cause a problem for matching, which is based on syntactic and semantic features. Further examples and discussion are provided in Chapter 3. . It is possible that these more general features are assigned only in coordinate structures where, as in (4), a unifying feature is needed to create the necessary coordinate symmetry. These features could be omitted for economy purposes when the elements they’re assigned to are not conjoined. I will leave the matter to further research. . Jackendoff (1977) argues in his seminal work on X’ syntax that coordinating conjunctions do not project. . Camacho’s (2000) assumptions about coordinating conjunctions are not far removed, however, from those made here. He argues that a coordinating conjunction is a functional category

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.2 (151-206)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

with no feature content of its own. Its feature specification is obtained parasitically from another head. Camacho takes this assumption farther than I do, assuming that all coordinating conjunctions must obtain features for checking, like the categories [T] and [P]. In my proposal coordinating conjunctions do not have to perform any feature checking in the syntactic derivation, in keeping with the basic premise that coordination theory should be developed with as few additional rules or operations as possible. With respect to feature checking, this means that all features of a numeration, even one with a coordinating conjunction, can be checked without the assistance of the coordinating conjunction, as feature checking is not an operation that is dependent on conjunction in the simplest theory of coordination. . (11a, b) are both perfectly grammatical; however, they are not on a par w.r.t. frequency of usage and markedness. Indeed, many coordinate constructions that are perfectly grammatical are low in frequency and marked, for one reason or another. This fact tends, for those who take frequency of usage as an important criterion of grammaticality, to weaken an analysis of coordinate structures that relies on low-frequency construction types. Whether this “weakness” needs to be taken seriously or not will not be debated here. However, I refer the reader to Newmeyer (2003) for further discussion. . ATB movement has been widely assumed necessary in conjoined wh-clauses of the type in (i): (i)

Which booki did Bill write t i and Bob refuse to read t i ?

In Chapter 3 an alternate analysis of this type of construction, based on derivation by phase, will be presented. . ATB movement also requires the movement of more than one, albeit identical, lexical items into one syntactic position. In languages like German, such movement must, in cases of more than two conjuncts, cross more than one CP node. Both of these provisions conflict with general assumptions about movement.

Chapter 2 . In some theories of German syntax these two clauses are both CPs. This point will be discussed further in this study. . For a discussion of the role of active memory in derivation, see Chomsky (1998: 19) where it is referred to as the “work space”. Levelt (1989) uses the term Working Memory to refer to this same area of linguistic computation. . This phrase structure will be defended in §2.3.2 as necessary to account for the asymmetries between conjoined DPs. . This mismatch cannot be generated in the present model because Copy, which targets only syntactic features (semantic features determined by Select and θ-role assignment), cannot generate a non-matching syntactic feature, by which auxiliaries are primarily defined. . Bayer (1996) has an interesting account of cross-categorial coordination using Lambek Categorial Grammar. No comment will be made on his theory here because of the incompatibility with the framework I am using. Likewise, Whitman outlines a theory of cross-categorial coordination that incorporates pragmatic considerations into a semantically-based theory. His theory is able to account for the contrast between (i) and (ii):

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.3 (206-274)

Notes 

(i) *John ate with his mother and with good appetite

(Schachter 1977)

(ii) John ate with his mother but with good appetite . Cross-categorial coordination is just one example of feature conflict in coordinate constructions for which feature resolution is required. There is an relatively extensive body of literature on the topic of feature resolution, to which I will refer below. . Munn (1993) formulates a constraint to account for the coordination of unlike categories based on the identity of semantic types. It is not always easy to determine, however, what counts as a semantic type, as Munn points out. . The contrast between (6) and (7) indicates that symmetry requirements on conjoined subjects are stricter than those on conjoined complements. Several reasons can be given for this: (1) subjects must agree with the verb(s), (2) subjects are external arguments that must meet requirements, possibly dictated by the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) that internal arguments do not have to meet, (3) semantic requirements placed on subjects are more specific. This is an area for further research. . The “Law of the Coordination of Likes” was first stated in Chomsky (1957: 36). . Although the proposal of Sag et al. has accounted for a number of interesting and previously troublesome data, a comparison with the present proposal is not possible because of the incompatibility of the two frameworks. . These compatibility issues do not render these studies in any way empirically inferior to the present one; they only make it impractical for the two to profit directly from each other. For a survey of research on coordination, see Progovac (1998). . The linearity of language could be taken to mean that constructions are derived from the top down, as proposed in Hornstein (1998). It could also be taken to mean that the derivation of coordinate structures proceeds from the first conjunct to the second and so on. This issue will be taken up in more detail in Chapter 4 where we look at how derivation by phase can offer solutions for some outstanding issues of coordination. . The categorial asymmetry could be eliminated if we assumed that both clauses were CPs. My choice of TP for the second clause, thus creating even more asymmetry between the clauses, will be argued in §2.5.4. . Compare to Chomsky’s (1957: 15) famous example with similar properties: “Curious green ideas sleep furiously” or to the sentence from Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll: “Twas brillig, and the slythy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe” which has nonsense words, but good syntax, and therefore at least some meaning. . The examples in (11) are slightly less acceptable than those in (10) and (12) for some speakers. . In Chapter 3 we will reconsider constructions like (13) in light of derivational aspects of coordination. We note here that English existential there has properties which allow it to enter an agreement relation with the feature [sg]. Adverbials, as indicated in (14a, b), do not have these properties and thus do not enter a Spec-head agreement relation with the finite verb. . Agreement breakdown in the VS configuration does not require a coordinate structure. See van Gelderen (1997) for examples and analysis. Standard Arabic is one example of a nonGermanic language that exhibits this breakdown, as presented in Aoun, Benmamoun and Sportiche (1994, 1999).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.4 (274-344)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . Asymmetric agreement in Arabic is the topic of investigation in several studies, beginning with Bahloul and Harbert (1992) and Aoun, Benmamoun and Sportiche (1994). . This structure is argued to be a CP in many studies, especially Vikner (1995). Arguments for the TP analysis are presented in Chapter 5. . A better solution to this problem is presented in Chapter 3 in the context of derivation by phase in conjunction. We also leave aside the issue of what type of element [&], the coordinating conjunction, is until Chapter 3, where it is argued that it is a defective head in the sense that it does not project. . Just as a speaker who states Me and my brother play ball together would not state *Me play ball every weekend, this same speaker would never say *My brother meets I at the bar. In other words, the pronouns I and me and their equivalents in the other persons are used only in nonambiguous syntactic positions. For many speakers, conjoined subjects are not transparent for φ-feature checking. Hence, we get constructions like (21), (22a) and (25). Standard usage is examined in Chapter 3. . The default Case in German is nominative; hence, even if the coordinate structure in (28) is not transparent to feature checking, both DPs will be nominative. However, the equivalent derivation with conjoined object DPs never generates deviant Case forms: (i)

Peter besucht mich/*ich und meinen/*mein Bruder am Wochenende P visits me/*I and my-acc/*my-nom brother on-the weekend

. Note that both of these configurations are SV. In VS configurations, as we saw in (15), a plural marker on the verbal head does not always get generated with conjoined subjects. The breakdown in agreement in those cases, explored also in van Gelderen (1996, 1997), is presumably due to configurational factors, whereas the verbal agreement in (14b, c) is in part a result of semantic set formation. Semantic features are also capable of inducing a “breakdown,” as in (15b, d, g) in which two conjoined DPs create a singular set as a subject, requiring a singular verb ending. See also §2.3.4. . Heycock and Zamparelli (2000) present an interesting analysis of conjoined NPs within a DP, such as [my [friend and colleague]]. Their study involves a mapping from the syntax to the semantics and is intended as a case-study. This topic will not be taken up here as it involves complexities of their theory of semantics. . This quote is from G. Appenzeller, “Umzug in eine vertraute Fremde.” Der Tagesspiegel, 19 Apr. 1999, p. 1. . Farkas and Ojeda (1983: 666) use the comparison between French and English w.r.t. agreement in neither . . . nor constructions to make the same argument: (i)

Neither Paul nor George is coming

(ii) Ni Paul ni Georges ne sont venus neither P nor G not are come-pl Given that the only difference between the two constructions is the agreement rule with neither . . . nor, number agreement cannot be semantically determined universally. . But note that this requirement interacts with the choice of semantic interpretation: The choice of himself is not really ungrammatical, only a less-likely interpretation. Why himself is unexpected, to the point of almost being deviant (as claimed in Hartmann 2000) is because pragmatically we expect the filmmaker to be the binder for [x] in a movie about x, given that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.5 (344-415)

Notes

we know nothing about Peter, specifically whether there would be a reason for a film to be made about him. As stated above, binding depends on matching in such constructions, and this matching can involve pragmatic knowledge. . Further evidence is presented in Chapters 3 and 4 in support of the assumption that feature matching is largely an LF operation, i.e. involves semantic features. However, the syntactic consituent that is clearly formed when two conjoined DPs together agree with one subject or bind an anaphor cannot be an LF function or operation. Thus, this aspect of CFM is syntactic and, to the extent it requires coordinate symmetry, necessarily independent of the basic syntactic asymmetry. . German has pronoun forms which are neither unambiguously nom or acc, and as with English me, they must be disambiguated structurally and be assigned an abstract Case. They are: sie ‘she’ and es ‘it’ in the singular, and sie ‘they’ in the plural. Unlike English me, him, her, etc., however, sie and es do not cause any kind of morphological feature or (abstract) Case conflict in constructions like (i), if we assume that Case is not checked until after subject raising to Spec,TP: (i)

wohnen [VP im Vorort]]] und ihr Mann [T’ [TP Sie in-the suburb she/her-nom and her husband-nom live

. This is a preliminary version of the model; later in this chapter a revision including Multiple Spell-Out is presented. . The lack of a feature matching requirement in the PF component will be defended in Chapters 3 and 4. . For an example of a formalized reiteration rule in GPSG, see the “Iterating Coordination Schema” of Sag et al. (1985). A rule schema for the phrase structure assumed in the Minimalist Program would not assume any feature percolation or slash categories but would instead capitalize on the minimalist structure building mechanisms Merge and Copy. . The focus in this chapter and throughout this study is on the derivation/generation of coordinate structures, with the fine points of feature resolution generally left aside (cf. Winter 1998, 2002). An interesting study of feature resolution in German is Berg (1998). The processing of already-generated structures and how it involves resolution has been investigated in numerous studies, for instance Frazier and Clifton (2001); Frazier, Munn and Clifton (2000); Kaan, Wijnen and Swaab (2004). These have shown quite consistently that parallel structures and like categories speed up the processing of sentences, whereas parallel semantic phrases or modifiers do not necessarily. . Besides the obvious evidence of the combinatorial properties of [&] in the agreement required when two or more conjoined singular subjects are shared by a single finite verb which must have a plural ending, there is also evidence of combinatorial properties when conjoined clauses, neither of which contain a plural noun phrase, can have a modifying relative clause that can only describe groups. This is observed in Perlmutter and Ross (1970). . Coordinating conjunctions vary somewhat as to the degree of symmetry that they require. Whereas the paradigmatic ones and, but, or, nor require a high degree of symmetry (and the highest), “joining words” like rather than used in comparative constructions do not. For this reason we get constructions like (i) from Richards (1999: 155, small caps added): (i)

A theory assuming Featural Cyclicity predicts . . . that multiple movements will cross rather than nesting. . .



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.6 (415-499)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Feature matching may fail in this construction because there is no coordinating conjunction. The construction rather than nesting is probably analyzed as a simple adjoined modifier. However, feature matching is an option, but a more costly one for the derivation. Hence, (i) results from a higher degree of economy in derivation. . Grootveld (1994) does assume the lexical presence of coordinating conjunctions, as does Moltmann (1992) with her 3D proposal. . For a detailed discussion of a typology of coordinating conjunctions from a pragmatic standpoint, see Lee (2002). . Gapping alone is possible without a lexical coordinating conjunction if prosodic stress and rising intonation are particularly heavy at the clause juncture: (i)

Peter wrote the music, Petra e the lyrics

The clitic ‘n’ doesn’t make a good substitute for this prosody: (ii) ?? Peter wrote the music, ‘n’ Petra the lyrics . Sag et al. state that in English, “the coordination of two singular NPs with and is always plural.” . (49) occurs in Lasersohn (1995: 110) but is taken from Hoeksema (1988). Because the configurations of the constructions in (49) and (50) are all SV, it seems apparent that the phrase structure does not play a role in the choice of [±pl]. . Lasersohn doesn’t imply that some type of deletion transformation is necessary with this generalized conjunction operation, and it will be the assumption throughout that conjoined DP/NPs do not derive from conjoined clauses. For further discussion of this point, see Munn (2000). . See also Johannessen’s analysis (1998: 14) of a similar construction taken from Stowell (1981): (i)

Pat was annoyed by the children’s noise and that their parents did nothing to stop it

(ii) *Pat was annoyed by that their parents did nothing to stop it

(Sag et al. 1985: 165)

. German, like English and many other languages, also has pronouns that can be either acc or dat. They are the first person plural uns, second person plural euch and Sie, and third person sie and reflexive sich; the reflexives of these can be both singular and plural. In many constructions it is not necessary to assign [acc] or [dat] to these pronouns; rather, the feature [refl] can be read off the more abstract and easily computed feature [objective]. Examples are (i)

a.

b.

Wir sehen uns heute Abend vs: We see us-refl today evening ‘We’ll see each other tonight’ Kennt ihr euch? vs: Know you-nom,pl you-refl,pl ‘Do you know each other?’

Wir sehen uns heute Abend den Film an we see us-refl,dat today evening the film at ‘We are going to see the film tonight’ Peter gibt euch den Autoschlüssel P gives you-dat,pl the car-key

Furthermore, German uses obj with CP-objects as in (ii) and allows their conjunction with pronouns or nouns which are unambiguously acc or dat: (ii) a.

Peter glaubt mir und dass ich nichts getan habe P believes me-dat and that I nothing done have

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.7 (499-567)

Notes 

b.

Peter weiß die Antwort und wie schwer sie ist P knows the answer-acc and how difficult it is

. (59) is taken from the German first-year textbook Deutsch. Na klar! (3rd ed., Di Donato/ Clyde/Vansant, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999), p. 251. . More on the function of [&] will be presented in Chapter 3, where it will be explored whether [&] is a probe. . In Spanish a person hierarchy plays a role in resolving feature conflicts with verbal endings: (i)

Ella y yo queremos comer she and I want-1pl (to) eat

(ii) *Ella y yo quieren comer she and I want-3pl (to) eat For discussion of thematic hierarchies and their role in the resolution of feature conflicts in case morphology, see Dyla (1984) and Franks (1993). In Chapter 3 data similar to (60a) will be examined where either the dative or accusative article is allowed in a different configuration. . This fact supports the argument presented earlier in this section that there is a feature [objective] that is assigned to DP/NPs in certain constructions when there is no distinction necessary between [acc] and [dat], or when a conjunct such as CP cannot be assigned [acc] or [dat]. . Another example from Eisenberg (1973) is given in (i) which illustrates the sharing of an NP with sufficient phonological symmetry (the ending -en is ambiguous between masc, sg, acc/dat/gen and pl, gen) by two determiners, each with different number but the same case morphology: (i)

der Antrag des oder der Dozenten the application of-the-gen,sg or of-the-gen,pl lecturers

It should be noted that neither the phonologically-based approach of Eisenberg nor the syntactically-based approach of Pullum and Zwicky considers a semantic conflict that sometimes occurs. In (i), for instance, the NP Dozenten must be assigned both [sg] and [pl] for it to be interpretable with both des and der. This conflict is resolved by the coordinating conjunction, oder ‘or’, whereas und ‘and’, because of its syntactic and semantic combinatorial properties, cannot bring about a resolution: (ii) *der Antrag des und der Dozenten The source of the problem in (ii) has to do with the pragmatics: what situation could exist in which one specific (‘der’) application could be valid/required from one individual lecturer and more than one lecturer? . Franks proposes a thematic hierarchy for resolving Case agreement which might be applicable to coordination, as is Dyla’s (1984) investigation of ATB dependencies. Other studies on this topic are Artstein (2001) on Hebrew morphology in coordination, and Winter (1996, 1998) who proposes that one conjunct receives a weakened interpretation when it is not compatible (symmetric). . In these experiments the generation of two independent clauses with matching subjects was compared to a control construction without matching subjects. This comparison showed that the construction with the matching subjects required an extra 85 milliseconds to generate. I am

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.8 (567-633)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

assuming that the matching operation demanded the extra time, as that was the only difference between the two constructions. I wish to thank Ewald Lang for bringing this research to my attention. . See Grootveld (1994: 40ff.) where it is proposed that an additional plane is necessary for constructions like those in (72). . The matching process described here requires that syntactic choices form the basis for the interpretive process in LF. . Note that in this analysis of Gapping the matching of the formal features in the syntax determines whether the phonetic features can remain unrealized in PF. . This is Camacho’s paraphrase of a generalization that he attributes to Wasow, based on information in Sag et al. (1985). . A major motivation for the account of symmetry in the conjunction of VPs in Camacho (2000) is the need that he sees for distinguishing between agreement and tense features with respect to feature resolution. Agreement features, he argues, allow resolution because they are [–interpretable], while tense features, because they are [+interpretable], do not. He uses the data in (i) from Warner (1988) to illustrate his point about the contrast between agreement and tense w.r.t. [±interpretable] features: (i)

a. He, you and I were kidding ourselves b. *We is, are and am happy with ourselves

Camacho, however, does not use the term ‘feature resolution’ uniformly; this is not unlike its usage in other studies. He states that feature resolution occurs in (ii-a) with chinos but not in (ii-b) with the determiners (his 44): (ii) a.

La influencia y mérito chinos the influence and merit (of) chinese b. *Las/los influencia y mérito chinos

This point will come up again in later discussion of feature resolution. . Camacho does not explain how subject raising is the appropriate operation in his proposal for licensing a temporal interpretation, given that ‘temporal’ implies the features [tense] and [aspect], usually assumed to be verbal features. . Camacho’s proposal for the duplication of features is drawn from a theory of feature insertion outlined in Camacho (1997). . I do not assume that an adverb is in any sense a specifier for the category that hosts it. If this is correct, it is erroneous to call the relation between, for instance, casi and se acabó a Spec-head relation. This assumption is supported by the work of Reid (2001) who argues extensively that there are few syntactic principles specific to adverbials and that they for the most part adjoin freely to any projection. Furthermore, my assumptions here about tense symmetry in coordination do not necessarily conflict with a proposal made by Stowell (1996) in which additional syntactic structure replaces semantic rules to account for the distribution and interpretation of particular tense forms. The central focus is on whether each conjunct in a VP-coordination must have separate feature checking to assure tense symmetry. . An more detailed look at the parasitic gap construction and how it differs from an ATB wh-construction will be presented in Chapter 4.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.9 (633-704)

Notes  . For clarification here (putting off further analysis until Chapter 3) we note that the gap in the second [T] indicates that did does not need to be selected for the second conjunct, given that did in the first conjunct c-commands the second TP conjunct. . At least part of the perceived degradation in grammaticality in (94b) has to do with the infrequency of constructions like this one. See also discussion and examples in Chapter 1. . Camacho (2000) argues that tense resolution, producing symmetric tenses, does not occur, and that the only reason tense symmetry occurs in the conjunction of VPs is because of the licensing by the projection ZeitP. As indicated above, tense symmetry results in my proposal from the categories conjoined: if they are VPs, then they must share a TP, where tense is determined, and have no tense themselves. It is therefore not necessary to assure the symmetry of tense in conjoined VPs with any projection other than TP. . It appears in (i) that negation has scope over TPs: (i)

[TP John [didn’t file]i the paper and [TP Bill ei the contract]]

There is another way to account for this, however. I will assume that the matching required for Gapping includes in its mapping the negation which is cliticized onto the auxiliary did (though cliticization itself has nothing to do with the scope effect). In this way negation gains scope over the second TP. More on this in Chapter 4. . Camacho takes as a major motivation for his proposal that the tense feature does not allow resolution (cf. §2.5.1). The notion of resolution is not precisely defined in the literature on this subject, however. Sometimes resolution means that two sets of features have the same phonological realization, as is the case with the German strong adjectival ending -er which can be dat,fem,sg or gen,pl (mixed genders). Sometimes feature resolution means that an ending simply has a “neutralized” interpretation, as is the case with the Spanish adjective ending -os which suffices for the conjunction of feminine and masculine items, despite the clearly masculine -o- infix (versus the feminine -a-). Camacho’s suggestion that tense cannot be resolved because it is [+interpretable] is appropriate for the Minimalist Program’s assumption that tense has a separate projection, but agreement does not. In the proposal developed here in which the principle of CFM occupies a central position and conjunction is phase-based, the tense feature must be copied from one TP/CP conjunct to another, if symmetry is to be established, i.e. no resolution issue arises. . A parallel construction to (35) in English is: (i)

[CP Whoi has Peter kissed, [CP ei will Paul certainly ignore and [CP ei must Petra not envy]]]?

