Advertisement

In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: a reply to Kubota and Levine

  • Shûichi YatabeEmail author
  • Wai Lok Tam
Original Research

Abstract

We show that Kubota and Levine’s (Linguist Philos 38:521–576, 2015) characterization of the HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination proposed in Yatabe (in: Flickinger, Kathol (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI, Stanford, pp 325–344, 2001) and later works is inaccurate, and that the theory in question does not require any ad hoc mechanisms to account for the long-known fact that right-node raising and left-node raising can affect semantic interpretation. In the course of demonstrating this, we fill in some details of this HPSG-based theory that were left unspecified in the previous literature, and we also present novel accounts of split-antecedent relative clauses and of respectively interpretation that are consistent with the theory. Furthermore, we argue that the phenomenon of summative agreement may provide a reason to prefer this theory over CG-based theories like Kubota and Levine’s.

Keywords

Right-node raising Left-node raising Non-constituent coordination HPSG CG 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 639–642.Google Scholar
  2. Abeillé, A., & Mouret, F. (2011). Quelques contraintes sur les coordinations elliptiques en Français. Retrieved August 27, 2016 from http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Mouret/abeille-mouret-revised-2011.pdf.
  3. Arnold, D. (2007). Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachrach, A., & Katzir, R. (2007). Spelling out QR. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 (pp. 63–75). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. http://parles.upf.edu/llocs/glif/pub/sub11/index.html.
  5. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beavers, J., & Sag, I. A. (2004). Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 48–69). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  7. Brasoveanu, A. (2011). Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 93–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaves, R. P. (2014). On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: Extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion. Language, 90(4), 834–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaves, R. P. (2007). Coordinate structures—constraint-based syntaxsemantics processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
  10. Citko, B. (2018). Complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Glossa, 3(1)(124), 1–25.Google Scholar
  11. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (2005). Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crysmann, B. (2003). An asymmetric theory of peripheral sharing in HPSG: Conjunction reduction and coordination of unlikes. In G.Jäger, P. Monachesi, G. Penn & S. Wintner (Eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003 (pp. 47–62). http://cs.haifa.ac.il/~shuly/fg03/.
  14. Dowty, D. (1988). Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction. In R. T. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (Eds.), Categorial grammars and natural language structures (pp. 153–197). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. Eggert, R. (2000). Grammaticality and context with respect to and.. and or... respectively. In A. Okrent & J. P. Boyle (Eds.), CLS 36: The main session (pp. 93–107). Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  16. Fox, D., & Johnson, K. (2016). QR is restrictor sharing. In K.-m. Kim, P. Umbal, T. Block, Q. Chan, T. Cheng, K. Finney, M. Katz, S. Nickel-Thompson & L. Shorten (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1–16). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  17. Gawron, J. M., & Kehler, A. (2004). The semantics of respective readings, conjunction, and filler-gap dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gleitman, L. R. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language, 41, 260–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grosz, P. G. (2015). Movement and agreement in right-node-raising constructions. Syntax, 18, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoeksema, J. (1986). An account of relative clauses with split antecedents. In M. Dalrymple, J. Goldberg, K. Hanson, M. Inman, C. Piñon & S. Wechsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 68–86). Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  23. Hudson, R. (1976). Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Language, 52, 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, R. S. (1971). Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
  25. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, part 1 and part 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-based German syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  27. Kathol, A. (1999). Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In R. D. Levine & G. M. Green (Eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar (pp. 223–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kathol, A., & Pollard, C. (1995). Extraposition via complex domain formation. 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 174–180). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  29. Kayne, R. S. (1998). Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax, 1, 128–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kazenin, K. I. (2002). Gapping and some agreement puzzles. Ms., University of Tübingen. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from http://www.sfb441.uni-tuebingen.de/b2/b2pubs.html.
  31. Kubota, Y. (2014). Medial right-node raising and multi-modal categorial grammar. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002302.
  32. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2015). Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 521–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2016). The syntax-semantics interface of ‘respective’ predication: A unified analysis in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34, 911–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2018). On an inadequate defense of an ellipsis-based analysis for right node raising. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003852.
  35. Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levine, R. D. (2001). The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing? Journal of Linguistics, 37, 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCawley, J. D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 91–106.Google Scholar
  38. McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, J. L. (1984). Some problems of determination in English number agreement. In G. Alvarez, B. Brodie & T. McCoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 69–78). Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  40. Mouret, F. (2006). A phrase structure approach to argument cluster coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 247–267). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  41. Neijt, A. (1979). Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perlmutter, D. M., & Ross, J. R. (1970). Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 350.Google Scholar
  43. Pollard, C. (2001). Cleaning the HPSG garage: Some problems and some proposals. Ms., Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  44. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Postal, P. M. (1994). Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 63–117.Google Scholar
  46. Postal, P. M. (1998). Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Reape, M. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter & C. Pollard (Eds.), German in head-driven phrase structure grammar (pp. 151–197). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  48. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  49. Romoli, J., & Santorio, P. (2018). Filtering free choice. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003910.
  50. Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (2nd ed.). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  51. Schwabe, K. (2001). On shared indefinite expressions in coordinative structures. In O. Teuber & N. Fuhrhop (Eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 21, pp. 175–196). Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
  52. Schwabe, K., & von Heusinger, K. (2001). On shared indefinite NPs in coordinative structures. Journal of Semantics, 18, 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen, Z. (2019). The multi-valuation agreement hierarchy. Glossa, 4(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shiraïshi, A., & Abeillé, A. (2016). Peripheral ellipsis and verb mismatch. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 662–680). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  55. Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steedman, M. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Valmala, V. (2013). On right node raising in Catalan and Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 12, 219–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Warstadt, A. (2015). Right-node wrapping: A combinatory account. In Y. Kubota & R. Levine (Eds.), Proceedings for ESSLLI 2015 Workshop ‘Empirical Advances in Categorial Grammar’ (CG 2015) (pp. 183–210). http://www.u.tsukuba.ac.jp/~kubota.yusuke.fn/cg2015.html.
  60. Whitman, N. (2009). Right-node wrapping: Multimodal categorial grammar and the ‘friends in low places’ coordination. In E. Hinrichs & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), Theory and evidence in semantics (pp. 235–256). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, E. (1990). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6, 265–279.Google Scholar
  62. Yatabe, S. (2001). The syntax and semantics of left-node raising in Japanese. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 325–344). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  63. Yatabe, S. (2003). A linearization-based theory of summative agreement in peripheral-node raising constructions. In J.-B. Kim & S. Wechsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 391–411). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  64. Yatabe, S. (2004). A comprehensive theory of coordination of unlikes. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 335–355). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  65. Yatabe, S. (2007). Evidence for the linearization-based theory of semantic composition. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 323–343). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  66. Yatabe, S. (2009). Evidence for the linearization-based theory of long-distance scrambling in Japanese. In L. Uyechi & L.-H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language & life (pp. 271–286). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  67. Yatabe, S. (2012). Comparison of the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination with its alternatives. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 454–474). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  68. Yatabe, S. (2015). The semantic inertness of medial right-node raising in Japanese. In Nihon Gengogakkai Dai-151-kai Taikai Yokô-shû (Proceedings of the 151st Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan) (pp. 318–323). Kyoto: Linguistic Society of Japan. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002778.
  69. Yatabe, S. (2016). Medial left-node raising in Japanese. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 681–701). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Language and Information SciencesUniversity of TokyoMeguroJapan
  2. 2.Primagest, Inc.KawasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations