You are on page 1of 229

cover next page >

title: Three Investigations of Extraction Current Studies in
Linguistics Series ; 29
author: Postal, Paul Martin.
publisher: MIT Press
isbn10 | asin: 0262161796
print isbn13: 9780262161794
ebook isbn13: 9780585078533
language: English
subject Extraction (Linguistics)
publication date: 1998
lcc: P158.17.P67 1998eb
ddc: 415
subject: Extraction (Linguistics)

cover next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_i next page >
Page i

Three Investigations of Extraction

< previous page page_i next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_ii next page >
Page ii
Current Studies in Linguistics
Samuel Jay Keyser, general editor
1. A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians, J. F. Staal, editor
2. Semantic Interpretation in Genera tire Grammar, Ray Jackendoff
3. The Structure of the Japanese Language, Susumu Kuno
4. Speech Sounds and Features, Gunnar Fant
5. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications, Paul M. Postal
6. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, Richard S. Kayne
7. Panini * as a Variationist, Paul Kiparsky, S. D. Joshi, editor
8. Semantics and Cognition, Ray Jackendoff
9. Modularity in Syntax: A Study of Japanese and English, Ann Kathleen Farmer
10. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure, Elisabeth O. Selkirk
11. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition, Robert C. Berwick and Amy S.
Weinberg
12. Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, Henk van Riemsdijk and Edwin Williams
13. Word and Sentence Prosody in Serbocroatian, Ilse Lehiste and Pavle Ivic*
14. The Representation of (In)-definiteness, Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, editors
15. An Essay on Stress, Morris Halle and Jean-Roger Vergnaud
16. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Noam Chomsky
17. A Course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories, Howard Lasnik and Juan Uriagereka
18. Semantic Structures, Ray Jackendoff
19. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics, Terence Parsons
20. Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin, editor
21. Foundations of Generative Syntax, Robert Freidin
22. Move a: Conditions on Its Application and Output, Howard Lasnik and Mamoru Saito
23. Plurals and Events, Barry Schein
24. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay
Keyser, editors
25. Grounded Phonology, Diana Archangeli and Douglas Pulleyblank
26. The Magic of a Common Language: Jakobson, Mathesius, Trubetzkoy, and the Prague Linguistic Circle, Jindrich*
Toman
27. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, David Pesetsky
28. The Minimalist Program, Noam Chomsky
29. Three Investigations of Extraction, Paul M. Postal

< previous page page_ii next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_iii next page >
Page iii

Three Investigations of Extraction

Paul M. Postal

The M IT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England

< previous page page_iii next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

II. This book was set in Times New Roman on the Monotype "Prism Plus" Post-Script Imagesetter by Asco Trade Typesetting Ltd. 29.P67 1998 415dc21 98-39766 CIP < previous page page_iv next page > If you like this book. Hong Kong. cm. recording. p. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Postal. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying. Paul Martin. ISBN 0-262-16179-6 (alk. Title.17. buy it! .. Extraction (Linguistics) I. or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. Series: Current studies in linguistics series. P158. 29) Includes bibliographical references and index. paper) 1. (Current studies in linguistics. Postal.< previous page page_iv next page > Page iv © 1998 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. 1936- Three investigations of extraction / Paul M. Printed and bound in the United States of America.

buy it! .3 Remarks on Chapter 3 24 1.2 Remarks on Chapter 2 22 1.1 Two Types of Left Extraction 26 2.3 Antipronominal Contexts 35 2.5 Two Subtypes of A-Extraction < previous page page_v next page > If you like this book.1 Background 4 1.4 Remarks on Chapter 4 Chapter 2 Contrasting Extraction Types 25 25 2.2 A-Extraction/B-Extraction Differences 32 2.4 Why Are B-extractions Incompatible with Antipronominal Contexts? 42 2.< previous page page_v next page > Page v Preface ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1 1.

6 Deep Extraction 169 A.5 The Island Status of Irrealis if Complements 168 A.< previous page page_vi next page > Page vi Chapter 3 The Status of the Coordinate Structure Constraint 51 51 3. buy it! .1 Nonuniqueness of the Key Error 165 A.4 C-Scenarios 92 3.2 A-Scenarios 77 3.2 The Unity of Right Node Raising and Left Extractions 138 4.4 A Denial That Certain Complex NPs Are Islands 167 A.2 A Putative Case of "Reanalysis" 166 A.1 Background 98 4.3 Preserving the Right Selective Island Constraint 167 A.1 Background 56 3.3 B-Scenarios 90 3.5 Conclusion Chapter 4 Right Node Raising and Extraction 97 97 4.3 Right Node Raising and Slash Category Approaches to Extraction Appendix A Mistaking Selective Islands for Nonislands 165 165 A.7 Apparent Support for a Novel Treatment of Finite Subjects < previous page page_vi next page > If you like this book.

< previous page page_vii next page > Page vii 171 A.8 Apparent Support for a "Vacuous Movement Hypothesis" 172 A.3 Inverse Copula Constructions 174 B.9 Implications Appendix B Additional Arguments That Right Node Raising Is an Extraction 173 173 B.4 The Unextractability of Right-Dislocated Phrases Appendix C Reaction to Referee Comments 175 Notes 181 References 201 Index 203 < previous page page_vii next page > If you like this book. buy it! .1 Remarks 173 B.2 Strange Plural Right-Node-Raising Pivots 173 B.

buy it! .< previous page page_i next page > Page i Three Investigations of Extraction < previous page page_i next page > If you like this book.

" a paper read at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain.1 extracts common introductory material from the original versions of chapters 2-4. the introduction. mostly with the goal of eliminating redundancies and adding cross-references between them. Chapters 3 and 4 have not previously been published. 159-186. 3. These appear as chapters 2. and 4. due I believe to Jorge Hankamer. I have made only modest attempts to update the papers that appear as chapters 2-4. Overall. but this process has not been systematic. the present papers. The term extraction. covers in a theoretically neutral way phenomena like the left front position of English wh forms. treat aspects of extraction including < previous page page_ix next page > If you like this book. Sections 1. Section 1. Chapter I. Chapter 2 began as "A Novel Extraction Typology. I have also modified the originals of chapters 2-4 in ways pursuant to producing a joint bibliography and index.4 discuss in part some of the theoretical underpinnings of the following chapters and address certain theoretical issues these chapters raise but do not treat. topicalized phrases. which are concomitantly simplified in nonsignificant ways. In particular. is newly written. buy it! . which focus on the facts of English. Here and there I have added references to works postdating the original completion of the papers. A revised version was published under the title "Contrasting Extraction Types" in Journal of Linguistics 30.< previous page page_ix next page > Page ix Preface This volume brings together three theoretical studies of extraction that were written independently in 1991-1993. In general. at the University of Birmingham in March 1993. and the like.2-1. certain referee criticisms are partially answered in chapter 1. it has not been possible to take serious account of work seen after the original papers were completed.

I am also indebted to two anonymous MIT Press referees for their commentary on and criticisms of chapters 3 and 4.. relations between ex-traction and plurals. buy it! . Geoffrey K. Johnson. island constraints and their proper characterization. I would like to thank Edwin Battistella. so-called right node raising) and left extractions. briefly. Special appreciation is due to James D." I would like to thank Ann Delilkan.M. Pullum. Postal and M. McCawley for detailed substantive criticisms and suggestions with respect to what appears here as chapter 4. No one but the author is responsible for whatever deficiencies nonetheless remain. Warren Plath. R. Joseph Emonds. and respectively-type constructions. and. Preparation of this book has been greatly facilitated by National Science Foundation grant SBR-9510984 (to P. Baltin). < previous page page_x next page > If you like this book. Robert Borsley.< previous page page_x next page > Page x evidence for a new typology of extractions. the feasibility of slash-category accounts of right extractions.g. the role of resumptive pronouns in freeing extractions from island constraints. whose work as research assistant has improved this project as well. A number of linguists have commented on earlier versions of one or another part of this book in ways that have led to significant improvements. and John Robert Ross for their help in this regard. coordination. David E. "Extraction from Selective Islands. the relations between right extractions (e.

advocated by Chomsky (1981. In early work on transformational grammar. < previous page page_1 next page > If you like this book. i. it has been widely assumed that all extractions to the left (hereafter L(eft)- extractions) represent fundamentally the same phenomenon. and so on (see. Stella tickled more chimps than (what1) I said that Dwight tickled t1. Frank1. h. 1 For clarity. Ross 1967. [No such gorilla]1 did I ever see t1.b). In the Government-Binding (GB) terms.< previous page page_1 next page > Page 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1. buy it! . e. Frank. But since at least the publication of Chomsky 1977b. c. the gun (which1) they claimed was used in the crime. f. Whol did they nominate t1 to be director? b. when the constituent cosubscripted with a gap is complex. 1982. I would never hire t1. [What a lovely woman]1 I found out that he married t1! g.1 Background I use the term extraction in this book to refer descriptively to relations like those in (1) between the sometimes null italicized constituents and the cosubscripted gaps (equivalently. e. I place it in square brackets. d. What1 Ellen wants t1 is a Mercedes-Benz. 1986a. extractions tended to be viewed as independent entities.. Postal 1971). which in turn was different from topicalizations like (1h). (1) a. who1 they adore t1. It was Frank who1 they hired t1. the positions of those gaps) to their right. is dishonest. this commonality is represented by analyses involving trace-leaving movements to nonargument positions. each defined by some particular movement rule: the question extraction in (1a) was different from the restrictive relative extraction in (1b).g.

Pollard and Sag 1987). 1994) c. 1996) d. Gazdar et al. not only among transformational grammarians but throughout the emerging community of theorists committed to generative models of grammar in which transformations or equivalent processes play no role. the unified treatment of UDCs emerges as a leitmotif of the increasingly fractionated discipline of syntactic theory. topicalizations. (2) ''The publication in 1977 of Chomsky's paper "On wh movement" marks the beginning of an era of remarkable consensus in linguistic theory. other frameworks not appealing to such notions also recognize the commonality of L-extractions. should be treated as a single species was central to the emergence of the Binding Theory of current transformational grammar. while in GKPS a mechanism of SLASH propagation accounts in addition for relative clauses. Hukari and Levine mention several of these frameworks. Gazdar 1982. The Lexical-Functional Grammar described by Kaplan and Zaenen (1989) e. 1985 (hereafter GKPS)." b. Chomsky's claim that all unbounded dependency constructions (UDCs) behave uniformly with respect to certain logically independent syntactic criteria and therefore.g. In Kaplan and Bresnan (1982) the use of bounded domination metavariables (Ý and ß) to express the linkage between gaps and their fillers extended to indirect wh-questions. buy it! . as characterized by Kroch (1989) Hukari and Levine (1991) go on to propose a partially new typology of extractions. and so on. 97-98) Other work also accepts the unity of L-extractions: (3) a. and tough constructions.. which separates (among others) those listed in (1) from those involving object raising. The base-generated syntax of Brame (1978). 1988. parasitic gaps (P-gaps). by Ockham's razor.g. constituent questions and parasitic gaps. but it was incorporated without any apparent difficulties into Lexical Functional Grammar (e. The Categorial Grammar of Steedman (1985. Tree-Adjoining Grammar." (Hukari and Levine 1991. From the end of the 1970s on.< previous page page_2 next page > Page 2 However. 1989. The Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar of Pollard and Sag (1987. Brame treats all L-extractions as involving parallel "binding" by "operators. < previous page page_2 next page > If you like this book. Kaplan and Bresnan 1982) and various avatars of Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (e..

unchallenged facts initially motivate viewing L-extractions as a single phenomenon. c.*Who1 did you mention to t1 that it was snowing? c. buy it! . Jerome followed more suspects than (what1) Arthur interrogated t1 without arresting pg1. Langendoen and Pullurn (1977) note that with certain verbs it is impossible for some speakers to extract an NP from the context to S. e. (6) a. They contain a visible gap.*Alvin tickled more kids than (what1) I mentioned to t1 that it was snowing. They induce strong crossover violations. (4a-i) are among the features shared by the extractions in (1). h. namely. (5) shows that (4d. d. The structural "distance" between the gap and its binder is unbounded.*Jerome1. (7) a. 86). 2 e. They have across-the-board instances.*the woman who1 I gave t1 perfume.*It was Joan who1 I gave t1 perfume. g. They "license" P-gaps. They are island-sensitive (see Chomsky 1977b. f. Jerome followed more suspects than (what1) Arthur convinced me/*them1 that you would help t1. d.< previous page page_3 next page > Page 3 Of course. e. Similarly. comparative extraction. They determine crossing dependencies in the same way. b.*I dated more women than (what1) he gave t1 perfume. b.e) hold for what might be considered the most exotic case. I mentioned to Malcolm that it was snowing. Restricting attention to NP cases. I gave t1 perfume. They can strand prepositions in the same contexts. Space considerations preclude documenting these properties for all the construction types. They are subject to the same specific "pure extraction" constraints. (4) Properties of English NP extractions a. regardless of the extraction construction.*the person who1 I mentioned to t1 that it was snowing d. I mentioned to t1 that it was snowing. c. b. < previous page page_3 next page > If you like this book. However.*Joan1. This also holds for all the types.*Who1 did you give t1 perfume? b. (5) a. (see Bresnan 1975) Evidence for (4i) is that indirect objects are unextractable (in my English). i. as (7) indicates.

chapter 2 investigates previously apparently largely unnoticed systematic distributional distinctions among English L-extractions. which. B-extractions and sensitivity to ACs. What1 we could easily determine/tell t1 was that Mike was a spy. An example of an AC not discussed in chapter 2 is provided by the object position of the verb tell (in its 'determine' sense). and others. That such positions ban B-extractions but not A-extractions is shown by the contrasts in (8). b. unlike the site linked to an A-extraction. c. which differentiate the object position of this verb from that of (e. This leads first to a major subdivision of L-extractions into types referred to arbitrarily as A-extractions and B-extractions. A theoretical link between the two phenomena at issue. The latter category contains NP topicalization. By "inherently" I mean that this is necessary independently of questions of extraction from islands. and nonrestrictive relative clause extraction. which1 I wish we had been able to determine/*tell t1 sooner. d. e. Essentially. I argue below. we could easily determine/*tell t1. NP clefting. buy it! . (8) a. I argue first that B-extractions are notably more restricted than A-extractions with respect to their possible extraction sites. < previous page page_4 next page > If you like this book. pseudo- clefting. Next I show that this extra restrictiveness correlates with constraints on the distribution of weak definite pronouns. including most types of question extraction and restrictive relative extraction as well as negative extraction. The first thing that1 we could determine/tell t1 was that Mike was a spy. a B-extraction site cannot be what is called an antipronominal context (AC).) determine when B-extraction is involved but not otherwise. [That Mike was a spy]1.2 Remarks on Chapter 2 Starting from the assumption that L-extraction is a unitary phenomenon. is surprising. That1. is established by positing that a B-extraction inherently requires an (invisible) resumptive pronoun (RP) in its extraction site.< previous page page_4 next page > Page 4 1. a position that is incompatible with weak definite pronouns. The former contains all the rest. We could easily determine/*tell it. f.g. demands the presence of RPs for all types of L-extractions. It was that which1 we could immediately determine/*tell t1.

(10) a. since if one accepts Ross's (1967) claim (as I do). the guy who1 they asked Jane whether the police questioned t1 b. A-extractions that cannot extract from selective islands are called A2- extractions and include. control being the mechanism underlying their invisibility. many problems need to be dealt with and the proposal remains too sketchy and vague to be anything more than programmatic. In chapter 2 I claim that the latter is an A-extraction. mostly NPs. essentially to a position rendering them sisters of the extractees. I argue that A-extractions themselves divide into at least two subtypes. This division is motivated by observing contrasts like those in (9) and (10). Although I believe the above account contains a core of valid assumptions. These examples involve L-extraction out of what are called selective islands (see section 3. I suggest that this extraction is required in order for these RPs to be con-trolled.4. A sketch of the beginnings of a resolution for this paradox is advanced in section 2. The generalization reached is that the extraction site of all B-extractions but only some A-extractions can be inside a selective island when the extractee is outside that selective island. The RPs that B-extractions determine would then apparently render them insensitive to island boundaries. I return to key issues below. the more people (that.3.) the police arrested (*anyone who had contacted) t1.2. [Which spy]1 did the police arrest anyone who had contacted t1? b. (9) a.< previous page page_5 next page > Page 5 The association of B-extractions with RPs apparently raises a paradox for a theory of how extractions relate to islands.2). but to the extraction of the invisible RP. an extraction that leaves an RP in the ex-traction site is not island- sensitive. The unchallenged island sensitivity of B-extractions is then attributed not to the RP-inked extraction of the (usually) visible explicit extractee. a selective island permits the extraction of only a very limited subset of all constituent types. The more people they praised. This is supposed to make the overall B-extraction constructions island-sensitive for essentially the reasons Ross originally gave: there is an extraction not linked to an RP. contrary to (well-known) fact. Joe saw more students than (what1) they (*asked Jane whether the police) questioned t1. as in (9b) and < previous page page_5 next page > If you like this book. It involves the claim that the (invisible) RPs associated with English B-extractions must themselves L-extract. Roughly. Having established a distinction between A-extractions and B-extractions. buy it! .

(11) a. the more.*The more people she talks to. as in (9a) and (10a). A-extractions capable of spanning selective island boundaries. though it is not possible to explore these matters in any depth here. work carried out since chapter 2 was written has revealed that beyond their inability to extract from selective islands. The relative-like extraction associated with a different + noun + than The failure of these constructions to permit extraction from the selective island in (9b) is illustrated in (12). also fall under the rubric of A2-extraction. First.*such men as1 they asked Jane whether the police questioned h b. 3 This work leads me to believe that the extractions in (11). The relative-like extraction associated with the same + noun + that c.*[What a fool]1 p1 meeting the director thrilled t1! c. (p marks the site of the invisible controlled pronoun. comparative extraction and extraction associated with the more . A2-extractions share other properties. not mentioned in chapter 2. I might add..< previous page page_6 next page > Page 6 (10b). are called A1-extractions.) (13) a.*a different guy than1 they asked Jane whether the police questioned t1 Furthermore. that work carried out after chapter 2 was written permits both a more extensive specification of A2-extractions than is given in chapter 2 and a richer characterization of their properties. the more people p1 meeting the director seems to thrill t1. buy it! .*Such employees as Pt meeting the director thrilled h should be promoted.*the same men that1 they asked Jane whether the police questioned h c. as shown in (13b-e). (12) a. b. A1-extraction or B-extraction from the same positions is fine. they seem unable to extract a "backward" controller of the sort found in (13a)..*Jacqueline interviewed more employees than p1 meeting the director thrilled t1.4 < previous page page_6 next page > If you like this book. p1 meeting the director thrilled everyone1/no one1/Mary1. e. The relative-like extraction associated with such + noun + as (see Bresnan 1977) b. d.

c) is not found with A1-extractions. Second. b. as noted in Postal 1993b. Although constructing a theory predicting that A2-extractions manifest the particular array of features that they do is now no doubt significantly more difficult than assumed in chapter 2. A1-extractions seem incapable of yielding the "real" gap for a P-gap to the left of the "real" gap. The woman who1 your interviewing pg1 thrilled t1 is outside. (17) a.< previous page page_7 next page > Page 7 (14) a. An A1-extraction allows an RP in its extraction site. c. even.*Who1 did his1 mother criticize t1? b. It was those employees who1 p1 meeting the director thrilled t1.6 (15) a. and Bis properly characterized by its relation to RPs. buy it! . (16) a.*[What a fool]1 (even/only) his1 mother criticized t1! b. yielding contrasts like the one in (17). [No other employees]1 did p1 meeting the director seem to thrill t1. Who1 did his1 own mother criticize t1? Notably.*Clara investigated more soldiers than their1 own parents praised t1. Third. as explored in the discussion around (74) of chapter 2: (19) a. the correlation of properties supports the claim made there that A2-extractions form a significant category in English syntax. Jane1.*Jane invited the same guy that1 his1 own mother criticized t1. An A2-extraction forbids an RP in its extraction site. c. in certain cases weak crossover effects do not appear in the presence of forms like only. though. c. 5. neither A1-extractions nor B-extractions suffer from this limitation. Essentially. [Which employees]1 did p1 meeting the director seem to thrill t1? b. < previous page page_7 next page > If you like this book. c. Who1 did only/even his1 mother criticize t1? c. or own in contexts otherwise manifesting them. the sort of amelioration seen in (17b. I am sure your interviewing pg1 thrilled t1. b. A key claim of chapter 2 is that each subtype of L-extractionA1. Again. (18) a. A B-extraction requires an RP in its extraction site. A2.*I saw the same guy that your interviewing pg1 thrilled t1.*[What a fool]1 your interviewing pg1 thrilled t1! b.*Jacqueline met more employees than your interviewing pg1 thrilled t1.

they notified Jack. However. although the latter is an A-extraction and the former a B-extraction. A general requirement that the RP associated with any B-extraction must itself extract.< previous page page_8 next page > Page 8 Given this division and Ross's (1967) principle linking extraction from islands to RPs in extraction sites. if that site is an AC. Recognition that many of the RPs relevant to (21a) are invisible c. One of course wants to say that both (20a) and (20b) are ill formed for the same reason. To get an over-view of the issues. because the extraction site is inside the nonrestrictive relative clause. namely. was missing. buy it! . who lived with h. In contrast. A1. The topicalization in (20b) is no less ill formed than the restrictive relative extraction in (20a). The distinctions in (19) relate to the issue of the island sensitivity of B-extractions touched on above. < previous page page_8 next page > If you like this book. and an extraction site internal to I. b. whereas the extractee.*The woman who1 they notified Jack. who/Linda. it follows that B-extractions and A1-extractions but not A2-extractions should in general be able to extract from selective islands.and A2-extractions but not B-extractions should be able to have extraction sites in ACs. Adoption of Ross's (1967) fundamental claim that a constituent C can licitly extract even across an island boundary if C links to an RP in C's extraction site (see (25) of chapter 3 and following discussion for a more articulated statement of Ross's original proposal) b. is external to it. who lived with t1. moreover. In chapter 2 I seek to support the correctness of all of these implications.*Linda1. consider a typical example of the sensitivity in question. (20) a. an island. (21) a. But no L- extraction should then allow an extractee external to an island I. I suggest in chapter 2 that this sensitivity can be taken to follow from Ross's (1967) claim that extraction from islands is possible only if the extraction links to an RP. roughly to be a sister of the B-extractee's final/surface position Such assumptions suggest analyzing (20b) as shown schematically in (22). it fails to indicate the role of the RP that I argue to be associated with each B-extraction. The assumptions in that account are roughly as shown in (21). such a description does not differentiate the B-extraction in (20b) from an A-extraction.

the requirement in (21c) that the RP in question itself extract to a position sister to that of Linda and hence external to the island leads to a violation of (2la) with respect to the invisible RP. The extraction of the RP linked to a B-extraction extractee is an A2-extraction. in preparation a. in the work just cited. given previous assumptions. (Here and below. Postal and Baltin 1994. like any A-extraction from a nonrestrictive relative clause. (23a)or was simply a grammatical axiom. WHAT1 the secret police arrested everyone áwho saw t1ñ was a video. although the extraction of Linda links to an RP. I use squared-off lines connecting phrases to represent the relation between an extractee and the RP it determines. island boundaries are indicated by angled brackets. (20b)/(22) is ruled out because. and Postal.b) involve extraction from the marked sites of the extractees (in small capitals). that earlier account raises as yet unanswered questions. selective islandsare possible because invisible RPs appear in their extraction sites. permitting its extraction from an island like the nonrestrictive relative clause in (20b) without violating Ross's (21a). (23) a. is how a framework incorporating the con-junction of (21) and (23) can be kept compatible with a basic idea that underlies the last part of chapter 2. What. The key issue. which then involves extraction of an element (RP1) from an island without a linked RP in the extraction site. much of chapter 3. buy it! . would serve to correctly block (20b). for instance.< previous page page_9 next page > Page 9 In this and following diagrams. < previous page page_9 next page > If you like this book. rendering such extractions consistent with Ross's (21a). Any extraction of an RP is an A2-extraction. Principle (23) correctly precludes a second RP in the extraction site of (22) and. where useful. the secret police arrested everyone áwho saw t1ñ.) (24) a. examples like (24a. though.b. However. potentially (wrongly) freeing the second extraction from island constraints under Ross's principle? This could be precluded if something like (23b) either followed from some more general principlesay. b. So. even though the final loci of the latter are separated from those sites by the relative clause boundaries. This idea is that particular L-extractions from some islandsnamely. 7 The idea advanced in chapter 2 is that. [THAT VIDEO]1. prevents the RP extraction in (22) from linking to a second RP in the original extraction site. b.

(25) WHAT1 the secret police arrested everyone (who might be able to determine/*tell t1) was that the minister of security was an extraterrestrial. Given claim (21c). contrasting sharply with (20a. and satisfy both (21a) and (23)? Various approaches to these problems are possible. < previous page page_10 next page > If you like this book. I think. observe the difference between the two cases in (25).b) are ungrammatical because they violate (21a). Recalling the non-AC/AC contrast in object positions in (8). in the work in question. In particular. they do not permit non-extractive cross-constituent relations of the sort characteristically blocked by islands. plus a regimentation of island types to allow for the distinction between islands like the one in (20) and the one in (24). they also bar NP extractions from ACs.< previous page page_10 next page > Page 10 Moreover. that all such constituents satisfy the various conditions on islands specified in chapters 2 and 3. At the worst.g.b).) (24b) both involve RP extraction from an island. The reader can verify. 8 The problem is this: if (20a. it is possible to show how a framework incorporating Ross's (21a) blocks extraction from the former island type but not from the latter. I will not argue for the islandhood of various constituents asserted to be selective islands. it can be taken as clarifying the issues that need to be faced. (24b) is essentially well formed for many speakers (including me). but I have not been able to find one that is truly satisfying. the RP associated with the B-extraction topicalization must end up a sister of the topic. I will nonetheless sketch an ac-count that is consistent with the basic facts and with most of the key assumptions of chapters 2 and 3. Nonetheless. to satisfy (2lc). be essentially incomprehensible if examples like (24) were taken simply to show that the restrictive relative clauses in question were nonislands. Moreover. In general in this chapter.b) are taken to represent extraction from (selective) islands. how can (e. none of them permit extractions of non-NP constituents of the types how long. Such differences would. examples like (24a. however. buy it! . and so on. Consider (24b). Principle (23) would preclude a second RP. why. several of which are discussed in chapter 3. The analysis I will describe rejects (23) and assumes among other things that cases like (24) involve two (obviously) invisible RPs. Given this. meaning that it as well as the topic itself needs to extract from the relative clause. Notably. which are truly impossible (probably for everyone).

g. I suspect Bob is going to fire her1. in right dislocations. some discussed in chapters 2 and 3. but not (as claimed earlier for B-extractions) always to a sister position of the extractee. see (61) of chapter 2 and (30)-(31) below. < previous page page_11 next page > If you like this book. invisible only in contexts where the language in question permits/requires non-RP pronouns to be invisible (see the French case in note 9). selective islands) systematically involves invisible RPs. (c) However. As Ross (1967) observed. (24) is possible because of the assumptions in (27). buy it! . neither in cases like (20) nor in those like (24) is there any contrast between A-extractions and B-extractions. other languages (e. e. Given that requirement and (21a). In English. even in the case of A-extractions. call them controlled RPs and non-controlled RPs. (d) Other evidence.< previous page page_11 next page > Page 11 The initial motivations for recognizing two RPs in cases like (24) can be summarized as follows. and I believe the simplest assumption is that in that case A-extractions do as well. noncontrolled RPs are found only rather marginally. They are always invisible. noncontrolled RP con-structions are essentially insensitive to islands. for example. (26) Marilyn1. As is well known. McCloskey 1979).. (b) The contrast between B-extractions and A-extractions shows that the latter are not so linked. To develop this approach further. and in certain extractions from relative clauses in nonstandard English.g.. Hebrew. Combining these considerations with my adoption of Ross's basic claim in (21a) suggests that a B-extraction from a selective island involves two RPs. This means that both cases of (24) are treated as involving pairs of invisible RPs. I assume that all controlled RPs must themselves extract. So what distinguishes type (20) islands from type (24) islands is arguably independent of the invisible RP systematically linked to B-extractions. extraction from islands via invisible (controlled) RPs as in. shows that extraction from islands like (24) (i. Noncontrolled RPs are either visible surface pronouns or. one should first distinguish two types of RPs associated with L-extractions.. in the left dislocation construction of (26). 9 Controlled RPs are the ones relevant for cases like (24). (a) Data independent of such cases discussed at length in chapter 2 argue that B-extractions link to invisible RPs independently of island facts. if not.e. Irish) have non-controlled RPs in more central constructions (see. Borer 1984.

b. d. where {. this is why secondary RPs cannot extract from islands. RPx.e.. In other terms. it would have to be specified that English nonrestrictive relative clauses are locked islands. It is obviously an important task to seek principles predicting how islands are subclassified as locked or unlocked and to determine their degree of universality. Tertiary RPs (i. Given (2la). In the terms just sketched. A key issue is what should be said about secondary RP extraction. Tentatively.< previous page page_12 next page > Page 12 (27) a. I cannot consider these matters here. < previous page page_12 next page > If you like this book.} represents the secret police arrested everyone. extracts no further than to the left boundary of the lowest island from which the primary RP that RPx links to extracts. This means that secondary RPs never extract from islands. c. buy it! . e. whereas certain restrictive relative clauses including those of the type in (24) are unlocked. a primary RP is. (28) The class of islands partitions into the disjoint sets locked and unlocked such that an island is unlocked if and only if it permits extraction of an RP." In these terms. itself links to a secondary (controlled) RP).. Islands like the one in (20) and the one in (24) can now be distinguished as described in (28).. secondary RP extraction is always an A-extraction. this principle subsumes (21c) as a special case.e. RPs linked to extracted secondary RPs) are excluded entirely... The key point is that what are called selective islands throughout this book will all be unlocked islands. a controlled RP linked to an extractee that is not an RP. I suggest that a secondary controlled RP. a grammatical example like (24a) would have the schematic structure in (29). The double terminology is not really redundant because the notion ''unlocked" provides the beginning of a theoretical account of what deter-mines that an island falls into the purely descriptive category "selective. Primary controlled RPs extract to sister positions of the extractees that determine them. of course. The (controlled) RP left by an extractee like WHAT in (24a)call it the primary (controlled) RPextracts via a non- A2-extraction (i.