. The conjunction und is not lexically realized in all languages, but it nevertheless exists on some level even when not lexically realized. See van Oirsouw (1987) and references given there for discussion. The equivalent of the One-more-phrase in German has the adjoined adverb noch and therefore probably qualifies as an adjective phrase (AP). . This construction type is found in Dutch as well (see discussion of the following in Johannessen 1998: 40): (i)

[CP Als je te laat thuiskomt en [TP je hebt geen sleutel bij je. . .]] if you too late home-come and you have no key by you

. In Höhle this construction is referred to as a case of “asymmetric” coordination in that a VE clause is coordinated with a V2 clause. Since the writing of that article, the word “asymmet-

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.10 (704-768)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

ric” has taken on the phrase-structural meaning given to it in Kayne (1994). Hence, the term “mismatch” is now a better choice. . The construction in (98) could be interpreted as an indication that V2 word order is preferred in spoken German because of its greater illocutionary force. Further investigation must be left aside. . See Höhle’s (1990) analysis of this construction in which he argues that the level of saturation of the predicates determines whether this kind of conjunction is possible. . Culicover and Jackendoff (1997) argue, based on previous work (Jackendoff 1992; Culicover & Jackendoff 1995) that binding is a semantic relation. I will assume that both syntactic and semantic relations are relevant to binding. . The i-coindexation indicates the main clause, and the j-coindexation the subordinate clause; the latter has moved from an underlying position marked by dann, which acts after movement as a resumptive pronominal element. . In (105b) the scope of wenn with its feature [+comp] extends to the second conjunct, thereby blocking V-raising, whereas in (105a) the scope of wenn is cut short at the left edge of the second conjunct. These scopal differences could well be related to the prosody of the respective constructions. In (105a) the second conjunct has the prosody of a parenthetical, whereas the prosody of the second conjunct in (105b) is in parallel with that of the first conjunct, reflecting a higher level of symmetry. . Copy, as an operation of narrow syntax that targets uninterpretable features, does not target any element(s) in the conjunction of TPs or CPs, or CP & TP as in (106a). Therefore, categorially (syntactically) mismatched conjunctions as in (106a) are derivable in the present proposal; the resulting asymmetries in the syntax are “balanced out” by symmetries in the semantics and pragmatics. . Matching does nevertheless occur, despite the syntactic asymmetry. We recall the earlier discussion where it was established that VE and V2 clauses share syntactic symmetries at an earlier derivational stage, of which there are traces or copies. . The claim that there is no “fundamental” semantic difference between these two constructions does not imply that they are equal in every way except for the position of the finite verb. As stated earlier, V2 clauses have more illocutionary force, a property that is tied to their semantic properties in some way. Thus, a certain subtle semantic difference between the two constructions arguably exists. . As stated in the previous note, the two constructions are not perfectly equivalent. One indication of this is that they are not 100% interchangeable. . I am using the term “ATB-extraction” for convenience here. In the next chapter I will argue that ATB extraction constructions are better analyzed as cases of CFM inducing gaps in the second and subsequent conjuncts. In this analysis the same blocking effect cited in the next sentence occurs as in ATB extraction. . An additional reason, explored in detail in Chapters 4 and 5, is that weil cannot license the left-edge gap in (11a). Furthermore, Copy and Match are not induced by weil. . Thanks to Manuela Schönenberger for (112b) and for pointing out that Vikner (1995) has a discussion of CP recursion with weil that relates to the position of the finite verb in weil+V2 clauses. In Chapter 5 I propose a finer structure (Split-C) for the German and Dutch left periphery that accounts for (112b).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.11 (768-845)

Notes  . For an interesting proposal linking economy of pronunciation as a discourse principle to the structural representation of coordination and how it semantically affects the event structure, see Progovac (1999). . It is possible for a clause to be embedded without a complementizer as a V1 construction; for instance, conditionals without wenn are common, in which case an auxiliary occupies the position of the complementizer: (i)

Hätte er noch ein Bier getrunken, dann wäre er bestimmt betrunken gewesen had he yet a beer drunk, then were he certainly drunk been ‘Had he drunk another beer, he would certainly have been/become drunk’

Manuela Schönenberger pointed out to me (p.c.) that in Swiss German V1 word order is common in constructions like (ii): (ii) I bi froh, cha-n-I velofahre I am glad can I bicycle-ride ‘I’m glad I can ride a bike’ . Constructions which do not have a lexical subject and therefore do not require subject-verb agreement default to VE: (i)

das Bier bitte für mich bestellen the beer please for me order (versus: Bestellen Sie/bestell (du) bitte das Bier für mich)

(ii) der Familie bitte viele Grüße von mir sagen! the-dat family please many greetings from me say (versus: Sagen Sie/Sag bitte der Familie viele Grüße von mir!) . In Chapter 5 we will see that it is indeed possible with some DPs – those with focus accent – to front them to a left-edge position of an adjoined V2 clause, if a finer left periphery is assumed. . It is possible that the syntactic chain between the fronted DP das billigste and its trace also plays a role in the ungrammaticality of (115a). This chain, however, does not by itself rule out this kind of mismatch: (i)

Wenn das beste Bier alle anderen bestellen, und das billigste muss ich If the best beer all others order, and the cheapest must I bestellen . . . order . . .

In (i) the structural symmetry is greater than in (115a) in the sense that both clauses have subject-object inversion. This point, and whether syntactic chains play a role, lead the discussion too far afield and will therefore be left to the side here, but see Chapter 5 for related discussion. . The features that CPs possess that TPs don’t relate to the fact that CP projections are used in German for questions, commands, contrary-to-fact statements and statements in which a particular element is being topicalized (for whatever reason). A subject-initial V2 clause, on the other hand, is neutral, the default type, and most importantly, it can be conjoined with the TP dominated directly by the CP headed by wenn in the previous conjunct. . In te Velde (2000b) I assume that (118a) is the conjunction of two TPs, the second having a subject gap. I will argue in Chapter 4 that constructions like this are better analyzed as conjoined VPs and therefore have no subject gap.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.12 (845-911)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . The phrase structure analysis in (119) has been simplified (lacks a vP); furthermore, it provides partial support for the proposal made in Moro (2000: 2), which counters the assumption of Chomsky (1995: 340), that the LCA of Kayne (1994) is a principle of the phonological component rather than a principle that holds at all levels of syntactic representation. Only the structure on the left, generated in the syntactic component, needs to be linearized in my proposal, however. In LF the coordinate semantic relations take on a 3-D or parallel planes representation as indicated. . The concurrence of syntactic derivation and LF requires Multiple Spell-Out, explored for coordinate structures in Chapter 3. . A quick clarification about the use of ‘domains’ and how they determine my analysis of (118a): Because has and never are in domains that dominate the conjuncts, and are hence superior to them, these lexical items do not have to be present, either overtly or covertly, in the conjuncts themselves for the proper interpretation, derived in the manner described above. The scope of never in (118a) does not automatically follow from the basic structural asymmetry of the construction. That is, not does not always have scope over a second conjunct by virtue of the structural asymmetry: (i)

a. b.

Katie didn’t come home last night but stayed at her friend’s Katie hasn’t come home and has really frightened us again

The scope of not in (i-a) is cut off by the negation feature of but; in (i-b) the second conjunct is a TP, which is equal in status to the first conjunct where negation is encliticized onto the [T]. Because the second conjunct is syntactically equal and not inferior to the first TP, the scope of negation does not extend into it. The negation facts of (i) suggest that the hierarchy of domains is needed as well as asymmetry to define scope. . The construction from Camacho in (85) and the construction here in (119) point to the assumption that languages have just two choices for realizing tense morphology: either it appears on an auxiliary or “full” lexical verb in [T] as in German V2 present and preterite tense constructions, or it is realized on the finite verb itself in the vP/VP as in the English and Spanish present and preterite tenses. . It is noteworthy here that the scope of negation is not defined purely by the structural configuration and its projections. Rather, the scope of negation requires the presence of [&] in the numeration, which guarantees that Copy and Match will occur in the way described.

Chapter 3 . Kayne assumes all languages are underlying head-initial (SVO) and therefore excludes the structure on the right. . Munn assumes for head-final languages that the order of ‘B’ and its complement reverses, as compared to the order of Spec and Complement in Johannessen. Munn (1999) points out that all languagues have Spec,XP; none have XP,Spec. . Chametzky points out that the complement and Specifier in a Kayne-type coordinate structure are not of the same category whenever there is more than one conjunct. (In Kayne’s analysis of coordination all coordinate structures have only one conjunct because he analyzes only coordinate structures which in traditional terms have two conjuncts, and he does not assume that

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.13 (911-971)

Notes 

the initial conjunct of a coordinate is actually a conjunct, only the second one in the complement position of (2a).) That’s because any coordinating conjunction other than the last one in a construction like I saw Kim and Pat and Dale takes a phrase headed by another coordinating conjunction as its complement. Dale is the complement of the lower and, while the higher and has &P, the projection of and, as its complement and Kim as its Specifier. . For a more recent analysis of coordination in Japanese see Kasai and Takahashi (2001). . Other related problems with the Johannessen theory are (1) that only “CP-type structures” (1998: 5) can be selected as conjuncts, contrary to what is suggested by her transformation “Coordinate alpha.” Furthermore, this transformation does not permit access to the lexicon, in contrast to what is necessary in Chomsky’s (1995: 195) “generalized transformation” (GT). It is thus more stipulative, and unification breaks down. . J. Schreyvogel, cited in Pörnbacher (1969: 65). . H. Heine, cited in Johannessen (1996: 665). . H. Kleist, Prinz Friedrich von Homburg I,4. . A very recent study by Toivonen (2003) argues that certain words, specifically particles in Swedish, are non-projecting. My argument in this section is built on this assumption w.r.t. coordinating conjunctions. . We must keep in mind in this discussion of categories that the Minimalist Program does not posit N,V,P,A as primitives of the grammar but as convenient labels. The only relevant features of heads come from the lexicon. Therefore the label ‘coordinating conjunction’ is purely for convenience, as is the comparison here to the category ‘adverb’. It should become evident that the term “defective” with reference to coordinating conjunctions therefore means only that they do not project [&P] and establish their own syntactic domains. . Jackendoff (1977) assumes that adverbs do not take any internal or external arguments. Alexiadou (1997) assumes that the vast majority of adverbs do not take complements, unlike prepositions, as does Travis (1988) who assigns them the feature [–Comp], i.e. lacking a complement. . The coordination conjunctions denn ‘for’, aber ‘but’, sondern ‘but rather’ were originally adverbs. For more on the history of categories, see Harris and Campbell (1995) who argue that the fallacy behind the argument that historical development is paratactic → hypotactic begins with the observation that some marker that was originally present in a paratactic construction began to be used as a marker of subordination in a hypotactic construction. Harris and Campbell argue, however, that there is very rarely historical evidence for this development. . Kuno assumes that the conjunction marker -to in Japanese is a “comitative postposition.” Whether this assumption conflicts with assumptions made here about conjunction will be left to further research. . Thanks to Eungcheon Hah (p.c.) for this example. . See arguments in §3.5.1 based on derivational considerations for assuming that in English [&] is most closely associated with the conjunct it immediately precedes. . Johannessen (1998: 46–51) includes a section on differences between subordination and coordination, considering, however, only comitative and pseudocoordination as cases of subordination that are similar to coordination. She comes to the conclusion that these forms of subordination must be kept distinct from coordination, even unbalanced coodination, contrary

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.14 (971-1041)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

to what might be expected from her theory of coordination, but in support of the proposal outlined below. . We recall from §2.5.5 that if the order of the clauses in (25) is reversed, then V2 is no longer possible in the dependent clauses. This restriction indicates that the weakening effect allowing V → T results from the linearization matrix – embedded, by which the embedded clause takes on properties of the matrix clause via Copy. . Equivalent constructions can be found in German and other Germanic languages. . The usage in (32c) is not “standard” as found in written documents, etc. I was, in fact, not able to find any native speakers who found this usage acceptable. Instead, these speakers would say para ti y para mi. . Apparent cases of unbalanced coordination as in (i) will be investigated in §3.6: (i)

a. b.

Me/Us and Bill get along great Bill and me/us can (all) go together

. The construction in (39a) occurs in a first-year German textbook, Deutsch. Na klar!, p. 32 (3rd ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999). . A. Classen, “Mutter zu Tochter: Literarhistorische Betrachtungen zu einem feministischen Thema” (German Quarterly, 75(1), 75). . We recall the observation made by Munn (1999) that no language has the configuration XP, Spec required for (45b). . See §3.6.1. and n. 63 for more detailed discussion of this tree diagram. . The slight degradation in grammaticality in (i) might be due to V → C that occurs in it, but I will not speculate further on this: (i)

? Heute

begrüßt und dankt Fritz dem Herrn today greets and thanks F the-dat gentleman

. Johannessen’s proposal is somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand she assumes that all conjuncts are CP-like because CP structures have clearly-defined Spec and complement positions and the head of CP, like [&], is a functional category. On the other hand she argues in Chapter 5 that phrasal coordination is also possible. . A problem with the analysis in (51b) parallels a problem with the analysis in (51a) pointed out earlier: How does the element in the Spec position get there, if not by movement? And what motivates this movement? . Kayne (1994: 59) argues that heads cannot be coordinated, using as evidence French constructions like (i) with the clitics te and me conjoined by et: (i) *Jean te et me voit souvent J you and me sees often He states, “On the assumption that clitics are heads, the ungrammaticality of [i] now follows directly [from the assumption that heads cannot be coordinated].” This conclusion overlooks the remainder of the set of heads, however. Most heads are not clitics; clitics are a small subset of the set of heads. Furthermore, the reason clitics cannot be coordinated is because there is a basic requirement on all conjuncts: They must be able to bear some stress. Clitics do not meet this requirement, but most heads are not clitics and can, therefore, bear stress and be conjuncts.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.15 (1041-1115)

Notes

. Munn assumes for head-final languages that the order of ‘B’ and its complement reverses, as compared to the order of Spec and Complement in Johannessen. Munn (1999) points out that all languagues have Spec,XP; none have XP,Spec. . In Chomsky (1999) the assumption is made that theoretically either the category on the left or the one on the right in a merge operation can project. In (55) the category on the left projects the necessary phrase; [&] cannot. . This derivation will be made more precise in §3.5.6.2. . An exception to this will be examined in §3.5.4. . This assumption does not mean that I must retract my earlier assumption that [&] does not project &P; in (61) only the feature [+pl] must be projected, not the maximal phrase level of [&]. . There are exceptions to this rule of two or more [+sg] features adding up to one [+pl]; see Büring (2002). . The merger of [& DP] and the lampes bryghte is late because the cycle (vP phase) for deriving the TP is already finished. See discussion below. . Frazier and Clifton’s (2001) theory is designed to account for differences in reading speed when subjects encountered coordinate versus non-coordinate structures. It is therefore intended for the perceptual side of language, whereas my theory addresses the conceptual side. They argue that Copy α is a cost-free structure building operation in certain coordinate structures. Copying in the present model is followed by a matching operation for interpretive purposes. Assuming that AM has no linguistic processing capabilities (is only a storage space), copying and matching occur in narrow syntax and LF, respectively. Matching is not required in PF, if duplicate features mapped to PF are identified in the syntactic component. . In elliptical coordinate structures, ungrammaticality results if a certain degree of symmetry between the conjoined clauses is not present. This point is explored in Chapter 4. . In §3.5.6.2 I argue that the English construction – which can be made marginally acceptable with a certain prosody – does not involve movement at all but rather is derived by late merge of the last “extraposed” DP. Under this analysis any similarity between the Japanese and English constructions in (75) and (76) respectively no longer exists. With regard to CFM in (75b), which has an encliticized connective on the right edge of the second of two conjuncts, I would suggest this analyses: (1) an underlying [&] occurs between the two conjuncts in the position where a free lexical [&] occurs in most languages. This covert [&] triggers CFM; the clitic raises in LF to this position. In (75a) the movement of John-to to initial position results in a chain which has a link connecting -to to the underlying [&] position. . Chametzky (2000: 96–97) argues that the contrast between (80a) and (80b) can be accounted for as a result of the way the unrealized [&] between Peter and Paul in (80a) is licensed in LF: If leftward movement of the lexical [&] (and) is required for this licensing, then only the unrealized [&] in (a), and not the one in (b) can be licensed this way. Avoiding the movement operation, as in my proposal, is more desirable, however, for empirical reasons, since we have no independence evidence of its existence. . This structure is not universal, since in languages like French, an initial DP of conjoined DPs can be preceded by [&], and in other languages, every DP conjunct must be preceded by [&]. However, there is arguably no need to posit a universal structure of coordination in a derivational grammar; rather, the projections, and thereby the whole structure, arise as lexical items are selected and merged with each other.



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.16 (1115-1165)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . A question left aside here but taken up in the next section is whether parallel planes can be accommodated in narrow syntax, where Copy only is proposed to occur in (72). We will see that Multiple Spell-Out allows the matching part of CFM to occur in LF at points in the derivation where Copy is needed, and not only post-cyclically. A consequence of locating Match in LF (only) is that [–interpretable] features cannot be matched. This limitation poses no problem, however, as Copy guarantees that all conjuncts have matching [–interpretable] features; thus, matching does not need to check them, but it is needed for determining certain important semantic symmetries. . We recall the important syntactic property of and, captured in the feature [+conj]: to induce CFM (=both Copy and Match) and the merger of a like category. The merger of two or more DPs results in the typical case in a coordination phrase marked [+pl]. See Büring (2002) for some examples of coordinate NPs which apparently have a different type of plural feature than a plural NP. . This proposal is conceptually the same as one in Uriagereka (1999) for Multiple Spell-Out. Uriagereka (1999: 252) illustrates how the discontinuous application of Merge to two separately assembled syntactic objects procedes. . This copying operation could arguably require a form of matching in narrow syntax that is distinguishable from matching in LF. One difference is that parallel structures are not, in my proposal, generated in narrow syntax. . Another option for reducing the load on AM is to assume that in the derivation of coordinate structures like (86e) the first conjunct is spelled out as soon as Copy has applied and that the second one is derived during the Spell-Out. Likewise, the relative clause is derived while the preceding coordinate structure is spelled out. . Partly for simplicity’s sake and partly out of space considerations, I will treat DPs as subarrays and not phases, leaving the question of the status of DPs – whether they are phases like vP and CP – to other research. The problem of potentially infinitely long lexical arrays made up of a infinite number of DP conjuncts can be handled, I will assume, with the same performance constraint that applies to PPs, APs and adverbials. . I assume here and elsewhere that subject raising is string-vacuous. . The underlying, abstract coordinating conjunction [&] is posited in the position between the conjuncts, where it is found in the majority of languages that have lexemes (free morphemes) as coordinating conjunctions. . Presumably, such matching (cf. 93e) cannot occur after Move, unless the conjuncts are moved back to their original positions in LF. Which sequence is more advantageous and empirically grounded will be left to further research. . Zoerner (1995) argues in his Chapter 2 that movement is required for constructions like this one. . Wilder (1997: 59) assumes that the derivation of (98) proceeds by way of the deletions indicated in (i): (i)

It can succeed it must succeed it will succeed

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.17 (1165-1244)

Notes 

This derivation requires three phases and is therefore not as economical as the one in (99). I will not comment here on whether these deletions can be principally licensed but will leave that topic for Chapter 4. . I am assuming that once the clause it can succeed has passed through cyclic rule application (“derive”), further derivation is not needed when the additional auxiliaries must and will are merged. Copy provides the relevant features. . Wilder’s (1997: 65) analysis of this construction requires deletion: (i)

There was a man in the kitchen and there was a cat in the bathroom

In a derivation-by-phase model, a deletion analysis would require two phases. Furthermore, I see no independent evidence for this deletion (but see independent evidence for subject deletion in Chapter 4). In addition, I reject a Gapping derivation of this construction along these lines: (i)

a. b.

