Chapter 2 Properties and Previous Analyses of the RNR in General
2.1 General properties of English RNR
The Right Edge Restriction (RER) has been observed in RNR (cf. Postal 1974, McCawley 1982, Wilder 1997, Hartmann 2000, among others). RER states that only the element at the rightmost edge within each conjunct can be the legitimate RNR target and thus forms an acceptable RNR as in (1). In (2a) and (2b), the RNR targets are not rightmost in both of the conjuncts, giving rise to ungrammaticality.
(1) a. Ernest suspected _____, Louise believed _____, and Michael proved _____, that
she was guilty.
(Postal 1974)b. John likes _____, but Mary dislikes _____, that car. (Hartmann 2000) (2) a. *John can _____ your book and Mary will read the paper. (Wilder 1999)
b. *Joss will donate _____ to the library, and Maria will donate several old novels to
the museum. (Sabbagh 2007)
Non-constituency
Constituents are generally defined as those that can undergo leftward movement (i.e.
wh-question) or be clefted. Abbott (1976) observes that RNR is not limited to constituents.
Besides the constituents such as a DP in (3a), a PP in (3b) and a VP in (3c), RNR targets can affect non-constituents. Examples in (4) show that the RNR targets are not types of
constituents available for leftward movement: (4a) and (4b) contain the sequences of objects and adverbials, (4c-4d) are even below word level, being derived in compositional
morphology.
(3) a. John loves but Mary hates your best friend.
b. Ben arrived and Peter left at 5 p.m.
7
c. I think that I would, and I know that Bill will buy a painting of cats.
(4) a. Mary baked, and George frosted, [20 cakes][in less than an hour]. (Abbott 1976) (cf.* [Twenty cakes in less than an hour] Mary baked.)
b. John borrowed and Bill stole [a large amount of money] [from the bank].
(cf. [A large amount of money from the bank] John borrowed.) (Ha 2008a) c. This analysis suffers from under- and over-generation.
(Husband 2015)
(cf. *[Generation] this analysis suffers from under- and over-.)d. His theory over- and her theory under-generates.
(Sabbagh 2007)
(cf. *[Generates] his theory over-.)Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)
Ross (1967) observes that movement out of conjuncts applies simultaneously, as stated in (5). Within a coordinate structure, extraction of one or more conjuncts is not allowed.
(5) Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) (Ross 1967)
In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.
Sentences (6a) and (6c) are coordinate structures joined with and. Whereas the movement of
what out of the first conjunct in (6b) is illicit, the movement of what out of both conjuncts in
(6d) is licit. This is because the former violates CSC while the latter respects it.
(6) a. John cooked lunch and washed the dishes.
b. *Whati did John cook ____i and wash the dishes?
c. John washed the dishes and Bill dried them.
d. Whati did John wash ____i and Bill dry ____i?
8
As a coordinate structure, RNR obeys CSC (Ross 1967, Postal 1998, Sabbagh 2007). Each example in (7) involves three conjuncts, but only (7c), with a gap in each conjunct being associated with the RNR target, is well-formed.
(7) a. *? Josh was looking for the dean‘s office, Maria was waiting in ____, and reporters were trying to find ____, Joss’ office. (Sabbagh 2007) b. * Josh was looking for ____, Marian was waiting in the dean‘s office, and reporters were trying to find ____, Joss’ office. (Sabbagh 2007) c. Josh was looking for ____, Marian was waiting in ____, and reporters were trying
to ____, Joss’ office.
(Sabbagh 2007)
Insensitivity to Right Roof Constraint (RRC)
Rightward movement (i.e. Heavy NP Shift) in English is upward-bound, limited to the first cyclic nodes (i.e. must be within vP, CP, and PP) as shown in (8). In other words, rightward movement of an embedded clause is not allowed (Ross 1967).
(8) Right Roof Constraint (RRC) (adapted from Sabbagh 2007) a. Rightward movement may move and right-adjoin an element X to the cyclic node
in which X is merged, but no further.
b.
vP, CP and PP are cyclic nodes.