220-222. Hebrew. That RP must itself extract because it is a controlled RP and must extract to the point of the extractee to which it is linked and hence out of the same island because it is primary. Irish) sometimes extract (see Koster 1987. Two relevant considerations are these. 63. involve RPs (italicized here). but nothing forces it to extract further than to the boundary of the lowest island the primary RP extracts from. here the relative clause. and locked islands. They realize I will never support Alfred again.g. They realize that I will never support him1 again. c.< previous page page_13 next page > Page 13 In (29) the path between the extractee WHAT1 and its extraction site can span the relative clause island boundary because the former links to a (primary) RP. Borer 1984. Alfred1. that would require a tertiary RP. do not permit this. it is arguable that even certain visible English RPs are subject to L-extraction. given my interpretation of Ross's principle as (21 a). The RP extraction heavily appealed to here is evidently subject to skepticism not least because both the primary and secondary RPs at issue are invisible and hence their existence and claims that they extract can only be based on abstract theoretical considerations. First. There is and can be no extraction from an island of the secondary RP because. But to take advantage of that property. Here ill-formedness results because the primary RP has extracted from a locked island. the primary RP can extract from that island because the latter is unlocked. Note that recognition of a primary RP in (29) subsumes this A-extraction case under the notion of unlocked island as given in (28). Alfred1. That controlled RP must also extract and does. < previous page page_13 next page > If you like this book. 91-94). they realize I will never support him1 again. respectively illustrated in (3lb) and (3lc). the ungrammatical example (20a) would have the structure shown in (30). German. Second. in accord with Ross's principle. In chapter 2 I assume that both the English left dislocation and right dislocation constructions. itself link to a secondary RP. More-over. McCloskey 1979. b. by definition (28). In the same terms. Sells 1984.. banned by (27d). the primary RP extractee must. in accord with (21a). visible RPs known in other languages (e. (31) a. buy it! . 94-97. positing that RPs extract is independently motivated since the clear.

Mike is difficult to imagine Mary loves. when the same position is embedded in an unlocked island. Thus. 750-753. h. but I will cite two restrictions. I cannot imagine t1 would ever marry Mary. for example.b)).< previous page page_14 next page > Page 14 And these RPs can apparently be the extractees of certain L-extractions. b. these conditions contrast with the conditions holding for B-extractions that do not involve the spanning of island boundaries. In the same way. object deletion. Mike1.g. the police regret á(that) t1 notified youñ.3.. Although one might initially view this idea as unnecessarily complex. regardless of whether the relevant extraction is of type A or B (see (33g. b. one can briefly defend the claim that. Postal 1993a. < previous page page_14 next page > If you like this book. and P-gap constructions. c. d.b) as involving topicalization of the RPs linked to left dislocation and right dislocation. they realize that him1. or a P-gap (see (33e. (34) Mike1. And they do not seem at all bad. the restrictions illustrated in (33) appear.d)). However.2. although it is licit for a finite-clause subject to B-extract (e. Moreover.b) manifest double RP extraction. Compare the illicit cases of (33) with the licit B-extraction of (34). it is fairly clear that grammatical theory must allow for RP extraction independently of the cases involving selective islands. I will never support t1 again. (33) a. an object deletion gap (see (33c. it cannot be a gap of extraction from an unlocked island. the police regret á(that) you notified t1ñ.*Mike1. I will never support t1 again. it permits an account of the following fact. Not only does B-extraction from an unlocked island as in (24b) obey the same conditions on unlocked island extraction as the A-extraction in (24a) but in fact these conditions overlap with those on object raising. 10 Further. Alfred1. Alfred1. buy it! . as touched on in Cinque 1990.h)).*Mike is too young to imagine would marry Mary. First.f)). They realize that him1. (32) a. I cannot fully document this here. (24a.*Mike is difficult to imagine loves Mary.*Who1 did Mike call t1 after concluding Pg1 would marry Mary? g. sec. 3. Mike is too young to imagine Mary would marry. e. I would interpret (32a. Who1 did Mike call t1 after concluding Mary would marry pg1? f. topicalize). it is impermissible in a wide range of cases for such a subject to be an object-raising gap (see (33a.

they arrested everyone áwho*mattered/spoke to t1ñ. However. Mike does matter/speak to t1. they manifest an instance of EXCB (involving the secondary RP) as well as an instance of EXCA. B-extractions are not sensitive to this difference. One can begin to make sense of these facts under the double RP ex-traction view.. they would prefer it áif no one*mattered/spoke to t1ñ. B-extraction fails (only) with matter. < previous page page_15 next page > If you like this book. Mary. can be taken to manifest a second kind of control (call it extraction control B (EXCB)). Mary1. if the position is embedded in an unlocked island. is outside. (38) a. (37) a.< previous page page_15 next page > Page 15 (35)*Mike1. for reasons that need not concern us here. however. c. Mary is too silly for Mike to*matter/speak to. Mike matters/speaks to Mary. This is so because simple B- extractions (more precisely. Mary1. b. Who1 did the police interrogate h because Mike*mattered/spoke to pg1? So simple B-extractions from this position are fine with either verb. and certainly not all of its components have been extensively justified. It can further be assumed that EXCA requires the presence of the controlled RP at the surface locus of the controlling extractee (guaranteed by (21c)) and that EXCB does not. And ill-formed B-extractions from unlocked islands like those in (35) can be ruled out because. (36) a. Mary1. The tighter restrictions illustrated in (33)-(38) are then conditions on EXCB. But it is worth stressing several virtues. buy it! . Mary is impossible for Mike to*matter/speak to. including extraction of the controlled secondary RP. Second. Mary1. b. The task of developing these ideas in a truly serious way is beyond the scope of this book. the extraction of the primary RP) can then be taken to manifest one kind of control (call it extraction control A (EXCA)) whereas the other cases. The scheme just sketched remains entirely informal. under the double RP view of such cases. involving less distant extraction of pronouns. it is moderately complex. who1 Mike does matter/speak to t1. they asked me áwhether Mike*mattered/spoke to t1ñ. they regret át1 married Mary). independently of islands. First. c. the constructions of (33) are incompatible with the object of the preposition in (36) when the verb is matter but not when it is speak. b. d.

it accounts for the fact that B-extractions. for example. is Das Kapital. for that RP to ex-tract to a sister position of the non-RP extractee. cannot be salvaged via the mechanism of invisible controlled RPs that do save the island extractions in. Third. Fourth. This is illustrated in (39b). I believe the excess freedom whose existence the referee foresees is excluded. I suggest. as required by (27b). Here. involving extraction from a nonrestrictive relative. shown in chapter 2 to link to (primary) invisible RPs quite independently of all island facts. other-wise. who read t1. the possibility of null resumptive pronouns in English must be severely restricted. essentially correct. But RP extraction is just what locked islands (by definition) do not permit. a seriously incorrect prediction. The difference of course is that the former involves a locked < previous page page_16 next page > If you like this book. Subjacency and/or ECP) effects. That is. are nonetheless island-sensitive. WHAT1 Joan would prefer it if you read t1 is Das Kapital. This follows since that extraction determines a (primary controlled) RP. (39) a. why the ungrammatical (20). the ideas sketched above address. evidently. (24). Second. buy it! .e. Postal would end up making a prediction that even extraction from what he calls strong islands should not exhibit any island (i. However. WHAT1 can successfully extract from the locked island represented by the nonrestrictive relative clause embedded inside the unlocked island represented by the complement of prefer. b.*WHAT1 Joan {would prefer it if you called} Mike. whose partial structure would be schematically that shown in (39c).< previous page page_16 next page > Page 16 the above remarks provide the mechanisms for allowing RPs to serve as catalysts for extraction from islands along the lines basically uncovered by Ross (1967). an MIT Press referees criticism with respect to chapter 3: "Apparently." The referee's claim that the distribution of controlled (hence null) RPs in English must be severely restricted is. the framework sketched above accounts for the fact that ex-traction from a selective island is blocked if a locked island intervenes along the path between the extraction site and the extractee position. I have shown. And by distinguishing locked from unlocked islands and by banning tertiary RPs. it also must extract from the locked island (requiring a further RP). for ex-ample.

(41) the book which1 Greta is sorry (that Mike is sorry (that Sally is sorry)) that you read t1 I do not find any decay associated with the extra degrees of embedding in such cases beyond what is expected from sheer complexity. extraction from one such adjunct inside another is not possible. then a full theory of islands must account for the difference between allowed and disallowed extraction from compounds of unlocked islands. For instance. it would be a mistake to conclude that extraction from compounds of unlocked islands is uniformly impossible. (40) a. Unlocked islands seem to subdivide in this respect. But the present chapter has sketched a much more articulated account of the controlled RPs in question.< previous page page_17 next page > Page 17 island. although I have provided an account of the locked/unlocked island contrast that appeals to the fact that locked islands do not allow RP extraction. If such cases cannot be attested. although the problems do not yield counterexamples. Another way to put the point is that the referee's remarks seem to assume that the invisible RPs hypothesized and argued for in chapter 3 differ from the visible in-situ RPs found in languages like Hebrew and Irish only in being phonetically null (see also note 9). Logically. Cinque (1990. Certain other factors may suggest that the ideas outlined here are in-adequate. First.*the book that1 we left Russia without being arrested after distributing t1 However. there are clearly also distinctions to be made among unlocked islands. compounds of the unlocked island represented by emotive factive complements like those of sorry seem to permit extraction relatively freely. the article that1 we went to England without reading t1 b. Although this complex matter has not been studied in depth. 109) observes that nonfinite adjuncts are what in my terms would have to be analyzed as unlocked islands and further that in effect compounds of these adjuncts do not permit extraction. buy it! . If that is the case. Second. the latter an unlocked one. the proposals do not account for the property that all of the secondary con-trolled RPs I have posited are controlled by primary controlled (hence invisible) RPs. it would be possible for a controlled RP to be controlled by a visible RP. That is. there unfortunately seems to be no natural way to express this distinction consistently with all previous assumptions. some as yet unformulated principle would have to guarantee their nonexistence. < previous page page_17 next page > If you like this book.

Suppose one claimed: (42) The class of unlocked islands partitions into the categories rigid and flexible such that an unlocked island I is rigid if and only if any constituent extracted from I must link to an RP at the left boundary of l. consider the ill-formed (40b). they would have to extract from some islands (e. like (40a).< previous page page_18 next page > Page 18 But there is a rather straightforward account that is not consistent with previous assumptions. Given earlier assumptions. To see this.. every unlocked island permits (primary) RP extraction. The non-RP extractee. The latter can in turn extract without violation from the lowest island and the con- < previous page page_18 next page > If you like this book. which I have excluded. whose partial schematic structure would be (43). requiring either that one posit tertiary RPs or that secondary RPs be excluded from the scope of Ross's claim (21a). in cases where present terms require primary RP extraction from such islands. Therefore. this would require tertiary RPs. this will only be possible if the secondary RP linked to a primary RP can reach that island. But I have found no way to develop an account of the distinctions among unlocked islands in terms of (27).g. By definition. nonfinite adjuncts are rigid unlocked islands. (42) will require the secondary RP to extract from the lowest rigid island. assuming that English nonfinite adjuncts are rigid unlocked islands. The assumption underlying (42) is that. taken here inessentially to be that. (42) has no relevant consequences. In cases involving a single rigid island. It might be hypothesized that this subdivision has to do with the behavior of secondary RPs. Instead. If secondary RPs were required to end up in the same position as primary RPs. I have suggested (27c). for example. This is required in order to allow extraction of primary controlled RPs to the positions of the extractees to which they link. buy it! . can extract from the lowest unlocked island because of the primary RP. But for compounded rigid islands. in (40a)). The contrast between selective islands whose compounds permit extraction and those whose compounds do not indicates that there are two types of unlocked islands.

Another instance of rigid unlocked islands is provided by subject complements. But that such examples illustrate selective island extraction rather than providing evidence for the nonislandhood of subjects is shown among other things by the fact that the relevant type of extraction is impossible from an AC. b. (45)*That is something [under which]1áfor you to try to hide t1ñ would be futile. The same point is made by the fact that parallels to (44a) involving non-NPs are quite bad. That is something which1áfor you to try to understand t1ñ would be futile. note that the contrast in (44b) correlates with the AC contrast in (8a). (46)*That is something which1ááBill's trying to understand t1ñ being sneered at by the teachers) was criticized by the principal. buy it! . the secondary RP could satisfy the definition of rigid in (42) without running afoul of the principle (27d) banning tertiary RPs by extracting only to the front of the after phrase. Since the primary RP has extracted from that island as well. given that these islands are unlocked. contrary to widespread belief. But in (40b) a second (outer) island exists and is also rigid. But both of these unlocked islands are rigid. which I take to be a highly restricted example of this category. Given then that cases like (44) represent RP-facilitated selective island extraction. as in (43). But that would be a tertiary RP. the secondary RP must extract from the smaller rigid unlocked island. like Cinque's (40a). under my interpretation (27a) of Ross's (1967) claim. in violation of principle (27d). that it also link to an RP. 11 (44) a. That is something which1áfor him to be able to determine/*tell t1ñ would be quite surprising. Recalling the distinction in this regard between determine and tell. If the containing one did not exist. That it is. possible to extract from some subjects (independently of P-gaps) under limited conditions is shown by cases like (44a). For that to be the case. 49). That is why extraction from one nonfinite adjunct can yield grammatical (rigid) selective island extraction in English. it follows that the secondary RP must appear at the left boundary of the without constituent.< previous page page_19 next page > Page 19 taining adjunct island because of the secondary RP. (42) determines correctly that such extraction is not possible from compounded subject island complements. due to Kuno and Takami (1993. requiring. < previous page page_19 next page > If you like this book.

c. (48) a. d.*That is something which1á for you to get drunk ábefore understanding t1ññ would be silly. requiring under principle (21a) previously banned tertiary RPs. But neither < previous page page_20 next page > If you like this book. (42) would seem to offer a basis for the ban on extraction from compounded rigid islands despite the possibility of extraction from a single such island. (48c) should be ungrammatical because the rigidity of the adjunct island allows extraction from it only in the presence of the secondary RP at that level. Hence. In (48) I again take the nonfinite adjuncts to be rigid unlocked islands but the quantifier-headed restrictive relatives to be flexible unlocked islands. (47) a. buy it! . Namely. consistent with previous assumptions. This is so because extracting the primary RP from the rigid island requires the secondary RP that links to it to appear at the level of that constituent. rigid) island. (42) predicts that extractions from combinations of these should differ depending on which is embedded in the other. runs up against the unhappy fact that (42) combines with earlier ideas to make very strong but (I think) untenable claims. These predictions seem true. However. It was Lucille that1 Mike went home áwithout criticizing áanyone who defended t1ññ. It was Lucille that1 Mike criticized áeveryone who went home áwithout defending t1ññ.*That is something which1 Henry got drunk áwithout áBob's being able to understand t1ñ having been discussedñ. The situation is illustrated in (48). it should be impossible to extract from compounded islands when the outermost is a rigid unlocked island and all the others are flexible.< previous page page_20 next page > Page 20 (42) also predicts that it is impossible to extract from a nonfinite adjunct inside a subject complement or from a subject inside a nonfinite adjunct. since both represent rigid islands. Mike went home áwithout criticizing áanyone who defended Lucilleññ. which would illicitly force the secondary RP to extract from the flexible unlocked island defined by the relative. b. Mike criticized (everyone who went home áwithout defending Lucilleññ. b. But this it can do only by itself extracting from all of the embedded flexible islands. this desirable result. (48d) is not blocked in a parallel way since the primary RP can extract from the exterior flexible island without the secondary RP having to exit the inner (in this case.

certain sec-ondary RPs would have to extract from islands in violation of earlier assumptions. b. that secondary RPs can extract from (only some) islands. the overall facts about island embedding do not permit any obviously neat way of combining it with other assumptions. One could maintain (42) by weakening earlier assumptions. If (42) is simply rejected. buy it! . primary) RP extraction. and I do not see that they differ in status. < previous page page_21 next page > If you like this book. i. both seem to contrast rather clearly with cases like Cinque's (40b). Laura smiled ádespite being shocked áthat they fired Edññ. contrary to (27). A rigid unlocked island allows extraction only if an RP linked to the extractee can reach the island left periphery. An unlocked island allows some (namely. b. (49) a. (42) predicts a stronger asymmetry between extractions from island compounds than is warrantedfor instance. A locked island allows no RP extraction. In short. then I currently can offer no account of the genuine contrasts between rigid and flexible unlocked islands. But again I see no difference. extractions from island combinations seem grammatical even though. one could posit.< previous page page_21 next page > Page 21 (48c) nor (48d) seems to be ungrammatical. namely. to satisfy (42). A parallel pattern results when emotive factive complements of predicates like shock are chosen to represent a flexible unlocked island. it seems that minimally a proper ac-count of extraction from islands should yield the following (no doubt partial) typology of islands or its equivalent: (50) a. Neither seems like a happy conclusion. (49c) should be ungrammatical and (49d) should be grammatical. Although (42) thus has certain attractions. the guy who1 Mike was shocked áthat Laura smiled ádespite having to fire Given (42). flexible ones. For in-stance. That is. This would mean either keeping (21a) and allowing tertiary RPs or continuing to bar tertiary RPs but weakening (21a) to allow secondary RPs to extract from islands without linking to additional RPs. apparently wrongly predicting cases like (48c) and (49c) to be impossible. Extraction from compounds of rigid islands is banned. Once more. Mike was shocked áthat Laura smiled ádespite having to fire Edññ c. That is. the guy who1 Laura smiled ádespite being shocked áthat they fired d. as is certainly possible.

and (b) the data supposedly falsifying it are not from some poorly studied language. This misstep takes the form of ignoring the codicil added in chapter 6 of Ross 1967. A flexible unlocked island allows extraction without meeting (50bi) so that extraction from compounds of flexible islands is allowed. informally. I argue that the conclusion itself is entirely unfounded.2. The ideas proposed in this section do not achieve the goal of providing such an account. buy it! .2.< previous page page_22 next page > Page 22 ii. appealing to such RPs as part of an attempt to refute Lakoff's claims is in no way illegitimate. although syntacticians often tend. it can be seen that rather than instantiating illicit extraction from islands of the sort the CSC was intended to ban. This curious conjunction is defensible because it can be argued that Lakoff's argument in part misconstrues what Ross's formulation of the CSC claims. the cases Lakoff advances mostly involve a subspecies of the type of extraction from islands that Ross's (1967) < previous page page_22 next page > If you like this book. first pro-posed by Ross (1967). Lakoff's claim is remarkable because (a) the CSC is often taken to be the most robust island constraint known.3 Remarks on Chapter 3 Chapter 3 takes as its point of departure the purported demonstration by Lakoff (1986) that the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC). it is possible to establish a methodology that supports their existence. limiting the effects of island boundaries in cases where extractions are linked to RPs. Ross's account allows such extraction if the extraction sites contain RPs. 1. is falsified by a range of data. as is extraction from a complex of flexible islands embedded in a single rigid island. but from English. to think of island boundaries as absolute barriers to extraction relations across them. the theoretical basis for which I sketched in section 1. Basically. Although the facts Lakoff cites for his radical negative conclusion are in essence all correct. For it is not only possible to posit invisible RPs in the relevant cases. This feature of the CSC can be used as a basis for rejecting Lakoff's conclusions although none of the cases he cites as counterexamples involve visible RPs. I of course developed a version of Ross's ideas in my terms in section 1. in fact. Since no arguments preclude recognizing nonphonetic RPs and since chapter 2 in particular provides strong support for their existence in English. Given the existence of covert RPs. and it cannot be advanced further here.

I should note that the argument flaw that I believe undermines his conclusion is easy to fall into given that Ross exclusively considered visible RPs. confusing extractions from islands legitimized by controlled RPs (i. they can be treated as unlocked islands. I discuss conclusions by Chomsky (1977b. arguing that none are tenable since all overlook the fact that the extractions they deal with are of the special sort involving unlocked islands and invisible RPs. I argue that several principles and their supporting arguments are vitiated by the same sort of mistake that underlies Lakoff's conclusion about the CSC. licit because of the presence of RPs. 1986a). buy it! . whereas those relevant to Lakoff's discussion and the CSC are nonphonetic. I also show (in appendix A) that Lakoff's mistaken conclusion is in effect a special ease of a rather common errornamely. and Chung and McCloskey (1983). Deane (1988. In defense of Lakoff's discussion. This error has considerable implications for any general theory of extraction and for particular principles that have been proposed and defended in the literature. Having rejected Lakoff's conclusions and hence having defended the CSC against what appear initially to be severe counterexamples. Beyond its defense of the CSC.e. In the terminology of section 1. I present other evidence arguing that the cases Lakoff takes to involve illicit (under the CSC) extraction from coordinate constituents actually involve licit extraction from islands. because of (among other things) the invisibility of the RPs involved. Kayne (1985. That is. Pollard and Sag (1994). In addition. hence are not barred by island boundaries in the same way that non-RP-linked extractions are. extractions from selective islands) with extractions from nonislands. I also show in chapter 3 that certain contexts Lakoff took to invalidate the CSC are not in fact coordinate and thus are logically incapable of providing counterexamples to the CSC regardless of their relation to extraction. That is. 1994). extraction from which is permitted via the mechanisms of controlled (hence invisible) RPs. the key import of chapter 3 thus involves its focus on the existence of ignored invisible (because controlled) < previous page page_23 next page > If you like this book. Specifically. it is hardly surprising that Lakoff (and many other linguists) has misconstrued certain RP-facilitated L-extraction from certain selective islands as L-extraction from nonislands. Pullum (1987). 1991). the majority of cases that Lakoff takes to show that coordinate structures are not islands can be analyzed as extractions from selective islands..2.< previous page page_23 next page > Page 23 conception of islands permits.

494-495). and so on. but also by Levine (1985)that the construction type called right node raising (RNR) is not an extraction in the same sense as L-extractions like those involving wh forms. 1987. I develop a range of arguments to counter this view and to support the conclusion that RNR is properly regarded as a subspecies of the same sort of phenomenon as L-extraction. which interfere with certain theoretical accounts of extraction based almost exclusively on L-extractions. and the conditions governing them. A key basis for this claim is a phenomenon noted by Piera (1985). At issue is a kind of ''recursive" compounding of RNR represented by examples like (51). topicalization. there are also clear contrasts. Although RNR has at least once been claimed to support Slash category conceptions (see Gazdar 1981. 1988).3 that this is not the case. 1991). for despite the commonalities between RNR and L- extractions.179-180). which I refer to as quasi exfiltration (Q-exfiltration). This conclusion has various implications. islands. Although I defend Slash ideas against certain criticisms arising in transformational grammar work. (51) Carlotta may believe t1 and Sandra certainly does believe t1 [that Mike t2]1 and Barbara can prove that Ted t2 [betrayed your confidence]2.4 Remarks on Chapter 4 In chapter 4 I critique claimsprincipally by McCawley (1982. and Hukari and Levine (1989. I argue in section 4. I argue that in general the range of such cases cannot be consistently described under the Slash regimes hitherto proposed. In chapter 4 I also investigate the relation between RNR and Slash category approaches to extraction as developed in work on Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Levine (1985. albeit one with special properties. I argue that English RNR structures are actually incompatible with current formulations of Slash approaches.< previous page page_24 next page > Page 24 RPs (in English) and their strong relevance to a wide range of conclusions about extractions. < previous page page_24 next page > If you like this book. buy it! . 1.

Then I argue that the A/B-extraction distinction is insufficiently delicate.< previous page page_25 next page > Page 25 Chapter 2 Contrasting Extraction Types 2. buy it! . Referred to arbitrarily as types A and B. B-extractions question extraction topicalization restrictive relative extraction nonrestrictive relative extraction pseudoclefting clefting negative-NP extraction comparative extraction exclamatory extraction So (1a-f) of chapter I illustrate A-extractions and (1g-i) B-extractions. My aim is to argue that even the L-extractions illustrated in (1) of chapter I do not form a homogeneous class. they are extensionally characterized roughly as in (1). Two distinguishable types are represented in that list. After documenting multiple contrasts between A. < previous page page_25 next page > If you like this book.and B-extractions of NPs. I propose an account of this nontraditional distinction that appeals to partly traditional elements. in this chapter I seek to ground a nontraditional division of English (NP) L-extractions. A-extractions themselves divide into two contrasting subtypes. A-extractions b.1 Two Types of Left Extraction Despite the unchallenged similarities between L-extractions discussed in chapter 1. (1) Basic NP L-extraction types (subject to refinement) a.

< previous page page_26 next page > If you like this book.2. More precisely. buy it! .1 Remarks That A. whereas topicalization is more colloquial. A priori. which can provide a basis for their exclusion of B-extractions if the A/B difference is analyzed in a certain way. These contexts have a common property.< previous page page_26 next page > Page 26 The basic theoretical idea to be developed is that whereas the gap positions in A-extractions do not in general manifest properties distinct from those of the positions in which the extractees occur. the gap positions of B-extractions manifest properties of contexts involving (weak) definite pronouns. c. the gap positions in B-extractions do. whereas B-extractions are not. I take negative-NP fronting and/or question formation as the default instantiation of A-extractions and topicalization as the default for B- extractions. whereas A-extractions do not. this claim about B-extractions means that they are properly characterized in part in the way that Perlmutter (1972) claimed that all L-extractions should be. he knew that there were t1 in the bottle. A-extractions are compatible with the "focus" position of existential there constructions.and B-extractions differ in some fundamental way can be argued by showing that A-extractions are possible from numerous environments that preclude B-extractions. This suggests that B-extractions obligatorily involve (invisible) resumptive pronouns (RPs) in their extraction sites. One cannot account for (2c) on the grounds that the extracted NP violates general restrictions defining topicalizable NPs. although space considerations prevent full documentation. I am aware of at least seventeen such con-texts.*[Such chemicals]1. [No such chemicals]1 did he know that there were t1 in the bottle.2 Existential there Constructions First.2. The contrast between (2b) and (2c) is striking since negative-NP fronting is a formal. If viable. (2) a. b. Since full documentation of the contrasts for all the extractions would be highly repetitive. Other cases cited below show differences in the same direction. 2.2 A-Extraction/B-Extraction Differences 2. even stilted construction. 2. one would expect that the negative member of such pairs would be worse. He knew that there were (no) such chemicals in the bottle.

