Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-xkcpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:01:45.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of same and ATB constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Niina Ning Zhang
Niina Ning Zhang*
Affiliation:
National Chung Cheng University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to Across-the-Board (ATB) constructions without resorting to ATB movement. I first examine the syntactic properties of same constructions such as The same man Mary helped and John ruined, and propose a derivation for the constructions. I claim that the relational nominal that contains the adjective same is base-generated in the first conjunct, and moves out of the co-ordinate complex. The raised relational nominal binds a silent form in the second conjunct. This analysis of same constructions is then extended to ATB constructions. The two types of constructions share syntactic and semantic properties. I argue that the overt extracted element of ATB constructions has a movement chain relation with the gap in the first conjunct alone. The silent argument in the second conjunct never moves out of the conjunct. Various types of non-identity readings of ATB constructions are also explained. This research shows that coordinate constructions do not introduce any special type of movement to the computation system.

Résumé

Résumé

Le présent article propose une nouvelle approche aux constructions «Across-the-Board» (ATB), sans recours au mouvement ATB. En premier lieu, j’examine les propriétés syntaxiques des constructions avec same, comme The same man Mary helped and John ruined, et propose une dérivation selon laquelle le syntagme nominal de relation contenant l’adjectif same est généré à la base dans la première clause coordonnée et sort du complexe coordonné. Ce syntagme monté lie un élément-pro muet dans la seconde clause coordonnée. L’analyse est ensuite appliquée aux constructions ATB. L’élément extrait des constructions ATB n’entretient de relation de chaîne de mouvement qu’avec le trou syntaxique de la première clause; l’argument muet de la seconde clause n’en sort jamais. J’explique également les différentes interprétations non-identitaires des constructions ATB. Cette recherche montre que les structures coordonnées n’impliquent pas de type particulier de mouvement dans le système computationnel.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , July 2009 , pp. 367 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right Node Raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7:639–642.Google Scholar
Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian. 2005. Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36:161–193.Google Scholar
Ai, Ruixi. 2005. Topic-Comment Structure, Focus Movement and Gapping Formation. Paper presented at NELS 36. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Asaf and Katzir, Roni. 2006. Right-Node Raising and delayed spellout. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115:461–482.Google Scholar
Boškovič, Željko and Franks, Steven. 2000. Across-the-Board movement and LF. Syntax 3:107–128.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistic and Philosophy 10:531–565.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 2002. Interpretive asymmetries in major phrases. In Asymmetry in Grammar, ed. Sciullo, Anna Maria Di, 301–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Huang, C.-T. James. 1996. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4:121–163.Google Scholar
Cho, Sunggeun and Zhou, Xuan. 2000. The interpretations of Wh-elements in conjoined Wh-questions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10:522–531.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2003. ATB wh-questions and the nature of Merge. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 33, ed. Kadowaki, Makoto and Kawahara, Shigeto, 87–102. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28:195–217.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33:409–442.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337–362.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1992. A prominence constraint on null operator constructions. Lingua 87:35–54.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark and Kehler, Andrew. 2003. Respective answers to coordinate questions. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIII (SALT 13), ed. Young, Robert B. and Zhou, Youping, 91–108. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark and Kehler, Andrew. 2004. The semantics of respective readings, conjunction, and filler-gap dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 27:169–207.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12:155–183.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey, and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
George, Leland. 1980. Analogical generalization in natural language syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Godard, Daniele. 1989. Empty categories as subjects of tensed Ss in English or French? Linguistic Inquiry 20:497–506.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1985. A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In Papers from the Twenty-First Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, Part 1: Papers from the General Session, ed. Eilfort, W.H., Kroeber, P.D., and Peterson, K.L., 133–143. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 1985. The syntax of operators. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. One-replacement, unaccusativity, acategorial roots, and Bare Phrase Structure. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 11, ed. Gorbachov, Slava and Nevins, Andrew, 59–78. Harvard University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Friends and colleagues: Plurality and NP-coordination. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 30, ed. Coetzee, Andries, Hirotani, Masako, Hall, Nigel, and Kim, Ji-Yung, 341–352. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo. 2002. On asymmetries between Parasitic Gap and Across-the-Board constructions. Syntax 5:26–54.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2001. Unbalanced co-ordination and feature strength: Two arguments for defective second conjuncts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Coordination: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. University of Salford, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X’ syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1996. Gapping. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kasai, Hironobu. 2004. Two notes on ATB movement. Language and Linguistics 5:167–188.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language of Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and Grammar, ed. Rothstein, S., 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Papers from the Twenty-Second Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, ed. Farley, Anne M., Farley, Peter T., and McCullough, Karl-Erik, 152–167. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2000. Same, models and representation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 10 (SALT X), ed. Jackson, B. and Matthews, T., 83–97. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Li, Charles and Thompson, Sandra. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: Afunctional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1998a. Minimalism and Optionality. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28:221–254.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1998b. Argument Determiner Phrases and Number Phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 29:693–702.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2000. Topic Structure and Minimal Effort. Zentrum für allgemeine Sprach-wissenschaft (ZAS) Papers in Linguistics 20:1–20.Google Scholar
Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1992. VP-Coordination and the VP-lnternal Subject Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23:336–341.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992a. Reciprocals and same/different: Towards a semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 16:411–462.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992b. Coordination and comparatives. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. Linguistic Review 9:1–26.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30:643–668.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 2001. Explaining parasitic gap restrictions. In Parasitic gaps, ed. Cullicover, Peter and Postal, Paul, 369–392. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Oirsouw, Robert. 1987. The syntax of coordination. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1970. Negation, conjunction, and quantifiers: Syntax vs. semantics. Foundations of Language 6:153–165.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Qu, Yanfeng. 1994. Object noun phrase dislocation in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, Eirfkur. 1993. Coordination, ATB-extraction, and the identification of pro. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 3:153–180.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2007. Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 125:349–401.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernhard. 1999. On the syntax of either … or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17:339–370.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 321–339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis and Hall, T. Alan, 59–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1977. Across-The-Board application of rules. Linguistic Inquiry 8:419–423.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1978. Across-The-Board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9:31–43.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1987. An ECP account of constraints on Across-The-Board extraction. Linguistic Inquiry 18:166–171.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejing and Langendoen, D. Terrence. 1985. Topic structure in Chinese. Language 61:1–27.Google Scholar