A man was in the kitchen and a cat was in the bathroom There wasi a man t i in the kitchen and a cat was in the bathroom

In Chapter 4 we will consider Gapping constructions in detail; there it is maintained that Gapping is a post-cyclic operation, i.e. it cannot be followed by step (i-b) indicated above. Furthermore, the prosody of (100) differs significantly from the prosody of a Gapping construction – argued in Chapter 4 to be a licensing mechanism for the gap – and therefore also does not support a Gapping analysis. My analysis posits a weak vP phase (see discussion in Chomsky 1999) for the SA, where no subject raising to T◦ occurs because [vP a cat in the bathroom] is matched with the previous vP. In the first vP no subject raising to T◦ occurs because Agree for [–pl] of the verb is satisfied with the expletive there. . The interpretation of the second conjunct as a TP in parallel with the first one is possible because the finite verb interpreted is “only” a copula, which in abundant literature on copulas is shown to lack some of the features of other verb types. Indeed, in some languages and in certain English expressions, copulas do not have to be lexically realized. The second TP of (100) is one example of such an expression, made possible, I argue, by LF matching. . For comments on asymmetries resulting from hypercorrection, such as: (i)

Bill doesn’t see you and I together very often

(ii) Everybody gets along with Sue and I see the end of this section. I am assuming that those speakers who have usage as in (iii) and (iv): (iii) My friend George and I have lunch together every week (iv) Nobody joins George and me for lunch are assigning the same Case to both conjuncts, using a checking procedure that is prevalent in German and similar languages with richer morphology than English. This procedure will be outlined later in this section. . I consider these constructions interesting to syntax theory because they occur almost universally in the language of English speaking children and young people who haven’t “caught on” or been instructed that the Case forms are inconsistent with the Case forms used in simplex sentences. Indeed, some adults never acquire the more bookish usage of “She and her brother” Because children have this usage, i.e. it is part of their natural acquisition, I consider it indicative

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.18 (1244-1316)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of how the syntax of the grammar functions, whereas German children, for instance, never make this kind of “error” and therefore learn morphological Case checking differently. For Case checking in German coordinate structures, see the following subsections where we will also consider English usage as in (i) and (ii): (i)

My brother and I play cards every weekend

(ii) They and their friends / ??Their friends and they come over any time . There is evidence of the form in (i) and (ii) that some speakers create idiom chunks out of [DP & I]: (i)

Lynn and I’s house is on the corner

(ii) You can’t miss Lynn and I’s house . The breakdown in English in the relation between Case morphology and θ-role appears to be restricted to coordinate structures and is, therefore, not a “problem” unique to English, as Johannessen (1998) makes clear. Furthermore, it is not comparable to the phenomenon of dative subjects in Icelandic. . I assume that German and English have different conventions for making correspondences between abstract and morphological Case. The notion of morphological correspondence conventions for Case systems is explored by van Riemsdijk (1983) where the assumption is made that such conventions are language-specific. . How feature resolution occurs will not be explored here. It is the subject of numerous interesting studies such as Corbett (1983), Dalryrymple and Kaplan (2000), Givón (1970), Lasersohn (1995), Peterson (1986), and Pullum and Zwicky (1986). . For some speakers, at least, constructions like (i) are acceptable, however: (i)

Käse mag ich nicht und ist auch nicht gut für mich cheese like I not and is also not good for me

The acceptability may depend on the absence of a determiner. . Not surprisingly, (112b, c) are in both German and English somewhat odd semantically. . The tree structure in (115) does not posit a conjoined structure [V & V] in the VP because it is assumed in the present model that by pure Merge and Copy, a second conjunct, in this case dankte can be merged in the vP and get the required features by Copy from the previous conjunct, begrüßte. Of course, the morphological Case assigned by dankte, dative, is not the same as the morphological Case assigned by begrüßte, accusative. Because the dative Case of dankte is inherent, however, it cannot and need not be copied from begrüßte, whereas the abstract Case [acc] would be copied in a similar derivation involving two accusative verbs. Required for this derivation to converge is the resolution of the Case of the DP object; the failure of Case resolution – caused by the merger of dankte in vP – is likely the source of the ungrammaticality. As (115) indicates, the configurations of both domains, vP and VP, are the same: head-final. . An aspect of (116) that needs comment: Not indicated are the details of derivation by phase in which the second V-conjunct, as a subarray, is extracted and merged separately with the first V under T’. Furthermore, for space considerations, I include both the dative and accusative objects; obviously only one or the other can occur. A more detailed analysis of this construction is given in (121). . See the previous two footnotes for some important comments on this tree structure.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.19 (1316-1391)

Notes  . This theory is employed convincingly in Wurmbrand (2001) for explaining the structure of infinitival clauses. . Copy is able to target the θ-role of the first verb and transfer it to the second verb in the ccommand configuration. Since no θ-role conflict causing ill-formedness occurs in (116), we can assume that this transfer creates no conflict, i.e. danken and begrüßen assign compatible θ-roles, i.e. θ-roles that can be easily resolved with one another. . The use of two determiners in (125) creates a type of infelicity that has its source not only in the asymmetry of the determiners but also in the use of a second, “superfluous” determiner, whereas just one is needed in (122). Furthermore, additional structure is required: [PP [P’ in [DP den und [P’ um [DP die [NP Stadt]]]]]]. . Another argument in support of this analysis is that the c-command relation between verb and object in the final configuration of (116), like the c-command relation between any single verb and its object in a simplex sentence, in effect “confirms” the Case of the object, as well as its θ-role. The c-command relation is possibly a primitive of syntactic structure and is particularly simple and transparent for the verb-object relation in SVO languages, or in languages like German which utilize the VO configuration in matrix clauses. For a very recent analysis of donkey anaphors utilizing c-command for solving binding problems, see Boeckx (2003b). . The singular – plural conflict causes unacceptable ambiguity in and of itself, but also because the plural group represented by Studenten could also include females, at least in a common usage of German. The plural, feminine form Studentinnen is available and occurs alongside Studenten in more formal or precise usage. In spoken usage, Studenten is often used for a group of male and female students. . (126c, d) appear to indicate that morphological Case features are not copied in narrow syntax and that their phonetic realization in PF is somehow checked for symmetry. I will maintain, however, that CFM is not necessary in PF, if we assume that the syntactic component has access to the morphological Case system of German, an assumption that is necessary on independent grounds. If German verbs did not check the abstract form of the features that are realized as morphological forms in PF on determiners, and if these features were opaque to Copy, then there would have to be two checking procedures, one in the syntactic component, and one in PF. The reason is that morphological Case forms in German are not always unambiguous: e.g. der can be [masc,sg,nom] but also [fem,sg,dat], [fem,sg,gen] as well as [pl,gen]. Similar ambiguity exists with the other determiners also. Thus, if Case, gender and number features mapped to PF are checked and copied in narrow syntax, further checking and copying in PF is superfluous. . We will ignore the fact that the [T] position is often lexically unfilled in English; when it is not, [T] attracts the features of the verb in [V] for Agree purposes. . We recall the earlier discussion that assuming only the Case of the upper DP me defaults is inconsistent with (i), also a common usage in colloquial usage: (i)

John and me play basketball together

. If we assume that the Case feature of the upper DP is eliminated immediately when checked, then no overwrite is actually necessary. . We recall that my terminology “morphological Case feature” is a simplification of the more explicit description “Case features mapped to PF for the realization of a Case morpheme.” Thus,

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.20 (1391-1456)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

the “morphological Case features” are distinguished from abstract Case features in that the former are mapped to PF, but the latter are not. What defaults in (130) is not the assignment of Case, but rather either the copying of [+nom] to the lower DP, or the mapping of the morphological Case feature [+nom] to PF. The result is the Spell-Out of the feature matrix of abstract I as me. We recall that Schütze (2001) assumes that default Case occurs only when no Case has been assigned. My proposal here is that default Case also occurs if the mapping of morphological Case features to PF does not occur. . Even though all objects, direct or indirect, are assigned [+objective] in English, this does not mean that [dat] is irrelevant. In fact, there are constructions in English which rely on this feature for interpretation, but in contrast to German, there is never separate dative morphology on a determiner to mark it. Rather, it is assigned idiomatically: (i)

a. b.

He spared me the pain / *He spared the pain to me She has done me wrong / *She has done wrong to me

. We will consider (i) later: (i)

Me and my brother play basketball together

. The same breakdown can occur in English equivalents: (i)

a. b.

Into the woods goes the hunter and his dog Out of the woods comes a mother bear and her cubs

Such constructions are relatively rare, however, because declaratives can undergo Vfin → C only under very restrictive requirements, and the breakdown is evident only in the present tense. I assume that the same factors contribute to it as in Dutch and German. . Although the forms ik and Jan do not have number morphology for [sg], they nevertheless possess this feature. When conjoined as subject DPs, I am assuming that the conjunction phrase is algorithmically assigned [pl].We note that the claim of Zwart (1997) about Dutch, and of Travis (1984) and te Velde (1988) about German, that subject-initial V-2 clauses are TPs and not CPs underlies the analysis of the derivation and phrase structure here. For further discussion, see Chapter 5. . This assumption about the timing of conjunction is consistent with principles of Phase Theory as it applies to German and Dutch that the vP phase completes the merge cycle in subject-initial V2 clauses (cf. Zwart 2005). . C-command doesn’t allow a verb to default to singular if a DP in agreement with the verb is plural: (i)

a. b.

In den Wald *ging/gingen die Jäger und ihre Hunde into the wood went.sg/went.pl the hunters and their dogs Aber links *war/waren die Geschäfte . . . but left was/were the shops

This fact supports the assumption that the number agreement determined earlier in the derivation in the SV configuration holds until the PF interface. . (137a) is from Duden, cited in Johannessen (1998: 29). In colloquial varieties of English, default to [–pl] occurs in non-coordinate structures as well: (i)

a.

There’s two dogs in that pickup

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.21 (1456-1534)

Notes 

b.

Here’s three of my best friends

etc.

We note also that in the German equivalent of (137b), a plural verb is acceptable: (ii) Es waren ein Baby, seine Mutter und ihr Hund im Zimmer Assuming that both the expletive es and there are merged in Spec,TP after Agree, which occurs in the vP domain, then Agree occurs in German as we would expect. Why it doesn’t in (i-a) – but may as in (iv) – even though the derivation is essentially the same, will not be explored here. In any case, it is not caused by a coordinate structure: (iii) Es waren drei Kinder im Zimmer (iv) There were three children in-the room . θ-roles are never asymmetric in conjoined DP structures because they do not require checking in narrow syntax. . Copy is able to target other formal features of the upper DP, including its θ-role. . An alternate analysis of the persistence of the nominative forms in coordinate structures would be a historical one, based on the premise that at some point in the history of English, these forms had the status of their equivalents in Dutch and German, languages that today do not permit the breakdown in agreement of (131) and similar constructions. . Van Gelderen’s assumption that Case features are non-interpretable is a standard one in the MP. In my analysis I assume that abstract Case features mapped to PF for realization as Case morphemes are [+interpretable]. . φ-feature checking does not default because the checking operation for morphological φfeatures is better supported by the morphology, given that these features are richer in English than morphological Case features. Therefore, Copy has no problem targeting them. . This problem can’t happen with second person, as all Case forms are the same: you. However, the politeness rule presumably does not apply to second person pronouns. . This ordering is even used in contexts where it conflicts with the abstract Case assigned, as in The neighbors have never met Peter and I. This kind of usage confirms that the lower position in the conjunction of DP/NPs is opaque to morphological Case checking in English. The same person who utters this sentence would never say *The neighbors have never met I. . The use of conjoined [+objective] pronouns in (149a) is evidence against the present proposal which utilizes Copy for the derivation of DPs by phase, with the Case of the first DP, presumably [+nom], transferred to the second DP. The explanation argued here is that in this variety of English Copy cannot target the Case feature, with the result that the abstract Case feature only is projected from the lower DP. This Case is the default Case [objective]. In this way both DPs end up with symmetric default morphology. The same kind of symmetric defaulting occurs in some varieties of Spanish, but with default to nominative rather than accusative: (i)

a. *para for b. para for

ti y mí you-obj and me tu y yo you-nom and I

. The slight degradation with the second orderings in (151) does not occur in colloquial usage; rather, it is on par with the level of grammaticality in (149).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.22 (1534-1597)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . The behavior of this one pronoun stands out as a reminder that a derivational grammar must accommodate pragmatically-based mechanisms. Attempts to formalize the interface between syntax and pragmatics are notoriously problematic, but some interesting studies can be found in Di Sciullo (ed.) (2003). Breul (2004) proposes such an interface following minimalist principles. . If the element fronted to Spec,CP involves conjunction, then presumably this conjunction occurs after fronting. . Johannessen (1998: 18–25) points out cases of asymmetry in Norwegian, but at the same time she states: “Norwegian avoids feature conflicts between conjuncts.” This statement supports the fundamental assumption of the present study: Coordinate symmetry remains the dominant property of coordinate structures, even when asymmetries are present.

Chapter 4 . For an overview of the central questions surrounding coordinate ellipsis, see Klein (1993) and Lappin (1996), the latter on the semantic aspects. Some studies on coordinate ellipsis, such as Heycock and Kroch (1994), Höhle (1983) and Kathol (1992), do not assume the existence of LEE. Comments on these analyses can be found in §4.1. My analysis of LEE must be distinguished from others involving correlative conjunctions like either . . . or and neither . . . nor, such as found in Neijt (1979), Sag et al. (1985), van Zonneveld (1992) and Grootveld (1994) which assume that the first element of the pair marks the left edge of the coordinate structure, the Left Bracket Thesis. Hendriks (2001) argues that this thesis cannot be maintained along with the Law of the Coordination of Likes, first formulated in Chomsky (1957: 36) and later formalized by Williams (1981). Correlative constructions will not be examined here and thus Hendriks’ argument will not be addressed, nor will Schwarz (1999) be examined. Schwabe (2000) investigates issues related to coordinate ellipsis and information structure. . Chomsky’s assumption about coordinate ellipsis via PF deletion is preceded by Wexler and Culicover (1980) who propose the same for RNR. . Arguments for the existence and position of this left-edge subject gap are given in §4.1.1 and 4.2.1. . It would seem untenable in any case to assume that empty categories are selected from the lexicon. All elements of a derivation must, according to minimalist assumptions, be selected from the lexicon, but selecting empty categories would by their nature constitute a vacuous, and therefore non-economic/non-minimalist procedure. . I leave open the option that DPs are phases. See discussion in §3.5.3. . Ackema and Szendröi (2002) compare their account of determiner sharing to Williams’ proposal for coordinate ellipsis. They note that the coordination of heads at various levels within an extended projection is possible, so there are bivalent [C,C], [I,I] and [V,V] (etc.) heads that can project a phrase. Coordinate ellipsis involves just another instance of projection of a bivalent lexical item, so it is another instance of coordination, they argue. The only difference is that the second head of the bivalent item is null. In other words, Williams assumes that the second conjunct in cases of ellipsis consists of a 0P. The null head is anaphoric to the first head:

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.23 (1597-1675)

Notes 

(i)

[C,0]P = CP and 0P: That the Earth revolves around the Sun and 0 the Moon revolves around the Earth are well established facts

(ii) [I,0]P = IP and 0P: I think that John will eat meat and Mary 0 drink wine (iii) [V,0]P = VP and 0P: It is ok to eat fish on Fridays and 0 meat on Wednesdays This proposal implies that all [C,0] = CP & CP, and that every time a CP conjoins with a TP (IP), it equals CP & CP. There are cases, however, when C [TP ] & [TP ] = CP & CP, i.e. the interpretation of an elliptical C leads to a different interpretation overall than the interpretation of just one C which dominates two TPs. This follows from a theory of domains: a C dominating two conjoined TP domains is different than the conjunction of two CP domains, at least in V2 languages which require Vfin → C whenever a CP is projected (for purposes of providing a target for fronting to Spec,CP). More on the role of syntactic domains is presented in §4.2. . Rooth (1992b) presents an interesting investigation of ellipsis and redudancy. . Arguments are presented in Chapter 5 for this construction being the conjunction of CPs rather than TPs. . This coordinate construction is found only in V2 languages with object fronting. . See discussion of this point in Büring and Hartmann (1998) also. Heycock and Kroch (1994) argue against the existence of the gap, but see Van Valin (1986) for arguments in favor of it. Some of these will be taken up in §4.2. Note also the fact pointed out in Hartmann (2000: 46–47) that a quantified subject takes scope over the entirety of a coordinate structure with a subject gap: (i)

Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und schweigt stille according-to statements of-the police knows no victim his tormenter and keeps-quiet silently

(i) cannot be paraphrased with (ii): (ii) Nach Angaben der Polizei kennt kein Opfer seinen Peiniger und kein Opfer schweigt stille These data will be discussed in §4.5. . The interpretation of subject gaps requires Match, as outlined in (3); without Match in LF, the option of non-coreferentiality does not become available. . Given 1, the gap must be of den Beamten as otherwise this DP cannot be interpreted as the antecedent of the trace in the second conjunct of (11b). . The analysis of (13a) hinges on the assumption that the left-edge gap contains all the features of a lexical item except its phonetic features, and therefore has the properties necessary for satisfying the V2 requirements as a lexical item. In §4.5 I present arguments against an ATB analysis of these constructions. This analysis can also explain why (13b) is ungrammatical. . See Booij (1983) for an introduction to generative principles of prosodic phonology and Inkelas and Zec (1995) for an investigation of the syntax-prosody interface. . Trautner Kromann (2001: 2) makes the generalization about coordinate ellipsis in Danish that the second conjunct must either have standard word order, or the same word order as the first conjunct. This description applies also to German and can be explained using the proposals made here about licensing, recovery and derivation discussed in §4.2, 4.3, 4.4. Trautner’s generalization follows for German, if we assume that (1) the “standard word order” is SVO in V2 clauses, and (2) that any argument occurring at the left edge of an elliptical clause can be licensed, if its antecedent is in a symmetric position, and furthermore (3) that the only case of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.24 (1675-1743)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

LEE which allows the second conjunct to have a different word order is subject ellipsis, and that in this case the second, elliptical conjunct must be SVO, while the first must be OVS or AdvVS, due to topicalization: (i)

a.

b.