3 Change-of-Color Contexts A-extractions are compatible with positions of NPs designating changes of color. as (3) indicates.< previous page page_27 next page > Page 27 Generic indefinite NPs like that in (2c) are not inherently incompatible with topicalization. b. NPs refer to names and not to things named by those names. b. d.*Raphael1. you shouldn't call a person t1 in public. (4) a. He painted the car green/that color. [Such chemicals]1. (6) a. [What color]1 did he paint the car t1? c.*That1/Fathead1. buy it! . we never discussed h as a possible name for him. [No such color]1 would I ever paint my car t1. the NPs that cannot be topicalized in (4d) can be topicalized in general. he never discussed t1 with me.2. They named him Raphael/that/something ridiculous. b. f. whereas B-extractions are not. (3) a.4 Name Positions In a variety of positions.*[Green/That color]1. [Nothing of the sort]1 did I ever name him/refer to him as t1. 2. I wouldn't name anybody t1. They called him fathead/something obscene. he never painted the car t1. Again. 2. shown in (8). [Such chemicals]1. (5) [Green/That color]1.2.5 Inalienable Possession Contexts English has different ways of representing inalienable possession. Raphael1. b.2. Parallel remarks hold for all the cases considered. c. Whereas A-extractees can be linked to such positions. 2. Fathead1. the NPs that cannot be topicalized in this context can be in others. he said t1 had never been in the bottle. As in the change-of-color case. < previous page page_27 next page > If you like this book. no one seems to know who first used t1 as a pejorative. d. he would never have placed h in the bottle. (7) a. What1 did they name him t1/refer to him as t1? e. B-extractees cannot.

Whereas A-extractions of body part NPs are possible for both varieties. (9) a. They touched him on the/his ear. Italians make good cannibal snacks. (12) a.*[The best bodyguard in the world]1. d. f. they never touched (*him on) t1 2.*[A good bodyguard]1. What1 are you going to become t1? d. (8a) and (8b).*[Good cannibal snacks]1. f. [what sort of brain surgeon]1 can we make t1 out of Percy? f. [What kind of idiot]1 did they regard him as t1? c. (13) [A good doctor]1. e.*[The country's worst drug dealer]1. Frank became a bodyguard. 1 (10) a. (12) illustrates that PNs are incompatible with topicalization. [What kind of cannibal snacks]1 do Italians make t1? (= OK 'are' or OK 'manufacture') However. e. Frank immediately turned into t1. [What part of the/his body]1 did they touch (him on) b. they made t1 out of Frank. b.2.*[That kind of surgeon]1. They touched his ear. B-extractions are possible only for the former. Frank turned into a bodyguard. [what sort of thing]1 did he turn into t1? e. Italians never make t1. c. (= OK 'are' or OK 'manufacture') The A/B-extraction contrast holds systematically. (*unless = 'manufacture') (13) is an apparent counterexample to this claimed incompatibility. I never referred to Frank as t1. (11) a. buy it! .*[A vicious werewolf]1. she isn't t1 < previous page page_28 next page > If you like this book. do you want to be t1? b. They made a bodyguard out of Frank. I regarded Frank as a bodyguard. Frank never became t1. Examples (11a-f) show that all of (10a-f) permit A-extraction. d. b. c. [His ear]1.6 Predicate Nominals A fifth contrast involves predicate nominals (PNs).< previous page page_28 next page > Page 28 (8) a. [What kind of dancer]1. Frank is t1. b. Frank is a bodyguard.

They said she was fond of Mike. for the extracted constituent can be taken to be a non-NP containing a PN. [Fond of Mike]1 though she was t1. . (16) a. Notably. namely..2.. But both are well formed in certain contrastive positive contexts.*[Fond of Mike]1. d. Given these similarities. Most importantly. (19) a. (14) [Fond of Mike]1. constructions (13) and (14) share restrictions.7 Adverbial NPs A-extractions are compatible with a variety of "adverbial" NPs that B-extractions are not compatible with. there is an analysis for (13) distinct from PN topicalization.. buy it! . b. it seems reasonable to conclude that (13) fails to counterexemplify the claim that PNs cannot be topicalized.*[A good doctor]1 though she consulted t1. .*[A good doctor]1. she is t1. the two types manifest parallel restrictions on embedding. she isn't t1. Moreover.. They said she was a good doctor. b. . Joan wasn't1. 2.. the non-NP extraction in (14). (13) cannot be a topicalization of a PN.*I learned that [fond of Mike]1. both constituent types can be the sort of extractees associated with though.. it represents extraction not of a PN but of some larger predicational constituent containing a PN. and [a good doctor]1 she may be t1.. whose associated L- extraction is in general in-compatible with NPs. Both are blocked in simple positive cases such as (15). Harry often talks that way. she is t1.*[A good doctor]1 though she planned to have Ted hire t1. (15) a. [What way]1 does Harry talk t1? < previous page page_29 next page > If you like this book. Significantly.. b. (18) a. . c. (17) a. just as (14) involves extraction of a constituent containing (of) Mike. If (13) is like (14).*I learned that [a good doctor]1. b.< previous page page_29 next page > Page 29 If English NP topicalization is incompatible with PNs. Joan wasn't t1. b. and [fond of him]1 she may be t1. [A good doctor]1 though she was t1.

10 Exceptive Shifting Another contrast between A. is found in (22).*That way. I did not perceive t1 in Sylvia.*[That way]1. [Such a scurrilous review of his book]1. 2. [No such scurrilous review t1]1 did they publish t1[ of his book]1. [No such reason]1 did he ever resign for t1. [What reason]1 did he resign for t1? c. 2.and B-extractions. [A definite wish to retire]1. Harry often talks t1. f. d. b. related to infinitival extraposition.9 Infinitival Extraposition A further contrast between A. (20) a.. d. < previous page page_30 next page > If you like this book. [No wish t1]2 did I perceive t2 in Sylvia [to retire]1. [No wish to retire]1 did I perceive t1 in Sylvia. e. f. he resigned for t1. I did not perceive a wish t1 in Sylvia [to retire]1.. I did not perceive a definite wish to retire in Sylvia.*[That reason]1.8 Extraposed Prepositional Phrases A significant distinction between A. 2. (21) a. c. Contrasts like that between (21e) and (21f).2. which1 Harry talks t1.and B-extractions linked to prepositional phrase extraposition is illustrated in (21). based on parallel NP types. . b. e.and B-extractions is that only the former are compatible with shifted expressions such as except + NP and other than + NP. I did not perceive t2 in Sylvia [to retire]1.< previous page page_30 next page > Page 30 c.2. the way that1 Harry talks t1 d. [No such scurrilous review of his book]1 did they publish t1 d. They published a scurrilous review of his book last year. Harry resigned for that reason. They published a scurrilous review t1 last year [of his book]1.*[A definite wish t1]2. e. c.*[Such a scurrilous review t1]2 they published h last year [of his book]1. buy it! . they published t1 last year. seem quite remarkable. b. (22) a.2.

b.[What other than/except the gun]1 did he hand t1 to Rim? d. Frank spent/stayed that much time in Ireland. (24) a.< previous page page_31 next page > Page 31 (23) a.*[Something (dangerous) t1]2. [Which house]1 was Ed born in t1? < previous page page_31 next page > If you like this book. d. an A/B-extraction contrast is linked to the type of NP heading a locative phrase.2..2. 2. including born. [Something other than the gun]1. I am sure they made t1 on the job. Frank could never spend/*stay t1 in Ireland. citing Vergnaud 1974).*[That much headway].*[That much headway]1. there is no contrast. he might have handed t1 to Rita. [How much headway]1 did they make t1 on the job? c. c. f. [That much time]1.13 A Locative Case With some verbs.. [Nothing other than the gun]1 would he have handed t1 to Rita.2. 2. (26) a.but not B-extractions. For instance. (25) a. b. buy it! . [Not much headway]1 did they make t1 on the job. which1 they made t1 on the job. g. [What t1]2 did he hand t2 to Rim [except/other than the gun]1 ? e. f.11 Temporal NPs A sharp A/B-extraction difference is linked to postverbal temporal NPs with the verbs stay and spend. b. would he have handed t2 to Rita [other than the gun]1. [Nothing t1]2.12 Idiomatic Verb + NP Structures Several idiomatic verb + object structures are such that the NP is subject to A.He handed something other than the gun to Rim.. the temporal NP can be extracted only by an A-extraction. [How much time]1 did Frank spend/stay t1 in Ireland? c. he might have handed t2 to Rita [other than the gun]1. He handed something t1 to Rita [other than the gun]1. the headway that1 they made t1 on the job e. when the NP designates a building. b. They made a lot of/that much headway on the job. With the former. One is the well- known idiom make headway (see Emonds 1979. h. 2. Ed was born in that house. 233.

b. linked to antecedents) definite pronominal NPs (e. < previous page page_32 next page > If you like this book. [What country]1 was Ed born in t1? c. 2.but not a B-extraction.e. what if any common factor accounts for the various B-extraction blockages and why is every A- extraction environment a B-extraction environment but not conversely? A commonality linking the contexts that prohibit B-extractions is revealed by reconsidering existential there structures. 2.*[Argentina]1. [No country like that]1 could he have been born in t1. Notably. Most fundamentally. our president is said to have been born in t1. showing that some hitherto ignored factors distinguish these two collections of structures. I refer to a particular environment accepting NPs as an antipronominal context if and only if it precludes the occurrence of anaphoric (i.14 Summary I have documented twelve English contexts that permit A. he.2. That is. when the locative NP is a proper noun designating a country. a contrast appears. (28) a. However. There are such apples on the table..< previous page page_32 next page > Page 32 c.3 Antipronominal Contexts The documentation of pervasive if hitherto overlooked A/B-extraction contrasts raises various questions.. However. no contexts permit B.g. To facilitate discussion. d. [That house]1. this claim must be formulated with some care since there are environments that permit B-extractions but not certain A- extractions. there are h on the table. Ed was born in Argentina. buy it! . The B-extraction environments therefore appear to be a proper subset of the A-extraction environments. As far as I know. our president is said to have been born in t1. d.*There are them on the table.but not A-extractions. in the country case. the position precluding B-extractions is also incompatible with definite pronouns. a locative prepositional phrase head can be extracted via an A.*[Such apples]1. b.but not B-extractions. (27) a. yielding correlations like (28). [No such house]1 was he born in t1. c.

As for "fathead"1. buy it! .but not B-extractions is antipronominal. We discussed it as a possible name for him.< previous page page_33 next page > Page 33 she.*He named his daughter Lucille1 but I didn't name mine it1. Therefore. (30)*They painted their porch green1 but I refused to paint mine it1.*His car was painted green1 but mine will never be painted it1. Name positions are also antipronominal contexts. property (29) is not specific to the context in (28) but holds for every case previously documented where B- extractions are banned. But contexts like (7). them). topicalization is blocked. no one seems to know who first used it1 as a pejorative. as in (35b). the contrast between the short < previous page page_33 next page > If you like this book. Crucially. (32) a. which vanishes in the corresponding passive. (33) a. Ted was given it. Recall that color phrases themselves can be topicalized from other environments such as the object position of discuss. b. The data in (28) show that the ban on B-extraction with existential there can be characterized as in (29). Compare the different restriction in (35a). Significantly. (31) illustrates that that environment is not an antipronominal context. Property (29) holds of change-of-color environments. as (34) indi-cates. The inalienable position that resists B-extraction is antipronominal but the one that permits it is not. (35) a. I will refine this notion as the discussion proceeds. it. (34) a. are not. b. where. for example. for the relevant restrictions are maintained in corresponding passives. In neither the color nor the name case does the antipronominal condition reduce to a general ban against the structure NP + pronoun. b. which permit B-extraction of name NPs. (29) The NP position that can be a gap for A. b. (31) I wanted to talk about [(the color) green]1 but he refused to discuss it1.*His daughter was named Marsha1 but mine was not named it1.*They gave Ted it.*One shouldn't call people [fathead or idiot]1 but he calls students them1.

c. They wanted to touch [his arm]1 and they did touch it1.*They made it out of Frank. are all antipronominal. (* unless = 'manufacture') These cases correlate precisely with the ill-formed B-extractions of (12).*Frank became it. c. The temporal-NP A/B-extraction contrasts distinguishing stay from spend correlate with the fact that the temporal position of the former is antipronominal whereas that of the latter is not.*I did not perceive it in Sylvia [to retire]. the examples formed from (39a-c) by suppressing each one's final constituent are grammatical. and exceptive phrases. respectively.*He might have handed it to Rita [other than the gun]. The parallel environments without the extrapositions.*They published it last year [of his best book].*Frank is it. e. (39) a. d. He is going to spend [(the next) two weeks]1 in Greece but I am going to spend them1 in Spain.*Frank turned into it. t1 The environments associated with extraposed prepositional phrases. b.*I talk [that way]1 but Harry rarely talks it1.*I resigned for [those reasons]1 but Harry did not resign for them.*They wanted to touch him on [the/his arm]1 and they did touch him on it1. Idiomatic contexts that resist B-extraction are also antipronominal. infinitives. which are incompatible with B-extractions. (37) a. f. < previous page page_34 next page > If you like this book. b. (40) a. The adverbial contexts are antipronominal.*He is going to stay [(the next) two weeks]1 in Greece but I am going to stay them1 in Spain.*I referred to Frank as it. b. which permit B-extractions.*Italians make them. b. (38) a. PN positions are in general antipronominal. correlating with the impossibility of B-extractions in (19d) and (20d). b. buy it! . (36) a.< previous page page_34 next page > Page 34 and long versions of (9b) correlates directly with that between (36a) and (36b). are not antipronominal.

Later I will point out further complications. b.. who1 is very lovely. wants to . < previous page page_35 next page > If you like this book. b. No attested environments allow B. Marianne1.1 Remarks I have so far tried to support the conclusions in (43). unlike A-extractions. For nonrestrictive relative extraction. Correspondingly. this is unsurprising. Given that pronouns enter into relations with antecedents.< previous page page_35 next page > Page 35 (41) a. b..*Herbert said he gave [a great deal of/some thought]1 to those problems but I know that he didn't give it1 to them. Examples like (42) reveal that the notion ''antipronominal context" is less simple than so far implicitly suggested. 2 (44) a. how can one account for it? 2. the extracted constituent itself is arguably a definite pronoun.4. Each member of E is an antipronominal context.b) suggest that B-extractions. It must specify that a context is antipronominal with respect to certain antecedents of certain types. Assuming that this state of affairs is correct. A-extraction of an NP referring to a building is possible but A-extraction of one referring to a country is not. (43) a.4 Why Are B-Extractions Incompatible with Antipronominal Contexts? 2. Given semantic parallelisms like those in (44).but not A-extraction gaps. wants to .4.. Earlier I documented that from the environment [born in]. 2.*Herbert claimed to have made [(that) (much) headway]1 on the project but he never made it1..but not B-extraction sites. c.2 The Resumptive Pronoun Hypothesis Conclusions (43a. and she1 is very lovely. A large collection of English environments E can contain A. buy it! . have pronominal properties. an adequate notion of antipronominal context ultimately has to be relational. Marianne1. (42) They said Ed was born in [that house]1/Argentina2 but he wasn't born in it1/*it2. that environment is antipronominal with respect to antecedents designating countries but not with respect to those designating buildings.

He availed himself of he opportunity. (45) a. The A/B-extraction distinction falsities Perlmutter's overall claim. Nothing in Ross's framework corresponded exactly to the A/B-extraction distinction. This proposal also offers a straightforward account of (43c). 3 However. an effect that Ross's assumptions had only allowed as a possibility. which was excessively general. buy it! . surface pronouns. b.b) by appealing to invisible pronouns is not original. Recall though that in early transformational studies. a feature I return to below. roughly. The proposal's historical antecedents are too complex to be discussed adequately here. the latter left RPs. This proposal is arguably a key root of what in the work of Chomsky and those he influenced came to be called the trace theory of movement rules. Perlmutter's approach determined pronominal invisibility via a rule applicable only to some pronouns. B-extraction gaps are banned from antipronominal contexts because those gaps actually represent invisible pronouns. But if there were an environment Z that allowed anaphoric pronouns but no nonanaphoric NPs. other than the NP environments that take expletives. which has. only limited importance. extractions were almost uniformly analyzed as displacements of categories by movement transformations.< previous page page_36 next page > Page 36 So special assumptions linking nonrestrictive relative extraction to pro-nominal features might be unnecessary. The pronominal properties of the latter B-extractions can be captured naturally by taking them to be obligatorily associated with RPs in the extraction site. nonrestrictives would not bear much on current concerns. The former reordered constituents from gap positions without leaving anything (other than the null element) in those positions. claim (43c) then follows from the fact that. Z could well permit B- but not A-extraction gaps. which seem to have always been visible. Ross (1967) recognized two types of displacement. In these terms. there are no attested NP environments that preclude nonpronominal NPs. If so. Evidently. the pronouns thereby posited are invisible. She blinked her eyes. Modifying Ross's then standard transformational position. however. an appeal to the pronominal character of the extractee certainly has no general application to topicalization and probably none to clefting. it < previous page page_36 next page > If you like this book. Namely. Perimutter (1972) proposed that all extractions left RPs (called shadow pronouns) in extraction sites. resumptive reflexives. called choppings and copying transformations. Accounting for (43a. or bound pronouns such as those italicized in (45).

< previous page page_37 next page > If you like this book.. developed over many years of work in transformational grammar in terms of Chomsky's GB assumptions. plus extractions from certain islands discussed later. P-gaps (47c). Beyond making substantive claims about language that amount really to the first recognition of B-extractions. 153-171. object deletion (47b). Ross (1967) or Perlmuttter (1972)such pronouns do not arise through movement. and Koster 1987. of definite pronouns in nonextraction structures and then to show that l manifest themselves in extraction structures. 59) Cinque recognizes pronominal characteristics only in the empty operator constructions of the GB literature. Cinque's ideas are also an important forebear of my postulation of B-extractions. n. Cinque's now available work (1990) proposes essentially another extraction typology. Work positing invisible RPs in extraction structures includes Obenauer 1984. Perimutter deserves much credit for apparently being the first to suggest that invisible RPs play a role in extraction constructions. Cinque takes them to manifest what he calls invisible RPs. those involved in object raising (47a). buy it! . Nonetheless. Cinque 1990. The A/B-extraction distinction likewise shows that standard versions of Chomsky's trace theory are wrong in claiming in effect that all extractions are A-extractions. he claims that a range of constructions treated in GB terms as involving extractions do not represent what standard views would analyze in terms of movement and associated traces. Although adopting the overall GB position." (Cinque 1990. say. (46) "This requires a different treatment for the absence of weak crossover effects in topicalization and appositive relatives. 1986. A similar strategy was in effect adopted by Hans-Georg Obenauer in the early 1980s and was also used by Guglielmo Cinque.. 1985. which I regard as true movement constructions leaving a real variable. This was to seek specific properties l. Earlier I used exactly this strategy to show that B-extractions are blocked from anti-pronominal contexts. Perimutter (1972) applied a novel methodology to the domain of extractions. Cinque makes fairly radical proposals internal to that framework.< previous page page_37 next page > Page 37 implied in effect that all extractions are B-extractions. Specifically relevant to present interests. and so on. 199.. although in his termsunlike those of. Rather. But not only did Cinque not recognize the pronominal character of what I have called B- extractions. neither of whom explicitly referred to Perlmutter's earlier proposals. he explicitly denied it. 1992.

< previous page page_38 next page > Page 38 (47) a. Marian1 is easy to please t1. contrary to well-known fact (see (4c) of chapter 1). presence of an RP in the same role as the binder. < previous page page_38 next page > If you like this book.3 Island Sensitivity Postulating invisible RPs in (certain) B-extractions raises an obvious issue with respect to island constraints. [Which part of his body]1 did they photograph t1 after touching (*him on) pg1? 2. A B-extraction like English topicalization is therefore actually an amalgam of at least four elements. I view control minimally as a relation between an antecedent and a pronominal that determines that the latter is not visible. extraction of the RP. His arm1 was too sore to touch (*him on) t1. c. buy it! . c. His arm1 was difficult to touch (*him on) t1. Cinque is surely right to recognize pronominal aspects to these structures. (48) illustrates only with the inalienable possession cases. b. (50) A B-extraction involves a. Marian1. b. (49) The Island Law Only choppings (extractions not involving RPs) are subject to island constraints. (48) a. for one can associate the fact that the RPs posited in B-extractions are invisible with a relation of control between the binder and its RP. A fundamental principle stated by Ross (1967) is the Island Law (see (25) of chapter 3). Every environment supporting the claim that B-extractions are excluded from antipronominal contexts supports a parallel claim for the constructions of (47). extraction of the binder (extractee). It can be assumed that general principles of control require controller and controllee to be in a local relation. c. This will force the RP itself to extract.4. control of the extracted RP by the binder. possibly to the same point as the binder. he hired t1 without first investigating pg1. Therefore. Marian1 is too busy for us to invite t1. positing invisible RPs in B-extraction structures might appear to entail that these are insensitive to island boundaries. 4 d. recognizing invisible RPs in B-extractions need not be incompatible with the conjunction of the Island Law with (4c) of chapter 1. b. Although this complex issue demands far more space than is available here.

< previous page page_39 next page >
Page 39
In such terms, the island sensitivity of, say, topicalization is due not to the binder extraction, which is associated with
an RP in the extraction site, but to the RP extraction, which is not (i.e., which is an A-extraction). Expressed in Ross's
(1967) terms, English topicalization is island-sensitive because it involves chopping of an RP. However, French
topicalization (of direct objects) is not island-sensitive because the associated RP is not extracted.
(51) a. Marcel1, they arrested (*the only woman who ever loved) t1.
b. Marcel1, ils ont arrêté (la seule femme qui /1 'a jamais aimé) t1.
The presence of the unextracted RP represented by the italicized accusative clitic in (5lb) preserves the latter from the
type of island violation seen in the long form of (51a).
2.4.4 Wide versus Narrow Pronominalization Restrictions
So far I have made (among others) claim (52).
(52) An English B-extraction gap cannot appear in an antipronominal context.
This principle predicts the documented incompatibilities between B-extractions and the various antipronominal contexts
attested earlier. However, pronominal restrictions interact with extractions in a more complex way than is specified in
(52). To see this, observe (53).
(53) a.*Katie attends Yale1 but Amanda does not attend it1.
b.*Katie attends Yale1 but Amanda wouldn't even apply to it1.
Apparently, the objects of attend and apply to are antipronominal with respect to NPs designating educational
institutions. However, as (54) illustrates, B-extractions of object NPs with such designations are in general not blocked.
(54) a. Yale1, Katie would never apply to t1/attend t1.
b. It was Yale that1 Katie refused to apply to t1/attend t1.
One reaction to the failure of (54a,b) to manifest tile ill-formedness of (53a,b) would deny the existence of a systematic
connection between antipronominal contexts and extractions. Under that assumption, the data about attend and apply to
pose no problem. The drawback is that the correlations documented earlier reduce to nothing but accidents.
An alternative approach would maintain a systematic connection between antipronominal contexts and blockage of
(among other things)

< previous page page_39 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_40 next page >
Page 40
B-extractions, by differentiating types of antipronominal contexts on the basis of the sorts of constraints that determine
them. The minimal viable categorization would differentiate wide pronominal bans from narrow pronominal bans. A
narrow ban precludes occurrence of a pronoun in a position R only if R is a surface context. That is, a narrow ban
blocks only visible pronouns in surface positions. Since the RPs I have posited in, say, English NP topicalizations are
invisible, (53) can be made compatible with (54) by taking the constraint relevant to the former to be a narrow ban.
Wide bans, on the contrary, block pronouns whether or not they are surface forms and thus apply to both visible and
invisible pronouns. All the antipronominal contexts defining environments in which B-extractions are blocked would
then be defined by wide bans.
Taking wide and narrow bans to define wide and narrow anti-pronominal contexts, respectively, one would replace (52)
by the slightly weaker (55).
(55) An English B-extraction gap cannot appear in a wide antipronominal context.
Although consistent with all the data, the second approach raises the issue of vacuity. Does it amount to anything more
than calling an anti-pronominal context that correlates with a B-extraction blockage a wide antipronominal context and
one that does not, a narrow one?
Although at the moment the answer is negative, this need not lead to (55)'s being vacuous. First, the majority of
antipronominal contexts with which I am familiar seem to be wide. Second, that the narrow/wide anti-pronominal
context distinction is not empty game-playing is shown by correlations. As suggested by (48), the antipronominal
contexts cited earlier are incompatible not only with B-extractions but also with object raising, object deletion, parasitic
gaps, and several other constructions. Notably, the narrow antipronominal context in (53) is, on the contrary,
compatible with all of these.
(56) a. Yale1 would be hard for me to attend t1.
b. Yale1 is too expensive for me to apply to t1.
c. [Which college]1 did she want to attend t1 without applying to pg1?
Thus, the factual content of calling an antipronominal context narrow is that every posited invisible pronoun
construction in the language will be insensitive to it. And specifying an antipronominal context as wide entails

< previous page page_40 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_41 next page >
Page 41
that every invisible pronoun construction is incompatible with it. These considerations suggest that the mild weakening
involved in the narrow/ wide antipronominal context distinction by no means deprives of content claims that
antipronominal contexts and extraction blockages are correlated. If there really were no systematic connection, one
would expect a relatively random distribution of extraction acceptability with respect to antipronominal contexts. But
even in the presence of data like (53) and (54), this is not the observed state of affairs.
2.4.5 Two Types of Definite Pronoun
An apparent exception to my earlier claim that PNs form antipronominal contexts is the italicized environment of (57).
(57) It was her that they hired.
That is, despite (57), the post-be position behaves like a wide anti-pronominal context.
(58) a. Who1 was it t1 that they hired?
b. No one else1 could it have been t1 that they hired.
c.*Karen1, it was t1 that they hired.
d.*I like Karen, who1 it was t1 that they hired t1.
The data in (58) are not counterexamples to any earlier claims. Nonetheless, they seem anomalous in manifesting the
same pattern attributed to wide antipronominal contexts even though they apparently lack such contexts. Thus, they
represent currently unexplained data.
Although this conclusion is quite tentative, (57) suggests the need to further refine the concept "wide antipronominal
context." Suppose that an NP position qualifies as a wide antipronominal context if it excludes what I will refer to as
weak definite pronouns; and suppose the pronoun in (57) is a strong definite pronoun. Although this contrast remains
obscure, its existence is suggested by the properties of it, which I take to be weak, in contrast to those of that, which
(on one analysis anyway) is strong. Example (59) shows that the weak form it is impossible in the context of (57).
(59) It was*it/that that they believed/discussed/denied.
Assuming then that wide antipronominal contexts are defined by the exclusion of weak definite pronouns, the PN
position in (57)/(59) would still be a wide antipronominal context, and (58) would become perfectly regular in terms of
earlier assumptions.