RNR disrespects the RRC. Consider the contrast between (9) and (10). A rightward
movement of a DP to cross the cyclic node vP is grammatical in (9a); however, in (9b), the movement of a PP in the first conjunct to cross beyond the cyclic node PP is ungrammatical.
(9) Heavy NP Shift
9
a. John [vP will eat ____ raw], almost anything you give him. (Sabbagh 2007) b. *Josh [vP elided [a review [PP of an article ___] for Jamie]], about verb-movement.
(cf. John edited [a review ___] for Sue, of an article about verb-movement.)
(Sabbagh 2007)
Sentences in (10) demonstrate the violations of RRC (i.e. escape two CPs) in RNR but they are still grammatical. Seen in (10a), the DP the dean‟s office out of the PP is fine; in (10b), the movement of the DP out of the VP is acceptable, too.
(10) RNR
a. [CP [TP Joss [VP walked suddenly into ____]], and [TP Maria [VP stormed quickly out
of ____]], the dean’s office]. (Sabbagh 2012)
b. [CP [TP Josh [VP promised [CP that he would [VP give ____ to Jamie]]]], and [TP Joss [VP claimed [CP that he was going to [VP give ____ to Sue]]]], all of the answers to
the final exam]. (Sabbagh 2012)
From the above, the crucial difference between Heavy NP Shift and RNR is that the former respects the RRC while the latter does not.
Island insensitivity
It is well-attested that movement is sensitive to island conditions. Extraction of any element out of a wh-question, a relative clause, a complex NP, and an adjunct is not allowed and will cause ungrammaticality. However, Wexler and Culicover (1980) observe that English RNR can escape islands. See the comparison below.
(11) Relative clause island
10
a. Mary knows [a man who buys ____ ] and Bill knows [a man who sells ____ ],
pictures of Fred. (Wexler and Culicover 1980)
b. *What does Mary know [a man who buys _____] and Bill know [a man who sells____ ]? (Wexler and Culicover 1980)
(12) Wh-island
a. John wonders [when Bob Dylan wrote _____ ], and Mary wants to know [when he recorded ____], his great song about the death of Emmett Till. (Abels 2004) b. * What does John wonder [when Bob Dylan wrote ____ ] and Mary want to know
[when he recorded _____]? (Abels 2004)
(13) Adjunct island
a. Josh got angry [after he discovered____], and Willow quit [after finding out about ____] the company’s pro-discriminatroy policy. (Abels 2004) b. * What did Josh get angry after he discovered? (Abels 2004)
In the (a) sentences from (11-13), the RNR target is displaced from the relative clause,
wh-island, and an adjunct respectively, but the sentences are not affected by island conditions.
On the other hand, in the (b) sentences from (11-13), extraction of what violates island
conditions. Examples (11-13) points to the same thing: the operation in RNR is different from
wh-movement.
Preposition Stranding (P-stranding)
McCloskey (1986) observes that P-stranding is unacceptable except for RNR in many languages, such as Irish,1 French, Spanish, and Polish. In languages where P-stranding is
1The Irish examples are from McCloskey (1986):
(i) *Bhí mé a éisteacht le ti inné [DP clár mór fada ar an ráidió faoin Toghachá]i
Was I listen(prog) with yesterday program great long on the radio about-the election ‗I was listening yesterday to a great long program on the radio about the election.‘
11
banned, the complement of a preposition, however, can be the RNR target. In English, P-stranding is allowed except in the Heavy NP Shift construction. Consider (14) and (15).
(14) a. Whati are they talking about ______ i?
b. This is the towni which the old man lives in ______ i.
c. The housei was broken into ______ i.
(15) Heavy NP Shift
a. *They talked about yesterday the election.
b. * The old man lived in last year the town.
The prepositions can be separated from their complements as in wh-movement (14a), the relative clause (14b), and the passive (14c). In contrast, P-stranding in the Heavy NP Shift construction causes the ungrammaticality as in (15).
Turn to the P-stranding in RNR. It is fine for the preposition to be stranded in either of the two conjuncts as in (16a-b) or in both conjuncts as in (17).