Das alte Buch schenkte Hansi seinem Onkel H his uncle the old book gave neues new (one) Gestern schenkte Hi seinem Onkel das alte H his uncle the old yesterday gave heute ein neues today a new (one)

und ei kaufte sich heute ein and bought refl today a (OVS) Buch und ei kaufte sich book and bought refl (AdvVS)

This exception to Trautner’s generalization is allowed because the elliptical conjunct has the standard word order. . See Fox (2000) and Johnson (2002) for interesting discussion. . Lopez and Winkler (2003) assume derivation by phase, but they also assume that ellipsis is created by Move; these two assumptions are in contradiction with each other in my proposal. . Pseudogapping, as investigated in Lasnik (1999) and Zoerner and Agbayani (2000), will not be considered here, as it involves non-coordinate constructions. . Nevertheless, one could argue that a phonetically based theory of coordinate ellipsis is very “fool-proof ” and economical. I would suggest that the recovery of a gap relies on phonetic identity whenever possible and “engages” additional (semantic and syntactic) features when necessary. . We already noted above that phonetic non-identity is also possible in certain cases of Gapping and RNR. However, the two are quite different. In sloppy identity the non-identity in the phonetics is only the surface of the non-identity which extends to gender non-identity, which in turn forces a non-identity in referent. In Gapping and RNR, non-identity is limited to the number marking on the verb. . See Otani and Whitman (1991) who reach the same conclusion about sloppy identity. . The ungrammaticality of (30b) stems from a different source than the degradation of (30a), the latter due to unnecessary redundancy. Constructions like (30b), and (i), will be taken up in §4.2.1: (i) *Did John give Bill a book today and did loan him a record yesterday? . The examples in (31) are from the Brandenburg dialect of German (from Fanselow and Mahajan (2000: 219), their (61)). . Büring and Hartmann (1998) argue that in (i) the scope of in Italien provides evidence that the second conjunct is subordinate to the first in the way proposed in Kayne (1994): (i)

In Italien schätzt man Rotwein und hasst die Franzosen in Italy values one red-wine and hates the French

We do not have to come to the conclusion on the basis of adverbial scope, however, that the relation between conjuncts in constructions like (i) and those in (33) is a relation of subordination. See also discussion in Chapter 2.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.25 (1743-1807)

Notes  . Hartmann’s main point with these data is to illustrate that RNR can target non-constituents and is therefore not a movement operation (contra Johnson 1994). Although I agree with the second point, we will consider whether RNR targets non-constituents in §4.2.2. . See also the accounts of determiner sharing in Ackema and Szendroi (2002) and Lin (1999) for conditions and principles similar to Williams’. . In the Appendix are given examples of RNR constructions from a number of other languages. . Numerous studies such as Frazier, Munn and Clifton (2000) and Kaan, Wijnen and Swaab (2004) confirm that parallelisms in syntactic structure play a significant role in speeding up the processing of coordinate structures. . A more serious challenge to the principle that all syntactic operations target a single constituent comes from RNR constructions, as pointed out in Hartmann (2000: 56ff.). We will take up this issue in §4.2. . The remainder of the array, and Bill a book, is held in AM until it is extracted (step d). . I am remaining agnostic w.r.t. the structure of the IO-DO complex and how Case is assigned in it in the VP on the DPs of the upper conjunct and then checked in it in the vP. We recall from Chapter 2 that Conjunction-Merge occurs after the DPs of the first conjunct have raised to their checking domains, at which point the relevant features are pasted onto them by Copy. Thus, there is no trace in VP of the DPs of the second conjunct. . Among the Germanic languages, left-edge subject deletion is found everywhere. Left-edge object deletion is fully grammatical in German and Dutch, and to a certain extent in Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish. More data are given in the appendix. The reason for the degradation in grammaticality in the latter languages is unrelated, I assume, to the nature of LEE and has its source in properties of these languages that distinguish them from the West Germanic languages. . This proposal for the licensing of left-edge gaps is intended first and foremost for Germanic languages in which left-edge gaps commonly occur. Abraham (2000: 133) points out that in ergative languages an object gap with a subject antecedent is possible in a construction like (i-a) and the reverse in constructions like (i-b): (i)

a. b.

Fatheri returned and mother saw ei Mother saw fatheri and ei returned

Clearly (i-a) cannot be accounted for by my proposal for licensing in (47). This kind of subjectobject alternation is referred to by Abraham as the “subject/object pivot.” It suggests that the scope of licensing in languages like these could possibly be determined at least partially by properties of the subject/object pivot. What must also be considered is the prosody of (i-a), which Abraham’s analysis does not examine, since its focus is not a theory of licensing. However, Abraham (1990, 1996) offer further discussion. . The adjunction analysis is examined in Chapter 5 and made more precise with a Split CP. See also next note. . The structures in (47) are refined in Chapter 5 along the lines of Rizzi (1997) who proposes a TopP phrase to the left of TP within the CP domain, which is thus split into two phrases. With this refinement one point of my analysis must be changed: the topicalized DP in English is checked by Top◦ rather than by T◦ . Licensing, outlined in (47b), remains the same, despite the intervening TopP projection because the latter is not occupied by a lexical item. For an analysis

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.26 (1807-1875)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

of subject gap constructions in German coordinations that does not posit the existence of a gap but rather derives such constructions from conjoined VPs using metarules and categorial grammar, see Kathol (1992). . Camacho (2000: 39–40) proposes that all languages have pro-drop in coordinate structures with left-edge subject gaps. This analysis, he argues, avoids the problem of an ATB approach with movement, which requires an extra mechanism to insure that both subjects are merged, and the problem of VP-coordination with a shared subject instead of TP coordination (cf. Heycock & Kroch 1994) which can’t explain how different θ-roles can be assigned. Camacho’s proposal, however, does not provide an account of left-edge object gaps. . It may seem contradictory to call these adverbials symmetric and contrastive. We must keep in mind that every contrast requires an underlying base of “sameness,” i.e. symmetry in order for the contrast to be logically deduced. . Not all accounts of RNR assume deletion; the term stems from a movement operation first proposed by Postal (1974). Levine (1985), Williams (1990), Larson (1990) and Büring and Hartmann (1997) also support a (righward and/or raising) movement analysis. These do not take the prosody of RNR into account, and the fact of Irish pointed out by McCloskey (1986), that preposition stranding is allowed in Irish cases of RNR but nowhere else, reveal shortcomings of movement analsyses. There have been accounts of RNR using non-derivational grammars that do not take prosody into account. See, for instance the account of Bayer (1996) who uses Categorial Grammar. . Hartmann rejects an ATB movement analysis of RNR. Kayne (1994) and Boškovi´c (2004) argue in favor of the analysis in Wexler and Culicover (1980) that is assumed here: “deletion” (non-realization) in PF. Boškovi´c presents several arguments against ATB movement that are based on parallels between RNR and VPE with respect to the kind of inflectional features they can ignore, which VP-preposing, a movement operation, may not ignore: (i)

a. John has slept in her house, and now Peter will sleep in her house b. John has slept in her house, and now Peter will sleep in her house c. *[Slept in her house]i John has t i and Peter will t i

(VPE) (RNR) (VP-preposing)

. On this point my proposal differs from Hartmann’s who states, (2000: 55) “. . .Right Node Raising is not affected by either syntactic or semantic restrictions.” It should be noted that Hartmann uses a GB framework. . Klein (1981: 56–57) points out that a thematic unit in German must have rising pitch in order to be marked as such. This principle, which is also applicable in English, may underlie the focus accent in RNR, in which case the gap becomes a thematic unit. For an investigation of sentence accent in German, see Jacobs (1982). . The selection of a feature mapped to PF for this kind of prosody is a matter involving a syntax-discourse interface. A recent study using minimalist principles for such an interface is Breul (2004). . We note in passing that the Empty Category Principle of GB theory is no longer valid in minimalist syntax, which has done away with government, assumed necessary in some form for licensing empty categories like the gaps of coordinate ellipsis. . This property of intonation might be a universal. Speakers of Korean, Japanese and Hungarian have reported to me that this same intonational pattern plays a role in their RNR constructions.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.27 (1875-1953)

Notes  . For an interesting discussion of this point, see Hartmann (2000: 95–96) who cites the studies of Féry (1993) and Cruttenden (1986). . I assume that the “prosody feature” is actually a syntactic feature in the narrow syntax which is mapped to PF for realization as prosody. . The findings of Féry and Hartmann (2005) also support this assumption. Compare the analysis of Booij (1985) who investigates the prosody of “coordination reduction” in complex words. . Given that Hartmann does not posit a syntactic feature for licensing in a c-command relation, she does not use the data in (55) as support for a theory of licensing. . VP Ellipsis is also a marginally grammatical option at this point: (i)

? Peter

P

verspricht seiner Mutter in die Kirche zu gehen, und Maria auch promises his mother in the church to go, and M also

The VP-ellipsis option requires sloppy identity (seiner-ihrer), however, for the favored interpretation. But sloppy identity is only marginally acceptable in German. . I assume that the feature for focus accent is available in the numeration because it is required for marking the theme of the sentence, whether ellipsis occurs or not. In other words, if there were no conjunction in this construction, but rather only the first conjunct were generated, this feature would occur immediately preceding the infinitival clause. Its realization (intonational contour) in PF would differ from its realization in the RNR construction, given that ellipsis requires the licensing of a gap by prosody, while the non-elliptical version does not. . We recall the discussion of John gave Mary a record and Bill a book in §4.2 where I argued, based on a phase-based derivation, that the subarray Bill a book, although not a single constituent, can be extracted and derived with the aid of Copy and Match without the need for a second gave. . The prosody of (64) supports the analysis of the previous section where I argued that the left-edge deletion of a subject requires TP conjuncts. . Hartmann (2000) is the first study to my knowledge that incorporates the prosody of Gapping into an account of deletion and recovery, arguing that deletion results from the “obligation to drop the element which hosts the assertion feature” (op. cit.: 160). My account differs in that the prosodic licensing of Gapping begins in the syntax, but it remains completely optional. I assume, as does Hartmann, that the prosodic feature is associated with the T position because of its syntactic properties: it is where temporal and assertion features occur. Note also that this is where focus accent is freqently associated with do-support and negation in languages like English. Not all accounts of Gapping assume deletion, see Chao (1987) and Johnson (1994). Kehler’s (2000) study has as its strength its incorporation of both syntactic and semantic principles into an account of recovery (rather than just one or the other type, as was the practice in many if not all studies up to his). I will argue that neither Hartmann’s nor Kehler’s is capable of accounting for all properties of Gapping in a unified way, Hartmann’s because it neglects the syntax, and Kehler’s because it ignores the prosody and has no theory for syntactic licensing of the gap. . This form of licensing accounts straightforwardly for the type of construction pointed out by Sag et al. (1985) in which Gapping occurs across speakers: (i)

A: B:

I [shall miss]i you And I ei you

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.28 (1953-2032)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

In the recovery operation by Match in LF, discussed in §4.3.3, the fact that two different speakers are involved does not prevent the establishment of parallel planes for interpretation of the gap on the perceptual side of language. If some discourse intervenes that prevents the transparent establishment of parallel planes, then recovery is not possible, as in (ii): (ii) A: B:

I [shall miss]i you Pardon me? Oh – *you ei me! *And I ei you.

The licensing relation proposed in (66) also accounts for the “Finite First Condition” of Hartmann (2000: 156ff.) – but without the stipulation that V2 clauses must be CPs – and for the fact that matching DPs cannot be licensed for deletion without the verb also deleting: (i)

a. *Bill wrote a book on crocodiles and Mary illustrated a book on alligators b. Bill wrote a book on crocodiles and Mary wrote a book on alligators

This licensing proposal also accounts straightforwardly for cases of “Subgapping” (Fodor 1974; Oehrle 1987; Siegel 1987): (ii) a. b.

Bill had already written many books on birds, and Mary had read dozens on raptors Bill can now investigate a new topic, and Mary can think about a vacation

. The licensing relation in (67) for English depends crucially on an empty Spec,vP position. I am assuming that subject raising is string-vacuous, so no trace of that occurs in Spec,vP. Furthermore, no adverbial may be realized in this position, as indicated in (i-a): (i)

a. *Paul quickly grabbed the gun and Peter swiftly the knife b. Paul quickly grabbed the gun and Peter the knife (?swiftly)

The questionable grammaticality of (i-b) with ‘swiftly’ is due, I will assume, to the lack of symmetry, as supported by the perfectly grammatical (ii) in which Gapping is not possible for the reason just stated: (ii) Paul quickly grabbedi the gun and Peter swiftly *e/pocketed the knife The German licensing relation in (66) is never jeopardized by a blocking element intervening between the Pros-feature and the verbal gap, as German is a V2 language. However, blocking can occur when more than just the verb is gapped (see below). . Implied here is that a CP with an element other than a complementizer like because or weil in its head position will not affect Gapping. We will take up this issue in more detail in §4.3. In (68a, b) and and und do not occur in C◦ , but rather in a position dominated by TP (cf. 67). The same is true with but and aber in (69). . See the previous note on the position of but/aber, versus the position of because/weil. . Contrary to some assertions in the literature (cf. Johnson 1996; Lechner 2004; Neijt 1979; Pesetsky 1982), Gapping may target a subpart of a finite, embedded CP, as long as coordinate symmetry is maintained for recovery: (i)

a. Bill promised that he would visit Sue and Joe promised that he would visit Sally b. *Bill promised that his mother would visit Sue and Joe promised that his mother would visit Sally c. Bill promised that his mother would visit Sue and Joe would visit Sally

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.29 (2032-2106)

Notes 

The gap in (i-b) is licensable, but it is not recoverable because of binding conflicts (cf. Pesetsky 1982): the antecedent of his in the gap is not symmetric with the antecedent of his in the preceding clause. Cf. §4.3 for further discussion. Without this conflict, the gap is recoverable, as (i-a) and (i-c) indicate. . (72c) is ambiguous between the elliptical interpretation indicated in (72c) – which requires the typical Gapping intonation – and one in which two [IO – DO]-pairs are conjoined, as indicated in (i): (i)

Peter caught [[Mary [an eel]] and [[John [a flounder]] in the Charles River.

For (i), the PP in the Charles River must be deaccented, i.e. rendered a parenthetical. . To keep matters simpler, I am not considering what happens with pronouns, as in (see also next note): (i)

Peter fing Maria einen Aal in der Elbe und Paul (fing) ihr eine Flunder im Rhein

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that prosody plays a key role in the licensing. Without the accent pattern described earlier, both (73b, c) would be ungrammatical. . One might ask why (i) is ungrammatical; no blocking occurs: (i) *Peter caughti Mary an eel and Paul ei Barb a flounder The equivalents of such constructions are grammatical in German, as we will see below. The difference between German and English in this regard is due, I assume, to the richer Case morphology of German, which also supports its much-documented scrambling possibilities. Thus, the verbal gap can be recovered between the first two of three DPs in a row, and the interpretation of the DPs can proceed on this structure, with the support of Case morphology: (ii) Der Peter fingi Maria einen Aal in der Elbe, und der Paul ei Erika eine Flunder In English, on the other hand, if the indirect object is realized as a prepositional object, then the equivalent of (i) is possible (cf. 77b): (iii) Peter caught an eel for Mary and Paul ei a flounder for Barb . See the previous note on why the English equivalent of this construction with IO-DO is not grammatical. . Speakers who find (79a, b) and (80) acceptable could be scrambling the DO einen Aal to a position adjacent to fing where it can be licensed: (i)

. . . und Paul fing einen Aal der Beate heute Nacht

. See previous note. An alternate analysis to explain the rejection of (80) is one based on the requirement that both the direct and the indirect object must be licensed together in German. This requirement could be explained as a condition of the PF interface, rather than as a blocking effect. If a gap of just one VP argument occurs, the parallelism between the two conjuncts is no longer transparent in the PF realization, resulting in an ambiguity that cannot be resolved on the basis of the Case morphology available in German, given its “overlaps” (e.g. der can be nom,sg,masc or dative,sg,fem or gen,pl,masc/fem/neut, and den can be acc,sg,masc or pl,dat,masc/fem/neut). Supporting this analysis is the fact that some speakers do, in fact, rate (80) as fully grammatical because in (80) no ambiguity in the Case morphemes occurs.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.30 (2106-2201)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Furthermore, scrambling can create the required adjacency to avoid the blocking effect (see previous note). We note that another analysis of (79a, b) and (80) is not available in which, as in (i), the antecedent of the gapped object is a definite DP, because a pronominal gap cannot be bound by the indefinite einen Aal: (i)

Peter P. Beate B.

kaufte der Maria gestern den Schali und Paul kaufte ihni der ... the.dat bought the.dat M. yesterday the scarf and P. heute today

. Those speakers who find (90a) (at least marginally) acceptable could be analyzing the second conjunct as in (i): (i)

. . . und eine Flunder fing der Maria der Paul

In this analysis the IO der Maria can be licensed in the way proposed here. . A gap of did does not occur in (93b), I claim, because this element is only needed for purposes of negation, as illustrated in the first conjunct. Its need is obviated in the second conjunct because of the occurrence of nor which has inherent negation. The fact that write in the first conjunct does not agree with Sue in the second is not a problem for recovery in Gapping, as attested by constructions like (i): (i)

We writei novels and George ei short stories

. Merchant (2001) proposes a different form of recovery for VP ellipsis. As (i) indicates, a VPE gap can be recovered in an embedded clause (see also discussion in §4.1.1 and §4.4): (i)

Bill doesn’t like lasagne because he just doesn’t e.

. Another property of CP when occupied by a complementizer is evident in German: V-to-C movement is blocked, as indicated in (99b). Note that neither of the coordinating conjunctions in (98a, b) has these properties. As I argued in the previous chapter, coordinating conjunctions do not project, and therefore the CP dominating them in (98a, b) has no projected features of them. . It is possible to have matching without a coordinating conjunction. But then prosody, interestingly, becomes critical. In speech there must be focus accent at the close of the first conjunct of (i), much like in RNR: (i)

Bill wants spaghetti Barb→ e lasagne

The focus accent replacing and is required in addition to the (weaker) focus accent required for Gapping itself. . The degradation in grammaticality is not due to insufficient symmetry in the matching, but to the conflicting prosodic features. See discussion of (101). . Furthermore, these speakers are able to disambiguate the linear asymmetry between the conjuncts in LF (Match does not require hierarchical distinctions for recovering the gaps). . Büring and Hartmann (1998) propose that a finite verb in [C] licenses a left-edge subject gap in German. Also required is an empty operator in Spec,CP. The idea is that the second conjunct with the subject gap is adjoined rather than conjoined with the first one. I will not address the justification for the empty operator but only the general structure required for this

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.31 (2201-2254)

Notes 

proposal: the assertion that the conjoined clause must be a CP and that it has properties of an adjunct. In Chapter 5 these assumptions will be questioned further, following Travis (1984) who argues against subject-initial V2 clauses in German requiring V-to-C; Zwart (1997) argues the same for Dutch. One fact that Büring and Hartmann’s proposal cannot account for is the V2 requirement in coordinate constructions with LEE. In these the elided conjunct has all the properties of a indicative, V2 clause, and not of a verb-initial adjunct, as they argue. Verb-initial finite structures in German are rarely declarative; usually V1 structures are either imperative, conditional/subjunctive or interrogative, with exceptions occurring in certain exclamations like Hat der mich genervt! ‘Did he ever get on my nerves!’ or in so-called “narrative V1”. But these are not the construction types considered by Büring and Hartmann. Furthermore, given that Büring and Hartmann’s proposal requires V-to-C in subject gap constructions (and does not consider left-edge object gaps), it cannot account for left-edge subject gaps in English, which clearly do not require V-to-C. Finally, claiming that the gapped conjunct is an adjunct overlooks the symmetry requirements that these constructions are subject to: both/all conjuncts must have the gap(s) and antecedent in the same position, and both/all clauses must be V2 clauses with verbs having the same or very similar selectional properties. . Less acceptable than (105a) is a construction mentioned in Chapter 3: wurde billig verkauft und ei hat Fritz gern gefahren (i) *Das Autoi and (e)-acc has F gladly driven the car-nom aux-passive cheap sold Zwart’s (1991b) judgment on (105b, c) is ?; he has since indicated (p.c.) that they are perfectly grammatical. A similar type of asymmetry in coordinate gaps is investigated in Anderson (1983: 3): (ii) a. b.

