“…However, there are no principled reasons to exclude more complex structures like (3). Gračanin‐Yuksek (, ) develops a proposal from Wilder (, ) and Citko (), who do assume configurations of this type. …”
Section: Introduction: Combining Right‐node Raising and Movementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I show that there are constructions of this type that simultaneously exhibit noncanonical plural agreement with two singular DP s and a ban on collective predicates in the same environment, which suggests contradictory conclusions. I argue that these properties follow from an approach to right‐node raising that allows multiple instances of sharing within the same tree (see Gračanin‐Yuksek , ; de Vries ). I propose an analysis of such plural agreement that treats it on analogy with agreement with conjoined singular DP s. I argue that, for the constructions with noncanonical plural agreement that I discuss, the present analysis is superior over a backward‐deletion analysis and a (non‐multidominance‐based) across‐the‐board movement analysis.…”
This paper discusses the following type of right-node-raising construction (Ross 1967): Coordinate structures in which elements that are interpreted in only one conjunct have moved across material that is interpreted as part of both conjuncts. I show that there are constructions of this type that simultaneously exhibit noncanonical plural agreement with two singular DPs and a ban on collective predicates in the same environment, which suggests contradictory conclusions. I argue that these properties follow from an approach to right-node raising that allows multiple instances of sharing within the same tree (see Gra canin-Yuksek 2007, 2013de Vries 2009). I propose an analysis of such plural agreement that treats it on analogy with agreement with conjoined singular DPs. I argue that, for the constructions with noncanonical plural agreement that I discuss, the present analysis is superior over a backward-deletion analysis and a (non-multidominance-based) across-theboard movement analysis.For their input at various stages of this research, I am grateful to three anonymous reviewers, as well as the audiences at GLOW 32 and Yale University. I also wish to thank David Hill and Eli Laurenc ßot for their editorial support. 1 As a convention, conjuncts are marked with square brackets, material that is interpreted as part of both conjuncts is boldfaced, and the two positions where the latter is interpreted are marked by underscores.
“…However, there are no principled reasons to exclude more complex structures like (3). Gračanin‐Yuksek (, ) develops a proposal from Wilder (, ) and Citko (), who do assume configurations of this type. …”
Section: Introduction: Combining Right‐node Raising and Movementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I show that there are constructions of this type that simultaneously exhibit noncanonical plural agreement with two singular DP s and a ban on collective predicates in the same environment, which suggests contradictory conclusions. I argue that these properties follow from an approach to right‐node raising that allows multiple instances of sharing within the same tree (see Gračanin‐Yuksek , ; de Vries ). I propose an analysis of such plural agreement that treats it on analogy with agreement with conjoined singular DP s. I argue that, for the constructions with noncanonical plural agreement that I discuss, the present analysis is superior over a backward‐deletion analysis and a (non‐multidominance‐based) across‐the‐board movement analysis.…”
This paper discusses the following type of right-node-raising construction (Ross 1967): Coordinate structures in which elements that are interpreted in only one conjunct have moved across material that is interpreted as part of both conjuncts. I show that there are constructions of this type that simultaneously exhibit noncanonical plural agreement with two singular DPs and a ban on collective predicates in the same environment, which suggests contradictory conclusions. I argue that these properties follow from an approach to right-node raising that allows multiple instances of sharing within the same tree (see Gra canin-Yuksek 2007, 2013de Vries 2009). I propose an analysis of such plural agreement that treats it on analogy with agreement with conjoined singular DPs. I argue that, for the constructions with noncanonical plural agreement that I discuss, the present analysis is superior over a backward-deletion analysis and a (non-multidominance-based) across-theboard movement analysis.For their input at various stages of this research, I am grateful to three anonymous reviewers, as well as the audiences at GLOW 32 and Yale University. I also wish to thank David Hill and Eli Laurenc ßot for their editorial support. 1 As a convention, conjuncts are marked with square brackets, material that is interpreted as part of both conjuncts is boldfaced, and the two positions where the latter is interpreted are marked by underscores.
“…While my goal here is not to motivate (or defend) the existence of multidominance in general, or a multidominant approach to Right Node Raising in particular (see, among others, Citko ,b; De Vries , ; and Gračanin‐Yuksek , for a more general discussion of multidominance), one question multidominant structures raise will play a significant role in the analysis of backward gapping that follows. The question concerns linearization: in structures like (2b) or (5a,b), are the shared elements pronounced inside the first conjunct, inside the second one or in both conjuncts? For backward gapping, we want to ensure that the shared nodes are linearized inside the second conjunct and that they follow the nonshared ones.…”
Section: Differences Between Forward and Backward Gappingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Grosz adapts Gračanin‐Yuksek's (:88) definition of c‐command (see Gračanin‐Yuksek :274 for a more recent version). The definition of c‐command in (7) departs from Gračanin‐Yuksek's (as well as Grosz's) in that it does not make reference to highest mothers or highest sisters.…”
This article examines the relationship between forward and backward gapping, based on the evidence from Polish, a language that allows both types. The two types of gapping differ with respect to polarity mismatches, word order, compatibility with relational modifiers, cumulative agreement, and the ability to gap subconstituents. However, they pattern together with respect to inflectional mismatches, preposition stranding, and the behavior of the remnants with respect to movement constraints. Both the differences and the similarities are argued to follow from two distinct derivations, in which forward gapping involves ellipsis (resulting in two copies of the gapped string), whereas backward gapping involves a multidominant structure with the gapped string being literally shared between the two conjuncts (resulting in a single copy).
“…Generally, while spelling out and linearizing a syntactic structure, (at least) two complications must be dealt with: i) remerged material is pronounced only once, and ii) the results of internal and external remerge have to be treated differently. For elaborate discussion, I refer the reader to Chen-Main (2006), Johnson (2007), Bachrach & Katzir (2009), Citko (2011), and Gracanin-Yuksek (2013, among others. Here, let me just indicate some significant points, with reference to De Vries (2009) for details.…”
Section: Lexical Items Syntactic Work Spacementioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