< previous page page_41 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_42 next page >
Page 42
The view just sketched can be interpreted as claiming something like (60).
(60) All RPs are weak definite pronouns.
That (60) is true at least for English can be supported by finding plausible candidates for visible English RPs in certain
contexts and showing that in those contexts the weak pronoun it does not alternate with the strong pronoun that. The
examples in (61) represent what I consider to be such cases.
(61) a. Right dislocation
I like it1/*that1 very much, [your idea]1.
b. Left dislocation
[Your proposal]1, the committee is considering it1/*that1 very seriously.
c. Copy raising
[That idea]1 seems/sounds like it1/*that1 will be very popular.
d. Substandard extraction from islands
He expressed the sort of idea which1 the secret police will arrest you if they hear about it1/*that1.
In each case the environment that excludes that as a putative RP accepts it as an ordinary NP.
Given the facts motivating a weak/strong distinction, it seems plausible that (60) is correct, that only exclusion of weak
definite pronouns defines wide antipronominal contexts, that (57) thus involves a wide anti-pronominal context, and
that the ungrammaticality of (58c,d) therefore follows from principle (55), which depends on the proposed RP analysis
of B-extractions.
2.5 Two Subtypes of A-Extraction
2.5.1 Basics
Recent years have seen extensive discussion of what I refer to as extraction from selective islands. For the phenomena
analyzed in Ross 1967, constituents seem to be either nonislands or absolute islands; they allow all types of constituents
in all functions to be extracted, or none. But since the late 1970s, certain constituents have been observed to be selective
with respect to permissible extractions. Earlier work reprinted in Kayne 1984 revealed what have come to be called
subject-object asymmetries, and

< previous page page_42 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

other facts in the literature support (65). [Which car]1 would you prefer it if I fixed t1? b. 1985. buy it! . Manzini 1992. < previous page page_43 next page > If you like this book.*[How rapidly]1 would you prefer it if I fixed the car t1? There is now a large. (62) a. adjunct extraction is blocked. 3) and (63). Koster 1987. 41). (63) a. Rizzi 1990. I suggest (among other things) the generalization in (65). The only person who1 it's not essential she talk to t1 is Bill. who notices. and no movemententirely different mechanisms than are posited for standard extractions (like (1a-i) of chapter 1) within the GB framework. Cinque 1990. (64) a.*the reason why1 it is essential that I talk to her t1 c. Frampton (1991) notes (without linking the observation to the antipronominal character of the context) that the NP "focused" in an existential there construction cannot be extracted from an embedded question.< previous page page_43 next page > Page 43 Koster (1978a) and Huang (1982) noticed that in the same contexts. factually rich.*How1 is it essential that we fix the car t1? b. 5 A contribution to this literature of special importance from my point of view is made by Cinque (1990). if the extraction site is antipronominal. However. Frampton 1991. at least sporadically. and growing literature on selective islands including Kayne 1984. and Lasnik and Saito 1992. 1986. see (66) (from Frampton 1991. Developing Obenauer's and Cinque's observations. (65) Extraction from a selective island Pi is impossible if the extraction site in Pi is a wide antipronominal context.) Among other considerations. Clear examples are the irrealis if clauses studied by Pullum (1987). b.*The only person who1 it's not essential t1 talk to her is Bill. that extractions from selective islands are banned. the general observation leads Cinque to suggest that extractions from selective islands involve in-visible RPs. Beyond Cinque's (1990) mostly Italian data. even when general principles would otherwise allow them. Obenauer 1984. (Previously mentioned contrasts like that between stayand spend derive from Cinque's observations with respect to their Italian equivalents.*[For whose sake]1 is it essential that Anthony resign t1? The most commonly discussed selective islands are embedded interrogative clauses. there are many others. see (62) (from Kayne 1984.

(70) a. Rizzi observes that idiomatic NPs cannot be extracted from selective islands (without linking this limitation to antipronominal contexts). see (69) (from Rizzi 1990. 42). The irrealis type of selective island is illustrated in (67). 199.< previous page page_44 next page > Page 44 (66) a. principle (65) correctly predicts that pronoun-accepting contexts like that of (57) are not suitable contexts for extraction from selective islands. did they ask her whether she perceived t2 in Sylvia [to retire quite soon]1? Note that a sentence identical to (71) without the infinitival extraposition is grammatical.*What1 did he ask you whether I nicknamed my cat t1? b. (69) a. but not without it. (67)*[How many books]1 would you prefer it if (he believed) there were t1 on the table? Obenauer notes that change-of-color phrases cannot be extracted from interrogative selective islands.*[How many bags]1 do you wonder whether I think there are t1 on the table? Of course. 79). buy it! . b. [What headway]1 do you think you can make t1 on this project? b. (68) a. [What part of the body]1 did they ask you whether he touched (*her on) t1? (71)*[How strong a wish t1]2. I was wondering whether to paint t1 pea green. Principle (65) can provide a further argument justifying the distinction drawn earlier between weak and strong definite pronouns. [How many bags]1 do you wonder whether I think t1 are on the table? b.*What1 did he ask you whether I referred to him as t1? c. < previous page page_44 next page > If you like this book.*[Pea green]1. I was wondering whether to paint this boat t1.*[What headway]1 do you wonder how to make t1 on this project? (70) and (71) show the point for various other cited antipronominal contexts. This explains contrasts like those in (72). n. On the basis of that distinction. as illustrated in (68) (from Obenauer 1985. the position marked t1 in (66b) was shown to be a wide antipronominal context. ?[This boat]1.

Those that require RPs in their extraction sites. As with B-extractions. buy it! . which forbid RPs in their extraction sites The argument for the A1/A2 distinction is this. given (73) and the Island Law. the real situation is at least as differentiated as shown in (74). then without the A1/A2 distinction. (74) L-extraction types a. This view is based on the initially puzzling principle in (73). contrary to Cinque (1990). that the same mechanisms involved in ordinary extractions like those in (1) of chapter I function for selective islands. But such a view is now untenable: a typical successful extraction from a selective island (e. an RP in the extrac-tion site. (73) Selective islands are absolute islands. This approach to selective islands has a specific consequence for A-extractions. However. what is the explanation? I would propose. Earlier sections might have suggested that. these are the A-extractions discussed to this point c. If (65) is a correct principle about selective islands.2 Why A1-Extractions Resemble B-Extractions with Respect to Selective Islands Supposing now that (65) is true. 2. b. the in-visibility of the RP and the sensitivity of the construction to (certain) islands internal to the selective island can be accounted for by claiming that the RPs are extracted and controlled by their binders. whereas a B-extraction obligatorily determines an RP in its extraction site. I don't know who1 (*they asked him whether) it was t1 that he saw. All others. This view accounts directly for principle (65).< previous page page_45 next page > Page 45 (72) a. What1 (*they would have preferred it if) it was t1 that he bought was a Toyota. Given (73). A2-extractions. which allow RPs in their extraction sites ii. One might then conclude that A-extractions differ from B-extractions in not requiring but allowing a RP. an A-extraction obligatorily fails to do so. these are the B-extractions discussed earlier b.5. that is.. (66a)) involves an A- extraction and. all < previous page page_45 next page > If you like this book. A1-extractions. just islands. A-extraction subtypes i.g. the Island Law determines that a constituent can extract from a selective island only if an RP is present.

[No such car]1 would they have preferred it if I had bought t1. there is comparative extraction.What1 would they prefer it if you had bought t1? b. The more stars he dates the more stars (that1) he claims I should date t1.*The more stars he dates the more stars (that1) he would prefer it if I dated t1. Consider also (76). (76) a . e. the things which1 they asked me whether I had seen t1 c. Past work seems to have assumed that this is the case. [Which pilots]1 would you prefer it if she contacted t1? c. (77) a. < previous page page_46 next page > If you like this book. contrasting with cases analyzed as A1-extractions because they do extract from selective islands. So. the pilots Who1 we asked them whether you had contacted t1 b. d.*They agreed to look for more cars than (what1) I would prefer it if you bought t1. which cannot. [No such car]1 did they ever ask whether I had seen t1. buy it! . What1 did they ask you whether you had seen t1? b. [Which pilots]1 did we ask them whether you had contacted t1? c. The NP gaps of certain A-extractions cannot appear internal to selective islands. d. (75) a. whose gaps also seem incompatible with selective islands. What: they asked me whether I had seen t1 was a blue Mercedes-Benz. But it is not.the things which1 they would have preferred it if I had bought t1 c. b.*[whatever pilots]1 we would prefer it if she contacted t1 The ''more the merrier" construction discussed by Ross (1967) is also an A2-extraction. e. (79) a. Another A2-extraction is free relative extraction.*They are looking for more cars than (what1) they asked me whether I had seen t1.< previous page page_46 next page > Page 46 A-extractions (at least of NPs) from the permissible extraction sites of selective islands would be allowed.What1 they would have preferred it if I had bought t1 was a blue Mercedes-Benz. the pilots Who1 we would prefer it if she contacted t1 b. [whatever pilots]1 we (*asked them whether you had) contacted t1 (78) a.

I believe. the extraction linked to no matter + wh. In contrast to A2-extractions. c. they would have preferred it if I had bought t1 The conceptualization suggested here for the A1/A2-extraction contrast accounts for this otherwise anomalous situation. [No matter]1 what they believe that she did t1. b.*[No matter what]1 they asked you whether she did1.. Neither A1.3 Further Diversity Even an analysis of extractions along the lines of (74) is insufficiently ramified. questioning) that it behaves uniformly with respect to RPs in all environments. the following a priori curious situation exists. It cannot be presumed possible to specify for each overall ex-traction construction (e.g. would follow from already specified principles if the informally stated principle in (83) held.. [That car]1.*The more stars he dates the more stars (that1) he asks me whether you have dated t1. But consider (82a-b) (the latter from Heim 1988.. What1 is there t1 on the table? b. (82) a. [That car]1.. (80) a. b. < previous page page_47 next page > If you like this book. A1.*[Whose drink]1 is there t1 on the table? Heim notes that constituents with preposed genitives cannot be question extractees from the "focus" position of an existential there construction. for example..< previous page page_47 next page > Page 47 c. But selective islands group B-extractions with A1-extractions. Yet another is. they never asked me whether I had seen t1.5. B-extraction sites cannot appear in wide antipronominal contexts.and B-extractions are alike but distinct from A2-extractions in that both are compatible with RPs in their extraction sites.. Thus.nor A2-extractions are in general sensitive to the distribution of weak pro-nouns. and their gaps therefore can appear in wide antipronominal con-texts. (81) a.*[No matter what]1 they would prefer it if she did t1.. a wide antipronominal context. So far.. buy it! .. which contrasts with simple question extraction from the relevant context as in (82a).. 32). both can extract from selective islands. I have taken question extraction to fall into category A1. This explanatory success argues that the basic idea of these remarksthat (only certain) L-extractions are linked with invisible RPsis correct. Given characterization (74). The blockage in (82b). 2.

the (only) people who1 there were t1 at the party b. [Whose bodyguard]1 did he become t1? b. Thus. (88) shows that they are. the conditions linking extraction types to the presence of RPs must be more complicated than specifications of the form "Question extraction allows an RP. like the initially troublesome topicalization of (13). (88) a.< previous page page_48 next page > Page 48 (83) Extractees with a preposed genitive wh form obligatorily link to RPs in their extraction sites. not an A1-extraction. though. certain question structures seem to behave like A2-extractions. This states in other terms that in the genitive case. question extraction is a B-extraction. Therefore. They do not. [Whose favorite comedian]1 did she turn into t1? However. the color which1 we painted the cabin t1 b. it entails as well the contrast in (84). principle (83) generalizes from question structures and the particular there context. buy it! . the proposal predicts that relative clause analogs of (86) should be unacceptable. (85) a. however. permit most forms of relativization. (86) a. such cases can possibly be analyzed as involving extraction of a larger constituent containing a PN rather than the PN itself. they would parallel (87). Thus. Moreover. (84) a. Rather." This conclusion is strengthened by the existence of question cases that are neither standard A1-extractions nor B-extractions like those involving preposed genitives.*the doctor [whose favorite color]1 we painted the cabin t1 Initially. (87) [How fond of Mike]1 was Barbara t1? Such a proposal is possible only because predicational phrases permit question extraction. for example. the predictions of (83) seem wrong for PN contexts like (86). Examples (89a-c) present a now expected paradigm.*the rock star [whose bodyguard]1 Ted became t1 b.*the doctor [whose favorite comedian]1 she turned into t1 If anything like (83) is correct. < previous page page_48 next page > If you like this book.*the (only) people [whose parents]1 there were t1 at the party It also predicts the contrast in (85) for the change-of-color antipronominal context.

But that amounts to saying that NP question extraction. (90) a. then the assignment of question extractions to types depends on the internal structure of the questioned NP. [What size steak]1 did he reject the idea of eating t1? b.< previous page page_49 next page > Page 49 (89) a.*[How big]1 he would prefer it if the steak was t1 is unknown. [What size steak]1 will they arrest anyone who eats t1? b. b. probably of type B with preposed genitives. normally of type A1. [Which steak]1 would you prefer it if I ate t1? b. (89b) typical B-extraction behavior. [That steak]1. all three assignments allowed for in (74) being required for some English question extractees. NPs with initial how + adjective cannot antecede RPs. [What size steak]1 did it shock people that he ate t1? b. That is. buy it! . like adjective phrases.*[How big a steak]1 would you prefer it if we ordered t1? (91) a.*[How big]1 they will arrest everyone who says the steak was t1 is unknown. (94) a.*[How big]1 he rejected the idea that the steak was t1 is unknown. < previous page page_49 next page > If you like this book. c. Next consider the contrasts in (90)-(93). (89a) shows typical A1-extraction behavior from a selective island.*[How big a steak]1 will they arrest anyone who eats t1? (92) a.*[How big a steak]1 did it shock people that he ate t1? NP question extraction involving how + adjective seems to be subject to much the same restrictions as a corresponding how + non-NP extraction: neither permits the gap to be separated from the extractee by a selective island boundary.*I ate more steaks than (what1) they would prefer it if you ate t1. If so. [What size steak]1 would you prefer it if we ordered t1? b. is of type A2 in cases like the (b) questions of (90)-(93). where each involves extraction from some selective island.*[How big a steak]1 did he reject the idea of eating t1? (93) a. and (89c) typical A2-extraction behavior. This will follow in current terms if one assumes that. c. I would prefer it if you ate t1 last.

buy it! .< previous page page_i next page > Page i Three Investigations of Extraction < previous page page_i next page > If you like this book.

this. In another terminology also introduced by Ross. designates the proposed natural language universal formulated as (1). as in (2b). formulation has two distinct parts (Grosu 1973). < previous page page_51 next page > If you like this book. 1 Logically. the CSC is an informal restriction on the application of transformational rules. the CSC states that coordinate conjuncts are islands. as illustrated in (2). the Conjunct Constraint. movement rules.g. introduced into grammatical theorizing by Ross (1967). [Which surgeon]1 did they say that Sally dated friends of t1 (*and Claude believed that Gwen was jealous)? Notably." (Ross 1967. then. specifically. [Which surgeon]1 did Sally date friends of t1 (*and hope to date Bob)? c. CSC designates only the constraint against extracting proper subconstituents of conjuncts. Hereafter. as in (2c).) NP conjuncts. see section 3. (2) a. and S conjuncts. buy it! . the CSC generalizes across category types and thus predicts the ill-formedness of (e. VP conjuncts. as in (2a). I regard the part barring the extraction of conjuncts themselves as a separate constraint.1 Background The term Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC). 98-99) As formulated in (1). nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.< previous page page_51 next page > Page 51 Chapter 3 The Status of the Coordinate Structure Constraint 3. no conjunct may be moved. (1) "In a coordinate structure. From here on. [Which surgeon]1 did Sally date friends of t1 (*and a lawyer)? b.3.

buy it! . 1985a. Georgopoulos (1983. But just such a putative refutation is advanced by Lakoff (1986). Marilyn borrow t1. who cites < previous page page_52 next page > If you like this book. For example. it would be remarkable to find the CSC refuted.< previous page page_52 next page > Page 52 Ross (1967) went on to observe that the CSC does not bar extraction from coordinates in which one extractee corresponds to a gap in each conjunct. as I do. 175) states. despite (1). Modulo that. 107) So Ross noted that. 1984a. see Langendoen and Postal 1984) to correct natural language grammars. Against this background. especially on the basis of facts no farther afield than English." Besides the fact that in natural language after natural language.3 As Gazdar (1982. "Numerous island constraints other than the CSC have been proposed in recent years. (3) "There is an important class of rules to which [(l)] does not apply. there are other reasons for attributing to it an unusual degree of confirmation. 87-88). examples like (4) are grammatical. Unfortunately. genuine coun-terexamples to the CSC must have at least the form of single extractions from fewer than all sister conjuncts." (Ross 1967. and Lucille wreck t1? Restricting (1) via (3) can be interpreted as claiming that a coordinate conjunct is an island unless it and each of its co- conjuncts contain extraction sites.4 but the CSC essentially limits relevant Belauan structures just as Ross's principle specifies (see Georgopoulos 1983. Given that. however.b) notes that no other standard island constraints seem to constrain extractions in the Western Austronesian language Belauan (spoken in the Caroline Islands). (4) [Which car]1 did Sally buy t1. few if any of them are as resilient to counterexamples as the CSC is. as in (l). 1984a. 80. so-called across-the-board (ATB) extraction. the CSC seems to have essentially the status Ross (1967) proposed. These are rule schemata which move a constituent out of all the conjuncts of a coordinate structure. all linked to the same extractee. 2 The CSC can be taken to refer to certain sentential properties rather than.b. 1985a. 137. properties of operations of transformations. my impression is that the CSC is widely regarded as the most problem-free syntactic constraint ever discovered. that the CSC expresses an important universal truth about natural languages while denying the relevance of transformations (or even all generative devices. Such a view is necessary for those who believe.

Frank criticized de Gaulle and hence criticized a Frenchman. which do not permit analogs of the sort of extractions he claims refute the CSC. in which one conjunct stands in some kind of logical consequence relation to preceding conjuncts. They are respectively illustrated in (5). He refers to them as the A. [How many dogs]1 can a person have t1 and still stay sane? c. All the cases in (5) manifest a semantic relation between their conjuncts that. logical coordination. among other things. and C scenarios (hereafter.6 Lakoff (1986) does not cite D-Ss. the first involves examples of a type already cited by Ross (1967. the second involves data discovered by Goldsmith (1985) and also taken by him to involve incompatibility with the CSC. B. the stuff which1 Arthur sneaked in and stole t1 b. conjunct order is semantically irrelevant. call it a D-S. I informally refer to all such constructions as linear. The Ss in (5) are asymmetrical linear structures. Consider (6). differentiates them from the most typical structures subject to the CSC. (7) a. buy it! . I abbreviate scenario by S). But in other types of linear structures. order does play a role. Although for simplicity I use Lakoff's terminology for the structures of (5).< previous page page_53 next page > Page 53 three classes of English data as counterexemplifying the CSC. his categories might seem to treat the relevant VP structures as indivisible wholes. 103-104). That is the drug which1 athletes take t1 and become quite strong. Oedipus hugged Jocasta and consequently hugged his own mother. These examples instantiate a linear structure. (5) a. In logical coordination. This permits seeing key aspects of the differences in (5) and those between any of (5) and ordinary symmetrical logical coordination as relational. To avoid question-begging.*It was de Gaulle who1 Frank criticized t1 and hence criticized a Frenchman. but not the only ones. As Lakoff notes. 5 and the third is represented by observations attributed to Peter Farley. in that distinct conjuncts are linked by asymmetrical relations. < previous page page_53 next page > If you like this book. b. But it would probably be more accurate to pick out particular conjuncts as having crucial properties. b.*It was a Frenchman who1 Frank criticized de Gaulle and hence criticized t1. (6) a. But D-Ss illustrate the sense in which a characterization of linear structures as Ss hinges on the relational features of particular conjuncts.

perhaps the B-S and C-S types (see (9b)). bought t1. still died. What appears to define a B-S is that one conjunct represents a state of affairs that might be regarded as "unexpected" given the state of affairs represented by the preceding conjunct. The status of the second and third conjuncts is less clear. that between the second and third is of the A-S type. still died. it is useful to have names for the defining conjunct types. "the and here . ?the antidote which1 Frank drank t1. minimally." Finally. and interrupted the wedding Since Ss seem to be characterized by specific relations between conjuncts of special types. Lakoff (1986. As Goldsmith (1985. In (9b) the second < previous page page_54 next page > If you like this book. Lakoff 1986). In (9a) the first conjunct is an A-conjunct and the fourth a B-conjunct. buy it! . in which. still remain sane. bought t1.. the antidote which1 Frank went to the store. could be paraphrased as 'and nonetheless'. this hardly begins to capture what is essential to these structures. It is also possible to mix the A-S and C-S types (see (9a)). Of course. and D-conjuncts. I will speak of A-conjuncts. Consistent with their relational character.< previous page page_54 next page > Page 54 A-Ss manifest a relation between a conjunct (e. drank t1. and interrupted the wedding c. which is somewhat obscure (for relevant discussion. in a C-S the state of affairs represented by one conjunct causes the state of affairs represented by the following conjunct. Later I will show that such constituents differ from the clear initial A-conjunct in syntactic ways.. drank t1. the first in (5a)) and the one that follows it. and survived the poisoning b.g. (8) [How many courses]1 can you take t1 for credit. and in (6a) the second conjunct is a D-conjunct. the conjuncts of a single S need not be homogenous with respect to S types. 153) cites (8) as a mixed A/B-S. see Deane 1991. Na and Huck 1992. ?the antidote which1 Frank went to the store. B-conjuncts.. In (5a) the first conjunct is an A-conjunct. and get all As in t1? The relation between the second and first VP conjuncts is of the B-S type. C-conjuncts. and perhaps all three types (see (9c)). in (5c) the second conjunct is a C-conjunct. the first must characterize an event/state of affairs temporally preceding that characterized by the second. 133) puts it. in (5b) the second conjunct is a B-conjunct. (9) a.

First.8 Lakoff's (1986) A/B/C-Ss do not all fail to counterexemplify the CSC for the same reasons. Second. so far as syntax alone is concerned. I argue that B/C-Ss are consistent with the CSC because they are not properly analyzed as coordinate structures in the sense referenced by the CSC. The reason why A-Ss are consistent with the CSC is more involved. Lakoff overlooks a range of properties and restrictions characterizing the A-S extraction structures he cites as counterexamples to the CSC. I suggest. you must extract it from all of them. However.2. and the fifth a C-conjunct. Na and Huck 1992). he takes the CSC to be specified entirely by chapter 4 of Ross 1967 (i. 7 The status of the second and third conjuncts is as in (9a). the fourth a B-conjunct. Despite the apparently severe problems they raise for the CSC. Lakoff does not properly determine what the CSC claims. I argue that none of the data Lakoff cites refute it. It is just not true that if you extract an element from one conjunct." (Lakoff 1986. Once these factors are uncovered. on a theoretical level. This seemingly paradoxical claim is clarified in section 3. on a factual level. Lakoff reaches the following conclusion: (10) It should be clear that the coordinate structure constraint simply does not exist as a purely syntactic phenomenon. as they parallel oversights regarding different structures characteristic of much other work (see appendix A). 13. So far as VP conjunctions are concerned. it can be argued that none of the A-S data cited by Lakoff are in fact counterexamples to the CSC as properly understood because all A-S conjuncts are islands. The conclusion that A-Ss counterexemplify the CSC is. From the data regarding A/B/C-Ss. extraction is permitted from any or all conjuncts. my goal here is to show that conclusion (10) is erroneous. These oversights are of more general significance.. nor do any other English data that I known of. An important aspect of my claims about A-Ss is that they are consistent with the CSC whether they are analyzed as truly coordinate or not. based on two types of misstep. 156) Certain later discussions apparently accept this view (see Deane 1991.e. < previous page page_55 next page > If you like this book. by my (1) + (3)). buy it! .< previous page page_55 next page > Page 55 conjunct is a B-conjunct and the third a C-conjunct. In effect. ignoring that in chapter 6 Ross imposes a further general subrestriction on all island constraints. In (9c) the first is an A-conjunct.

via the CSC. Nonetheless.< previous page page_56 next page > Page 56 3. bought t1.2. Hence. Since the conjunction of steps (c) and (d) contradicts step (e). It is also essentially the view of Pauline Jacobson. which is a coordinating conjunction in other cases.1 The Logic of the Case Apparent A-S counterexamples to the CSC are typified by (11). Is there a basis independent of apparent CSC violations for denying that the elements of A-Ss are really coordinate? Consider what evidence suggests to the contrary that these constructions manifest genuinely coordinate constituents. b. Various pieces of evidence indicate that the four VPs in (11) are coordinated. and gave t1 to Greta Lakoff appears to reason from such data as follows: 9 (12) Logic of Lakoff's argument from A-Ss against the CSC a. e. (11) the cheese which1 Frank drove to the store. A-Ss would trivially satisfy the CSC in just the way every other noncoordinate structure does. The second and fourth (VP) conjuncts of (11) contain extraction gaps bound by an extractee external to those conjuncts. Therefore. But the basic property of an island I is that it cannot contain an extraction gap linked to an extractee external to I. all the conjuncts in (11) are islands. d. which functions as a coordinating conjunction in uncontroversial coordinate cases. This was in effect the position that Lakoff took in 1967 in the face of then sporadic observations of A-Ss and that Ross (1967. went home.2 A-Scenarios 3. whose informal suggestion Lakoff (1986) criticizes in an appendix (see also Na and Huck 1992). If premise (12a) could properly be rejected. It would be natural to attempt to avoid conclusion (12f) by rejecting the view that the apparently coordinate structures of A-Ss are really coordinate. < previous page page_56 next page > If you like this book. Moreover. Ross's exclusionary stipulation (3) is not relevant. (13) The cheese which1 Frank went to the store but didn't buy t1 later spoiled. First is the presence of and. c. That is. 103-104) adopted. buy it! . the CSC is false. one could quarrel with assumption (12a). f. A-Ss can contain but. these constituents do not instantiate full ATB extraction since the first and third conjuncts contain no extraction sites.

there do appear to be some initial grounds for taking A-Ss to represent true coordination. or gave t1 to Greta < previous page page_57 next page > If you like this book.1th. that does not hold for A-Ss. 152). and had to pay for t1 b. which involve multiple conjuncts. is neither straightforward nor well spelled out. 153) states that "[t]he very existence of across-the-board extraction in such cases shows that true conjunction is required. grabbed a five dollar bill.. the ''recursive" possibilities of cases like (11) seem to be the same as those of unquestioned coordinations: the number of conjuncts is expandable without limit. the book which1 she went to the library. the and in A-Ss is subject to the same principles governing its nonappearance on some conjuncts in unquestioned coordinate forms. For instance. took out his wallet. and had to pay for t1 Fourth. but if absent from the kth. and can but need not be absent from all but the last conjunct. took a shower." However. the discovery of the unlimited iterability of A-Ss seems to have been decisive for his conclusion that they are coordinate and hence that the attested extractions from (certain) A-S conjuncts counterexemplify the CSC." But the logic of this aspect of Lakoff's argument. 13) with respect to cases like (14) as follows: "The crucial evidence lies in sentences like .< previous page page_57 next page > Page 57 Second. 10 Nonetheless. . (14) the cheese which1 Harry went to the store. partially summed up by Deane (1991. and then ate t1 For Lakoff (1986. as Lakoff notes. and comma intonation before the conjunction each of which is.. and defaced t1.*the book which1 she went to the library.. a direct indication of coordinate structure. went home. (15) a.. as in (11). Third. bought t1. buy it! . there are also arguments to the contrary. went home. tried to steal t1.. (and) defaced t1. whereas the standard coordinate conjunction and can generally alternate with the disjunctive form or. bought t1. First. yielding apparently "fiat" bracketings. (16)*the cheese which1 Frank went to the store. a claim that the mere presence of (partial) ATB extraction in cases like (11) indicates coordinate status. Lakoff (1986. (and) tried to steal t1. it must also be absent from the k . across-the-board extraction from several of the conjuncts.

There are tense restrictions. b. the dress which1 Jacqueline (*both) went to Sears and bought t1 Although (21a) is grammatical with both. But (18) yields a good sentence. as Lakoff (1986) observes. The second conjunct cannot be negative. if still is inserted before the auxiliary. It precludes VPs with modals or other nonfinite complement-taking verbs. (19)*the cheese which1 Frank went to the store. the A-S extractions putatively refuting the CSC are possible only with VP conjunction.) S conjunction. they went home. Ross (1967. the quantifier both. Ross offers (18). properties whose recognition he attributes to Lakoff. correlating with the impossibility of extraction in (21b) in the presence of the quantifier.< previous page page_58 next page > Page 58 Second. [What model Cadillac]1 could Ernest want to come down and (*want/expect to) drive t1? Fourth. 11 (21) a. the book which1 Gail will drive there and (*will) borrow t1 b. Jacqueline (both) went to Sears and bought a new dress. (20) a. is impossible in A-Ss. Third. possible with true coordinate (VP) structures. I believe. c.g. despite the cross-categorial generality of the CSC illustrated in (2). For example. and not with (e. buy it! . that version is not interpretable as an A-S. The main verb of the second conjunct must be nonstative. b. A further restriction partially paralleling that observed by Goldsmith (1985) for B-Ss (see the discussion of (104)) seems to require that the VPs involved be minimal. (17) a. compare (11) and (19). [What model Cadillac]1 do you think that Ernest might come down and (*might/*should) drive t1? c. < previous page page_58 next page > If you like this book. (18)*The shirts which I went to the movies and didn't pick up will cost us a lot of money. a limitation to VP conjunction is not nearly delicate enough. and it certainly yields one if and is replaced by but. 103-104) cites several properties of A-Ss by which they differ from unchallenged coordinate cases. his wife bought t1. and we gave t1 to Greta Moreover. As evidence for (17b).

it doesn't matter at all. copying rules are not. it is both inconsistent with the system developed in Ross 1967 and arguably false. then the event depicted by C1 predates that depicted by C2. But for my limited purposes here. My defense of the CSC does not appeal to rejecting the coordinate character of A-Ss. they fail to yield genuine counterexamples to the CSC. see note 2. That is so because argument (12) contains a theoretical flaw independent of step (12a). But with that form. This need not hold of true coordinations. (23) the wine and beer which1 Jack and Bob will go to the store and buy t1 (* respectively) Without respectively. This flaw is linked to step (12e). then an RP occurs in js extraction site. Deane 1991). What Ross actually said was: (25) "Chopping rules are subject to the constraints . 12 Specifically.< previous page page_59 next page > Page 59 Fifth. A-Ss do not have interwoven dependency correspondents. if conjunct C1 precedes conjunct C2. (22) Chris (either) will go to the mall tomorrow or bought the cassette yesterday. Given that examples like (11) do not involve visible RPs. a chopping rule was an extraction associated either with nothing or with the null element in the extraction site. (24) Extraction from any island (hence from a coordinate island) is absolutely banned. If the core of view (25) is correct. whereas a copying rule was one associated with an RP in the extraction site. unlike true coordinations. it is unclear whether A-Ss involve coordination in the sense referred to by the CSC. see Schmerling 1975. Na and Huck 1992. it cannot be concluded that nothing can extract from an island.13 a Rather. buy it! . the strongest inference possible is that if a constituent to extracts from an island. 257) For Ross. I argue instead that even if A-S constituents are coordinate in the relevant sense.. (23) can be interpreted as an A-S. it must be interpreted as a true coordination.. which bars extraction. this weaker conclusion < previous page page_59 next page > If you like this book. which has evidently been interpreted to mean (24)." (Ross 1967. Although (24) may look innocuous. Sixth. A-S conjuncts evidently have semantic properties distinct from those of conjuncts in ordinary conjunction cases (in addition to Lakoff 1986. Given all these factors.

and what many in the GB tradition have called extraction from weak islands or long movement. at best. Involved are constituents that seem to behave with respect to extractions partly like nonislands (because they permit some extractions) and partly like islands (because many constituent types extractable from "normal" nonislands are not extractable from these). nor. if (26) were a true principle of natural language. The logic is thus that in. if the constituent bought t1 is taken to be coordinate. In the absence of a principle requiring that RPs be visible surface forms.e.2 Selective Islands There is now a rich literature on what Culicover (1990) called strange extractions. Were the CSC true. the CSC claims that it is an island.2.< previous page page_60 next page > Page 60 would of course reduce in the A-S case to the stronger one implicitly assumed by Lakoff. their conjuncts can viably be considered islands. has any other author. in effect ignoring Ross's proviso (25). for example. having a hidden. Moreover. his (1986) argument against the CSC based on A-Ss is unfinished. A-Ss remain consistent with the CSC. a genuine refutation of the CSC from A-Ss would have to argue that an appeal to invisible RPs in the relevant cases fails. (11). such a constituent could not then exist. Space considerations preclude giving this topic the attention < previous page page_60 next page > If you like this book. good evidence can be found that extractions from A-S conjuncts do depend on the presence of nonphonetic RPs. 3. Thus. which claims that an extraction from an island is ill formed only if it fails to link to an RP in the extraction site. Therefore. despite the well- formedness of examples like (11). Lakoff (1986) attempted no such demonstration. is untenable. to my knowledge. it is referred to as extraction from selective islands. surface pronouns). The flaw is that no demonstration has been provided that the relevant (VP) constituents are not islands. 14 Lakoff's claimed refutation of the CSC from A-Ss amounts to instantiating coordinated constituents that are not islands. what I elsewhere (Postal 1990c)called weird extractions. since. the putative refutation concludes. the CSC is false. (12e). In chapter 2 and in Postal and Baltin 1994. unjustified premise.. (26) All (resumptive) pronouns are visible (i. But there is overwhelming evidence against (26). The argument from A-Ss is then not completable. buy it! . Lakoff's discussion implicitly takes it as self-evident that a constituent permitting any grammatical extraction is a nonisland. be cause one of its key premises.

or predicafional phrases. the person who1 I asked them whether (they believed) Carla tickled t1 b. Suffice it to say that various constructions permit what appear to be ordinary extractions. Manzini 1992). A radically different perspective was of course presented in chapter 2. the person who1 I asked them whether Carla played with t1 d. The constraints in (27a.*the person who1 I asked them whether (they believed) t1 tickled Melissa c. (29) Interrogative clauses a. C is not reflexive. roughly. Cinque 1990.18 e. Frampton 1991. a position that accepts (some) NPs but not weak definite pronouns. Clausal complements of (certain) nouns In general. then a. buy it! . Rizzi 1990.19 As explicated in chapter 2. not finite subjects. (28) a. respectively.< previous page page_61 next page > Page 61 it merits (for recent discussions in the GB framework. Lasnik and Saito 1992. an AC is.b) lead to contrasts such as those illustrated for types (28a-e) in (29)-(33). S is not a finite subject position. NP objects extract from these constituents but (subject to the remarks about PPs in note 15) nothing else canhence. Setting aside certain cases of prepositional phrase (PP) extraction. adverbials. Interrogative clauses b. 153-159. see Koster 1987.*the person [with whom]1 I asked them whether Carla played t1 < previous page page_61 next page > If you like this book. d. The great variety of English selective islands includes the types in (28). S is not an antipronominal context (AC). but only subject to conditions not otherwise generally limiting extractions. These conditions properly include the following: (27) Conditions on extraction from selective islands If a constituent C external to a selective island V is extracted from site S internal to V.16 b. C is not inherently unpassivizable. Complements of factive predicates like regret d.17 c. esp. Irrealis if complements (see Pullum 1987) c. 15 C is an NP. Rationale clauses e.

the person who1 I regret that Carla played with t1 d.*[Which doctor]1 did he formulate a plan to prove t1 had betrayed Joan? c. the person [with whom]1 (*I regret that) Carla played t1 e. c. The language-designating object of the preposition in after speak < previous page page_62 next page > If you like this book. b. only the first of which was previously discussed (in chapter 1). e. [Which doctor]1 did he formulate a plan to prove Joan had betrayed t1? b.< previous page page_62 next page > Page 62 (30) Irrealis if complements a. the person who1 I regret (that) Carla tickled t1 b. The object of manner-of-speaking verbs like grunt and whine c. He gave those proposals/them that much thought/*it. as well as the ones listed in (35). Mary was born in Bosnia/*in it.*the nurse who1 I would prefer it if t1 hired you c.*[With which scientist]1 did Ed go to England (in order) to consult t1? c.*How1 did Ed go to England á(in order) to treat Louise t1ñ? (33) Clausal complements of nouns a.*the person who1 I regret t1 tickled Melissa c.*the reason why1 I regret that he resigned t1 (32) Rationale clauses a. She became a lawyer/*it/*her last year. [Which scientist]1 did Ed go to England (in order) to consult with t1? b. some of which are illustrated in (34). buy it! . (where it designates a country) d. (34) a. There are gorillas/* them in the meadow. f. the way [in which]1 (*I would prefer it if) you behaved t1 d.*How1 did he formulate a plan to prove áSarah treated the baby t1ñ? Condition (27c) takes on substance given the English ACs discussed in chapter 2.*Where1 would you prefer it if we lived t1? (31) Complements of factives a. the person who1 I would prefer it if you hired t1 b. He dyed his beard green/that color/*it. They canceled many flights/*them last year to Cuba. (35) a. The object of the verb tell (='determine') b.

The general point was already partly documented in chapter 2 and is documented further here.*What1 do you most regret that she became t1? f.*[What country]1 did he ask you whether she was born in t1? d. If (27c) is correct.*[How many flights]1 did he ask you whether they canceled t1 last year to Cuba? g. buy it! . b.*[What color]1 did he ask you whether Melissa dyed her hair t1? c. < previous page page_63 next page > If you like this book.*[What country]1 did he regret that she was born in t1 ? d. c. (38) a.*[What sort of gorilla]1 did he ask you whether there was t1 in the meadow? b. If you know the name.*That's what1 they asked me whether he grunted t1. h.*That is the language which1 they probably regret they were speaking in t1. and they could determine/*tell it.*[How much thought]1 did he regret that you gave those proposals t1 ? e.*What1 they asked me whether I could tell t1 was whether he was a vampire.*[How many flights]1 did he regret that they canceled t1 to Cuba? g.*He knows the language that1 they asked me whether we were speaking in t1. then say/*grunt it.*[How much thought]1 did he ask you whether you gave those proposals t1 ? e.*[What sort of gorilla]1 did he regret (that) there was t1 in the meadow? b.*What1 do you most regret that you couldn't tell t1? h. They said they could determine/tell how he did it. (37) a.*What1 they really regret that he grunted t1 was "To hell with the president. by utilizing in (37) and (38) the selective islands illustrated respectively in (29) and (31). for the ACs of both chapter 2 and (35). i.< previous page page_63 next page > Page 63 (35a-c) are respectively illustrated by the contrasts in (36a-c).*What1 did he ask you whether she became t1? f. He said the delegates were speaking in Thai and they were speaking in that language/*it. (36) a. none of these ACs should be possible sites for extraction from selective islands." i.*[What color]1 did he regret that Melissa dyed her hair t1? c.

It is herself1 (*who1 I would prefer it if) you talked to Jane1 about t1.*the doctor who1 they asked me whether Abigail mattered to t1 b. b. (43) a. c. Themselves1.< previous page page_64 next page > Page 64 Continuing to focus on the relevance of the constraints in (27) to extraction from selective islands. Condition (27e). e.*the rocks which1 she went to Bhutan in order to feel t1 move e. (39) a. linking extraction from selective islands to the passivizability of the extracted NP. the passivization constraints show up in selective island extraction. b. The victims matter to the doctor.*The victims were mattered to by the doctor. (*I regret that) you talked to the applicants1 about t1. they (*formulated a plan to) talk to Louise1 about t1.*the rocks which1 I regret that she felt t1 move d. (*they asked me when) I talked to Harry1 about t1. (42) a. (41) a. This accounts for facts like those in (39). In each case the unpassivizable NPs are extractable in ordinary environments. is designed to account for the fact that restrictions like those in (40) and (41) manifest themselves (among other things) as constraints on selective island extraction. let us turn to condition (27d).*the doctor who1 I regret that Abigail matters to t1 d.*the doctor who1 they would prefer it if Abigail mattered to t1 c. Abigail felt the rocks move.*The rocks were felt move by Abigail. d.*the rocks which1 they asked me whether Abigail felt t1 move b. I never (*went there (in order) to) talk to Jane1 about t1. buy it! . b. Himself1. What1 did they say that she felt t1 move? b. Herself1.*the doctor who1 they formulated a plan to make Abigail matter to t1 < previous page page_64 next page > If you like this book. as (43) and (44) illustrate for each of the five selective island types in (28). Who1 did she say the victims mattered to t1? But.*the rocks which1 she formulated a plan to feel t1 move (44) a. (40) a. Herself1.*the doctor who1 Abigail had a nose job in order to matter to t1 e.*the rocks which1 I would prefer it if you felt t1 move c.

Selective islands are islands.< previous page page_65 next page > Page 65 Facts like those in (37) and (38) raise a question: (45) Why is extraction from selective islands sensitive to ACs? Following the basics of the analysis in chapter 2.g.21 In these terms.23 < previous page page_65 next page > If you like this book. and P-gap structures. extraction contrasts between strict and selective islands depend not on differences in islandhood per se but. as touched on in chapter 1. these can be taken as conditions on a certain type of (nonsubject) control characteristic not only of selective islands but also of (among other things) object raising. (47) Those conjuncts of A-Ss [that permit extractions] are selective islands (hence.22 Of course. a condition that can be formulated as requiring that they be controlled. buy it! . I suggest. as claimed in (46a). they should in general obey constraints on visible (weak) pronouns and hence be banned from ACs. some English-particular condition must guarantee that the posited RPs can only be invisible. 20 c. object control. Thus. extractions from A-Ss. a control view of the invisibility of the posited RPs in selective island extraction offers a reason why such extraction is subject to conditions (27a. extraction from a selective island is possible only when an RP is present in the extraction site. given Ross's principles. Although space considerations prevent discussion. on the principles determining that the RPs posited in (46b) are invisible. The portion of Lakoff's (1986) critique of the CSC based on A-Ss fails because it ignores the key fact in (47). I propose that these principles are subsumed under the more general control phenomenon.b. the essential answer is as follows: (46) a. Namely.. an English parenthetical phrase) that is not a selective island fails to be such because it precludes the kind of control (of RPs) characteristic of selective island extraction. Therefore. see note 8 of chapter 1.2.e) as well. whether visible or not. This is the type of control referred to as EXCB in chapter 1. islands).d.3 A-Scenario Conjuncts as Selective Islands Let us return to the central point. an island (e. b. 3. This need not concern us here. Since RPs are (weak) pronouns. it follows that.

the stuff which1 Harry went to the store. by implication. Condition (27b) also governs extractions from A-Ss. ate it. ate it. come home. ?*[Which store]1 did he go to t1 and buy groceries? b. although certain A-S conjuncts permit extractions.*What1 did he pick up t1 and call me? More generally. went home. b.c. and) talk to that student t1? (51) [Very fat]1 though Nora (*went to Italy. (I owe (53b) to Peter Culicover (personal communication. went home. Differences between NP extractions from A-Ss (satisfying principles (27b. thus. only NPs and PPs (subject to the remarks of note 15) can be extracted from A-S conjuncts.*the store which1 Harry went to t1. ate a lot. not from the first 24 (see also Na and Huck 1992.25 For example. compare (48a) and (48b) (from Deane 1991.e)) and others are revealed by the NP and non-NP extractions in (50)-(52). [To which student]1 did Nora (*go to the drugstore. (52) [Interviewed by Myra]1.*the store which1 Harry bought stuff.. and ate it. buy it! . (49) a. and) became t1. those are subject to conditions (27a-e) and hence are selective island extractions. Harry went to the store. talk to t1 for an hour? b. bought t1. bought stuff. Specifically. 260). bought something. extraction is possible only from non-A-conjuncts. and ate t1 c.26 (50) a.d. went home. it is not surprising that the extractee in every A-S extraction cited by Lakoff (1986) is an NP. extraction is possible from the second conjuncthence. 4 December 1990). [Which student]1 did Nora (go to the drugstore. and returned to t1 for more However. [How long]1 did Nora (*go there.. got drunk.< previous page page_66 next page > Page 66 The bracketed clause in (47) is motivated by the fact implicit in Lakoff's (1986.) (53) a. come home. come home and). and) talk t1 for an hour? c. Edgar (*went home.. and returned to t1 for more d. Who1 did you (go right up to the stage and) prove Mary had betrayed t1? < previous page page_66 next page > If you like this book. 24). (48) a. 152) remark that in a binary A-S. and) refused to (allow himself to) be t1.

[What type of vampire]1 did Chris (*move to Transylvania. and) claim he was born in h1? d. [How many flights]1 did they (*get drunk. [What sort of thing]1 did the lunatic (*rush into the lounge and) grunt t1? i. [What color]1 did she (*fly to Vancouver and) dye her hair t1? c. Who1 did Greta (*rush home and) claim to matter very much to t1? < previous page page_67 next page > If you like this book. and) give those proposals t1? e.< previous page page_67 next page > Page 67 b. Herself1. Extraction sites in A-Ss cannot be any of the ACs illustrated in (34) or (36). Who1 did you (*go right up to the stage and) prove t1 had betrayed Bill? (54) a. Jane (*went home and) talked to Ed1 about t1. [What country]1 did Mike (*go bar hopping. h. waved his arms. drive home.) waved his arms. [How many gorillas]1 did he (*run in and) claim there were t1 in the meadow? b.*the immigrants who1 the district attorney (jumped up. (56) a. and) claimed she defrauded t1 b. Finally. the passivizability restrictions that limit extraction from other selective islands (27e) also constrain extraction from A-Ss. buy a castle. What1 Mike could (*use a microscope and) easily tell t1 was that the specimen was dead. A-S extraction is subject to condition (27c). Himself1. b. [What language]1 did the delegates (*dash outside and) speak in t1? Condition (27d) also limits A-S extraction. and) claimed t1 defrauded her Most strikingly. drive home. the immigrants who1 the district attorney (jumped up. see (ic) of note 23. [How much thought]1 did they (*get drunk. Jane (*rushed in and) claimed (that) Mary had talked to Harry1 about t1. and) turn into t1? f. c. What1 did she (*climb up there and) feel t1 move? b. I never (*went to her bedside and) described Ida1 to t1. buy it! . Himself1. and) cancel t1 to Cuba? g. (57) a. (55) a.

those conjuncts of A-Ss that permit extraction again qualify as selective islands. There I claimed that English NP extractions divide into the types in (58) with respect to their compatibility with RPs. NP clefting An implication of categorization (58) is that A1. (60) a.and B-extractions but not A2-extractions. Who1 would you prefer it if they hired t1? b. b. Melvin1. under my assumption that extraction from selective islands depends on RPs.*He could interview [whatever waiters]1 you would go to Ottawa in order to hire t1. A1-extractions: question extraction. d. restrictive relative extraction b. A1-extractions permit RPs in their extraction sites. (58) Categories of English NP extractions a.*He could end up contacting more waiters than (what1) I could go to Ottawa in order to hire t1. Assignments of extractions to the categories in (58) include the following: (59) a. I would go to Ottawa in order to hire t1.< previous page page_68 next page > Page 68 Further evidence that the conjuncts of A-Ss are selective islands. A2-extractions: comparative extraction. buy it! . A further consequence. B-extractions require RPs in their extraction sites. c. showing that questioning (A1-extraction) and topicalization (B-extraction) are possible from such islands. is that such extractions can be of type A1 or type B but never of type A2. independent of conditions (27a-e). free relative extraction c. Here I extend documentation to the selective island types of (30) and (32). whereas B- extractions are not. Who1 did they go to Ottawa in order to hire t1? b. c.*He could end up hiring more waiters than (what1) I would prefer it if he hired t1. for they allow A1. < previous page page_68 next page > If you like this book. In chapter 2 I argued that these consequences are in general correct. d. I would prefer it if they didn't hire t1.*He could interview [whatever waiters]1 you would prefer it if he hired t1. but not comparative formation or free relative (A2-extraction). A2-extractions preclude RPs in their extraction sites. B-extractions: NP topicalization. By the criteria just enunciated.and A2-extractions are both compatible with ACs. (61) a. c. derives from observations developed in chapter 2. Melvin1.

< previous page page_69 next page > Page 69 (62) a. and) squirted t1. b. < previous page page_69 next page > If you like this book. (63) a. and) visiting pg1. b. A different type of evidence indicates that ASs are selective islands rather than nonislands. returned home. (65) a. I document this point with the selective island types illustrated in (31) and (32). and P-gap constructions. c. b. drive 300 miles. the police broke in and arrested t1. and squirt t1? b. Jane1 is too rich for people to believe/*regret that you dated t1. c.*It was Jane who1 he fired t1 after calling Louise in order to locate Pg1. returned home.*Jane1 is hard to get people to go to England in order to consult t1. (66) a. Jane1 is too reclusive for us to (*jump in the car. [Those suspects]1. It was those people who1 Frank went to the store. buy a water pistol. Miles interrogated fewer suspects than (what1) the police (*broke in and) arrested t1. and) squirted t1. (67) a. Jane1 will be hard to (*go to England and) contact t1. go home. Jane1 is hard to believe people think/*regret that you have dated t1. Ed interviewed more people than (what1) Frank (*went to the store. bought a water pistol. and squirted t1. It was Jane who1 he hired h despite believing/*regretting that you had dated pg1. bought a water pistol. buy it! . [Which neighbors]1 did Frank go to the store. object deletion. (64) a. and) visit t1. bought a water pistol.*Jane1 is too reclusive to get people to go to England in order to consult t1. b. d. This depends on the fact that other selective islands behave like islands in blocking the object-raising. Ed counseled [whatever people]1 Frank (*went to the store. [Which suspects]1 did the police break in and arrest t1? b. driving 300 miles. It was Jane who1 he hired t1 after (*jumping in the car. c. Miles interrogated [whatever suspects]1 the police (*broke in and) arrested t1. returned home. d. And A-Ss also block these constructions.

A-Ss behave exactly like other selective islands.''licensed" "affective" forms including any and ever is partially controlled by islands (see (68)). Nobody believed that Frank (went home and) drank some beer. b. or the special indefinites is separated from them by an island boundary. 255). as initially noted by Ross (1967.< previous page page_70 next page > Page 70 In blocking the object-raising. Nobody bought a camera because he planned to spy on someone/*anyone.2. b. < previous page page_70 next page > If you like this book. Nobody believed that Isabelle was married to the guy who had (*ever) studied Turkish. By this criterion. A second type of independent support for the island character of A-Ss also derives from work by Ross (see Ross 1971 as well as Hooper and Thompson 1973 and Authier 1992). Ted did not (*enter the restaurant because he planned to) eat a bite. the distribution of certain negative. Nostradamus predicted that [these golfers]1. Nobody believed that Frank ran out. 3. Certain indefinites like say a word and eat a bite are similarly restricted (see Schmerling 1970 and (69)). d. buy it! . c. islands. the non-A-conjuncts of A-Ss are islands. (70) a. c. In the ungrammatical cases. Nobody believed (*the claim) that Isabelle would say a word. First. (71) a. and (*ever) gave them to Lois. Nobody believed that Frank (*went home and) drank any beer. object deletion. (68) a. 272). Nobody believed (*the claim) that Isabelle had ever studied Turkish. ever. via principle (46a). (69) a.4 Nonextraction Evidence Several types of evidence independent of extraction phenomena support the conclusion that those conjuncts of Lakoff's A-Ss that permit extraction are selective islands and hence. Nobody believed that Frank would (*go back and) say a word. bought some flowers. the negative "licenser" of any. c. Ross observes that topicalization is impossible in many embedded contexts in English (see (71) (from Ross 1971) as well as Ross 1967. Ted did not buy the camera so that you could spy on someone/*anyone. and P-gap constructions. b. Spiro would only wound t1.

namely. selective islands are islands. when it is preverbal. This is illustrated for the type in (28b) by (74). (77) a. you contacted t1 directly. topicalization cannot occur inside an island28 By this criterion. Harry sat down. Jean made the proposal that we try to fire Glen.*Jean made the proposal that Glen1. c. A third type of support independent of selective island extraction for the claim that A-Ss are islands depends on negative polarity items such as < previous page page_71 next page > If you like this book. (75) a. John regretted that we went to see Gone with the Wind. I am sure (*of the fact) that snails1. b. b. he won't eat t1 was determined by Linda.*That [these golfers]1. It was predicted by Nostradamus that [these golfers]1. Ungrammaticality results in (71) in the single case where the complement is an island. and) swore that Linda1. 334). he won't eat t1. he won't eat t1. b. as (46a) claims. buy it! . we try to fire t1. Spiro would only wound t1 was predicted by Nostradamus. and swore that he never slandered Linda. we went to see t1. Principle (73) then supports the claim that A-Ss are islands. (78) a. Spiro would only wound t1.*That snails1. (73) In English. for the type in (28c) by (75) (from Authier 1992. took the oath. b. b. I would prefer it if you contacted Clarence directly. Other examples of islands precluding topicalization include (72a-c). took the oath. b. (74) a. If they are. Harry (*sat down. Harry got drunk and admitted that he had repeatedly cheated your mother-in-law. c.< previous page page_71 next page > Page 71 b. cases like (77)-(78) follow without further stipulation. 27 (72) a. Suppose then that (73) is true. he had repeatedly cheated t1. (76) a. he had never slandered t1. and for the type in (28f) by (76).*John regretted that [Gone with the Wind]1.*Linda is annoyed because snails1.*I would prefer it if Clarence1. Harry (*got drunk and) admitted that [your mother-in-law]1.