We went to see a movie which the critics praised e but e was too violent for my taste Nancy Reagan was wearing a gown that Galanos designed e and e cost over $5,000

The resolution of Case and θ-roles required in these cases of coordinate ellipsis would be an interesting topic for further research. . Zwart (1991b: 338) comes to essentially the same conclusion about left-edge deletion. He states, “Deletion of a category A in the second of two conjoined clauses under identity with an antecedent B in the first of the two conjoined clauses is only possible if A and B occupy the same syntactic structural position.” We will see below that a syntactic licensing relation is also necessary. . Hartmann (2000: 45–46) analyzes constructions like (i) as instances of CSC violations: (i)

In Italien kaufte Hans einen Wagen und meldete ihn an in Italy bought H a-acc car and registered it part

One way to avoid a CSC violation, Hartmann argues, is to assume that the conjoined, gapped clause is actually an adjunct. The issue of fronted adverbs, subject gaps and the CSC will be taken up in detail in §4.5. In my analysis, no ATB movement of this adverbial is required for it to have scope over both conjuncts; thus it is not a CSC violation. . We recall also the discussion in §4.2.2. . Using the finer structure of the left periphery proposed in Chapter 5, T◦ licenses the subject and Top◦ the object. . See previous note.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.32 (2254-2324)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . The foregoing analysis of adverbials and whether gaps occur in constructions like (106) does not lead to any conclusion about the position that such adverbials actually occupy when fronted. It is not intended to imply that fronted adverbials and fronted objects occupy the same position. In a system such as Rizzi (1997), they would not occupy the same position. . The fact that LEE with fronted DP objects is not quite as acceptable in the Scandinavian languages as it is in Dutch and German (see Appendix) has little or nothing to do with differences in the structure of these languages. Rather, it is related to morphological and possibly pragmatic factors. . We recall the discussion in §4.1.1 where it is shown that an indefinite antecedent allows an interpretation in which the gap is not the same person (coreferential), as in: (i)

A woman is mayor in this town, and e will soon assume a post as auditor in that one.

. We saw in §4.1 that a left-edge gap has the option – given an antecedent that is sufficiently indefinite – to be non-coreferential with the antecedent: (i)

A red winex won first prize in Paris and ey brought a vintner fame in Rome

This same non-coreferential interpretation is not possible in (115) because of the definite article the before mayor. . CP nodes do not always block recovery in RNR: (i)

a. b. b.

It is widely known to whom George bequeathed ei and to whom Bill refused to give [a family heirloom]i It is widely known why George married ei and why Bill spurned [the beautiful blond]i Do we know what caused ei and what fed [the outbreak of malaria]i

In these constructions the CP is not headed by a complementizer and thus does not have the same “blocking properties” against recovery as a CP headed by because in (116b). . It is misleading in principle to outline the recovery of ellipsis according to construction type, for in all of the types, recovery occurs in LF where, in the present proposal, conjuncts occur in parallel planes without asymmetric relations to each other. For this reason, linear order becomes largely irrelevant. However, it is not entirely irrelevant, if we assume that one conjunct can be spelled out before the second one is derived. This option will be explored as needed below; however, in most derivations, we can ignore it. . Because licensing in the present proposal is prosodic in RNR, the assumption must be made that the selection of the second conjunct precedes licensing of the gap in the first conjunct, as otherwise there would be no reason to merge the prosodic features required for licensing in the first conjunct, assuming the second conjunct with its lexical redundancies induces the choice of prosody. . “Direction” in matching for recovery, we must keep in mind, is relevant only to the perceptual side of language processing, as recovery is not a necessary operation on the intentional side where constructions are generated, if we assume that gaps of coordinate ellipsis have all the required linguistic information except realized phonetic features. Kornfilt (2000) investigates verb deletion in Turkish from the perspective of directionality. . This same effect even occurs without Gapping, but it is more pronounced with it. . We recall that the prosodic licensing of the gap in RNR and Gapping involves focus accent for identifying matches. If no contrasting element occurs in the remnant, then focus accent is

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.33 (2324-2416)

Notes 

not appropriate, as only a contrasting element is not redundant in a coordinate structure and, by independent principles of prosody (cf. Chung 2003 and sources cited there), can be stressed. . Asymmetry of this kind is not generally tolerated in Gapping constructions, since they depend crucially on matching selectional properties of verbs: (i)

?? Meistens

kaufti Peter diesen Rotwein und Paul ei seiner Tante den Weißwein

(ii)

?? Meistens

kaufti Paul seiner Tante diesen Weißwein und Peter ei den Rotwein

(iii) Meistens kaufti Paul seiner Tantej diesen Weißwein und Peter ei ej den Rotwein For more on the prosodic features of elided elements in RNR, see Féry and Hartmann (in press). . The fact that the reflexive and non-reflexive dative objects do not match could be due to syntactic position and structure as well as semantic features. It might suggest that the reflexive sich encliticizes onto the finite verb. The gapping of a dative object along with the verb is only marginally acceptable for some speakers when the dative object is not reflexive, as reflected in the judgments: (i)%?? Peter fingi Mariaj gestern einen Aal und Paul ei ej heute Nacht eine Flunder caught M yesterday an eel and Paul P this night a flounder gestern eine Jacke und Paul ei ej heute einen Mantel (ii) Peter kauftei sichj bought himself yesterday a jacket and P today a coat P . The second example of each pair is taken from Kehler’s (2000: 550) study. . Other studies that have investigated the differences between VPE and “pure” coordinate ellipsis are: Hankamer (1979), Hardt (1992), Hudson (1976) and Sag (1980). . Copular constructions in German such as (i) are not cases of VPE, but of Gapping: (i)

Dieser Anzug ist teuer und jener e billig this suit is expensive and that (one) cheap

That is, billig does not function as an anaphor here, in contrast to the adverb auch in (133). . The presentation in (139f.) is of a merger from the bottom up. However, we recall that both TP conjuncts are completely derived before this step, except for the ellipsis. Therefore, this step consists purely of the linearization of the two conjuncts as a merge operation. The first TP conjunct is placed in AM earlier (step c); at merge/conjunction, the first TP conjunct (or a copy of it) re-enters the derivation. We note in addition that only the features of the subject Karl that are copied from the first conjunct are indicated. Certainly more features than just these are copied, but only this one lexeme can be licensed for deletion. . Alternately, we could assume that PF has the capability for recognizing redundant phonetic features and leaves these unrealized. This option would presumably require parallel planes similar to those proposed by Goodall (1987). However, as argued in Chapter 3, this capability of PF would be redundant with the capability of the syntactic component to match the features of one conjunct mapped to PF for realization in speech with those of another. . Semantic features targeted by Copy form part of matching in LF, as evidenced by: (i) *This wine has won several prizes but this whine would turn off just about anyone

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.34 (2416-2487)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Even though wine and whine have the same phonetic features, the ellipsis is ungrammatical, based on the semantic features. This mismatch is certainly identified in LF, but the ellipse must be licensed in narrow syntax. If semantic features were not part of copying in narrow syntax, the licensing required for ellipsis would be established anyway on the basis of the phonetic features alone. But this ellipse would then be recognized as illegitimate in LF. This may be harmless in one respect, but it is a type of “Duke of York” violation (cf. Pullum 1976), which states that one syntactic operation should not undo what another syntactic operation has accomplished. . In te Velde (2005a) the implicit assumption is made that matching can occur in AM. This assumption can be maintained only if certain properties are assigned to AM. This is a question that must be taken up by psychologists; for simplicity’s sake, I will assume here that matching occurs in LF, supported by Copy in narrow syntax, but does not occur in AM. . We recall that in my proposal for RNR, all conjuncts are clauses. The right edge of a clause has certain prosodic properties that are required for licensing and recovery in this form of coordinate ellipsis. . As in the derivation in (139), only the relevant features of the lexical item whose phonetic features can be licensed for non-realization are indicated as copied from the previous conjunct. . This situation, we recall, is a problem for the perceptual side of language processing only. . As in (139) and (141), only the phonetic features of the lexical item can be licensed for deletion. Formal features are copied from the previous conjunct and remain in the numeration. . This failed derivation proceeds as if conjunction can precede derivation. The fact that derivation must precede conjunction and operations that lead to coordinate ellipsis supports the claim that conditions on coordinate ellipsis are interface conditions, and not conditions on representation or phrase structure, or any other aspect of the derivation preceding the interface. Thus, a phase-based approach as proposed here, which not only requires the completion of each phase before operations are induced for coordinate ellipsis, but also before another phase (conjunct) enters derivation, seems to be on the right track. . Copy, as a derivative operation, is also subject to (146). . Höhle (1990) does not consider RNR-versions of his Gapping constructions. . As an anaphoric phrase, the same is not part of the initial lexical array, but is selected and merged after Match in LF, but before PF realization. . An assumption in the MP that I am taking seriously is that there is no ‘look back’, which would be required without the assistance of AM and Multiple Spell-Out, as then an enumeration in LF would have to be matched with an underived lexical array. ‘Look back’ can be avoided by using AM – rather than the enumeration in LF itself – as a template for Copy when deriving the second conjunct, and for determining the point at which the same is merged. . The deletion of stated in the second conjunct is by Gapping, i.e. licensed by an independent prosodic feature. . Agreement in English constructions like this has been accounted for as a function of feature attraction, whereby the features of [was/were] raise to [T]. Incorporating this operation into the present proposal for cross-conjunct agreement would require the attraction of the feature [+pl] from [were] after conjunction, as only this feature would agree with the conjoined subjects: (i)

The first nurse and the second nurse were/*was spies

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.35 (2487-2552)

Notes

. An interesting fact of agreement in copular constructions suggests that the feature [+pl] of were is not assigned via the cross-conjunct agreement relations, but rather by the plural predicate nominative: (i)

a. a.’ b. b.’

The whole gang *was/were spies The whole gang was/*were on the move A large number *was/were students A large number was/*were not expected

The feature [+pl] were can only be assigned in these constructions on the basis of the plural feature of the predicate nominative, as otherwise the nouns gang (at least in American English) and number are [+sg]. German has this rule for constructions like (ii): (ii) a.

b.

Das sind die neuen Studenten that are the new students ‘Those are the new students’ Es sind immer neue Sachen . . . it are always new things . . . ‘There are always new things. . .’

. This construction comes from Norvin Richards (p.c.) who stated that it can be found in Collin Phillips’ (1996) dissertation. . I am ignoring the fact that relative pronouns are often displaced elements, i.e. moved to the location indicated in (162), whereas coordinating conjunctions do not move but are merged directly into the position indicated where, in my proposal, they remain throughout the derivation. . A theory of syntax which posits asymmetry as a primitive and does not depend on the distinctions complement/non-complement or on sisterhood, is outlined by Di Sciullo (1999) and used by Di Sciullo et al. (2003) to account for extraction asymmetries found in English, Romanian and Malagasy. . Chomsky indicates the following gaps, thus assuming Heavy NP shift, which will not be discussed here: (i)

John offended t by not recognizing e immediately his favorite uncle from Cleveland

. A requirement of this analysis is the reanalysis of the [P] by as a type of conjoiner, when it does not dominate a DP. This exception to the normal selectional properties of [P] bring it close enough to the category [&] for it to be able to conjoin in the same way. Normally, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the category [P] does not conjoin and requires a different syntactic position and has a DP complement. For these reasons, [P] and [&] must be kept clearly distinct from each other, while [P] and [Comp] may be closely associated. . A more detailed analysis of what a derivation using ATB movement might look like for constructions with non-coreferential gaps is given in te Velde (2002). . The licensing by [&] in (176) can target both left-edge gaps, just as prosodic licensing in Gapping does when multiple gaps occur: As long as no lexical item intervenes, licensing of both is possible (cf. §4.1.5.3): (i)

Which book did Paul read in one day and which film *e/did Peter watch all night?

For an alternate analysis of the Dutch constructions in (181) see Hoekstra (1994).



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.36 (2552-2617)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries . In Kehler (1996) the CSC is accounted for in terms of semantic coherence relations. Goldsmith (1985) and Roberts (1999) present principled exceptions to the CSC in English with the use of resumptive pronouns, the later from a historical perspective and the application of the minimalist condition Minimal Link/Shortest Move and an Optimality Theoretic account. These, because they involve non-coordinate structures, will be left aside here. . The left-edge gap in (185a) occurs only if the trace also occurs; the same is true in German equivalents like (185b), with the difference that because the left edge gap does not occur, the subject, Peter, must be at the left edge to satisfy V2. Cf. (185b’) and (186). . Johnson’s position on the CSC evolves in his article. His basic position is stated thus (p. 102): “. . . we do not want to abandon the [CSC]. We should instead discover what it is about SLF [Subjektlücken in finiten Sätzen ‘subject gaps in finite sentences’, see Höhle 1983] and odd coordinations [like (187a) jtv] that allows the [CSC] to be circumvented in just these narrow circumstances.” Sixteen pages later he states: “But secure demonstrations of the [CSC] holding of A-movement, or of other forms of movement, are not available. . .I am also going to follow Ross (1967) in taking the [CSC] to be a purely geometrical condition, one that defines the configurations that block extractions in terms of the graphs that phrase markers are. We can do this informally with (33): (33) The Coordinate Structure Constraint Let X and Y be phrases that are joined by a coordination, and Z be the phrase that the coordination forms. α head A- or A’-moves out of Z iff it also moves out of both X and Y.” With this formulation, he rejects the alternative proposed in Munn (1993) and Ruys (1992) which formulates the CSC as a ban on vacuous quantification. He does not address the formulation in Fox (2000), which I am adopting here. He supports his claim that a formulation in terms of vacuous quantification is inadequate with (i) (his 32): (i) *What1 has2 [[IP Betsy [t 2 [purchased t 1 ]]] and [IP Sally will talk about t 1 ]]? Leaving aside discussion of his phrase marker (cf. ii), we note that another version of (i) in (ii), which is identical but with subject-aux inversion, is acceptable. The phrase structure analysis indicates why: (ii) [CP Whati has [TP Betsy purchased t i and [CP ei will [TP Sally talk about t i ]]]]? We recall that this construction parallels the left-edge object deletion constructions discussed in §4.2.1. and 4.3.1. . I have changed the glosses and translations slightly from what appears in Johnson’s article. . I.e., by the time the derivation reaches Spell-Out, all strong features must be checked (eliminated). . More will be stated in Chapter 5 about whether a verb-projection-raising (VPR) analysis of German is appropriate. At this point it suffices to say that Johnson’s empirical support for this analysis does not come from German itself, but rather from West Flemish, which has been shown in e.g. Haegeman (1991, 1995) to have different word order parameters pertaining to clausefinal verb clusters which are not attested in Standard German, with the exception of doubleinfinitive constructions in the present perfect tense in embedded clauses. Such constructions are very rare in spoken usage, and some speakers find them ungrammatical. Therefore, using such constructions and/or West Flemish to support a VPR analysis of Standard German does not have

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.37 (2617-2692)

Notes 

strong empirical support, and the derivations required may not meet minimalist requirements (a question for further research). . It is curious that Johnson’s derivation does not allow ATB verb raising of the auxiliary hat in (187a) when a major thrust of his proposal is for the purpose of arguing for the preservation of the CSC, which was postulated by Ross to account for ATB phenomena. . Out of space considerations I have converted Johnson’s tree diagramms of his derivation into a representation with square phrase markers. Thus, it is not as apparent in (190) that Johnson posits the “symmetric” conjunction of two F’ projections, between which und is inserted. This structure does not conform to normal rules of phrase structure, a point that I note in (191). . The construction in (187a) has only two conjuncts, but it could be extended by n-number of conjuncts: (i)

Den Hundi hatj Hans gefüttert, ei ej Walter getränkt, ei ej Heinz gestreichelt, und Adolf hat ihn geschlagen

Although the symmetry of (i) breaks down with the last conjunct, which is not identical to the second conjunct of (187a) because it has a spelled-out subject, these differences do not, in my view, warrant a completely different derivation. From a minimalist standpoint, both should be derived using the same operations in narrow syntax (with the addition of licensing for the gaps). This is possible in the proposal argued here. . We will return to the properties of keiner in our discussion of (196). . In Chapter 5 the derivation of (195) will be examined in more detail in the context of a comparison between the present proposal and the proposal of Johnson (2003). . The CSC problem does not exist in the analysis given in (196), if we make the same assumptions about (196), most importantly that the CSC applies only to vacuous quantification. . See also discussion of this construction in Hartmann (2000: 54–55) who argues that the second conjunct is adjoined rather than conjoined to the first one, which has a different structure. . Examples of another construction type, pointed out in Chomsky (1982: 57, his (79) and grammaticality judgments), that has only a slightly different structure, are given in (i): (i)

a. b. c. d.

a man whom everyone who meets e knows someone who likes e a man whom everyone who meets him knows someone who likes e a man whom everyone who meets e knows someone who likes him a man whom to know e is to like e

Cowper (1985: 75–76) argues that (a) is a case of a parasitic gap construction. In §4.5.4 I take up a brief comparison of coordinate and parasitic gaps; it is shown that the latter do not meet the Parallelism Requirement of coordinate constructions. (i-a) and (i-d) are symmetric in a way similar to RNR constructions, but with the pendant in an antecedent position; the gaps are clause-final, and the same prosody is required, as in RNR. If these are analyzed as coordinate structures, then a CSC violation must be contended with. Further comparison will be left to research beyond this study. Boškovi´c (1997) examines conjoined ECM constructions of the type in (ii): (ii) John believes Peter to be crazy and Mary to be smart

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.38 (2692-2758)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

He concludes that a CSC violation occurs whether one uses a phrase structure with Agr projections as in Chomsky (1993), or one without Agr, as in Chomsky (1995). He argues that an analysis using overt V-movement and object shift is superior to these others. In the current proposal, (ii) does not violate the CSC because no extraction is necessary. . Schwarz (1998) also assumes that the CSC must be maintained syntactically in the derivation of (200). He does so with resort to a conjunction reduction operation proposed in Wilder (1994). My analysis does not require a syntactic enforcement of the CSC or conjuction reduction. . For examples of these, see §4.2.2. . For more on sideward movement, see Nunes (2001) and (2004).

Chapter 5 . It has become clear in the previous chapters that English has certain V2 properties, often referred to as “residual V2” in the literature. The fact that V2 is “residual” in English indicates, as will further investigation in this chapter, that “V2” does not result from a single rule application or movement such as V → C. . For an interesting discussion of V-to-C from the perspective of L1 acquisition, see Schönenberger (2001). . Camacho’s (2000) account of subject gaps in Spanish using pro is therefore questionable for left-edge object gaps in German or English. It is also questionable whether it is suitable for leftedge subject gaps, given what we know about the properties of the subject gap in sentences like (i-b), versus a typical construction in Spanish in (i-a) (from Camacho 2000: 39): (i)

a. b.

Este jugador siempre se cae y pro pierde la pelota this player always cl falls and loses the ball A distinguished personi-x won first prize in Rome and ei-y has finished last in Paris

In (i-b) the lexical subject may, as in the interpretation indicated with the indices, identify a different person than the gap in the conjoined clause; in (i-a) it is not possible under normal assumptions about pro in conjoined structures like this one for this kind of disjoint reference to occur. . Germanic and Romance share a property that is arguably a universal: subjects raise to Spec,TP (even if they are not always phonetically realized in Romance). English exhibits properties of both Romance and Germanic, evident in its variety of LEE which sometimes utilizes “residual V2”: it allows left-edge DP-object gaps either with V → C as in German and Dutch (with certain lexical items), or with ellipsis of both the object and the subject without V → C, the latter not possible in German and Dutch. See discussion in §4.1.1 and below. . My proposal for licensing and recovery of left-edge gaps in §4.2 and 4.3 respectively did not fully elucidate one aspect of derivation that contributes to the relative ease with which left-edge elements can be licensed for deletion. This aspect is the derivational redundancy of a raised or displaced element at the left edge of TP and CP: it is actually a copy; the original item remains in the numeration as a trace. For this reason, a left-edge element does not need to be spelled out, if it has no syntactic purpose at the left edge and as long as it can be recovered for interpretive purposes. This is precisely the situation in LEE. Coordinate structures in general, because of

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.39 (2758-2829)

Notes

their parallelisms/symmetries, are uniquely designed for easy recovery of a symmetric gap, as illustrated in the foregoing chapter. . Subject-initial declaratives differ from object-initial declaratives in less obvious ways than structurally. In the model assumed here, Agree and Tense require virtually all subjects to raise to Spec,TP for feature checking, while objects raise to Spec,CP in German, Dutch and (to a limited extent) in English to meet pragmatic requirements. The fact that subject-initial declaratives do not require any particular prosody is used as support for this distinction. In (2) it appears that subject-initial declaratives have V2 only “coincidentally,” simply because no element fronts to the left of the subject. In English this is the case, as such fronting does not require V → C, whereas in German and Dutch V → C must typically occur whenever an element is shifted to the left of the subject (certain exceptions will be considered in §5.3). See also analysis in Zwart (1991a). . Magnusson (2003) points out that in Swedish no such difference between object and subject pronouns exists: (i)

a. b.

Dom/DOM they-wk/st Dom/DOM them-wk/st

kommer come känner jag inte know I not

This lack of the asymmetry found in Dutch and German does not lend any support to the uniform V-to-C hypothesis, however, as the pronoun dem in Swedish is inherently strong; furthermore, Swedish does not use Case morphology for distinguishing subjects from objects, unlike Dutch and German. These two differences in the pronoun system, when combined, arguably eliminate the requirement to distinguish strong and weak pronouns w.r.t. position. . This requirement, that a subject or object gap must be at the left edge, is true in all Germanic languages. Debated is whether another non-phonetically realized element is to the left of this gap, as proposed in Büring and Hartmann (1998), and whether the gap is always in Spec,CP, as argued in Johnson (2002), or sometimes in Spec,TP, as argued in this study. . Others in this category are, from Dutch: opvallen ‘strike’ (C. J. W. Zwart, p.c.), and from German: gefallen ‘please’, geschehen ‘happen’, passieren ‘come to pass, happen’. . Independent evidence of the kind in (9) was presented in §4.1.1 for the existence of the gap in subject-gap constructions. . I leave open, as does Zwart (1991b), the option that subjects can front to Spec,CP, if certain pragmatic factors apply (see 50). . Operators like the one used by Hartmann were very common in GB theory. In minimalist approaches they have been largely replaced by movement operations which utilize Copy. . An exception to this generalization is the “Narrative V1 Construction” which has no element in Spec,CP and a Vfin in C: (i)

Ging der Jäger in den Wald und fing einen Hasen went the hunter in(to) the wood and caught a rabbit

An analysis of this construction with an empty operator in first position has been proposed in Zwart (1997: 219). See Magnuson (2003) for an analysis of equivalent constructions in Swedish. . A question left unanswered by Hartmann is how the gap in an additional, third conjunct would be licensed. Presumably an additional OP could be generated. However, this OP would



JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.40 (2829-2897)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

stand in a very different relation to the preceding conjunct than the first OP. That is, the two OPs would be symmetric with each other in an ATB relation. Athough this kind of relation is theoretically possible, it sets up a tension between the two relations: the relation between the control element – the subject of the initial clause – and the first OP must be asymmetric, while the relation between the two OPs themselves is symmetric in the sense that both are located in adjuncts and have the same relation to their common antecedent. . Though matching “relies” on Spell-Out – because LF requires it – narrow syntax must determine whether elements occur in symmetric positions, an important aspect of symmetry. . Judgments on (22b) vary somewhat; the majority of my informants rated the construction as indicated; a few found it somewhat more acceptable than this, but none in my experience rated it as good as the others in (22). The best rating consistently went to the construction with a subject gap, analyzed in (20) and (21), but most found (22a) equally acceptable. Those who rated (22a) less acceptable probably did so because of the redundancy of man, shown in Chapter 4 to sometimes cause ungrammaticality (see discussion below also). . An example of a construction in which conjoined CPs are highly symmetric is one with a fronted DP object, analyzed in detail in Chapter 4: (i)

Diesen Wein mag der Italiener gern und trinkt der Franzose viel this wine likes the.nom Italian gladly and drinks the.nom Frenchman a-lot

. See discussion of this point in n. 13 and below. . It is also not clear whether this OP element would be syntactically appropriate for object gaps. . The construction in (25) comes from Höhle (1983) and is analyzed in Johnson (2002). The phrase marker reflects the generalized V → C rule which both Johnson and Hartmann assume holds in all German main clauses. . Out of space considerations I have converted Johnson’s tree diagrams of his derivation into a representation with phrase markers. Thus, it is not as apparent in (27) that Johnson uses conjoined F’ projections (see (29) below), between which und is inserted. See also discussion of this point in §4.5.3.2. . (28), unlike (25a), does not have a subject gap anywhere, but the derivation should nevertheless be the same aside from subject deletion. . Meurers (2000) has proposed that constructions such as (i) and (ii) provide support for VPR in German: (i)

ohne dass der Staatsanwalt hätte darum bitten müssen without that the state-attorney had that-for ask must ‘without the state’s attorney having to ask about that’

(ii) wenn ich nur ein einziges Mal habe glücklich sein dürfen if I only one single time have happy be may ‘If only I could have been happy just once’ Such constructions are rare, however, and there is a restriction on what kind of element can intervene between Vfin and the double infinitive that doesn’t occur in West Flemish. Moreover, Meurers’ VPR derivations of them are very complex, leading us to ask whether they are optimal in a minimalist sense. For further discussion and examples of VPR see Koopman and Szabolcsi (2000).

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.41 (2897-2965)

Notes  . A reader pointed out that if the redundant DP is realized, then the construction is ungrammatical: (i)

(*)Den Hund hat Hans gefüttert und den Hund (hat) Peter geschlagen

The ungrammaticality, however, stems purely from redundancy that creates ambiguity in the interpretation of the kind discussed in Chapter 4. . Although the gap of einer has all the same features as einer itself except realized phonetic features, if these features are realized, i.e. einer is realized in place of the gap, the interpretation changes: the two einers cannot be coreferent. This interpretive requirement is a type of constraint against opacity as it applies to coordinate structures: when two indefinites used pronominally occur in parallel positions, one must be elided for them to be coreferent; otherwise they are assumed by principles of economy to be non-coreferent, as otherwise they wouldn’t both need to be spelled out. If an indefinite determiner occurs, i.e. with a NP, then it may or may not be interpreted as coreferent with a gap (cf. discussion in §4.1.1 and (9a, b) in this chapter). . We recall from Chapter 4 that focus accent licenses the gap in RNR. . One example of the complexity of the properties in constructions like those in (35) is the presence of RNR prosody – focus accent on the element preceding the gap – in the same construction with the prosody required for topicalization. One reason, therefore, why embedded subject-initial V2 (TP) conjuncts in RNR constructions present less complexity is the lack of any prosodic requirement for marking a topic in Spec,CP. . I take some liberty with the index ‘j’ for the auxiliary hat in (36b, c, d) in that I use it both for the copy of movement and for the matching between conjuncts. Theoretically the two relations are not one and the same, and this might be better indicated with different indices. However, given the identical phonetic realization and movement operation in the two conjuncts for this auxiliary, there are points on which the two relations can be unified. . Those speakers who find (36d) acceptable with a particular stress pattern are able to use focus accent on die Katze both to mark this DP as a fronted object, and to license the gap of the verb. See also next note. . The fact that some speakers find (36d) acceptable indicates that LF-matching occurs in parallel planes. In parallel planes the symmetry of the two conjuncts is determined independently of the linear sequence, i.e. in (36d) the preceding conjunct is matched with the “underlying” structure of the second conjunct rather than vice versa. The fact that (36c) is preferred by most speakers simply underscores the tendency to match in LF according to the linear sequence of the sentence (and PF Spell-Out), i.e. the leading conjunct provides the template for the following one. This kind of sequence is not a requirement of LF-matching for the derivation of (36c, d), however. Thus the differences in judgments. . Grohmann assumes, additionally, that propositional operators are licensed in a “split” CP (with more articulated positions), as well as clear discourse-relevant elements such as topic or focus, or the part of the derivation that is responsible for typing a clause, the illocutionary force. . Grohmann does allow TopP recursion, as needed to account for certain constructions. . The analysis in (49) also raises the question mentioned earlier: What is the nature of the V2 effect in such constructions? If OP has syntactic reality, there should be a V2 violation in (49). See also discussion below. . (51a) is from Peter Schneider, Paarungen (Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, p. 135. Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1994), and (51b) is from Gerhard Schröder, “Krise vorbei”. n-tv.de-CNN.de, 24. Sept.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:13

F: LA89NO.tex / p.42 (2965-3027)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

2003, (51c) from Manuela Schönenberger (p.c.), and (51d) from “Illegalen vertrekken vaker vrijwillig”, De Volkskrant, 10 januari 2005, www.volkskrant.nl. Other construction types that have structures like those in (51) are: (i)

Wege baut [TopP ø[Top◦ ø] [TP der hat viele Meister]] [CP Wer am who along-the path builds he has many masters

(ii) [CP Hoe goed de krant ook is] [TopP ø[Top◦ ø] [TP ik zou nooit een abonnement nemen op de krant]] (iii) [CP [CP Auch wenn der deutsche Aufbruch nach der Wiedervereinigung noch nicht lange her ist] [TopP für den Erzähler Edgar Reitz [Top◦ ist] [TP er historisch abgeschlossen]]] (Erna Lackner, “Edgar Reitz Heimat 3, Chronik einer Epoche” p. 17 (Deutschland 4/2004)) A more extensive analysis of these constructions and how a relativized theory of V2 is supported by them is given in te Velde (2005b). . For whatever reason, Grohmann (2003) remains silent on how V2 should be explained in his Split-CP system. . For an investigation of V3 in wh-questions of certain Norwegian dialects, see Westergaard and Vangsnes (2005). . We recall that English, because of its impoverished morphological Case system, cannot have three DPs in a row without a phonetically realized verb included for disambiguation of their Case functions. This restriction in English presumably applies only to the perceptual side of the processing, as on the conceptual side the gap, which has all the features of its coindexed parallel in the first clause, provides all the disambiguation needed. Apparently certain of these features necessary for disambiguation are not available on the perceptual side. . I assume that the deaccenting indicated in (56) is not required to trigger LF matching on the conceptual side, but only on the perceptual side (see previous note). . Manuela Schönenberger pointed out to me that only as an emphatic quantifier does not always induce V → C: (i)

Only John never drinks

In this construction, it should be noted, the stressed element can be just John; only does not need to be stressed, in contrast to (ii) where only must be stressed: (ii) Only today would I consider doing such a thing This is a matter that requires further research.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.1 (47-172)

References

Abraham, W. (1990). A note on the aspect-syntax interface. In J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Foris. Abraham, W. (1996). The aspect-case typology correlation: Perfectivity triggering split ergativity. Folia Linguistica, XXX(1–2), 5–34. Abraham, W. (2000). The aspect-case typology correlation. Perfectivity and Burzio’s generalization. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Arguments and Case (pp. 131–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Abgayani, B. & Zoerner, E. (2000). Pseudogapping and gapping: The same, but different. In V. Samiian (Ed.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 12 (pp. 1–8). Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University. Ackema, P. & Szendröi, K. (2002). Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 5, 3–34. Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement. A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, C. (1983). Generating coordinate structures with asymmetric gaps. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 19, 3–14. Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Sportiche, D. (1994). Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 195–220. Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., & Sportiche, D. (1999). Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 669–681. Artstein, R. (2001). Conjunction weakening and morphological plurality. Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) XX, Feb. 23–25, 2001 at the University of Southern California (USC). Bahloul, M. & Harbert, W. (1992). Agreement asymmetries in Arabic. In M. Kural & L. Moritz (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 11 (pp. 15–31). Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bayer, S. (1996). The coordination of unlike categories. Language, 72(3), 579–616. Berg, T. (1998). The resolution of number conflicts in Engish and German agreement patterns. Linguistics, 36, 41–70. den Besten, H. (1977). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In W. Abraham (Ed., 1983), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania (pp. 47–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Blake, B. J. (2001). Case (2nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP. Boeckx, C. (2003a). Resumption and asymmetric derivation. In A. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Vol. I: Syntax and Semantics (pp. 85–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, C. (2003b). (In)Direct binding. Syntax, 6(3), 213–236. Booij, G. (1983). Principles and parameters in prosodic phonology. Linguistics, 21, 249–280.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.2 (172-306)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Booij, G. (1985). Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), Advances in Non-linear Phonology (pp. 143–160). Dordrecht: Foris. Boškovi´c, Ž. (1997). Coordination, object shift and V-movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 357– 365. Boškovi´c, Ž. (2004). Two notes on right node raising. University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 13–24. Boškovi´c, Ž. & Franks, S. (2000). Across-the-board movement and LF. Syntax, 3(2), 107–128. Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656. Breul, C. (2004). Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An Integrated Syntactic, Semantic and Intonational Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Büring, D. (2002). 2 x Singular = Plural. Snippets, 6, 6–7. Büring, D. & Hartmann, K. (1997). Doing the right thing. The Linguistic Review, 14, 1–42. Büring, D. & Hartmann, K. (1998). Asymmetrische Koordination. Linguistische Berichte, 174, 172–201. Camacho, J. (1997). The Syntax of NP Coordination. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Camacho, J. (1999). How similar are conjuncts? Against asymmetric conjunction. In J.-M. Authier, B. E. Bullock, & L. A. Reed (Eds.), Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics (pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Camacho, J. (2000). On the structure of conjunction. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 23–50). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Camacho, J. & Elias, A. (2001). Coordination and switch-reference: Evidence from Capanahua. Paper presented at the Conference Coordination: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics held at the University of Salford, 16 Nov. 2001. Carlson, G. N. (1983). Marking constituents. In F. Heny & B. Richards (Eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1: Categories (pp. 69–98). Dordrecht: Reidel. Chametzky, R. (1987). Coordination and the Organization of a Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Chao, W. (1987). On Ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Chao, W. (2000). Phrase Structure. From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell. Cheng, L.-S. & Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax, 3(1), 1–19. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 71–132). New York, NY: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1–46. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. (1982). Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. New York, NY: Praeger. Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Also: R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds., 2000), Step by Step (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.)

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.3 (306-426)

References 

Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Also: M. Kenstowicz (Ed., 2001), Ken Hale. A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.) Chung, S. (2003). The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 34(4), 547–599. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: OUP. Collins, C. (1988a). Conjunction adverbs. Ms. MIT. Collins, C. (1988b). Alternative analysis of conjunction. Ms. MIT. Corbett, G. G. (1983). Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number and gender. In G. Gazdar, E. Klein, & G. Pullum (Eds.), Order, Concord and Constituency (pp. 175–206). Dordrecht: Foris. Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: CUP. Corver, N. & van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.). (2001). Semi-Lexical Categories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Cowper, E. A. (1985). Parasitic gaps, coordinate structures, and the subjacency condition. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 15, 75–86. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Cremers, C. (1993). On Parsing Coordination Categorially. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Leiden, published by the Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: CUP. Culicover, P. W. (1970). One more can of beer. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 366–369. Culicover, P. W. (1972). OM-sentences. Foundations of Language, 8, 199–236. Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (1995). Something else for the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 249–275. Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (1997). Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 195–217. Dalryrymple, M. & Kaplan, R. M. (2000). Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language, 76(4), 759–798. Di Sciullo, A. M. (1999). The local asymmetry connection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 35, 25–49. Di Sciullo, A. M., Paul, I., & Somesfalean, S. (2003). The clause structure of extraction asymmetries. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar. Vol. I: Syntax and semantics (pp. 279–299). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Donati, C. (2003). Merge copy. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 155–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dougherty, R. C. (1970). A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures I. Language, 46, 850– 900. Dougherty, R. C. (1971). A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures II. Language, 47, 298– 339. Dubinsky, S., Egan, M., Schmauder, A. R., & Traxler, M. J. (2000). Functional projections of predicates: Experimental evidence from coordinate structure processing. Syntax, 3(3), 182– 214. Dyla, S. (1984). Across-the-board dependencies and case in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 701– 705. Eisenberg, P. (1973). A Note on ‘Identity of Constituents’. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 417–420. Emonds, J. (1986). Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In M. Braeme, H. Contreras, & F. Newmeyer (Eds.), A Festschrift for Sol Saporta (pp. 93–129). Seattle, WA: Noit Amrofer. Fanselow, G. & Mahajan, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of wh-expletives. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope Marking (pp. 195–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.4 (426-546)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Farkas, D. F. & Ojeda, A. (1983). Agreement and coordinate NPs. Linguistics, 21, 659–673. Féry, C. (1993). German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Féry, C. & Hartmann, K. (2005). The focus and prosodic structure of German right node raising and gapping. The Linguistic Review, 22, 69–116. Fiengo, R. & May, R. (1994). Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Findreng, Å. (1976). Zur Kongruenz in Person und Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen Deutsch. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Fodor, J. (1974). Gapping gapped. Ms., City University of New York. Fox, D. (2000). Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Franks, S. (1981). Deep and surface case. Proceedings of NELS, 11, 79–95. Franks, S. (1993). On parallelism in across-the-board dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(5), 509–529. Franks, S. & Boškovi´c, Ž. (2001). An Argument for multiple spell-out. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 174–182. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., Jr. (2001). Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax, 4(1), 1–19. Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 343–370. Frey, W. (1993). Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation [Studia grammatica 35]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. van Gelderen, E. (1996). Breakdown in coordination. The Twenty-Second LACUS Forum 1995, 205–216. van Gelderen, E. (1997). Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind its Breakdown. Tübingen: Niemeyer. van Gelderen, E. (2004). Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1970). The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash. CLS, 6, 250–261. Gleitman, L. R. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language, 41, 260–293. Goldsmith, J. (1985). A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. CLS, 21 (part 1), 133–43. Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 46]. Cambridge: CUP. Grohmann, K. K. (2003). Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grootveld, M. (1994). Parsing Coordination Generatively. Den Haag: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics. Grosu, A. (1976). A note on subject raising to object and right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(3), 642–645. Haegeman, L. (1991). On the relevance of clitic placement for the analysis of subject-initial verb second in West Flemish. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 34, 26–66. Haegeman, L. (1995). IPP constructions and V-movement in West Flemish. Ms., University of Geneva. Hankamer, J. (1973). Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 17–68. Hankamer, J. (1979). Constraints on Deletion in Syntax. (Reprint of 1971 MIT dissertation). New York, NY: Garland. Hardt, D. (1992). VP ellipsis and semantic identity. In S. Bermann & A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.5 (546-667)