(16) a. John talked about, and Mary ignored, the man you met in Paris. (Bošković 2004) b. Mary ignored, and John talked about, the man you met in Paris. (Bošković 2004) (17) Jason walked suddenly into, and May stormed quickly out of, the dean’s office.
Thus far, two differences between the RNR and Heavy NP Shift construction are worth emphasizing: (i) the former allows P-stranding while the latter does not, and (ii) the former violates Right Roof Constraint while the latter obeys it. Note that the Heavy NP Shift
(ii) Nil sé in aghaidh an dlí a thuilleadh a bheith ag éisteacht le Is-not it against the law anymore be(-fin) listen(prog) with nó ag breathnu ar [DP ráidió agus teilifís an Iarthair]
or look(prog) on radio and television the West(gen)
‗It is no longer against the law to listen, or to watch, Western radio and television.‘
12
construction is generally accounted for under the rightward movement approach.
Strict/sloppy readings
Sag (1976) notes that an elided pronoun in VP ellipsis allows strict and sloppy readings, a typical characteristic of ellipsis, as indicated in (18).
(18) John likes his father, but Bill doesn‘t like his father. (Ha 2008b) a. John likes John‘s father, but Bill doesn‘t like John‘s father. (strict) b. John likes Bill‘s father, but Bill doesn‘t like Bill‘s father. (strict) c. John likes John‘s father, but Bill doesn‘t like Bill‘s father. (sloppy)
The pronoun his is possible to refer to the subject in the first conjunct (i.e. John) as in (18a) or the subject in the second conjunct (i.e. Bill) as in (18b), inducing the strict reading.
Moreover, his can refer to the subject in each conjunct simultaneously (i.e. John and Bill), the so-called sloppy reading. Just as VP ellipsis, Kimura (1985) observes strict and sloppy
ambiguity in the RNRed pronouns. Shown in (19), his can refer to either Bob or Tom as in (19a) and (19b) respectively, or both Bob and Tom as in (19c).
(19) Bobi knows, but Tomj doesn‘t know, how to crane hisi/j/(i,j)
neck. (Kimura 1985)
a. Bob knows how to crane Bob‘s neck, but Tom doesn‘t know how to crane Bob‘s neck.b. Bob knows how to crane Tom‘s neck, but Tom doesn‘t know how to crane Tom‘s neck.
c. Bob knows how to crane Bob‘s neck, but Tom doesn‘t know how to crane Tom‘s neck.
Besides, RNRed pronouns can be interpreted as simultaneously bound by a quantifier expression (e.g., every) in each conjunct (Jacoboson 1999).
(20) Every Americani loves ___, and every Germanj hates ___, the town he(i,j)
was born in.
13
(Sabbagh 2007) (21) Johni likes, but Billj hates, drawing pictures of himself(i,j).
Example (20) has the interpretation that every American loves the town he (American) was born in, and every German hates the town he (German) was born in. Similarly, a RNRed reflexive has a sloppy reading as well. In (21), himself refers to both John and Bill. Taken together, pronouns and reflexives contained in the RNR target allow a strict and a sloppy reading.
Asymmetric vehicle change
First look at the example of VP ellipsis in (22). If John and he in (22a) are coreferential, the reconstruction of the VP loves John at LF would violate Principle C as in (22b). To solve the potential problem of Principle C violation, Fiengo and May (1994) propose an analysis as in (22c), where the R-expression John can be realized as the pronoun he.
(22) a. Mary loves Johni and hei thinks Sally does, too. (Fiengo and May 1994) b.* Mary loves Johni and hei thinks Sally loves Johni. (Fiengo and May 1994) c. Mary loves Johni and hei thinks Sally loves himi too. (Fiengo and May 1994)
According to Fiengo and May, the distinction between pronominal and non-pronominal elements is the feature [± pronoun], and the reconstruction of VP ellipsis is sensitive to identical value of this feature. R-expressions have the feature [-pronoun] which can be realized as [＋pronoun]. Therefore, (22c) can be derived by allowing John ([－pronoun]) to undergo featural vehicle change to him ([＋pronoun]). This formulation and the specific schema are given in (23) and (24) respectively.