Nobody believed that Frank would (*go to Idaho. ((84e) is taken from Aoun. c.*To lift a finger would not be legal.*Who was arrested because Jane described who(m)? d. subject to the following condition: (79) The negative element "licensing" a negative polarity item r cannot be separated from r by an island boundary.< previous page page_72 next page > Page 72 lift a finger (see Baker 1970). A-Ss qualify as islands since they cannot contain negative polarity items linked to external "triggering" negatives. b. It would not be legal to lift a finger. Estelle did not say that Frank would (*climb onto the stage and) lift a finger. This claim would be supported by the ungrammaticality of the starred forms of (84). Such elements must cooccur with a negative form. In this respect A-Ss do not differ from uncontroversial coordinate structures.*It does not amuse me. and Sportiche 1980. (80) a.*Who succeeded in that business despite who(m)? e. Who believes (* the claim) that Bill saw who(m)? b. A fourth nonextraction argument for the island status of A-Ss depends on generalization (83). d. an in-situ wh form cannot be separated from a co-questioned wh form by an island boundary. where the intervening island boundaries are marked by . f. (82) Nobody believed that Frank would support Joan (*and lift a finger). (81) a. Nobody believed (*the claim) that she would lift a finger. b. where the negative "licensers" are italicized. Hornstein. On this basis also.*Jose was not arrested because he lifted a finger. (83) In multiple interrogatives.) (84) a. that you lifted a finger.*Who likes books that criticize who(m)? c. c. e. I guess that he can't (*come back and) lift a finger. get a job. buy it! . and) lift a finger.*Who knows children who study what? < previous page page_72 next page > If you like this book. 78.*Nobody hates people who lift a finger. Support for principle (79) is found in (80).

span island boundaries in ways that rather strongly resemble the ways that extractions from selective islands do. Principle (83) is incompatible with Chomsky's (1986b. buy it! . 153) statement that.*Who played checkers and what? b. however. Fiengo et al. I believe Koster (1987. 81) further cite (88) with only a question mark. Who met students with what color hair? Again I would reject these. The key point is that cases like those just cited. (1988. (86) a. Particularly. (87) a. from 1975. as Koster observes. since the literature contains many conflicting reports. (1988. Similarly. 4. (85) Who left despite whom? It is likewise incompatible with the judgments of Lasnik and Saito (1992. (88) ?Who saw John and who? I reject this totally. in accord with parallel judgments by Bresnan ((89a). I believe there is an important correlation between the cases where multiple wh forms span island boundaries and the class of selective island boundaries. 618). Who wonders whether John saw what? b. It is an < previous page page_73 next page > If you like this book.< previous page page_73 next page > Page 73 The stars in (84) represent my own judgments. for example.*Which article proves your theorem and defends which theory? Why these judgment conflicts arise is rather mysterious. an unvarnished version of (83) is incompatible with the claims of Fiengo et al. even when taken to be grammatical. (37)) and Pesetsky ((89b). all of the examples of this sort involve in-situ wh forms that are NPs. Who said that friends of who hit Bill? I would tend to reject all of these. the long variant of (84a) is grammatical and with Koster's (1987. and it is interesting to explore the principles at work. Such data can hardly be used as the basis of a general argument. 12-13) in (86). Who went to class after he read which book? d.6) makes very important observations. from 1982. Moreover. 29 (89) a. 81) that (84b) and (87) are well formed. Who got jealous because I spoke to who? b. 212) claim that (85) is well formed. sec. Who read a report that John bought what? c.

the troubling data just presented can be rendered irrelevant to a broader argument in defense of the CSC by restricting principle (83) to cases where the in-situ forms are not NPs. I agree with Koster's (1987. dove in. A-Ss resemble uncontroversial coordinate structures. (92) a.*Who likes concerts that last how long? c. 227) informants that the following questions are grammatical: (91) a.*Who wonders whether John swam how long? f. Who complained (about it) how often? Given that. Who worked how long? b. and) rush to the track how often? c. buy it! . and) stayed under how long? With respect to multiple interrogatives. an in-situ non-NP wh form cannot be separated from a co-questioned wh form by an island boundary. Who claimed that Jane (*rushed home and) rested how long? b. find a taxi. However. Notably. That is beyond the scope of this discussion. principle (90) is supported by the fact that separation of such wh adverbials from co-questioned wh forms leads to sharp unacceptability.< previous page page_74 next page > Page 74 important task to develop the connection between selective island extraction and multiple-wh cases that appear to violate island conditions. Who said Mike used to (*dash out. This yields (90).*Who said that running how long exhausted Bill? I take these data to strongly support principle (90). However.*Who read a report that John lied how often? g. because multiple interrogatives with one question form outside an A-S and an in-situ non-NP inside (a non-A-conjunct) are clearly blocked. making it available as a diagnostic for the analysis of A-Ss. (93) a. (90) In multiple interrogatives.*Who was arrested because Jane complained how often? d.*Who went to class after he rested how long? h.*Who succeeded in that business despite vacationing how often? e. Who believes (* the claim) that Bill played how long? b. Who (*drove to the pool. < previous page page_74 next page > If you like this book. Supporting (90) is unfortunately difficult because in-situ non-NPs are often not very acceptable even in simple structures. by the standard of (90) A-Ss qualify as islands. then.

and sell it1 to Marcel. find t1. a acheté du pain1. (a) foncé chez lui. and that the grammatical extractions from them depend on RPs. et la1 vendre à Marcel. rushed home. which is to say that French A-Ss block the kind of control required for selective island extraction. flee. flee. Accounting for English/French extraction differences from A-Ss in terms of differences in the distribution of RP control is quite plausible.*Quelle bague1 est-ce que Jacqueline compte flaner en ville. buy it! . et vendre t1 à Marcel? 'Which ring1 does Jacqueline intend to stroll around in town. and ate it1. French allows no extractions at all. They differ in not being selective islands. French A-Ss do not differ from their English correspondents with respect to islandhoodthey are islands. object NPs) that can in general extract from selective islands. and sell t1 to Marcel?' One can reason from these facts as follows. et (a) mangé t1 'the bread which1 Jacques ran to the market. Who claimed that Jane (*called Greg and) stayed on the phone how long? b. et l1 'a mangé. extraction from any French A-S conjunct is entirely impossible. bought some breads. illustrated in (95).*le pain que1 Jacques a couru au marché. This indirect evidence derives from French. 'Jacques ran to the market. Jacques a couru au marché. a foncé chez lui. which has sentences analogous to A-Ss. Jacqueline compte flaner en ville. fuir. where English countenances extraction from A-Ss of only those elements (very roughly. Who learned that Anthony stayed under how long (*and almost drowned)? A final consideration supports the view that English A-Ss are selective islands.' Unlike the situation in English. rushed home. So. fuir. bought t1.< previous page page_75 next page > Page 75 (94) a. hence islands. with English allowing such control in a broader < previous page page_75 next page > If you like this book. (96) a. trouver une bague1. steal it1. Independently of A-Ss. 1a1 voler. (a) acheté t1. and ate t1' b. the two languages arguably differ systematically along this dimension. steal t1. voler t1. find a ring1. (95) a. 'Jacqueline intends to stroll around in town. trouver t1.' b.

and the following examples. French has a much narrower range of control contexts permitting invisible RPs and hence the sort of "deceptive" extraction characteristic of selective islands than English does.5 A-Scenarios: Summary In this section I have argued that the structures Lakoff (1986) called A-Ss are consistent with the CSC. She went to England without reading the book. (97b.2. the director who1 she flew there in order to confront t1 Although French has fairly close analogs of both (97a) and (97c). 30 (97) a. buy it! . (98) a. the contrastive extraction facts for A-Ss follow from an independently existing difference between these languages. which indicate that for both contexts. 3. regardless of whether they are properly analyzed as manifesting true coordination. if one says (as is optimal) that for the constructions at issue. that is. d.*[What color]1 did she move to Greece áafter dyeing her hair t1ñ? Thus. islandhood is assigned identically in English and French. an extraction site in an A-S cannot be an AC. < previous page page_76 next page > If you like this book. (99) a. This approach is feasible because even those A-S conjuncts that permit some extractions are selective islands. (39d). Consider for example rationale adjuncts and without adjuncts. Elle y est allée en avion pour confronter le directeur. only NP extraction is permitted and even then not from ACs. b. She flew there in order to confront the director. (44d). As a consequence. A-Ss manifest the sensitivity to the possible occurrence of weak pronouns characteristic of selective islands in general. the book which1 she went to England without reading t1 c.*le livre qu'1 elle est allée en Angleterre sans lire t1 c. extractions paralleling (97b) and (97d) are sharply ungrammatical.d) involve selective island extractions. which takes (NP) extraction from English A-Ss to indicate that these are not islands (and hence that the CSC is false).< previous page page_76 next page > Page 76 range of contexts. Lakoff's approach.*le directeur qu'1 elle y est allée en avion pour confronter t1 However. (43d). extraction from them depends on RPs. Elle est allée en Angleterre sans lire le livre. d.*[How well]1 did she move to Greece áwithout learning Greek t1ñ? b. in accord with Ross's (1967) original insight. b. see (32). leaves the contrasts with French A-Ss unrelated to the independently occurring contrasts between extractions from adjuncts. thus. which both permit (selective island) extraction.

and not recognizing the selective island character of the apparent nonislands at issue. the prime stimulus for the writing of Lakoff (1986) would appear to have been a recognition that unboundedly iterative A-Ss are possible. extraction from A-Ss is subject to other conditions on selective island extraction. as in unquestioned coordinations (and A-Ss). 3. reflexive forms. He argues this by indicating that the number of possible conjuncts is unlimited. Also. Finally. Given that Goldsmith (1985) had already discussed B-Ss and that C-Ss play only a marginal role in his discussion. The unsoundness of the anti-CSC argument based on A-Ss by itself enormously weakens the overall conclusion reach in Lakoff 1986. Documentation that extractions from A-Ss do not threaten the CSC therefore goes a very long way toward undermining the claim that this principle is incompatible with attested English data. 153. and inherently unpassivizable NPs. and multiple interrogations confirms the island status of A-Ss.< previous page page_77 next page > Page 77 Further. most non-NPs. Lakoff's conclusion that A-Ss counterexemplify the CSC blends theoretical and factual mistakes: not recognizing the role of RPs in permitting extraction from islands. [How much]1 can you drink t1 and still stay sober? Lakoff concludes that B-Ss also counterexemplify the CSC because they too instantiate true coordination.3 B-Scenarios 3.3.) < previous page page_77 next page > If you like this book. 152). topicalization. [How many courses]1 can we expect our graduate students to teach t1 and (still) finish a dissertation on time? b. 133) and (100b) (from Lakoff 1986. A2-extractions (see (58) and (59)) are impossible. for the bulk of the evidence Lakoff presents against the CSC involves A-Ss in one way or another. the impossibility of extracting from A-Ss in French combines with the narrower possibilities of extracting from selective islands in that language to further support the islandhood of English A-Ss. Additional evidence from "affective" elements. A-Ss. Thus.1 Basics What Lakoff (1986) calls B-Ss seem to have been discovered by Goldsmith (1985) and are illustrated in (100a) (from Goldsmith 1985. as with other selective islands. and that (partial) ATB extraction is possible. (100) a. negative polarity items. which bar the extraction of finite subjects. ((101a) is from Lakoff 1986. buy it! .

a conclusion strengthened by the fact that the conditions on the nonoccurrence of and in successive conjuncts holding for unquestioned coordination cases (discussed in section 3. the poison which1 he planned to grab a glass. the apparent conjuncts must be (a) VPs (as in A-Ss) and (b) "bare" VPs. Goldsmith illustrates property (b) with contrasts such as these: (104) [How many courses]1 can we expect our students to teach t1 and still/*to still/*still to lead a normal life? Presumably. and still not die These properties do seem to support a coordinate analysis. [How many pills]1 do you think he can swallow t1 and (*can) still survive? < previous page page_78 next page > If you like this book. buy it! .< previous page page_78 next page > Page 78 (101) a. Nonetheless. weigh against a coordinate analysis. when extraction takes place. (105) a. Fourth and fifth. that is. [How many courses]1 can you take t1 for credit. the courses which1 Bob can both take t1 for credit and get all As in t1 b.*the kind of handicap which1 he had t1 and still outperformed the opposition c.1) hold here as well. which the latter lacks. the courses which1 Bob can (*both) take t1 for credit and (still) stay sane Third. certain considerations. as noted by Goldsmith (1985). there is the obvious semantic specificity of cases like (101).2. and get all As in t1? b. (102)*[How many courses]1 can we expect our graduate students to teach t1 or (still) finish a dissertation on time? Second. the final conjuncts of (100a. unlike clear coordinations. independent of the extractions in question. B-Ss are incompatible with both. or conjuncts are impossible in B-Ss. First. But the former have initial and. they are B-conjuncts. as in A-Ss. still remain sane. it is the "bareness" condition that blocks extraction from B-Ss when the VPs are finite or both contain modals.b) have the same status as the second conjunct of (101a). not characteristic of ordinary coordination with and.*the number of courses which1 his students teach t1 and still are happy b. Hence. drink t1. (103) a.

" given the previous conjunct). (106) [How many courses]1 did Frank and Jim (*respectively) take t1 and still say sane (*respectively)? Seventh. 154) characterizes (101a) as a mixture of an A-S and a B-S. in contrast to my analysis of A-Ss.3. Francine could hardly feel shake t1 and still stay calm. One should then consider linear cases where several conjuncts in a row have the "surprise" semantics. the approach invoked for A-Ss is quite clearly not (fully) applicable here.e. that is.3.*[What color]1 did Mike go color-blind and still paint his ears t1? 31 e. as with A-Ss. [How long]1 did they avoid sweets t1 and still remain obese? b. 3. I suggest that the latter is the correct course. Francine hoped to be professional and yet still talk to Edward1 about t1 constantly. Himself1. Mike dated more nurses than (what1) I could date t1 and still stay sane.3. as illustrated in (107). h. as with A-Ss there are also grounds for denying their coordinate character. (107) a. Lakoff (1986.*Himself1.*That1. buy it! . Such a step is more or less mandated to defend the CSC from B-S extractions. g. Francine hopes to talk to Edward1 about t1 constantly and yet still stay uninvolved. f. < previous page page_79 next page > If you like this book. in permitting extractions only from certain conjuncts.2 B-Scenario Extraction Does Not Fully Reduce to Selective Extraction Although B-Ss partially resemble A-Ss in being syntactically asymmetrical. i.*[How slim]1 did Mike eat only ice cream and still remain t1? c. interwoven dependency correspondents of B-Ss are ill formed. In this case.< previous page page_79 next page > Page 79 Sixth. Francine might stay home and still feel shake t1. the third conjunct does not. although certain considerations support a coordinate analysis for B-Ss. [What color]1 did Mike paint his ears t1 and still make it seem he was normal? d. although apparent multiple-conjunct cases like (101a) exist. That1. Summing up. But I delay discussion of the matter until section 3. represents a state of affairs that is "surprising. it is unclear that they involve multiple B- conjuncts. the B-S and A-S extraction patterns differ. Although the second conjunct has the distinctive semantics of a B-conjunct (i..

with B-Ss this is likely true only of extractions from B-conjuncts.e. Overall. extractions from the ''initial" conjuncts of B-Ss contrast with A-S extractions in that they can be of type A2 (see (58b) and (107i)).. B-Ss cannot be kept fully consistent with the CSC in the same way that A-Ss can. One might conclude from the starred examples of (107) that extraction from B-conjuncts (i. But if their "initial" constituents are not islands. unlike extractions from A-Ss. are not blocked by ACs (see (107c)).*Mike could date more nurses than (what1) I could live here and still date t1. since extraction from non-B-conjuncts of B-Ss is not selective island extraction. extractions from B-Ss need not obey the conditions on selective island extraction and hence can violate the restrictions in (27): they are not categorically limited (see (107a)). A-Ss involving an extraction always require an extraction site in their final conjunct but B-Ss do not. those representing what Goldsmith (1985) calls the 'nonetheless' reading. can involve reflexives (see (107e)). As Lakoff (1986. [Which room]1 did Mike go color-blind and still want to paint t1 red? c. and can involve inherently unpassivizable NPs (see (107g)). One cannot simply claim that those B-S conjuncts that permit extraction are islands and that constituents extract from them only via the device of RPs. then. (108) a. buy it! . But that inference is unjustified. If they were.h.f. 32 So. More significantly. If the "initial" conjuncts of B-Ss are not islands. B-Ss cannot be true coordinate structures in the sense referred to by the CSC. though. Who1 did Mike remain celibate and yet still date t1? b. When these conditions are respected.j) all violate conditions on extraction from selective islands. Further. 153-154) observes. since (107b. whereas all extractions from A-Ss are selective island extractions. these conjuncts should not behave like islands with respect to nonextraction phenomena that are < previous page page_80 next page > If you like this book. the nurse who1 Mike could be in pain and still not call t1 None of (108a-c) seem ungrammatical to me. the CSC would of course characterize all of their conjuncts as islands. extractions seem possible. Defending the CSC against B-Ss requires arguing.< previous page page_80 next page > Page 80 j. rather. in contrast to the situation documented earlier with A-Ss. that at least their "initial" constituents are not islands. those representing "surprising" states of affairs) is impossible.d.

The acceptable "affectives" in (110) are in the "initial" conjunct of the B-S. Nobody said that Sally (*met a doctor here and) charmed a lawyer anywhere. At UCLA. buy it! . Nobody thought he would lift a finger (*and worry about Bob).*Nobody thought he would worry about Bob and lift a finger.34 (113) a. "affective" forms. I don't think anyone (ever) managed to fail nine courses and (still) graduate in four years. (111) Nobody said that Sally would meet a doctor and (still) (*ever) visit a lawyer (*anywhere). the conjunct that permits nonselective extraction. < previous page page_81 next page > If you like this book. and multiple interrogations. correlating with the (selective) island character of that conjunct. b. b. At UCLA. An "affective" in the B-conjunct is not acceptable. b. Nobody said that Sally met a doctor somewhere/*anywhere and charmed a lawyer there. (110) Nobody said that Sally would (ever) meet a doctor (anywhere) and still visit a lawyer. (114) a. Although constructing relevant examples is not easy. (112) a. I don't think anyone managed to fail 9 courses and (still) (*ever) graduate in four years. The pattern for "affective" elements in true (VP) coordinations is.< previous page page_81 next page > Page 81 sensitive to island boundariesfor example. b. negative polarity items. Nobody thought that Frank would lift a finger and still get criticized. 33 (109) a. roughly. A similar asymmetrical "affective" pattern is seen in (112). But the B-S situation contrasts with that of (109). that an "affective" cannot occur in only one conjunct. As (113) shows. Next consider negative polarity items. the evidence seems to support the view that the "initial" conjuncts of B-Ss are nonislands. these cannot occur in only one conjunct of a true coordinate VP. correlating with the extraction facts.*Nobody thought that Frank would get criticized and still lift a finger. But negative polarity items in B-Ss manifest an asymmetrical pattern.

which seems true for English independently of the structures at issue in this discussion. since independently English VPs permit extraction of arbitrary categories. Who claimed that Frank could study how long and still visit Lydia often? b. < previous page page_82 next page > If you like this book. whereas the non-"initial" conjuncts (B-conjuncts) of B-Ss behave like (selective) islands. the "initial" conjuncts behave like nonislands. claims that as such. various nonextraction facts support the conclusion drawn from extraction cases that B-Ss are not true coordinate structures. then coordinated constituents of type C permit ATB extraction of phrases of category j. But apparent ATB extraction from B-Ss is in general limited to NPs. Overall. (115) a. true coordination imposes no special categorical constraints on extraction. Who claimed Frank (*failed math and) studied how long? B-Ss once more show an asymmetrical distribution. (118) a.*[How long]1 does Bob have to work t1 and still stay alert t1? That is. then. An additional argument that B-Ss are not coordinate structures can be based on principle (117). Who claimed that Frank could (*visit Lydia often and still) study how long? Thus. B-Ss should permit ATB extraction of arbitrary categories. Given (117).*[For whom]1 did Bob work t1 and still not have respect t1? (119) a. This principle. at least in my idiolect. It is impossible.< previous page page_82 next page > Page 82 Now consider multiple interrogations.*[In what way]1 did Lydia unsuccessfully repair the VCR t1 and still try to repair the TV t1? b. buy it! . for one of several co-questioned interrogative forms to appear in a VP conjunct of a standard coordination. Who1 did Bob work for t~ and still not have respect for t1? b. if B-Ss represent (VP) coordination. see (90). (117) If individual constituents of type C permit extraction of phrases of category j. Who claimed Frank studied how long (*and failed math)? b. apparent ATB extraction from an "initial" conjunct and a B-conjunct of a B-S is subject to the same constraint as individual extraction from a B-conjunct. (116) a.

< previous page page_83 next page >
Page 83
These facts strongly count against a coordinate analysis of B-Ss. If such an analysis is rejected, then apparent ATB NP
structures like (119a) can be assimilated to the P-gap phenomenon, with the rightmost gap taken to be a P-gap; thus,
(119a,b) turn out parallel to the uncontroversially non-coordinate (120a, b).
(120) a. Who1 did Bob work for t1 without having any respect for t1?
b.*[For whom]1 did Bob work t1 without having any respect t1?
That is, under a noncoordinate analysis of B-Ss, (119b) and (120b) reflect the restriction of English P-gaps to NPs (see
Postal 1993a, 1994). Moreover, NP cases like (119a) further resemble P-gap forms in being in effect subject to the
other conditions on selective island extraction in (27) (see chapter 2 and Postal, in preparation a). Compare the cases in
(121), for example.
(121) a. [What color]1 did Valerie paint her house h (*without painting/*and still not paint her yacht t1)?
b. [Those rocks]1 Sandra will touch h (*without feeling move/*and still not feel t1 move).
c. Herself1, Edna1 can talk to h*without boring/*and still not bore t1).
Thus, ATB issues provide two reasons for denying coordinate status to B-Ss: non-NP extractions resembling ATB
cases are not permitted, and what look like ATB NP extractions from B-Ss satisfy independently known conditions for
an analysis in which the rightmost gap is a P-gap.
3.3.3 B-Scenarios and the Conjunct Constraint
An unusual argument reinforces the conclusion that B-Ss are not true coordinate structures. As remarked earlier, it
seems correct to divide Ross's original formulation of the CSC into separate principles. The one I called the Conjunct
Constraint in section 3.1 forbids the extraction of coordinate conjuncts themselves. The other, the CSC, bans (non-
ATB) extraction from true conjuncts. The Conjunct Constraint is almost never questioned; 35 nothing in Lakoff 1986 is
intended to challenge it. The argument against coordinate status for B-Ss based on the Conjunct Constraint is that to
suppose that B-Ss instantiate true coordination requires rejecting the Conjunct Constraint.
This conclusion depends on observations made by Lawler (1974) about an English negative construction, call it double
neg (DN), associated with

< previous page page_83 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_84 next page >
Page 84
the L-extraction of certain constituents; see also Goldsmith 1985. DN seems possible only as a response to a previous
sentence; most commonly and naturally, DN sentences answer preceding questions. But it is not limited to the latter use
(see Goldsmith 1985, 140). DN examples include 122a-d), where the fronted constituents are italicized.
(122) a. Did you visit any churches? Not in Spain I didn't.
b. Can we get a decent meal? Not around here you can't.
c. Can this stain be removed? Not with that solvent it can't.
d. I am going to the movies. Not without doing the dishes you're not.
As in all of (122), DN seems most natural when it instantiates VP anaphora linked to a VP in the antecedent sentence.
But this is probably not required; (123), for instance, seems to be a viable DN example.
(123) Can we send astronauts to Mars? Not without bankrupting the country we can't send any there.
Lawler's key observation is that B-conjuncts can be DN L-extractees. ((124) is from Lawler 1974, 370.)
(124) Can linguists study negation? Not and stay sane they can't.
Lawler (1974, 370) concludes in particular that "the Coordinate Structure Constraint seems to be fractured beyond
repair ..." Of course, Coordinate Structure Constraint can refer here only to the Conjunct Constraint.
No doubt, if B-conjuncts were true coordinate conjuncts, DN cases like (124) would counterexemplify the Conjunct
Constraint, along the lines of (125).
(125) The logic of the claim that if they are coordinate, B-S structures like (124) counterexemplify the Conjunct
Constraint is as follows:
a. DN cases like (122)/(124)
i. involve extractions,
ii. manifest invisible VPs anaphorically linked to VPs in the question antecedent.
b. If B-Ss involve coordinate VPs in the sense referred to by the Conjunct Constraint, then, for example,
(124)involves extraction of a coordinate conjunct.
c. Therefore, the Conjunct Constraint is false.
Moreover, a variant of (125) can be provided for cases where DN does not involve VP anaphora.

< previous page page_84 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_85 next page >
Page 85
Evidently, though, abandoning the Conjunct Constraint would solve a quite restricted problem (the analysis of B-Ss) at
the cost of creating many much graver ones. If there is no such condition, it is unexplained why no other (English)
constructions manifest analogs of the kind of extraction in (124). Analogs of (124) are not even possible for the non-B-
conjuncts of B-Ss or mixed A/B-Ss.
(126) a. Jerome can swallow the poison and still avoid death.
b. Can Jerome avoid death?*Not (and) swallow the poison he can't (and).
c. Jerome can go to the bar, drink 11 daiquiris, still stay sober, and (then) eat 4 burgers.
d. Can Jerome go to the bar, drink 11 daiquiris, and still stay sober?*Not and (then) eat 4 burgers he can't.
Similarly, analogs of (124) are not even possible for simple A-Ss.
(127) a. Can I go to the store?*Not and buy beer you can't.
b. Can he use the phone?*Not and make a date with Laura he can't (use it).
And, anticipating section 3.4 a bit, they are also impossible for the C-conjuncts of Lakoff's C-Ss.
(128) Do guys in the Caucasus eat snails?*Not and live to be 100 they don't.
DN structures are likewise barred for what I called D-Ss in section 3.1.
(129) Can he criticize de Gaulle?*Not and therefore criticize a Frenchman he can't.
And, evidently, they are impossible for true coordinate structures.
(130) Can tigers fly?*Not and eat Wheaties they can't.
So, abandoning the Conjunct Constraint in order to allow (only the B-conjuncts of) B-Ss to both be coordinate and
participate in the DN construction misfires in predicting falsely that, for example, (126b,d), (127a,b), (128), (129), and
(130) are well formed.
All the cases mentioned so far with respect to the possibility of abandoning the Conjunct Constraint involve VPs. But
without that constraint, nothing known would preclude the extraction of conjuncts of other extractable constituent types
as well (e.g., NPs, PPs, Ss). Since such cases

< previous page page_85 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_86 next page >
Page 86
are unattested, support for a proposal to abandon the Conjunct Constraint merely to facilitate the description of English
B-Ss must be regarded as unfounded, for reasons parallel to those cited in note 8.
A fact about the interaction of B-Ss and DNs not noted by Lawler (1974) or Goldsmith (1985) is relevant to the
question whether B-Ss represent true coordinate structures or adjuncts. It also relates to the issue touched on earlier of
the extent to which B-conjuncts iterate. Cases like (131) might be true, iterative B-Ss; that is, they might have
successive B-conjuncts.
(131) Carol can take seven courses for credit, (still) stay sane, and (still) make the varsity hockey team.
Strikingly, though, such examples do not have DN analogs.
(132) Can Carol take seven courses for credit?*Not (still) stay sane and (still) make the varsity hockey team she can't.
I conclude from (132) that despite their semantics, iterated structures like (131) really lack the syntactic structure of
those B-Ss that permit extraction. If so, one might expect that such iterative structures would also preclude extraction
from non-B-conjuncts, which seems correct.
(133) a.*[How many pecan pies]1 can one eat t1, (still) not get sick, and (still) stay slim?
b.*the number of pecan pies which1 one can eat t1, (still) not get sick, and (still) stay slim
c.*He ate more pecan pies than (what1) I can eat t1, (still) not get sick, and (still) stay slim.
d.*[How many courses]1 can you take t1 for credit, (still) stay sane, and (still) not collapse from exhaustion?
e.*[How long]1 can one eat nachos t1, (still) not get sick, and (still) want a pizza?
f.*[What drugs]1 can you take t1, (still) feel OK, and (still) drive?
In this respect, those conjuncts that are distinctive to B-Ss contrast with true coordinate conjuncts in their "recursive"
possibilities.
In contrast, (133a-f) all map into fine sentences if and is added at the beginning of the second conjunct. What follows
the first conjunct is then presumably not an iteration of B-conjuncts but a single coordinate B-conjunct, parallel to a
coordinate adjunct like that in (134).
(134) He took those drugs [after [getting sick and feeling faint]].

< previous page page_86 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

Arnaud peut boire 11 calvados et rester lucide.c) seem to have the same general properties as corresponding English examples. 3.3. one can say that whereas English and French share the coordinate structure that blocks all extraction via the CSC. it is hardly plausible that French B-Ss are noncoordinate. a reasonable further assumption would be that B- conjuncts represent an unusual type of adjunct. (136) a. merely taking English B-Ss to be coordinate and abandoning the CSC to permit extraction from them would have the false consequence that French B-Ss permit extraction (from non-B-conjuncts).' d. Arnaud peut boire 11 calvados et rester capable de conduire certains véhicules. But if one rejects Lakoff's view of B-Ss. (135) Can Carol take seven courses for credit? Not and (still) stay sane and (still) make the varsity hockey team she can't. the "initial" conjuncts would then represent < previous page page_87 next page > If you like this book. This is correct. if English B-Ss are correctly analyzed as coordinate. only the latter then allows (nonselective) extraction. 'Arnaud can drink 11 calvados and remain capable of driving certain vehicles. So. 'Arnaud can drink 11 calvados and stay clearheaded. for it would contain a single fronted coordinate adjunct. French has apparent coordinate VP structures with the 'and nonetheless' semantics. An additional consideration supports this conclusion. What emerges from this discussion is the likelihood that manifestating the 'and nonetheless' semantics typical of B-Ss by no means guarantees the presence of the type of B-S syntactic structure that permits extraction.*[Combien de calvados]1 Arnaud peut-il boire t1 et rester lucide? 'How many calvados can Arnaud drink and stay clearheaded?' c. in the absence of ad hoc constraints.*[Quels véhicules]1 Arnaud peut-il boire 11 calvados et rester capable de conduire t1? 'Which vehicles can Arnaud drink 11 calvados and remain capable of driving?' Since (136a. English assigns B-Ss in addition a noncoordinate structure (of some kind). but these rigorously resist any extraction from any conjunct.' b.< previous page page_87 next page > Page 87 This view predicts that a correspondent of (132) with an added and should also be good. buy it! .4 B-Conjuncts as Adjuncts If extraction-permitting B-Ss do not represent true coordination.

ii. 36 (137) Can linguists áVP study B-Ssñ1? a. 141-142). d. In various VP-fronting constructions. [eat 13 burgers and still not vomit]1 he can t1. buy it! . ii. (138) a." so can B-conjuncts. [eat 13 burgers without vomiting]1 he can t1. . [Eat 13 burgers without vomiting]1 though he can t1. b.. Not [without going insane]2 they can't áVPñ1 t2. [eat 13 burgers]1 he can t1 and still not vomit. They said Val can eat 13 burgers and still not vomit and i. [eat 13 burgers and drink 14 beers]1 he can t1. who observes that an adjunct analysis of B-conjuncts accounts both for the extraction possibilities and for Lawler's cases like (138). b. [Eat 13 burgers and still not vomit]1 though he can1. is treated as an adjunct. [Eat 13 burgers]1 though he can t1 and still not vomit.. Goldsmith proposes informally that B-Ss involve a special usage of and as a subordinator rather than a coordinator.. the relation between a truly coordinate B-S like that found in French and the type that permits some extractions is that in the latter. Not and stay healthy. Thus. The properties just documented for B-S conjuncts do not hold of conjuncts whose coordinate status is not in question. where adjuncts can either be "carried along" or "left behind. Can I go outside without any clothes on? b. (139) a..*[eat 13 burgers]1 he can t1 and drink 14 beers. a B-conjunct. A different but related class of cases makes the same point. My suggestion here about B-Ss significantly parallels that of Goldsmith (1985. . Compare: (141) They said Val can eat 13 burgers and drink 14 beers and a. That would explain why the "initial" conjuncts are not islands and why B-conjuncts allow selective extractions. (140) a. < previous page page_88 next page > If you like this book. ... b. They said Val can eat 13 burgers without vomiting and i. .< previous page page_88 next page > Page 88 main-clause VPs.. An adjunct view of B-conjuncts is strengthened by other restrictions. c.. It would also explain why B- conjuncts in DN behave like uncontroversial adjuncts. [eat 13 burgers]1 he can t1 without vomiting. one VP conjunct. [Eat 13 burgers]1 though he can t1 without vomiting. Not [and stay sane]3 they can't áVP</SM ñ1 t3. you can't. b.