References 

Harris, A. C. & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74]. Cambridge: CUP. Hartmann, K. (2000). Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hendriks, P. (1991). Deletion in coordinate structures: The parallelism requirement. In M. Kas, E. Reuland, & C. Vet (Eds.), Language and Cognition 1 (pp. 99–110). Groningen: University of Groningen. Hendriks, P. (2001). Initial coordination and the law of coordination of likes. In T. van der Wouden & H. Broekhuis (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001 [AVT Publications 18] (pp. 127–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heycock, C. & Kroch, A. (1994). Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review, 11, 257–284. Heycock, C., Kroch, A., & Zamparelli, R. (2000). Friends and colleagues: Plurality and NPcoordination. Proceedings of NELS, 30, 341–352. Hiemstra, I. (1986). Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian. Nowelle, 8, 97–110. Hoeksema, J. (1988). The semantics of non-Boolean ‘and’. Journal of Semantics, 6(1), 19–40. Hoekstra, E. (1994). Expletive replacement, verb-second and coordination. The Linguistic Review, 11, 285–297. Höhle, T. N. (1983). Subjektlücken in Koordinationen. Ms., Universität Köln. Höhle, T. N. (1990). Assumptions about asymmetric coordination in German. In J. Mascaró & M. Nespor (Eds.), Grammar in Progress. GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk (pp. 221– 235). Dordrecht: Foris. Höhle, T. N. (1991). On reconstruction and coordination. In H. Haider & K. Netter (Eds.), Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar [SNLLT 22] (pp. 139–197). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hornstein, N. (1998). Movement and chains. Syntax, 1, 99–127. Hornstein, N. (2000). Move! A Minimalist Theory Of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J. (2002). On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax, 5(1), 26–54. Hudson, R. A. (1976). Conjunction reduction, gapping and right-node raising. Language, 52(3), 535–562. Huybregts, R. & van Riemsdijk, H. (1985). Parasitic gaps and ATB. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 15, 168–187. Amherst: GLSA. Inkelas, S. & Zec, D. (1995). Syntax-phonology interface. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 535–549). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Ingria, R. J. P. (1990). The limits of unification. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 194–204. Jackendoff, R. (1971). Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 21–35. Jackendoff, R. (1977). X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. (1992). Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 10, 1–31. Jacobs, J. (1982). Neutraler und nicht-neutraler Satzakzent im Deutschen. In T. Vennemann (Ed.), Silben, Segmente, Akzente (pp. 141–169). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Jaeger, C. (1992). Probleme der syntaktischen Kongruenz. Theorie und Normvergleich im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Johannessen, J. B. (1993). Coordination. A minimalist approach. PhD Dissertation, University of Oslo. Johannessen, J. B. (1996). Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 661–676.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.6 (667-798)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. New York, NY: OUP. Johnson, K. (1994). Bridging the gap. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Johnson, K. (1996). In search of the English middle field. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Johnson, K. (2000). Gapping determiners. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 99–116). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Johnson, K. (2002). Restoring exotic coordinations to normalcy. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1), 97– 156. Kaan, E., Wijnen, F., & Swaab, T. Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of ‘missing’ verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 89, 584–592. Kasai, H. & Takahashi, S. (2001). Coordination in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 41, 19–32. Kathol, A. (1992). On coordination and constituency in German. CLS, 28, 267–281. Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kehler, A. (1996). Coherence and the coordinate structure constraint. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 22, 220–231. Kehler, A. (2000). Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 533– 575. Kennedy, C. (2003). Ellipsis and syntactic representation. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 29–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kiparsky, P. (1995). Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In A. Battye & I. G. Roberts (Eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change (pp. 140–169). New York, NY: OUP. Klein, W. (1981). Some rules of regular ellipsis in German. In W. Klein & W. Levelt (Eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics (pp. 51–78). Dordrecht: Reidel. Klein, W. (1993). Ellipse. In J. Jacobs et al. (Eds.), Syntax – Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Syntax – An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 763–799). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Koopman, H. & Szabolcsi, A. (2000). Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kornfilt, J. (2000). Directionality of verb deletion in Turkish coordination. In Jorge Hankamer Webfest at http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/index.html Koutsoudas, A. (1971). Gapping, conjunction reduction and coordinate deletion. Foundations of Language, 7, 337–386. Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kuno, S. (1976). Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 300–318. Lakoff, G. (1969). Presupposition and relative grammaticality. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, 24, 51–68. Cambridge, MA: The Computational Laboratory of Harvard University Lang, E. (1984). The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lang, E. (1991). Koordinierende Konjunktionen. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik/Semantics. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 597– 623). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Lappin, S. (1996). The interpretation of ellipsis. In Shalom Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 145–175). Oxford: Blackwell. Larson, R. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Ray Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 589– 563. Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.7 (798-916)

References 

Lasnik, H. (1999). Pseudogapping puzzles. In S. Lappin & E. Benmamoun (Eds.), Fragments. Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping (pp. 141–174). Oxford: OUP. Lebeaux, D. (1983). A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 723–730. Lebeaux, D. (1984). Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review, 4, 343–363. Lechner, W. (2004). Ellipsis in Comparatives [Studies in Generative Grammar 72]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, H.-K. (2002). Towards a new typology of connectives with special reference to conjunction in English and Korean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 851–866. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Levine, R. D. (1985). Right node (non-) raising. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 492–497. Lin, V. (1999). Determiner sharing. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33, 241–277. Lobeck, A. (1995). Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification. Oxford: OUP. Lobeck, A. (1999). VP ellipsis and the minimalist program: Some speculations and proposals. In S. Lappin & E. Benmamoun (Eds.), Fragments. Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping (pp. 98–123). Oxford: OUP. López, L. & Winkler, S. (2000). Focus and topic in VP-anaphora constructions. Linguistics, 38(4), 623–664. López, L. & Winkler, S. (2003). Variation at the syntax-semantics interface. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), The Interfaces. Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Magnusson, E. (2003). Subject omission and verb initial declaratives in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 71, 103–143. Manzini, M. R. (1997). Syntactic dependencies and their properties: Weak islands. In A. Alexiadou & T. Hall (Eds.), Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation (pp. 135–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Language, 46(2), 286–299. McCloskey, J. (1986). Right node raising and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 183– 186. McCloskey, J. (1993). Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 11, 347–379. Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and Identity in Ellipsis. Oxford: OUP. Meurers, W. D. (2000). Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereiches 340. Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik. Universität Stuttgart, Universität Tuebingen, IBM Informationssysteme GmbH. Moltmann, F. (1992). Coordination and Comparatives. PhD dissertaton, MIT. Moosally, M. & Hagen, L. K. (2001). A union function for agreement in complex coordinate structures. Paper presented at WCCFL 20 at USC, Feb. 23–25, 2001. Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 38]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Muadz, H. (1991). Coordinate structures: A planar representation. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona. Munn, A. (1987). Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 121–140. Munn, A. (1992). A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. Linguistic Review, 9, 1–26. Munn, A. (1993). Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.8 (916-1045)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Munn, A. (1999). First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 643–668. Munn, A. (2000). Three types of coordination asymmetries. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 1–22). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Neijt, A. (1979). Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Newmeyer, F. J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79(4), 682–707. Nunes, J. (1995). The Copy Theory of movement and linearization of Chains in the minimalist program. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Nunes, J. (2001). Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(2), 303–344. Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 43]. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Oehrle, R. T. (1987). Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In G. J. Huck & A. Ojeda (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Discontinuous Constituency (pp. 203–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Oehrle, R. T. (1991). Categorial frameworks, coordination, and extraction. WCCFL, 9, 411–416. Stanford, CA: CSLI. van Oirsouw, R. (1987). The Syntax of Coordination. Beckenham: Croom Helm. van Oirsouw, R. (1993). Coordination. In J. Jacobs et al. (Eds.), Syntax – Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Syntax – An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 748–763). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Otani, K. & Whitman, J. (1991). V-Raising and VP-Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 345–358. Partee, B. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bäuerle et al. (Eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language (pp. 361–383). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Payne, J. R. (1985). Complex phrases and complex sentences. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions (pp. 3–41). Cambridge: CUP. Perlmutter, D. M. & Ross, J. R. (1970). Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3), 350. Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. PhD dissertation, MIT. Peterson, P. G. (1986). Establishing verb agreement with disjunctively conjoined subjects: Strategies vs. principles. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 6, 231–249. Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. PhD dissertation, MIT. Platzack, C. (1996). Germanic verb second languages. In E. Lang & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Deutsch – typologisch [IDS Jahrbuch 1995] (pp. 92–120). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Platzack, C. (1998). A visibility condition on the C-domain. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 61, 53–99. Pörnbacher, K. (Ed.). (1969). Erläuterungen und Dokumente. Franz Grillparzer, König Ottokars Glück und Ende. Stuttgart: Reclam. Postal, P. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Postal, P. (1998). Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Progovac, L. (1998). Structure for coordination. Glot International, 3(7), 3–6 (Part I); 3(8), 3–9 (Part II). Progovac, L. (1999). Events and economy of coordination. Syntax, 2(2), 141–159. Prüst, H. & Scha, R. (1990). VP Ellipsis induces clausal parallelism. In R. Bok-Bennema & P. Coopmans (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1990 (pp. 123–132). Dordrecht: Foris. Pullum, G. K. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. Journal of Linguistics, 12, 83–102.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.9 (1045-1176)

References 

Pullum, G. K. & Zwicky, A. M. (1986). Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language, 62(4), 751–773. Richards, N. (1999). Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 127–158). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Reid, J. (2001). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP. van Riemsdijk, H. (1983). The case of German adjectives. In F. Heny & B. Richards (Eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles (pp. 223–252). Dordrecht: Reidel. van Riemsdijk, H. (1998). Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 1–48. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of Grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, T. (1999). Unbalanced coordination and resumptive pronouns. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 33, 323–341. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ross, J. R. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In M. Bierwisch & M. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics (pp. 249–259). The Hague: Mouton. Rooth, M. (1992a). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116. Rooth, M. (1992b). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman & A. Hestvik (Eds.), Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik 29. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen. Ruys, E. G. (1993). The Scope of Indefinites [OTS Dissertation Series]. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Sag, I. (1980). Deletion and Logical Form [Reprint of 1976 MIT dissertation]. New York, NY: Garland. Sag, I., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T., & Weisler, S. (1985). Coordination and how to distinguish Categories. NLLT, 3, 117–173. Schachter, P. (1977). Constraints on coordination. Language, 53, 86–103. Schönenberger, M. (2001). Embedded V-to-C in Child Grammar: The Acquisition of Verb Placement in Swiss German [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 27]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schütze, C. T. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax, 4(3), 205–234. Schwabe, K. (2000). Coordinate ellipsis and information structure. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 247–269). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (2003). Exploring the interfaces from the perspective of omitted structures. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), The Interfaces. Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures (pp. 1–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwarz, B. (1998). On odd coordinations in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2(3), 191–219. Schwarz, B. (1999). On the syntax of ‘either . . .or’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 339–370. Schwarz, B. (2000). Topics in Ellipsis. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Selkirk, L. (1997). Constraints on prosodic phrasing and their relevance for right node raising. Ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Siegel, M. (1987). Compositionality, case, and the scope of auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10(1), 53–76. Stowell, T. (1993). Syntax of tense. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.10 (1176-1297)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Stowell, T. (1996). The phrase structure of tense. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 277–291). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Swingle, K. A. (1993). The role of prosody in right node raising. Ms., University of CA, Santa Cruz. Talmy, L. (1978). Relations between subordination and coordination. In Joseph H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language (pp. 487–513). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Thiersch, C. (1994). On some formal properties of coordination. In Carlos Martin-Vide (Ed.), Current Issues in Mathematical Linguistics [North-Holland Linguistic Series 56] (pp. 171– 180). North Holland: Elsevier. Toivonen, I. (2003). Non-Projecting Words. A Case Study of Swedish Particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Toman, J. (1984). A discussion of coordination and word syntax. In J. Toman (Ed.), Studies in German Grammar (pp. 407–432). Dordrecht: Foris. Trautner Kromann, M. (2001). VP coordination and ellipsis in Danish. Ms., Copenhagen Business School. Available at: www.id.cbs.dk/∼mtk. Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and the Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT. Travis, L. (1988). The syntax of adverbs. In McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax (pp. 280–310). McGill University. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995a). Prosodie und Ellipse. Ms., Berlin. Truckenbrodt, H. (1995b). Phonological Phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus and prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 251–282). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. te Velde, J. (1988). Coordination and German Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. te Velde, J. (1992). Subject-object and coordinate asymmetries and the syntactic structure of German. In R. Lippi-Green (Ed.), Recent Developments in Germanic Linguistics (pp. 127– 140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. te Velde, J. (1996). Coordination and antisymmetry theory: Some evidence from Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literature, 8(2), 135–175. te Velde, J. (2000a). Assumptions about the structure of coordination. In K. Schwabe & N. Zhang (Eds.), Ellipsis in Conjunction (pp. 51–78). Tübingen: Niemeyer. te Velde, J. (2000b). Feature-driven coordination: (A)Symmetry and matching. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, 11, 480–494. Fresno: California State University, Department of Linguistics. te Velde, J. (2002). Phases in the derivation of elliptical coordinate constructions in Germanic. In W. Abraham & C. J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology [Linguistik Aktuell 45] (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. te Velde, J. (2005a). Unifying prosody and syntax for right- and left-edge coordinate ellipsis. Lingua, 115, 483–502. te Velde, J. (2005b). New evidence for relativized V2 in West Germanic. Paper presented at CGSW 20 (Tilburg), 9–11 June 2005. Van Valin, R. D. (1986). An empty category as the subject of a tensed S in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 581–586. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1979). Quelques éléments pour une théorie formelle des Cas. In J.-R. Vergnaud (1985), Dépendances et niveaux de répresentation en syntaxe (pp. 27–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1985). Dépendances et niveaux de répresentation en syntaxe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.11 (1297-1430)

References 

Vikner, S. (1995). Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP. Vikner, S. & Schwartz, B. D. (1996). The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax (pp. 11–62). Oxford: OUP. Warner, A. (1988). Feature percolation, unary features and the coordination of English NPs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 39–54. Wesche, B. (1995). Symmetric Coordination. An alternative theory of phrase structure [Linguistische Arbeiten 332]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Westergaard, M. R. & Vangsnes, Ø. A. (2005). Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 8, 117–158. Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Whitman, N. (2004). Semantics and pragmatics of English verbal dependent coordination. Language, 80(3), 403–434. Wiklund, A.-L. (1996). Pseudocoordination is subordination. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 58, 29–54. Wilder, C. (1994). Coordination, ATB and ellipsis. GAGL, 37, 291–329. Wilder, C. (1996). V2-Effekte: Wortstellungen und Ellipsen. In E. Lang & G. Zifonun (Eds.), Deutsch – typologisch (pp. 142–180). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Wilder, C. (1997). Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In A. Alexiadou & T. A. Hall (Eds.), Studies in Universal Grammar and Typological Variation [Linguistik Aktuell 13] (pp. 59–107). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilder, C. (1999). Right node raising and the LCA. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, & P. Norquest (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 18 (pp. 586–598). Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), 101–139. Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 31–43. Williams, E. (1981). Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 645–654. Williams, E. (1990). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6, 265–279. Williams, E. (1997). Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 577–628. Winkler, S. (1996). Focus and Secondary Predication [Studies in Generative Grammar 43]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Winkler, S. (1997). Ellipsis and Information Structure in English and German: The phonological reduction hypothesis. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die Computerlinguistik 121. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen. Winter, Y. (1996). What does the strongest meaning hypothesis mean? In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 6 (pp. 295–310). Winter, Y. (1998). Flexible Boolean Semantics. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. Winter, Y. (2002). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: The Interpretation of Coordination, Plurality and Scope in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Wurmbrand, S. (2001). Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zagona, K. (1999). In J.-M. Authier, B. E. Bullock, & L. A. Reed (Eds.), Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zoerner, C. E. (1994). Deriving the distribution of conjunctions. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 214–234. Zoerner, C. E. (1995). Coordination: The syntax of &P. PhD dissertation, University of CA, Irvine.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:24/11/2005; 13:16

F: LA89RE.tex / p.12 (1430-1474)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Zoerner, C. E. & Agbayani, B. (2000). Verbal ‘deletion’ – A moving experience. In R. Ai, F. Del Gobbo, M. Irie, & H. Ono (Eds.), UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (pp. 171–188). UC Irvine, CA: ILSA. van Zonnenveld, R. (1992). X-bar syntax and coordination. In D. Gilbers & S. Looyenga (Eds.), Language and Cognition 2 (pp. 333–347). Groningen: University of Groningen. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1991a). Clitics in Dutch: Evidence for the position of INFL. GAGL, 33, 71–92. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1991b). Subject deletion in Dutch: A difference between subject and topics. In M. Kas, E. Reuland, & C. Vet (Eds.), Language and Cognition 1. Yearbook 1991 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen (pp. 333–350). Groningen: University of Groningen. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1993). Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1994). The minimalist program and Germanic syntax. A reply to Gärtner and Steinbach. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 54, 1–41. Zwart, C. J.-W. (1997). Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Zwart, C. J.-W. (2005). Verb second as a function of Merge. In M. den Dikken & C. Tortora (Eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories (pp. 11–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.1 (46-133)

Appendix

Left-Edge Subject Deletion Constructions that are identified as “asymmetric” have one of two types of asymmetry: (1) the left-edge subject gap has an antecedent that is not at the left edge because some element (indicated) has been fronted to Spec,CP, or (2) the gap has an antecedent with a different abstract Case.

Danish: (a, b – symmetric, c – asymmetric with DP-object fronted) (1) a. b.

c.

dukkerne Karli viser tanten frimækerne og ei sælger onklen K shows aunt-the stamps-the and sells uncle-the dolls-the Dette togi kører videre som IC-tog til Grøningen og ei stopper kun and stops only this train drives farther as IC-train to G i Assen in A og ei tilbyder ham at købe dem Frimærkerne viser Karli til onklen to uncle-the and offers him to buy them stamps-the shows K

Dutch: (a – symmetric, b – asymmetric with fronted PP, c – asymmetric w.r.t. Case of antecedent & gap) (2) a.

b.

c.

Deze treini rijdt verder als intercity naar Groningen en ei zal alleen to G and will only this train travels further as IC stoppen te Assen stop at A Na Z rijdt deze treini verder als IC naar G en ei zal alleen After Z travels this train farther as IC to G and will only stoppen te Assen stop in A Die treini had ik makkelijk kunnen halen, maar ei is veel te vroeg can catch but is much too early that train had I easily vertrokken departed ‘That train I could have easily caught, but it left much too early’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.2 (133-202)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

German: (a – symmetric, b – asymmetric with DP-object fronted, c – asymmetric with DP-indirect object fronted) (3) a.

b. c.

Karli zeigt seiner Tante die Briefmarken und ei verkauft seinem Onkel K shows his-dat aunt the stamps and sells his-dat uncle die Puppen the dolls Die Briefmarken zeigt Karli seiner Tante und ei verkauft seinem Onkel die Puppen Seiner Tante zeigt Karli die Briefmarken und ei verkauft seinem Onkel die Puppen

Icelandic: (a, b – symmetric, c – asymmetric with DP-object fronted) (4) a. b.

c.

Karli sýnir frænkunni frímerkin og ei selur frændanum dúkkurnar K shows aunt-the stamps-the and sells uncle-the dolls-the Essi lesti heldur áfram sem intercity-lest til Groningen og ei mun bara as intercity-train to G and will only this train goes on stoppa í Assen stop in A Frímerkini sýnir Karl frændanum og ei býður honum þau til sölu stamps-the shows K uncle-the and offers him them for sale

Swedish: (a, c, d – symmetric; b – asymmetric with adverb fronted, e – asymmetric with DP-object fronted) (5) a. b. c.

d.

e.

igår och ei åt där en stor middag Hani åkte till sta’n He went to town-the yesterday and ate there a big dinner Igår åkte hani till sta’n och ei åt där en stor middag Kallei visar frimärkena för sin moster och ei säljer dockorna till sin K shows stamps-the for his aunt and sells dolls-the to his farbror uncle Detta tågi fortsätter vidare som InterCity till Göteborg och ei kommer this train continues further as IC to G and will bara att stanna i Halmstad only to stop in H Frimärkena visar Kallei för sin farbror och ei säljer dem till honom for his uncle and sells them to him stamps-the shows K

Swiss German: (a – symmetric, b, c – asymmetric with DP-object fronted) (6) a.

Onkel De Karli zeigt sinere Tante Priefmarke und ei vechauft sim shows his-dat aunt stamps and sells his-dat uncle the K Paabe dolls

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.3 (202-255)

Appendix 

b.

c.

Die Briefmarkei zeigt de Karl sim Onkel und ei bütet’m’s the stamps shows the K his-dat uncle and offers-himdat -themacc zum Vechauf aa for sale part Die Ross söt de Hansi strigle und ei wöt’s nochher au groom and wants-to afterward also the horse is-supposed-to the H no ä bizzli striichele yet a little stroke ‘Hans is supposed to groom the horse and he wants to stroke it a little afterward too’

Left-Edge Direct-Object Deletion In contrast to Left-Edge Subject Deletion, no structural asymmetries are allowed with Left-Edge Direct-Object deletion, i.e. if the antecedent is not located at the left edge (Spec,CP, also the position of the gap), the construction is not grammatical. Ungrammatical examples are not given. If Case morphology is lacking on the determiner of the direct object, it may (somewhat marginally) be the antecedent of a subject gap (cf. 8c, 9c).

Danish: (7) ??Frimærkernei viser Karl til tanten og ei sælger Heinz til onklen stamps.the shows K to aunt-the and sells H to uncle.the

Dutch: (8) a.

b.

c.

Die treini had ik makkelijk kunnen halen maar ei heb ik gemist can catch but have I missed That train had I easily omdat de St. Annastraat opgebroken was because the St. Anna-Street up-broken was ‘That train I could have easily caught, but I missed it because St. Ann Street was under construction’ Deze postzegeli heeft Karel (aan) mijn tante laten zien en ei heeft Henk has K (to) my aunt let see and has H this stamp (aan) mijn oom verkocht (to) my uncle sold Die treini had ik makkelijk kunnen halen, maar ei is veel te vroeg can catch but is much too early That train had I easily vertrokken left ‘That train I could have caught, but it left much too early’

German: (9) a.

Die the-acc seinem his-dat

Briefmarkeni zeigt Karl seiner Tante und ei verkauft er stamps shows K his-dat aunt and sells he Onkel uncle

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.4 (255-318)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

b.

c.

Diesen Zugi verpasste Karl this-acc train missed K mutwillig intentionally Käsei mag ich nicht und ei cheese like I not and

aus Faulheit und ei ignorierte Heinz out-of laziness and ignored H

ist auch nicht gut für mich is also not good for me

Icelandic: (10) ??Frímerkini sýnir Karl frænkunni og ei selur Heinz frændanum stamps-the shows K aunt-the and sells H uncle-the ‘The stamps Karl shows to his aunt and Heinz sells them to his uncle’

Swedish: (11) a. ?Frimärkenai visade Karl stamps-the shows K ? b. Frimärkeni visar Kalle stamps-the shows K

för to för to

Tant Lisa, och ei aunt L and sin moster och ei his aunt and

sålde Sven sold S säljer Lisa sells L

till to till to

Farbror Lasse Uncle L sin farbror her uncle

Swiss German: (12) a.

b.

de Hans strigle Die Rossi söt groom the horse is-supposed-to the H nochher no ä bizzli striichele afterward yet a little (to) stroke Sonig Briefmarkei zeigt de Karl sinere such stamps shows the K his-dat Heinz sim Onkel H his-dat uncle

und ei wöt de Karl and wants the K

Tante und ei vechauft de aunt and sells the

Left-Edge Indirect-Object Deletion Danish: (13) ??Tanteni viser Karl frimærkerne og ei sælger Heinz dukkerne aunt-the shows K stamps-the and sells H dolls-the

Dutch: (14) Mijn tantei my aunt meisjes de girls the

hebben have poppen dolls

de jongens de postzegels laten zien en ei hebben de the boys the stamps let see and have the verkocht sold

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.5 (318-387)

Appendix 

German: (15) Meiner Tantei zeigten die Jungen die Briefmarken und ei verkauften die the stamps and sold the my-dat aunt showed the boys Mädchen die Puppen girls the dolls ‘To my aunt the boys sold the stamps and the girls the dolls’

Swedish: (16) ??Åt mosteri bakar Kalle bröd och ei ger Lisa teckningar for aunt bakes K bread and gives L drawings

Swiss German: (17) Sinere Tante zeigti de Karl Priefmarke und ei vechauft de Heinz Paabe his-dat aunt shows the K stamps and sells the H dolls

Gapping Because Gapping, in contrast to Left-Edge Ellipsis, appears to occur universally, the following examples are not representative. The Danish data indicate that Topicalization is not allowed in the elided conjunct, and the German data that multiple gaps must be adjacent.

Danish: Han servereri John te og hun ei Marie kaffe J tea and she M coffee he serves b. *Han servereri John te, og Mariej ei hun kaffe t j c. *Han servereri John te, og kaffej ei hun Marie t j

(18) a.

Dutch: (19) Pieter schreefi een dik boek en Karel ei een kort opstel wrote a thick book and K a short article P

German: Peter schriebi ein dickes Buch und Karl ei einen kurzen Aufsatz wrote a thick book and K a short article P b. Peter schriebi Mariej einen langen Brief und Karl ei ej eine Karte wrote M a long letter and K a card P c. *Peter schriebi Marie einen langen Briefj und Karl ei Erika ej

(20) a.

Swedish: (21) Peter skrevi sin bok med lätthet och Lisa ei sin med svårighet P wrote his book with ease and L hers with difficulty

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.6 (387-459)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

Swiss German: (22) De Karl zeigti sinere Tante Priefmarke und de Heinz ei Paabe shows his-dat aunt stamps and the H dolls the K

Right-Edge Ellipsis (a.k.a. RNR; some sentences also have Gapping) Like Gapping, RNR is likely a universal form of coordinate ellipsis, as the following sampling seems to suggest.

Chinese (Mandarin): (23) wo zhishi ting shuo guo ei dan Akiu kan dao guo, [na ge nianying I only hear say exp but Akiu see reach exp that cl movie mingxing]i star ‘I only heard but Akiu saw the movie star.’

Danish: (24) Knud holder af ei og Kirsten beundrer forskernei admire researchers1 K be-fond of and K

Dutch: (25) Pieter schreef een lang ei en Karel een kort opsteli P wrote a long and K a short article

French: lu [le livre]i (26) Pierre a acheté ei et Paul (a) (aux) read the book P aux bought and P ‘Pierre bought and Paul read the book’

Greek (Modern): (27) O Petros agorase ena megalo ei ke o Giannis ena ikro biblioi The Peter bought a large and the G a small book

Hungarian (contr = contrast particle): (28) Anita hallgatja ei és Péter pedig olvassa [a híreket]i A listens-to and P contr reads the news ‘Anita listens to and Peter reads the news’

Japanese (top = topic morpheme): [mai asa yomu]i (29) John-wa hon-o ei (soshite) Mary-wa shimbun-o book-acc (and) M-top newspaper-acc every morning reads J-top ‘John reads a book and Mary a newspaper every morning’

JB[v.20020404] Prn:20/10/2005; 14:09

F: LA89AP.tex / p.7 (459-521)

Appendix 

Korean: (30) Peter-neun keun chaek-ul ei (geurigo) Paul-eun jageun chaek-eul [sa-ass-ta]i P-top small book-acc bought P-top large book-acc (and)

Russian: (31) Bill kupil bol’šuju ei a Džo (kupil) malen’kuju [knigu po fizike]i but Joe (bought) small book on physics B bought large ‘Bill bought a large but Joe a small book on physics’

Spanish: (32) Yo tomo muchas ei y tú tomas pocas naranjasi I take many and you take few oranges

Swedish: (33) Peter skrevj med lätthet ei och Lisa ej med svårighet [en ny bok om wrote with ease and L with difficulty a new book about P djur]i animals

Turkish (sbjnc = subjunctive; prprog = present progressive): isti-yor]i (34) Ahmet Hasan karides-i ei Mehmet te istiridye-yi [ye-sin shrimp-acc M and oyster-acc eat-sbjnc want.prprog A H

Note . Danish has no agreement morphemes on verbs, hence none is used in the gloss.

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 10:30

F: LA89NI.tex / p.1 (47-176)

Name index

A Abgayani, B.  Abraham, W.  Ackema, P. ,  Alexiadou, A.  Anderson, C.  Aoun, J. ,  Artstein, R. ,  B Büring, D. , , , , , , , , , ,  Bahloul, M.  Bayer, S. ,  Benmamoun, E. , ,  Berg, T. , ,  Blake, B. J.  Boškovi´c, Ž. , , ,  Boeckx, C. ,  Booij, G. ,  Bowers, J.  Breul, C. ,  C Camacho, J. , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Campbell, L.  Carlson, G. N.  Chametzky, R. , , ,  Chao, W.  Cheng, L.-S.  Chomsky, N. , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Chung, S.  Cinque, G. ,  Clifton, C. , , , , , , , , , , ,  Collins, C.  Corbett, G. G. , 

Corver, N.  Cowper, E. A. ,  Cremers, C. ,  Cruttenden, A.  Culicover, P. W. , , , , ,  D Dalryrymple, M.  den Besten, H.  Di Sciullo, A. M. ,  Donati, C.  Dougherty, R. C.  Dubinsky, S. ,  Dyla, S. , ,  E Egan, M.  Eisenberg, P. , ,  Elias, A.  Emonds, J.  F Féry, C. ,  Fanselow, G.  Farkas, D. F. ,  Fiengo, R.  Findreng, Å.  Fodor, J.  Fox, D. , , ,  Franks, S. , , , , , ,  Frazier, L. , , , , , , , , , ,  Frey, W.  G Givón, T.  Gleitman, L. R. ,  Goldsmith, J.  Goodall, G. , , , , , , , , , 

Grohmann, K. K. –, ,  Grootveld, M. , , , , , , 

H Höhle, T. N. , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Haegeman, L.  Hagen, L. K.  Hankamer, J. , ,  Harbert, W.  Hardt, D.  Harris, A. C.  Hartmann, K. , , –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , –, , –, , , , ,  Hendriks, P. ,  Heycock, C. , , , ,  Hiemstra, I.  Hoeksema, J.  Hoekstra, E.  Hornstein, N. , , , , , , , , ,  Hudson, R. A.  Huybregts, R. 

I Ingria, R. J. P.  Inkelas, S. 

J Jackendoff, R. , , , , , ,  Jacobs, J.  Jaeger, C. , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 10:30

F: LA89NI.tex / p.2 (176-317)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries Johannessen, J. B. , , –, , , –, , , –, –, , , , –, , ,  Johnson, K. , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , ,  K Kaan, E. , ,  Kaplan, R. M. , , ,  Kasai, H.  Kathol, A. ,  Kayne, R. , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , ,  Kehler, A. , , , , , , ,  Kennedy, C.  Kiparsky, P.  Klein, W. , ,  Koopman, H.  Kornfilt, J.  Koutsoudas, A.  Kroch, A. , , ,  Kuno, S. , , , , ,  L Lakoff, G. , ,  Lang, E. , , , ,  Lappin, S. ,  Larson, R.  Lasersohn, P. , , ,  Lasnik, H.  Lebeaux, D.  Lechner. W.  Lee, H.-K.  Levelt, W. , , , , ,  Levine, R. D.  Lin, V.  Lobeck, A. ,  López, L. ,  M Magnusson, E.  Mahajan, A.  Manzini, M. R.  May, R.  McCawley, J. D.  McCloskey, J. 

Merchant, J. , , , , ,  Meurers, W. D.  Moltmann, F. , , ,  Moosally, M.  Moro, A.  Muadz, H. , ,  Munn, A. , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  N Neijt, A. , , , ,  Newmeyer, F. J.  Nunes, J. , , , , , , , , ,  O Oehrle, R. T. ,  Ojeda, A. ,  Otani, K.  P Pörnbacher, K. ,  Partee, B. ,  Payne, J. R.  Perlmutter, D. M. ,  Pesetsky, D. ,  Peterson, P. G.  Phillips, C.  Platzack, C.  Postal, P. , ,  Prüst, H.  Progovac, L. , , ,  Pullum, G. K. , , , , , ,  R Reid, J. ,  Richards, N. ,  Rizzi, L. , , –, , , ,  Roberts, T.  Rooryck, J.  Rooth, M. , , ,  Ross, J. R. , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Ruys, E. G. , 

S Sag, I. 1980 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Schönenberger, M. , , ,  Schütze, C. T. , , ,  Scha, R.  Schachter, P.  Schmauder, A. R.  Schwabe, K. , , ,  Schwarz, B. , , , ,  Selkirk, L.  Siegel, M.  Sportiche, D. ,  Stowell, T. , ,  Swaab, T. Y. , ,  Swingle, K. A.  Szabolcsi, A.  Szendröi, K. 

T Takahashi, S.  Talmy, L.  te Velde, J. , , , , , , , , , , ,  Thiersch, C.  Toivonen, I.  Toman, J.  Trautner Kromann, M.  Travis, L. , , , , , ,  Traxler, M. J.  Truckenbrodt, H. 

U Uriagereka, J. , , , , , 

V van Gelderen, E. , , , , –, , , , ,  van Oirsouw, R. , , , ,  van Riemsdijk, H. , ,  Van Valin, R. D.  Vangsnes, Ø. A.  Vergnaud, J.-R.  Vikner, S. , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:8/12/2005; 10:30

F: LA89NI.tex / p.3 (317-348)

Name index 

W Warner, A. ,  Wasow, T.  Wesche, B. , , ,  Westergaard, M. R.  Wexler, K. ,  Whitman, J. ,  Whitman, N. ,  Wijnen, F. , , 

Wilder, C. , –, , ,  Williams, E. , , , , , , , –, , , –, –, , , , , , ,  Winkler, S. , , , ,  Winter, Y. ,  Wurmbrand, S. 

Z Zagona, K. ,  Zec, D.  Zoerner, C. E. , , , , , , ,  Zwart, C. J.-W. , , , , , , , , , ,  Zwicky, A. M. , , , , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2005; 14:53

F: LA89SI.tex / p.1 (47-129)

Subject index

A absorption  abstract feature , , , ,  accusative Case  across-the-board (ATB) movement , , –, , , –, , –, , , , , ,  active memory (AM) –, , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , –, , , , , –, – adjunction , , , , , , –, , ,  anaphor binding ,  articulatory-perceptual side ,  atomic ,  atomicity 

B bi-clausal construction  binding domain , ,  Boolean phrase  breakdown in agreement , , , , ,  breakdown in feature checking 

C Case asymmetry , – categorial identity , ,  categorial symmetry  colloquial usage , , , , , ,  combinatorial , , , ,  command unit (CU) 

complement , , –, , , –, , , , , – complementizer phrase (CP) , , , , –, , –, , , –, , , –, , , , , –, –, , –, , –, , , –, –, –, , –, , ,  conceptual structure ,  conjoin , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , ,  conjunct –, –, , , , –, –, –, , , , –, –, –, –, , , –, –, , –, –, , –, –, –,  conjunction doubling , , ,  constituent , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  convergence , , , ,  coordinate feature matching , , , , , ,  coordinate relation , , , , ,  coordinate structure , , –, , , , , , , , –, , , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , 

Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) , , , –, , , , , – coordinate symmetry –, –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  coordinating conjunction , –, , , –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  copy , , –, –, , –, , , , , , , –, , , –, –, –, –, , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , –, , , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , , , ,  copying , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  coreferential , , , , ,  cross-categorial coordination , , , , ,  D default Case , , , , , , –, , , , , ,  defective category  defective head , , , ,  derivational history , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2005; 14:53

F: LA89SI.tex / p.2 (129-200)

 Deriving Coordinate Symmetries

E economy –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  economy principle  elide , , , –,  elliptical –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  embedded , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , ,  F feature attraction , , ,  feature checking , , , , , , , –, , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , ,  feature cluster ,  feature conflict , , , , ,  feature resolution , , –, , , , , , , ,  feature template ,  feature transfer ,  focus accent , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  formal feature , , , ,  G Germanic , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  grammaticality , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  H hierarchical dominance  hyper-correction , , 

I ill-formedness , , ,  illocutionary force , , , ,  impoverished Case morpheme  impoverishment , , ,  interface level  isometric ,  isometricity –,  iterative , ,  L Late Merge , ,  left edge , , , , , , –, –, –, –, , , , , , , , , , ,  left periphery , , , , –, , , ,  Left-Edge Ellipsis (LEE) , , , , , , –, , –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  lexical array , , , , , –, –, , , , , , ,  LF interface , ,  licensing by c-command  linear processing ,  Logical Form (LF) –, –, , , , , , , –, , , , –, –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , –, , , , – M mapping formalism  Match –, , , –, , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  matrix clause , , , , , , , , , , , ,  merger , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  Minimalist Program , , , , , , , , , ,  morphological feature  Multiple Spell-Out , , , , , , –, , , , , , , 

N narrow syntax –, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Negation , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , ,  nominative Case ,  non-configurational  non-identity , ,  nullification ,  numeration , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

O objective Case , , ,  One-More (OM) Construction  optimal , , , , , , , , , ,  optimality , 

P parallel planes , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

JB[v.20020404] Prn:14/12/2005; 14:53

F: LA89SI.tex / p.3 (200-276)

Subject index  parallelism , , , , , –, , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, ,  Parallelism Requirement , , –, , , , , , , , , –,  parasitic gap , , , , ,  performance error  PF interface , , , , , , , , , , ,  phasal , , , , , ,  phase –, , –, , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , –, , , , , , –, –, , , , , , ,  phonetic feature , , , ,  phonological resolution ,  placement in AM –, ,  prescriptive rules  prescriptiveness ,  prosodic licensing , , , , , , , , , –, , ,  pure Merge , , , –, , –, ,  Q quantificational scope  R recovery , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , –, –, , , –, , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  redundancy , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , , , , , , , , , ,  redundant lexical item ,  remnant , , , –, ,  right edge , , , –, ,  right periphery  Right-Edge Ellipsis , ,  Right-Node Raising (RNR) , , , , , , –, –, , , , –, , –, , –, , – right-peripheral gap  rising intonation , , ,  S Select , –, , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , , ,  selection –, , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  semantic anomaly  semantic interpretation , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  semantic parallel ,  semantic representation  semantic symmetry , , , , , , , , , , ,  sequence , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , ,  sharing , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  sideward movement –,  simplex structure , , , , ,  sloppy identity –, ,  Spec-head-complement model , , , 

strict identity  subarray , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  subject-verb agreement , , , , , , ,  subordinating conjunction , , , , , –, , , ,  syntactic component , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , ,  syntactic condition ,  syntactic representation , , ,  syntactic symmetry , , , , , , , , , , , ,  T transparency , ,  three-dimensional structure  U unbalanced coordination , , , , , , ,  unification , , , , , , –, –, , , , , ,  uninterpretable feature  V vacuous quantification , , ,  Verb Phrase Ellipsis (VPE) , , , –, , , ,  verb-second (V2) , , , , , , –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , –, , , –, , , , , , , , , ,  W well-formedness , , , , , , , , 

In the series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 90 DALMI, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 VELDE, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 MOHR, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 JULIEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 COSTA, João and Maria Cristina FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eds.): Studies on Agreement. vi, 281 pp. + index. Expected February 2006 85 MIKKELSEN, Line: Copular Clauses. Speciﬁcation, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 PAFEL, Jürgen: Quantiﬁer Scope in German. 2005. xvi, 312 pp. 83 SCHWEIKERT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 QUINN, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 FUSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inﬂection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 BURKHARDT, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 SCHMID, Tanja: Inﬁnitival Syntax. Inﬁnitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 DIKKEN, Marcel den and Christina M. TORTORA (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 ÖZTÜRK, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arhonto TERZI (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 HEGGIE, Lorie and Francisco ORDÓÑEZ (eds.): Clitic and Aﬃx Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sheila Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 GELDEREN, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin É. and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 BREUL, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 MIŠESKA TOMIĆ, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Proliﬁc Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes K. GROHMANN (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILLIE (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 DEHÉ, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp.

55 COENE, Martine and Yves D’HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CDrom). 53 ZWART, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 SIMON, Horst J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 ALEXIADOU, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Sjef BARBIERS and Hans-Martin GÄRTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef, Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van der WURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 TAYLAN, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 ZELLER, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Víctor SÁNCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reﬂexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 MEINUNGER, Andre: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MÜLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 HRÓARSDÓTTIR, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 PUSKÁS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, Andre MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 RŮŽIČKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 JOSEFSSON, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. 17 BEERMAN, Dorothee, David LEBLANC and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 LIU, Feng-Hsi: Scope and Speciﬁcity. 1997. viii, 187 pp.

15 ROHRBACHER, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena, Henk van RIEMSDIJK and Frans ZWARTS (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 ALEXIADOU, Artemis and T. Alan HALL (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 ABRAHAM, Werner, Samuel David EPSTEIN, Höskuldur THRÁINSSON and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 LUTZ, Uli and Jürgen PAFEL (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 CINQUE, Guglielmo and Giuliana GIUSTI (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 GELDEREN, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. 8 FANSELOW, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. 7 ÅFARLÍ, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. 6 BHATT, Christa, Elisabeth LÖBEL and Claudia Maria SCHMIDT (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. 5 GREWENDORF, Günther and Wolfgang STERNEFELD (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. 4 ABRAHAM, Werner and Sjaak De MEIJ (eds.): Topic, Focus and Conﬁgurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. 3 ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. 2 EHLICH, Konrad and Jürgen REHBEIN: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreﬂexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. 1 KLAPPENBACH, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.