(23) Vehicle Change (Fiengo and May 1994)
14
Nominals can be treated as non-distinct with respect to their pronominal status under ellipsis.
(24) [－pronominal] = e [＋pronominal] (Fiengo and May 1994) (where =e means ‗forms an equivalence class under ellipsis with‘)
Likewise, Fiengo and May also assume that pronouns and reflexives are nondistinct in the reconstruction since both have the identical feature [＋pronoun] and they are the same argument. Consider (25).
(25) a. Johni didn‘t speak for himselfi, but Susan did.
b. *Johni didn‘t speak for himselfi, but Susan spoke for himselfi. c. Johni didn‘t speak for himselfi, but Susan spoke for himi.
Example (25a) is reconstructed as (25b) at LF, in which himself in the second conjunct is bound by John in the first conjunct, violating Principle A. Yet after vehicle change is applied at LF, himself can be realized as him. Therefore, the Principle A violation can be avoided as shown in (25c). Just as VP ellipsis, Ha (2008b) observes the cases of RNR in which Principle C violations can be rescued by vehicle change. Consider (26).
(26) a. Hei
hopes Mary won‘t, but the secretary knows that she will, fire John
i.
b. *Hei hopes Mary won‘t fire Johni, but the secretary knows that she will fire Johni. c. Hei hopes Mary won‘t fire himi, but the secretary knows that she will fire Johni.
The reconstruction of (26a) is in (26b), where the RNRed R-expression John is bound by the pronoun he in the first conjunct, violating Principle C. Through vehicle change, [－pronoun]
John can be realized as [＋pronoun] him and thus avoids the violation.
15
Larson (2011a) points out the asymmetry that only when a pronoun occurs in the first conjunct can it refer to the RNRed proper name.
(27) *The secretary hopes that Susan won‘t, but hei
knows that she will, fire John
i.(Larson 2011a)
Seen in (27), if the pronoun he is in the second conjunct, it cannot bind the RNRed proper name. The grammatical contrast between (26a) and (27) shows that the application of vehicle change is asymmetric.
Asymmetric licensing of negative polarity items (NPI)
Negative polarity items (NPI) can be part of RNR targets, as any in (28), where a licensor is contained in each conjunct.
(28) a. Mary couldn‘t sell, and John wouldn‘t buy, any books about linguistics.
(Kayne 1994) b. Nobody enjoyed, and few people even liked, any of the talks on Right Node
Raising.
(Phillips 1996)Furthermore, Kayne (1994) and Hartmann (2000), among others, observe that asymmetric NPI licensing in RNR. See the contrast in (29). When a licensor is contained in the second conjunct, the sentence is good as in (29a); however, when such a licensor is contained in the first conjunct as in (29b), the sentence is bad.
(29) a. Some people liked, but nobody really enjoyed, any of the talks on syntax.
b. *Nobody really enjoyed, but some people liked, any of the talks on syntax.
16
Example (30) demonstrates the asymmetric licensing of NPI as well.
(30) a. John bought, but Bill didn‘t read, any books about insects.
b. *John didn‘t buy, but Bill read, any books about insects.
Licensing of relational modifiers
Relational modifiers (e.g., same, similar, different, respectively, each other) which usually induce an internal reading (i.e. distributive reading) in the context of a plural noun or a plural predicate are observed in RNR (Gazdar 1987). However, it is not available when the relational modifiers occur in each conjunct. Consider (31).
(31) a. John wrote and Bill read similar novels. [internal external]
b. John wrote similar books and Bill read similar novels. [*internal external]
Example (31a) has the prominent reading that the books John wrote are similar to the books Bill read. It is an internal reading in that the comparison is made between each conjunct.