3. Extraction from non-B-conjuncts < previous page page_89 next page > If you like this book. (144)*Helen said she could áVP eat 13 burgersñ1 and drink 9 beers and she can áVPñ1 and drink 9 beers. until principles capturing the generalization covering (145a. Although genuine. One notable difficulty already touched on argues against taking B-conjuncts as adjuncts. and get As in t1? In each case..< previous page page_89 next page > Page 89 (142) a. 3. buy it! .5 B-Scenarios: Summary Unlike the situation with A-Ss. Again. However. nontrivial parallelisms thus exist between B-Ss and coordinates. in my terms. this conclusion remains partially vulnerable.. be allowed even in the noncoordinate structure that I have suggested underlies nonselective extraction from B-Ss.. This is the fact that and can fail to appear on B-conjuncts in n-ary mixed Ss under the same conditions as it does in true coordinates. The extraction in the latter shows that the absence of and cooccurs with extraction and thus must.*[Eat 13 burgers]1 though he can t1 and drink 14 beers. I do not believe such facts overwhelm the evidence that those B-conjuncts cooccurring with extractions are adjuncts. But (145a) is a true coordinate structure whereas (145b) is a mixed Scontaining a B-conjunct. the adjunct-like behavior of B-conjuncts with respect to this form of anaphora is highlighted by comparing (143b) with a partially parallel structure differing in that it is a true coordination rather than a B-S. Helen said she could áVP eat 13 burgersñ1 and still feel hungry and she can áVPñ1 and still feel hungry. arguing against their adjunct status. Furthermore. b.. Helen said she could áVP eat 13 burgersñ1 without vomiting and she can áVPñ1 without vomiting. b. áfail to attend t1ñ. [Eat 13 burgers and drink 14 beers]1 though he can t1. it is not possible to analyze all extractions from B-Ss as selective island extraction. B-conjuncts behave like adjuncts with respect to forms of VP anaphora. and get As in t1? b.. (143) a. Compare: (145) a. and can fail to appear on the bracketed conjunct because of its nonfinal position in a linear structure. ástill have a social lifeñ. [What courses]1 can you register for t1.b) are found.. [What courses]1 can you register for t1.

(146) a. 3.*[How rapidly]1 do the guys in the Caucasus eat snails and recover from that disease t1? < previous page page_90 next page > If you like this book. Under these conditions. The guys in the Caucasus drink that stuff and live to be 100. the conditions [under which]1 the guys in the Caucasus can eat that stuff t1 and live to be 100 b. [For how long]1 have guys in the Caucasus eaten that stuff t1 and lived to be 100? Thus. these extractions are not reducible to a selective island phenomenon. extraction from C-conjuncts does seem to be selective. As with other Ss. (148) a. b. as in (146b). the C-conjunct. From the first conjunct. the B-conjuncts occurring in B-Ss that permit extraction are not true coordinate conjuncts and there is a substantial basis for considering them adjuncts. as main-clause VPs. the compatibility of English B-Ss with various extractions raises no problems for the CSC. a disease [from which]1 the guys in the Caucasus (*eat snails and) don't suffer t1 c. However.1 Basics What Lakoff (1986) refers to as C-Ss are illustrated in (146). the extraction possibilities for the different types of conjuncts contrast.< previous page page_90 next page > Page 90 does not respect the appropriate conditions. This permits analyzing the other conjuncts of such B-Ss. those that permit nonselective extraction. buy it! . but also non-NPs. [With what kinds of sauces]1 do the guys in the Caucasus eat that stuff h and live to be 100? c. Attested extractions from BSs are nonetheless arguably consistent with the CSC because as considerable evidence indicates.4. which refers to true coordinate constituents and not adjuncts or main-clause VPs.4 C-Scenarios 3. the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus drink t1 and live to be 100 Their semantics differs from that of B-Ss in that the situation represented by the first conjunct is the cause of that represented by the last. a disease which1 the guys in the Caucasus eat snails and don't suffer from t1 b. (147) a. it is possible to extract not only NPs.

buy it! . This is impossible when the antecedent is outside true coordinate structures and the anaphoric VP is inside. and live to be 100 c. But the extraction in (149c) precludes an ordinary coordinate analysis. it must be denied that C-Ss are coordinate structures.*the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus eat snails. and live to be 100.*the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus drink t1 or live to be 100 b.c). drink t1. alongside properties that suggest a coordinate analysis of C-Ss are others that oppose such a treatment.*The guys in the Caucasus (all) both drink that stuff and live to be 100. b. see also (152). C-Ss resemble B-Ss and not A-Ss in that maintenance of the CSC cannot depend completely on the view that the C-S conjuncts are selective islands. (151) a. 3.4. logical coordinations." Further evidence for rejecting the coordinate status of C-Ss involves VP anaphora. Rather. (150)*the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus and the guys in the Himalayas drink t1 and live to be 100. Disjunction and the coordinate quantifier both are impossible. specifically.*the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus (all) both drink t1 and live to be 100 Of course. eat snails. it is difficult to imagine a non-binary C-S. C-Ss of the interwoven dependency type are not possible. Similarly. respectively Further. the short variant of (149b) is fine if interpreted as an ordinary logical coordination. Structures with three or more conjuncts always seem to be non- C-Ss. c. < previous page page_91 next page > If you like this book. eat snails. (149) a.2 Noncoordinate Properties of C-Scenarios Significantly. as already in effect illustrated in (144). and live to be 100 That (151a) is not a C-S but a logical coordination is supported by (151b. whose ungrammaticality then follows from the usual interaction of the CSC with true coordinations. So those C-Ss permitting extraction resemble B-Ss and contrast with A-Ss in not really being ''recursive.< previous page page_91 next page > Page 91 Overall.*the stuff which1 the guys in the Caucasus drink t1. then. The guys in the Caucasus drink that stuff.

3. b.4. because his father once did áVPñ1 in order to kill someone. buy it! . at this stage there is little basis for thinking they genuinely threaten that principle.3 C-Scenarios: Summary If they are true coordinates. the guys in the Caucasus can eat t1 with yogurt and live to be 100/*and drink wine.*My father won't áVP fire a gunñ1 because Joan is careless and once did áVPñ1. Since there are good grounds for doubting their coordinate status. Yet more evidence distinguishes C-Ss from true coordinate structures.*My father won't áVP fire a gunñ1 even though he has one and wants to áVPñ1. I have tried to show only that data like those taken by Lakoff (1986) to refute the CSC fail to do so. the constituent once did áñ and killed someone is a C-S 37 Therefore. (153) Sam refuses to áVP fire a gunñ1. (154) Sam refuses to áVP fire a gunñ1. Multiple interrogations involving non-NPs. C-Ss permit negatively "licensed" "affective" elements in their initial conjuncts. (153) parallels adjunct cases like (154). topicalization is possible in the first conjunct.5 Conclusion The preceding sections of this chapter had an extremely limited goal. because his father once did áVPñ1 and killed someone. But unlike the constituents in (152). (155) Who said the guys in the Caucasus eat what and live to be 100? Similarly. 502) cites the well-formed (153). 3. Further. (156) Nobody claimed that the guys in the Caucasus eat anything like that and live to be 100/*drink rum. shown earlier to be impossible across true coordinate boundaries (see (115)). McCawley (1988. (157) Henry claimed that [that stuff]1. I have claimed < previous page page_92 next page > If you like this book. for partially diverse reasons.< previous page page_92 next page > Page 92 (152) a. though. C-Ss counterexemplify the CSC. in contrast to the true coordinate facts illustrated in note 28. are possible into (the first conjuncts of) C-Ss. in contrast to true coordinate structures.

< previous page page_93 next page >
Page 93
that A-Ss are consistent with the CSC since the extractions permitted from their conjuncts turn out to be systematically
restricted to the sorts of extractions possible from (other) selective islands. Therefore, it can be assumed that all the
extraction-permitting conjuncts of A-Ss are selective islands, hence, via (46a), islands. Therefore, arguably, extraction
from them is possible only because, as a full version of the CSC in Ross's (1967) formulation claims, extraction is
permitted even from islands if RPs occur in the extraction sites. To support the island character of A-S conjuncts, I
advanced evidence from "affective" elements, negative polarity items, embedded topicalization, and multiple
interrogations. The impossibility of extraction from what appear to be French equivalents of A-Ss also suggests that
extractions from English A-Ss are not a consequence of a nonisland status.
For B-Ss, the situation is rather different. Although extraction from B-conjuncts (i.e., the non-"initial" conjuncts of
B-Ss) is arguably selective island extraction, extraction from "initial" conjuncts does not respect the constraints on
extraction from selective islands. Therefore, an approach to keeping B-Ss consistent with the CSC that parallels the
approach invoked for A-Ss will not work. The alternative is to deny that those B-Ss that involve extraction represent
true coordinate structures, a position for which I presented diverse evidence. Among other things, I noted that taking all
B-Ss to be true coordinate structures would require rejecting the Conjunct Constraint as well as the CSC. Additionally,
since only a minor group of conjoined VP types permit B-S type extraction, merely rejecting the CSC would vastly
"overgenerate" even within the VP realm. Further, I presented evidence that those B-Ss that manifest extractions do not
allow B-conjuncts to iterate, thereby contrasting with truly coordinate structures. Treating English B-Ss as coordinate
would also fail to account for solid parallels between them and clear instances of adjuncts. Finally, denying at least the
possibility of a noncoordinate analysis for English B-Ss leaves no way to account for the extraction contrasts between
semantically parallel English and French cases.
For C-Ss also, I suggested that the proper analysis is to deny that they are true coordinate structures. However, whereas
B-Ss may have a dual analysis, some being truly coordinate and some involving adjuncts, no reasons were found to
assign dual structures to C-Ss. For both B-Ss and C-Ss, denial of coordinate status is supported by the fact that, in the
presence of extractions, there are no clear cases of other than binary structures. Instances in which extraction-permitting
B-Ss might seem to

< previous page page_93 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_94 next page >
Page 94
be truly "recursive" actually involve mixtures of A-Ss and B-Ss. Therefore, in the apparent cases of B-S "recursion"
reported by Lakoff (1986), the true "recursion" is associated with the A-S structure, as in, for example, (8). Thus,
among the Ss claimed to counterexemplify the CSC, the property of "recursion'' characteristic of true coordinate
structures of all kinds is found only with A-S type conjuncts, those that were shown to be (selective) islands.
I stress the limitations of current goals in order to avoid possible criticisms. It might be claimed that since I have not
offered analyses of any of the S types, some conclusion follows. But my goal was not to analyze diverse structures
related to coordinate structures in one or more ways; rather, it was only the much weaker task of showing that no real
basis for rejecting the CSC has been developed. Although providing valid analyses consistent with earlier conclusions
would strengthen my defense of the CSC, it is not necessary for that defense.
Since Lakoff (1986) does not ultimately show that there are any genuine counterexamples to the CSC, claims like (158)
are unfounded:
(158) "Moreover, any theory of syntax that requires that the coordinate structure constraint exist in the syntax is simply
incorrect." (Lakoff 1986, 152)
I interpret Lakoff's perhaps obscure phrase require ... exist ... as embodying a claim that his work falsities any
framework from which the CSC (or its consequences) follows as a theorem.
This might be an implicit suggestion that his S observations thereby falsify (e.g.) the GPSG framework, given (158).
(159) "Section 3 ... demonstrates that Ross's Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) and the "across-the-board" (ATB)
violations of it follow as theorems from the grammar fragments ... in ... previous ... sections." (Gazdar 1981, 155-156;
emphasis mine)
GPSG writers have rightly stressed that various other purported "theorems" that have been influential in recent
linguistics turn out not to be genuine theorems (see, e.g., Pullum and Gazdar 1982); but in fact the claimed
theoremhood of the CSC is one of these. No proof of the result claimed in (159) is offered, and no work containing
such proof is cited. Purported theorems disassociated from proofs always deserve deep skepticism.

< previous page page_94 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_95 next page >
Page 95
Moreover, taken literally, the supposed "theorem" is incoherent. First, Ross's CSC was intended as a linguistic
universal, whereas (159) claims that the CSC follows from fragments of English grammar. Since no universal can
follow from a grammar of English, the very statement of (159) indicates that no proof had been constructed.
Second, the CSC (see (1)) literally constrains the operation of transformations, whose existence in correct natural
language grammars GPSG denies. But a theorem about limitations on the operation of transformations cannot be
derived from a framework that claims there are none. Minimally, then, (159) must be be taken to mean only what (160)
says.
(160) "Gazdar (1981) shows in detail how all the phenomena covered by the CSC ... follow from the analysis of
unbounded dependencies developed ... above, and the rule schemata for coordination ..." (Gazdar 1982, 175)
This states only that the facts underlying Ross's postulation of the CSC follow from the GPSG analysis. Setting aside
the universality aspect, that informal assertion is coherent but associated with no more of a proof than (159).
Significantly, claims that the CSC is a theorem are not repeated in later, more careful formulations of GPSG ideas, such
as Gazdar et al. 1985. Independently of whether genuine counterexamples to the CSC exist, then, an assertion that
GPSG has been falsified because it has the CSC as a theorem has no known basis.
To conclude, the current status of the CSC would appear to be this: it is supported by massive evidence from many
languages, and, if careful account is taken of what it claims in combination with Ross's insight about the role of RPs in
permitting extraction from islands, it has no known clear counterexamples in English.

< previous page page_95 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_i next page >
Page i

Three Investigations of Extraction

< previous page page_i next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

without. Ernest suspected t1. I deal with two major points that. Eloise peeled t1 and Frank ate t1 raw [the large Spanish onion]1. Put in other terms. providing an explicit overall account of its nature. Marsha cook t1. b. buy it! . Louise believed t1. c. I refer to the right-hand constituent that seems in such constructions to correspond to n (n > 1) gaps in the various conjuncts to the left as the RNR pivot. d. however.< previous page page_97 next page > Page 97 Chapter 4 Right Node Raising and Extraction 4. (1) a. Rather. and Michael proved t1 [that she was guilty]1. They know when t1 but they don't know where t1 [he abused the dog]1. whatever descriptive mechanism is appropriate for these phenomena is correct for RNR. First. I argue that RNR is an extraction phenomenon. Evidently. coordinate RNR cases like (1a-d) involve the same kind of interaction of an extraction phenomenon with coordination that across-the-board (ATB) L-extractions like that in (2) do.1 Background The term right node raising (RNR) is an atheoretical designation for the phenomenon (not for any type of rule or characterization of it) illustrated in (1). directly or indirectly reveal features that a viable conception of RNR must have. More precisely. and Frank eat t1? < previous page page_97 next page > If you like this book. in many respects RNR pivots relate to gaps in the way that the extractees of standard L-extractions do. Hence. I argue that RNR falls into the same general class of phenomena as the L-extractions cited in chapters 1-3. (2) [What kind of large onion]1 did Eloise peel t1. In this chapter I consider RNR. She may have t1 and should have t1 [defrosted the roast]1. I suggest.

.. John loves. 186.. and consequently a surface structure involving not only discontinuity but also a node with multiple mothers .." (McCawley 1987. and Kayne (1994).. ". alters word order without altering constituent structure. emphasis mine) b. I argue that despite their having been taken to support a Slash category view of extraction (see Gazdar 1981. Second.2.. among others. On McCawley's view as on almost < previous page page_98 next page > If you like this book. 179-180). 98-101. it directly contradicts proposals by McCawley (1982. which I argued to involve fusion of identical constituents without change of constituent structure. the key feature for present purposes is that under its assumptions. 1987.1. (3) a. Ojeda (1987). RNR constructions are incompatible with current formulations of Slash approaches.< previous page page_98 next page > Page 98 Although the conclusion that RNR is an extraction phenomenon might seem banal. McCloskey (1986). . 1987.2 The Unity of Right Node Raising and Left Extractions 4. buy it! .1 The Context 4. Levine (1985). 186-191. RNR and L-extractions are radically different. "(McCawley 1982.1 A Novel Proposal about Right Node Raising McCawley (1982.. and Mary hates oysters..2. 98) McCawley (1987.. (4) a. ". 1988). 528-533) has argued for a conception of RNR that among other things radically distinguishes it from L-extractions. Although certain aspects of this account are less than clear. (RNR) . to the effect that RNR is radically different from L-extractions. my treatment of RNR. 1988.. 1 4. 186) gives (4b) as the surface structure that his approach associates with (4a).

4... constituent-structure-preserving features of (4b). 2 A position similar to. It consists of what can. Each can be viewed as putative support for the multiple-mother. Both authors merely try to attest ways in which RNR constructions are unique. I argue for the extraction character of RNR in the context of a critique of McCawley's and Levine's proposals. pronominalization constraints. a displacement phenomenon. Any conclusion must balance attested differences and similarities. But McCawley's works on RNR do not deal with the second issue. L-extractions would. for example. exhibits a number of peculiarities that make it extremely unlikely to be ." (Levine 1985. Negatively.. buy it! . one must do two things.. (RNR) ." (Levine 1985.2.1. ". 16) b. in fact.3 < previous page page_99 next page > If you like this book. concentrating on McCawley's since they largely subsume Levine's discussion. nor do Levine's. and argue that in some respect or other the "raised" node is simultaneously present in all conjuncts in RNR.1...2 Objections to the Proposal 4.2. McCawley's is stated in (5). There are very plausible grounds for this proposal. "Such evidence further reinforces the conclusion that the so-called Raised element in RNR is actually present in all conjuncts in a way that makes it sensitive to island constraints. be analyzed into at least seven arguments. 492) c. it is present in some sense in the phrase structure sites from which it appears to have been displaced. Positively." (Levine 1984.. specifically.2.. though even less explicit than. (5) a. 496) To justify the view that RNR is fundamentally distinct from other phenomena. one might follow McCawley's approach .1 Outline At first glance. one must show that RNR does not share characteristic properties of other phenomena. the evidence McCawley gives for sharply distinguishing RNR from L-extractions is not negligible. I believe. properties of L-extractions.< previous page page_99 next page > Page 99 all others. systematically yield constituent structure relations distinct from those found in corresponding non-extraction cases. "However. and so onthat. one must argue that RNR's properties sharply differentiate it from the phenomena from which it is theoretically distinguished.

as Ross (1966) first noted.Antecedent-Anaphor Linkages One argument. also Ojeda 1987. (6).2.*[Which linguist]1 did Tom buy a can opener t2 and Alice buy a dictionary t2 [that were once owned by t1]2? The argument from (8) is quite undeveloped. which RNR surface structures like (4b) would fully preserve. 4 But.2. c.*I could have taken pictures t1 for [that woman]2 and should have taken pictures t1 for [that woman]2 [of [some woman]2]1. b. although seemingly valid for the examples Levine and McCawley discuss.b). I described [some blind victim's]1 sister to him1.1.< previous page page_100 next page > Page 100 4. the relative clauses and NPs at issue are the sort that permit relative clause extraposition. however. d. buy it! .3 Relative Clause Right-Node-Raising Pivots McCawley's second basis for in effect distinguishing RNR from L-extractions is that a relative clause that is an RNR pivot is as much an island as one that is in a standard position (see McCawley 1982. 262). b. I could have taken pictures of [some woman]1 for [that woman]1. (7) a. b. extraposed relatives are islands even in non-RNR contexts. for example. For example: (8) a. Consider also (7a.2. involving nonpronominal anaphora.2. The very assumptions underlying the pronominal anaphora argument combine with the contrasts in (6) and (7) to support the conclusion that in relevant ways RNR structures involve structural relations distinct from those of their simpler counterparts. 1985). Tom bought a can opener t1 and Alice bought a dictionary t1 [that were once owned by Leonard Bloomfield]1. the underlying factual claim. hinges on the assertion that RNR preserves all the antecedent-anaphoric pronoun linkages in corresponding non-RNR structures.*I should have described t1 to him2 and would have described t1 to him2 [some blind victim's2 sister]1. However. seems not to be true.*I should have described himself1 (and only himself1) to Bob1. < previous page page_100 next page > If you like this book. not just word order differences.1. It is counter-exemplified in my idiolect by. 100. First. (6) a. This would putatively support structures like (4b) since the linkages are presumed to be stated in terms of configurational properties. due to Levine (1984.2. I should describe t1 to Bob1 and probably will describe to Bob1/him1 himself1 (and only himself1). 4.

for example. (11) Tom admires t1 and is sure that everyone else admires t1 [Adolf Hitler]1. b. This never-undertaken task seems at the least enormously arduous. c. but of course you and I don't (= admire Adolf Hitler). an analysis assigning extraposed relatives the same structural relations as NP-embedded ones just seems incorrect.*A boy t1 ran up to [that movie star]2 on the stage [who adored [some movie star]2]1. for example. Ted bought a can opener t1 last week [which belonged to Bloomfield]1. To derive support from the contrast in (8) for his view of RNR. buy it! .*A woman t1 ran up to her: in the street [who hated Gladys2]1.*[Which linguist]1 did Ted buy a can opener t2 last week [which belonged to t1]2? So there is no reason to assume that it is a property special to RNR constructions that is relevant to (8b). b. The assumption seems to be that an RNR pivot relative clause could be an island only if it were. 4. Moreover. d.1. a position according to which the relevant verbal phrases exist in abstract structures < previous page page_101 next page > If you like this book. (10) a.2. Moreover. A boy who adored [some movie star]1 ran up to [that movie star]1 on the stage.< previous page page_101 next page > Page 101 (9) a. anaphora facts clash with the claim that the same structural relations hold of both NP-embedded relatives and extraposed ones.4 VP Anaphora McCawley's (1982. Here VP anaphora seems to take as its antecedent a phrase that would not exist (in surface structure) under ordinary views of RNR. 100) third argument depends on cases like (11). at every level a part of its "pre-RNR" island. But it is unclear why it argues against. but does exist there under McCawley's view. But if relative clauses are identifiable independently of their contextas in. then. 1982) proposals. This might constitute an objection to certain views. in some sense. where they are defined by unique node labelingMcCawley's argument would not begin to go through. A woman who hated Gladys1 ran up to her1 in the street. the logic of the argument from the contrast in (8) is obscure. Therefore. it would be necessary to argue that there is no way to identify an RNR pivot relative clause as a relative clause per se without referring to its presumed status as a subconstituent of a containing NP. Gazdar's (1981.2.

it is obscure how (11) could disconfirm a view that takes it to have a conventional surface structure as well as a more abstract form something like (12). That is. The doctor didn't do anything but the nurse did (¹ do anything). in (13) the antecedents clearly cannot be surface phrases.*Who1 does Mary buy t2 and Bill know a man who sells t2 [pictures of t1 ]2? With respect to such cases. vis-à-vis all constraints on analyzability. Max didn't talk to anyone but Oscar did (¹ Oscar talked to anyone). buy it! .2. 301) < previous page page_102 next page > If you like this book.) (13) a.1. if we then try to analyze this raised node. (14) a.5 Contrasting Island Behavior The fourth and fifth arguments that McCawley gives (1982. The arguments are based on contrasts like the one in (14). However. 299-303). 100-101. just as it would if it were in its original underlying position. This seems to assume among other things that VP anaphora in general is defined exclusively on surface relations.< previous page page_102 next page > Page 102 whereas the surface forms are of the conventional (single-mother) sort. 4. Mary buys t1 and Bill knows a man who sells t1 [pictures of Elvis Presley]1. reference to nonsurface aspects of structure is motivated since the antecedent phrase for VP anaphora cannot be required to be a surface constituent. b. we find that it acts as though it were still within the relative clause. whereas it is apparently possible to apply RNR to a constituent of a relative clause. Wexler and Culicover induce generalization (15). even given McCawley's richer notion of the latter. but of course you and I don't (= admire Adolf Hitler)." 5 (Wexler and Culicover 1980. (15) "[A] raised [by RNR] node always behaves. 220. b. 530-532) derive from observations and conclusions by Wexler and Culicover (1980. Gordon may have discovered no counterexamples but Elissa did (¹ discover no counterexamples). attributed to William Ladusaw.2. Hence. For instance. (12) Tom admires Adolf Hitler and is sure that everyone else admires Adolf Hitler. c. ((13c) is from Fiengo and May 1994. 1988. McCawley's modified (via multiple mother nodes) transformational view of RNR also assumes underlying structures like (12) but claims that the surface structure preserves the VP constituency of the RNR pivot.

Mary bought pictures t1 and Sally bought carvings t1 [of the famous blind poet]1. It cannot be insisted that all extractions share all properties. the one associated with restrictive relatives can extract a wide variety of constituents from ACs but the ones associated with nonrestrictive relatives and topicalization cannot. Moreover. a case can be made that some of the restrictions on L-extractions often subsumed under Subjacency in fact do also hold for RNR. RNR is not an extraction.*Pictures t1 were bought by Mary and carvings t1 were bought by Sally [of the famous blind poet]1. < previous page page_103 next page > If you like this book. buy it! .*the poet [of whom]1 pictures t1 were bought by Mary and carvings t1 were bought by Sally e. Pictures of the poet were bought by Mary and carvings of the poet were bought by Sally. I examine these remarks in appendix C. For example. under McCawley's nonextraction view of RNR.e. so-called Subjacency) govern L-extractions.< previous page page_103 next page > Page 103 Notably. c. share many properties. This would be a way of capturing similarities between RNR and other extractions without denying certain differences. RNR pivots: PMP] may be an unlimited number of bounding nodes removed from their associated gaps. as seen in (14). Hence. including RNR. for instance. I assume.. however. of extraction from subjects. One might then define the fourth argument for McCawley's view of RNR as saying this. At least certain island constraints (roughly. the argument implicit in Levine's (1985. One can hardly conclude from this that. the guy [of whom]1 Mary bought pictures t1 and Sally bought carvings t1 b. This is true. as indicated in chapter 2.. among English L-extractions. but not RNR.. (16) a.." Such an argument is relatively weak. This is because the restrictive relative extraction is an A-extraction whereas the extraction associated with nonrestrictives and topicalization are B-extractions and hence incompatible with ACs. at every stage the RNR pivot is part of the island-defining relative clause. the island types in question constrain only L- extractions. An alternative would say that although all extractions. representing massive violations of island constraints. d. 492) remark that "elements [i. a natural and common way of proceeding. An MIT Press referee raises a number of objections to the original form of this section. This is. one of the two types of L-extraction is not an L-extraction (see also note 9). for example.

