Comparison of the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination with its alternatives

Abstract

In this paper, I compare the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination proposed in Yatabe (2001) with three of its alternatives, namely the theory that has been widely accepted within the context of Categorial Grammar, Mouret's HPSG-based theory, and the theory proposed by Bachrach and Katzir in the framework of the Minimalist Program. It is found (i) that the CG-based theory of non-constituent coordination cannot deal with medial RNR, i.e. a subset of right-node raising constructions in which either all or a part of the right-node-raised material is realized at a location other than the right edge of the final conjunct, (ii) that Mouret's theory encounters similar difficulties when applied to RNR, and (iii) that Bachrach and Katzir's theory cannot be applied to left-node raising in English, has difficulty capturing the semantic inertness of medial RNR, and overgenerates in several ways. The ellipsis-based theory, on the other hand, appears to be consistent with all the observations.

Voice mismatch and contrast in French Right-Node Raising

“…Several syntactic analyses have been proposed for RNR. It has been analyzed in terms of rightward movement (Ross 1967, Hankamer 1971, Postal 1974, Gazdar 1981, Steedman 1996, Sabbagh 2007, Sabbagh 2014) (Example (10a)), multidominance (McCawley 1988, Goodall 1987, Moltmann 1992, Wilder 1999, Gracanin-Yuksek 2007, Bachrach & Katzir 2009 (Example (10b)) (Figure 3), and deletion under identity (Wexler & Culicover 1980, Kayne 1994, Hartmann 2000, Yatabe 2001, Beavers & Sag 2004, Yatabe 2012, Chaves 2014 Syntactic mismatches between elided and peripheral material cast doubt on raising and multidominance theories. Under their most natural implementations, all of these analyses predict that voice mismatch should not be possible.…”