Additionally, (31a) has another interpretation: the books John wrote were similar to the books written by someone else, and the books Bill read were similar to the books read by someone else. This is an external reading in that the comparison is made outside each conjunct. With the RNR target occurring in each conjunct as in (31b), the sentence can only have an external reading: the books John wrote were all of a type, and the books Bill read were all of a type. In addition, Phillips (1996) notes that RNR can license reciprocals as each other in (32),
referring to the subjects of both conjuncts, namely John and Mary.2
2 Philips (1996) also notes that (32) would be ill-formed for speakers who reject split antecedents for reciprocals.
17
(32) John sold and Mary bought each other’s textbooks.
Scope ambiguity
Jacobson (1999) observes that a quantifier expression in RNR induces ambiguous scope, namely the surface scope or the inverse scope. Example (33) illustrates the two readings of RNRed every.
(33) a. John knows someone who speaks, and Bill knows someone who wants to learn,
every Germanic language. (someone > every; every> someone) (Sabbagh 2007)
b. John knows someone who speaks every Germanic language, and Bill knowssomeone who wants to learn every Germanic language. (someone > every) (Sabbagh 2007) c. John knows someone who speaks every Germanic language. (someone > every) (Sabbagh 2007)
In (33a), every in each conjunct can have a surface scope, meaning that John knows a specific man who can speak every Germanic language, and Bill knows a specific woman who wants to learn every Germanic language. Besides the surface scope, it is possible for every to undergo Quantifier Raising and scopes over someone (i.e. inverse scope), meaning that every Germanic language is spoken by someone, and John knows these men; every Germanic language is wanted to be learned by someone, and Bill knows these men. On the other hand, in (33b), with the RNRed every Germanic language pronounced twice, only the surface scope is available: a man who speaks every Germanic language is known by John; the man who wants to learn every Germanic language is known by Bill. The same holds for the single clause in (33c).
18
Summative Agreement
McCawley (1982) observes the verb agreement effects in RNR as shown in (34-36).
(34) a. Historical and scientific knowledge are/*is different in nature. (McCawley 1982) b. Thai and Burmese food are/*is quite similar. (Postal 1998) (35) The pilot claimed that the first nurse t1 and the sailor proved that the second nurse t1–
*[was a spy]1/[were spies]1. (Postal 1998)
(36) [Sue‘s proud that Bill[SG] _____ ] and [Mary‘s glad that John[SG] ____] have [PL]
/?*
has
[SG]traveled t
Bill/Johnto Cameroon. (Grosz 2014)
3In (34), although the subject in each conjunct is singular, only the plural verb to be is licit in the sentences. McCawley thus claims that such examples are the application of a conjoined NP4 in RNR. Postal (1998) also notices the phenomenon that RNR allows verbal agreement which is accumulated, i.e. the verb agrees in plural with two singular subject DPs as in (35).
Likewise, in (36), the auxiliary have is determined by the subjects in both conjuncts.
The above examples are problematic and puzzling since there is no plural antecedent in each conjunct for the verb to agree with. That is, the two singular DPs do not constitute a plural antecedent at any level of representation. Husband (2015) notes that the type of
coordinator has effect on the licensing of summative agreement. If RNR is a disjunction, only a single agreement is well-formed as in (37).
(37) [Sue is proud that Bill], or [Mary is happy that John], has/*have traveled to Cameroon.
(Husband 2015)
3 Noted by Grosz, cumulative agreement can be found in a large number of languages, e.g., Armenian, Czech, German, Hebrew, Italian, among others.
4 But notice that Postal (1998) argues against such instances as RNR since they lack the intonational
characteristics of clausal RNR cases (i.e. there is no hiatus after the conjoined adjectives). He claims that they should be regarded as conjunction reduction.
19
In this section, we have described the general properties of English RNR and summarize them in Table 1. Next, we will review different approaches to the RNR in the literature.
Table 1 General Properties of English RNR
1. Right Edge Restriction (RER)2. Non-constituency
3. Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC)
4. Right Roof Constraint (RRC) violation
5. Island insensitivity 6. P-stranding
7. Strict/sloppy readings 8. Asymmetric vehicle change 9. Asymmetric licensing of NPI
10. Licensing of relational modifiers 11. Scope ambiguity
12. Summative agreement