The same argument is cited by Levine (1985. Although RNR operates out of (some) islands. buy it! . But that description is surely independently ill formed in (14b). subsequent L-extractions are still constrained by those apparently "destroyed" embeddings. b. Consider the following as a possible partial theory for English RNR: (18) a. It follows that (19) would be blocked only if < previous page page_104 next page > If you like this book. see (151). the issues surrounding this argument are complex and little explored. 411-412). the fifth argument putatively supporting McCawley's nonextraction view. The targets for RNR can be L-extraction remnants. since it involves L-extraction out of restrictive relative clause islands known to block it. In (19) L- extraction on pre-RNR structures yields no violation. leaving only (17b). For example. In the latter case. a. the RNR structure could be defined on a predefined L-extraction structure. as claiming that RNR could not be an extraction because an analysis that assumes it is fails to capture the following fact. 492-494) and Oehrle (1990. 6 But without supporting argument.2.g. locked islands. in terms of chapter 1. RNR pivots block L-extraction. they are islands moreover. Wexler and Culicover 1980) may have assumed without real justification that only (17a) was possible. one to block each possible description. RNR would in effect be taking as its targets what Müller (1996) calls remnants. are predictably acceptable. (19) Who1 does Mary buy t2 and Bill sell t2 [pictures of t1]2? This follows since the ban on describing (19) as in (17a) says nothing about an analysis in terms of (17b). or b.6 Islandhood of Right-Node-Raising Pivots One might define the other argument linked to (14). the ill-formedness of cases like (14b) noted by Culicover and Wexler (1980) would have to involve more than one constraint.1. In the case of any potential L- extraction-RNR interaction like (14b). (18a) blocks description (17a) for cases like (14b). (17) Schematically. However. If there are two possibilities.. Examples like (19). this need not be accepted. as shown in (14b).< previous page page_104 next page > Page 104 4. the L-extraction could be defined on a predefined RNR structure. lacking non-RNR-dependent islands. It seems that previous work (e.2. at least two distinct conceptualizations are a priori possible.

b. I talked to t1 about t2. One would obviously be hesitant to draw major theoretical conclusions distinguishing L- extractions from RNR in fundamental ways because of what pairs like (20c) and (20d) indicate about a possible ban on L-extracting L-extraction remnants. This is because one can allow for the contrast between (19) and (21) even assuming the < previous page page_105 next page > If you like this book.*[Pictures of t1]2. I would like to raise the possibility that (18a) is just a special case of the principle referred to as the Right Selective Island Constraint (RSIC) in appendix A. d. I talked to t1 about pictures of Mary. Marilyn believes that John1. the well-formedness of (19) does not necessarily indicate a contrast between RNR and CXS with respect to (18a). (21)*Who1 did Mary buy t1 from Lois pictures of t1? However. is hardly perfect either. Part of my discussion here depends on (18a). Marilyn believes that John:. one showing only that RNR is different in a particular way. What I am suggesting is that this is true in general for right extractees including RNR pivots despite cases like the grammatical (19). ??[Pictures of Mary]2. it would support a relatively weak argument against an extraction view of RNR. see section A. buy it! . which has not been justified. (20c). In fact. the closest nonremnant extraction. which would be an L-extraction remnant extraction. even if there were such a contrast. The latter might seem to show that the RSIC does not hold for RNR pivots as opposed to CXS pivots because of contrasts with cases of CXS like (21). Marilyn believes that John1. 101. Marilyn believes I talked to John about pictures of Mary. (140c)). The closest I have come to testing the question involves a contrast between pairs like (20c) and (20d) (see Lasnik and Saito 1992. (20) a. Moreover. it is not even clear that allowing (18b) yields a contrast with the behavior of L-extractions. is indeed bad. But at this stage it is unclear that there is any such principle. That principle represents the now well-known observation that complex NP shift (CXS) cases do not permit extraction. c.< previous page page_105 next page > Page 105 there were some principle precluding RNR from taking L-extraction remnants as its targets. I talked to t1 about t2. because English allows little interaction between multiple L-extractions from the same constituent. Although (20d).3.

b. target scope.2. for example. He suspects that the captain t1 but knows that the major t1 [detests goat cheese]1. Tony may be t1. < previous page page_106 next page > If you like this book. the latter cannot. c. Although McCawley does not formulate an explicit argument on this basis. buy it! . these constructions are known to differ in other mysterious ways. Although this difference remains unexplained. That is. those in (23). 529) cites about the scope of RNR drawn from observations by Bresnan (1974). Since it is logically possible that some extractions are relevant to a wider range of constituents than others. a referee does.7 Target Constituents A sixth argument differentiating RNR from L-extractions might be based on facts McCawley (1988. the facts cited cannot strongly indicate that RNR is not an extraction.9 Moreover. ((23g) is from McCawley 1988.2. He wants her to t1 but is afraid to ask her to t1 [go to the prom]1.8 And although McCawley formulates no such argument. the former can strand prepositions. the types of constituents in (lb.c) and (22). I know when t1 but I don't know where t1 [Amanda met Steve]1.< previous page page_106 next page > Page 106 RSIC governs RNR pivots by localizing the difference between the two constructions in the domain of remnant extraction. for example. not that it is fundamentally distinct in nature. But the difference in question shows only that RNR is distinct. RNR and L- extractions nonetheless share many restrictionsfor example. Tony may be t1 and Glen certainly is t1 [upset]1. one can say that an RNR pivot can be an L-extraction remnant but a CXS pivot cannot be. [Upset]1. facts like (14b) are far from yielding a strong argument for the nonextraction character of RNR constructions. the greater generality of RNR with respect to target constituents might be taken to belie its unity with L-extractions. (22) a. What I hope to have shown is that given the possibilities in (17). 529. These data show that RNR pivots can be types of constituents that never function as binders for English L-extractions. This is considered in appendix C.) (23) a. b. along the very parameter at issue. 7 4.1. which to my knowledge have never been seriously challenged.

*[Upset]1.1. as RNR has no effect on the final status of the that clauses in (24b). n.*It was [coffee grinder]1 that Ted had always wanted a t1 and I decided to give him my t1. Johnson and Postal 1980. 1) considers for distinguishing RNR from L-extractions via appeal to multiple mothers is based on an observation by Grosu and Thompson (1977). Such an argument depends on complicated and controversial assumptions about the nature of the violation in (24a). 4. < previous page page_107 next page > If you like this book. the ungrammaticality of (24a) arises from the fact that.2.< previous page page_107 next page > Page 107 c. Postal and Pullum 1988). These authors note that Ross's (1967) constraint banning ''internal Ss. the relational condition applies as well to the RNR case. see note 10. e. this condition is violated. based on the agreement facts in (25). b. g. In my own relational view of this constraint.3.2. One entailment of the appropriate condition is that that clauses cannot head final 2-arcs. Tony is slightly t1. 187) offers what would be an eighth argument favoring his view.2. that clauses are only allowed to head a restricted class of final arcs. (24) a. Therefore.*Mary considers that three and three are seven to be definitely false. An Agreement Phenomenon McCawley (1987.*John considers that two and two are five t1 and Mary considers that three and three are seven t1 [to be definitely false]1. 188. facts like (24b) provide no real information about RNR and fail to support McCawley's specific view about it. d.9. buy it! .*Ted has always wanted a t1 (and) so I've given him my t1 [coffee grinder]1.1. h." discussed and revised by Kuno (1973). f. But. he did object to your t1.2. is maintained in RNR structures.*I said he objected to your calling her and [calling her]1.2. 4. under a relational raising analysis of structures like (24a) (see Postal 1974.8 Constraints on that Clauses A seventh argument McCawley (1987. for example.2. if anything like such a relational proposal is correct.*Ellen objects to your t1 and Betty objects to my t1 [calling Isabelle]1. The relational condition is discussed further in section 4.*Tony is slightly t1 and Fred is greatly t1 [upset]1.1. Moreover.

they lack the intonational characteristics of clausal RNR cases. Thai and Burmese food are/*is light and greasy. 4.14." But these cases are distinct from those underlying the seven previous arguments.2. I suspect that instead they instantiate the more general phenomenon once called conjunction reduction. But.3.b) do instantiate RNR. which are entirely refractory to such an analysis.2.2 express-Class Verbs The first argument derives from work by Grimshaw (1982). He says that such examples "are evidently instances of RNR applying to a conjoined NP.b) are instances of RNR.1.3. respectively. three potential arguments for his position not previously offered deserve consideration. respectively. See section 4.3 Potential Arguments 4.b). for example. (26) a. Jacobson (1992) points out that such clauses can also be object-raising subjects with complements based on these verbs and cites Larry Horn's observation < previous page page_108 next page > If you like this book. Logical and empirical truth are/*is necessary and contingent. who attests English verbs that do not take postverbal that clause complements but permit them as passive subjects.2. Historical and scientific knowledge are/*is different in nature. there is no hiatus after the conjoined adjectives. certain mass nouns behave like plurals for agreement. which all deal with instances of RNR involving full clauses. McCawley gives no argument that (25a. among other things. contrary to his suggestion. The same agreement property appears in. b. (26a. However. McCawley rightly focuses on the key feature of (25a. Moreover. called interwoven dependencies below.1. buy it! .1.< previous page page_108 next page > Page 108 (25) a. show that something more fundamental is going on than McCawley's treatment allows for. this striking property cannot be attributed to RNR surface structures manifesting multiple mother nodes. b. Thai and Burmese food are/*is quite similar.2. fundamentally differentiates it from L-extractions.1 Comments This completes my survey of the grounds McCawley and others have recently given for a view of RNR that. 4.b): in the presence of specific conjoined modifiers. even if (25a. Such cases.2.

Compare (28) with (29). b. By relational I refer to a condition statable in the framework of Johnson and Postal 1980 and derivative work (e.8 in connection with the seventh argument putatively sup-porting McCawley's position. The RNR restriction in (28a) would seem to support McCawley's multiple-mother-node view of RNR surface structures and hence the claim that RNR is radically distinct from L-extractions. The correct formulation of the condition relevant for that clauses remains problematic. buy it! .1.. the tempting argument just sketched has less force than it appears to. which. [That verbs exist] is captured/expressed/reflected by this theory.2. However. 116-117). (29) A good theory should entail/explain t1 and would entail/explain t1 a. 103.< previous page page_109 next page > Page 109 that such clauses topicalize (see also Dowty and Jacobson 1988. d. (28a) would directly reflect the restriction in the starred form of (27a). formed with verbs for which the analog of the starred form of (27a) is grammatical.2. his theory fails to capture/express/reflect t1. I suggest that the ill-formedness of (28a) and the starred form of (27a) derives from a relational constraint on that clauses cited in section 4.*[that verbs exist]1. Observe. [the fact that verbs exist]1. b.g. [the fact that verbs exist]1. So (28a) would seem to justify McCawley's and Levine's view that RNR pivots occur as surface constituents in the positions of (only) apparent RNR gaps. I will propose an elegant formulation. (28) A good theory should capture/express/reflect t1 and would capture/ express/reflect t1 a. This theory captures/expresses/reflects*(the fact) [that verbs exist]. (27) a. b. then. [That verbs exist]1 is impossible for such a theory to capture/express/reflect t1. Under that view. [That verbs exist]1. that RNR structures with such verbs cannot be based on that clauses. however. Hukari and Levine 1991. [that verbs exist]1. Postal 1996). c. largely because of issues related to subjects. involves certain < previous page page_109 next page > If you like this book.

(33) a. < previous page page_110 next page > If you like this book. Clear to everyone was*(the fact) that he was dying. 10 Rule (31) claims among other things that that clause constituents cannot head final l-arcs. 5-arcs. 3-arcs. The that clause condition at issue then precludes that clauses from heading most types of final Central-arcs and can be formulated roughly as in (31).c). I assume that the class of Central-arcs includes those with the Relational-signs (R-signs) in (30). 6). formulation (31) is intended to capture the distinction noted by Higgins (1973) and Kuno (1973) between such cases as (33a) and (33b. with the associated extraposition expletive (it) null (see (37)). To implement it.< previous page page_110 next page > Page 110 no doubt controversial assumptions. such examples can be grammatical despite (31) because they can be taken to instantiate the extraposition option. by recognizing an additional relation called extraposition (R-sign = 9). The refinement amounts to dividing the former collection of 8-arcs into two distinct sets. consider (32). which all take extraposed clauses to head 8-arcs. (32) He believes [that verbs exist]. Further. 6-arcs. in which the complement might be assumed in relational terms to head both an initial and a final 2-arc. then. or 8-arcs.1 and chap. whose extension is probably limited to extraposed clausal constituents. Given the posit of 9-arcs. That Tony is a spy is quite obvious. This allows the that clause in (32) heading an initial 2-arc to head a final 9-arc (see Postal 1986a. However. buy it! . 2-arcs. In particular. (30) Central-arc R-signs subject {1} direct object {2} indirect object {3} subobject {4} semiobject {5} quasi object {6} chomeur {8} extraposition {9} Necessary to my formulation is a refinement of past relational approaches to extraposition. extraposed that clauses would head 9-arc local successors of other Central-arcs. l-arcs or 2-arcs. specifically. 3. b.*How obvious is that Tony is a spy? c. This relation's extension covers at least the union of the relations COMP and XCOMP posited in Bresnan 1982. sec. (31) The Complement Clause Condition A final Central-arc headed by a that clause is a 9-arc.

(34) A lexically linked clausal constraint Verbs in the class {capture. then.. That can be an option in generalthe option being forced by principle (31) in the case where the I is a that clause.} are incompatible with clausal extraposition structures. violates (31). I take this to be an RP. express. then. Additionally. In the latter case. one sees that an analysis in which the initial 2-arc headed by the that clause is a final 2-arc violates condition (31).. (31) is intended to block all cases where a that clause would represent the head constituent of a PP. a that clause can appear in so-called subject position only in structures not involving subject-auxiliary inversion. In the terms of Postal 1986a.< previous page page_111 next page > Page 111 That is. This combines with the traditional relational idea that full clauses require a final l-arc to indicate that cases like (33) involve an invisible final 1. My view of this is as follows. even though the initial structures impose no such bracketing. though. see the discussion of (41) and (46). Why. mentioned in Postal 1989. the "inverted" constituent heads a final and surface l-arc and thus.. yielding consistency with (31). the difference between structures with and without subject-auxiliary inversion is among other things the difference between structures that do not manifest raising to Prime and those that do. This consequence of (31) is dealt with below in connection with specific examples. the standard order is "verb + subject. a more precise version of (34) would say that a Predicate-arc headed by one of these verbs cannot have the same tail node as a 9-arc (local successor of a 1-arc or 2-arc) headed by a that < previous page page_111 next page > If you like this book. is the extraposition analysis posited for (32) unavailable for the verb class noted by Grimshaw (1982)? An informal answer is stated in (34). since without the RP the raised that clause would head a final l-arc. 124. buy it! . at least for clausal 1s. Turning to the starred form of (27a). the binary "subject + VP" surface structure of tensed clauses is a function of raising to Prime. It must be specified that. n." I should note that such an analysis does not require that an RP obligatorily be linked to raising to Prime. which logic determines must have an analysis in which the complement does not head a final l-arc. 11 In these terms. The problematic case is (33a). Evidently. Further. linked to the fact that the clause has raised to a nontraditional relation called Prime. 1. revised so that extraposition involves demotion to 9 rather than to 8. which is then the final 1 of the tensed clause. if it is a that clause. raising to this relation requires an invisible RP.

The latter condition might.1. where topicalization was shown to be a B-extraction13 (see also section 4. the topicalized clause that heads an initial 2-arc but not a final 9-arc linked to extraposition nonetheless does not. 12 Given (34). b. Given (31). as might otherwise be expected. But an account of why topicalization is nonetheless possible in (27d) can appeal to the view that English NP topicalization is always linked to an (invisible) RP in the extraction site. if. Postal 1986a. logic requires that my description of this extraction not posit that the topicalized that clause head a final 2-arc. despite the acceptable passives in (27b).3. a view already given substantial support in chapter 2. there exists the possibly previously unnoticed contrast in (35). However. It cannot head a 2-arc because of the general rule (31). it cannot head a 9-arc (associated with extraposition) because of the lexically restricted (34). head a final 2-arc. it seemed to me/was believed by everyone t1. This is motivated by unambiguous extraposition structures like (36).*It was captured/expressed/reflected (by that theory) [that verbs exist]. This is < previous page page_112 next page > If you like this book. It also cannot be taken to head a final 9-arc because of Higgins's (1973) generalization that extraposed clauses are not subject to topicalization (see Sag and Klein 1982.2.< previous page page_112 next page > Page 112 clause. (35) a. 99). In (27d). To complete the argument that (28a) fails to support McCawley's view of RNR or a claim that RNR is not an extraction phenomenon. It is believed (by most experts) [that verbs exist]. it remains to account for the grammaticality of L-extractions like the topicalization in (27d). Ill-formed expressions like (35b) motivate condition (34) independently of cases like (27).*[That verbs exist]1. it violates the lexically linked (34). (36) a. b. Emonds 1985. be criticized as ad hoc. there is in effect no viable analysis of the starred form of (27a). then. in a constituent C. then an invisible RP heads a final w-arc in C. the last Central-arc headed by a topicalized phrase is an w-arc.3). of course. If the that clause heads a final 2- are. The RNR case in (28a) is then ill formed even under the view that RNR is an extraction phenomenon. it violates general rule (31). It seemed to me/was believed by everyone [that verbs exist]. 314-315. This follows because the complement cannot licitly head either type of final arc generally available for a that-clause-initial 2. if it heads a final 9-arc under extraposition. buy it! . More precisely.

< previous page page_113 next page > Page 113 because topicalization determines the existence of an invisible RP. (37) Partial structure of (27d) Here B. In such diagrams. is not final. which heads the final 2-arc in the basic clause. An arc at the point of an Erase arrow is erased. among other things. rather. but also on the view that the former does not. broken arrows represent the Sponsor relation. The idea that cases like (32) are grammatical because they involve a masked extraposition structure receives some support from facts related < previous page page_113 next page > If you like this book. double arrows the Erase relation. the structure of (27d) would include the elements shown in (37). In these terms. C (headed by an RP) is. It should be stressed that the contrast between ungrammatical RNR in (28a) and grammatical topicalization in (27d) depends not only on the claim that the latter involves invisible RPs. entailing. buy it! . that it is not part of the surface representation. although an initial 2-arc of node 100.

The same assumptions would block (38b) as well.1.8. Unlike (24b).2. (40) [That three and three are seven]1. Ted considers it to be unimportant that three and three are seven. the analogs of both (38a) and (38b) are grammatical.1. unlike RNR. as shown in (37). for under this analysis the that clause heads a final 2-arc. b.2.3.3 that Clause Extractions A second observation not previously discussed in the literature on the character of RNR might also seem to support McCawley's position in a way parallel to the argument just analyzed. I am no longer certain*Ø/of t1. There I considered an argument linked to examples like (24) mentioned by McCawley (1987). given that topicalization. It involved an interaction between RNR and the "internal S" constraint. But a combination of raising to object plus extraposition in English in general yields an output with a visible expletive itand when that is present.*Ted considers that three and three are seven to be unimportant. c. The final 2 in each clause would be the invisible RP. if the that clause in a case like (38b) is topicalized. This is so under my present assumptions because the that clause then does not head a final 2-arc. Contrastively. L-extractions of that clauses in contexts like those of (41) must strand prepositions (see Kaplan and Bresnan 1982. 242. < previous page page_114 next page > If you like this book. Expression (38a) can be taken to violate principle (31) under a (relational) raising-to-object analysis of such infinitival clauses. Consider then: (38) a. b.*Ted considers to be unimportant t1 but Frank considers to be crucial t1 [that three and three are seven]1. if an extraposition analysis of that construction were unavailable. [That Nancy is an extraterrestrial]1. Postal 1994). 4. the result is well formed. b. Frank may be certain Ø/* of t1 and should be certain Ø/* of t1 [that Nancy is an extraterrestrial]1. (39) a. But RNR in such cases cannot do so.2. Ted considers it to be unimportant t1 but Frank considers it to be crucial t1 [that three and three are seven]1. I am no longer certain Ø/* of that Nancy is an extraterrestrial. buy it! . (38b) involves an RNR pivot that is itself a that clause. Ted considers to be unimportant t1 (but Frank considers to be crucial t1).< previous page page_114 next page > Page 114 to those cited in section 4. is linked to RPs. (41) a.

the view that topicalization is a B-extraction. although the position is not incompatible with L-extractions. the contrast between (41b) and (41c) arguably depends not on the fact that topicalization is an extraction and RNR is not. Frank painted them t1 yesterday. it would correctly predict that the pattern of grammaticality/ungrammaticality in (41c) reverses when the fact is inserted before the that clause. previously appealed to in my treatment of constructions with the verbs discussed by Grimshaw (1982). However. (42) I am no longer certain of the fact that Nancy is an extraterrestrial. Moreover. I alone would have given the wall t1. because topicalization is a B-extraction.*Frank painted his houses/them it. Francine gave the wall the last coat of paint. the "coat of paint" position in contexts like (43a). I would have agreed to t1. b. This is an AC. (43) a. since at issue is. c. [Some other coat of paint]1. A similar pattern occurs with color-designating phrases in contexts like (44a-c). What1 Francine gave the wall t1 was its final coat of paint. Frank painted it/them green/that color. Examples (43e) and (44e) are typical of those justifying the view that < previous page page_115 next page > If you like this book. d. Frank painted his house(s) green/that color. The first of these claims. b. To understand the topicalization/RNR contrast. e.< previous page page_115 next page > Page 115 McCawley's view of RNR would correctly block the starred version of (41c) on the basis of the known constraint operative in the starred variant of (41a). but partly on the fact that English topicalization is inherently linked to (invisible) RPs. that is.*[Some other coat of paint]1. was supported in chapter 2. (44) a. e. c. Therefore. d. [Some other color]1. as with the previous potential argument. buy it! . for example. on the basis of the contrast between the starred version of (41a) and (42). it cannot be filled by a weak definite pronoun.*Francine gave the wall it. whereas RNR is not. it is incompatible with topicalization of otherwise topicalizable NPs. I would have applied t1 more rapidly.*[Some other color]1. consider. of course.

This is in effect the only analysis consistent with rule (31). but in these constructions. for example. buy it! . the ungrammatical variant is bad because no extraposition exists and the clause heads the same kind of final arc as nonclausal arguments of the predicate. Grammatical RNR cases like (41c) then involve extraposed clauses. the grammaticality of (45a. as in (32). Allan may have painted his barn t1 and certainly did paint his house t1 [a horrible shade of bright pinkie. I am certain*Ø/ of that. it is required to be null. (46) a. I am certain Ø/* of that Nancy is an extraterrestrial. However. the joint claims that topicalization involves RPs but RNR does not yield only part of a description of more complex paradigms like (41). the ungrammaticality of (43e) and (44e) is an unexplained anomaly. b. Next consider RNR cases based on parallel extraction sites. My assumptions extend those made in Postal 1986a. Thus. If they did. 9-arc local successors. By the logic applied to (43e) and (44e). A full treatment must deal with alternations like the ones in (46) and account for the possibility of stranded prepositions in. that is.< previous page page_116 next page > Page 116 topicalization is linked to RPs. In the terms used in Postal 1986a. First. Without the RP assumption. Then the ill-formed version of (46b) would be blocked by rule (31) on the assumption that the relational structure of the prepositional phrase (PP) is like (47). in presently revised terms. I take the possibility of the good form of (46b) to be a function of extraposition. because that assumption permits reduction of the ill-formed extraction cases to the independently needed restrictions applying in (43c) and (44c).b). b. extraposition always involves an expletive nominal. the restriction applying in (43c) and (44c) would block (45a. Francine may have given the south wall t1 and she certainly gave the north wall t1 [its last coat of paint]1. < previous page page_116 next page > If you like this book. (41b) and their impossibility in (41c). both elements of the earlier account of the contrast between (27d) and (28a) can be motivated. Let us assume nonessentially that the relevant final relation is the Central relation quasi object (R-sign = 6) described in Postal 1990a. (45) a.b) supports the view that apparent RNR gaps do not (obligatorily) represent invisible RPs. If the grammatical variant of (46b) is good because the clause is extraposed and heads a final 9-arc in accord with principle (31).

(31) would fail to block the starred version of (46b)more generally.< previous page page_117 next page > Page 117 (47) Partial structure of (46b) This violates (31) since the that clause heads a final Central-arc C. which. in contrast to that of (41b). would fail to impose the exceptionless incompatibility of that clauses with PP head status. Next consider (41c). These assumptions deserve extensive discussion. but here I will only sketch the relevant view (see Postal 1991). are the result not of extraction but of demotion. 14 I am uncertain what to call the relation to which phrases demote in this case. An analysis parallel to that given for the contrast between (28a) and (27d) is clearly desirable and is available under certain (very) nonstandard general assumptions about extraction-linked preposition stranding. it must be explained why the preposition- stranding version of (41c) is ill formed. Structure (47) differs from relational descriptions of PPs like that in Johnson and Postal 1980 in eliminating the relation Marquee and in marking those arcs previously taken to be Marquee-arcs with the same Central R-signs as their predecessors. < previous page page_117 next page > If you like this book. a non-9-arc. however. The basic idea is that preposition stranding involves invisible RPs. If previous representations were maintained. buy it! . Under the assumption that RNR is not linked to RPs.

like 2-arcs and 6-arcs. etc. at least for English. (48)*They talked the presidential race about. for example. I take it as a brute fact about English that where a phrase advances to 10 from some relation to. other things being equal. the RP would. 10-arcs are Central-arcs. 2. technically. buy it! .< previous page page_118 next page > Page 118 but I take the relevant R-sign to be 10. Since w is. 9. A must have a foreign successor. 15 That is why (48). Crucially. is ungrammatical.. it is true. like the relation 6 of (47). in not deter-mining such a structure). But English requires in addition that this reflexive RP be null. Hence. Moreover. (49) Stranded-preposition extraction structure < previous page page_118 next page > If you like this book. that the head of a 10-arc A must always be extracted. a stranded-preposition extraction structure will have the general form (49). an RP must head an w- arc in the same clause. then be expected to show up as the (reflexive) head of a PP. always the sort of relation that determines a PP structure (whereas 10 is like 1.

unlike the stranding version of (41c). The licit versions involve the extraposition type of demotion. so that. believed/ii. such a conclusion is very weak. wants the visitor to be alert. (50) a. The contrast between (51ii) and (52ii) might be invoked to argue that RNR is not an extraction phenomenon.3. (52) Steve may have i. the invisible RP heads the final 10-arc. believes/ii. believes/ii. (41b) satisfies constraint (31). Steve i. as in (37). 4. 16 Since 10-arcs are Central-arcs but not 9-arcs. I noted that. believe/ii. in contrast to NPs in contexts like (50ai). buy it! . a constraint parallel to the one that holds in (50) holds for RNR. believed/ii. 92-93.1. (51) [Which visitor]1 did Steve i. But the stranding versions could only involve advancement of the that clauses to 10. The visitor was i. However. those in (50aii) are not subject to CXS (see Postal 1974.*wants t1 to be alert [the attractive visitor from the dark galaxy]1. 406-411).2.*wanted to be alert by everyone. This determines that although the that clause in (41b) heads a 10-arc. leaving them heading final 10-arcs in violation of rule (31). because of the RP-linked feature of topicalization. either structure permits L-extraction. as perhaps not previously noted. However. as in (49). Rather.< previous page page_119 next page > Page 119 Under this analysis.*wanted t1 to be alert and probably did believe/want t1 to be alert [the attractive visitor from the dark galaxy]1. the constraint can be stated as blocking < previous page page_119 next page > If you like this book. Even under the view that RNR is an extraction. b. topicalizations like (41b) are grammatical. yielding that clauses heading final 9-arcs in accord with (31). Elsewhere. c. following an observation by Howard Lasnik. rule (31) determines that a that clause cannot head a final 10-arc.4 Two Types of infinitive A third potential basis of support for a position like McCawley's merits brief consideration. that arc is not final. This yields an account of why the preposition-stranding versions of (41c) are ill formed. what appears to be extraction of the head of a PP is actually extraction of an element advanced to a fixed relation 10 that antecedes the null reflexive RP head of a cooccurring pp. This correlates with the fact that the NP in (50ai) is passivizable and the one in (50aii) is not. In contrast. Steve i. want t1 to be alert? The latter fact might suggest a further potential argument for a position about RNR like McCawley's since.

Given the passive constraint operative in (50cii). the multiple-mother-node analysis provides no account for (52ii) since it claims in effect that the surface structure of that example is essentially like that of the perfectly grammatical (50aii). A quite different approach. but not the believe structure. I conclude that none of the three potential arguments just discussed really offers any support for a view of RNR like McCawley's. and RNR (but not standard L-extractions) as incompatible with the quirky marking in question. unlike (50ai). (53) I would prefer for the visitor to be alert. The third type of contrast could well be due to the way a contrast between the presence and absence of subject raising with different types of infinitival complement interacts with an independent ban on RNR of final subjects. which is then regularly not subject to passivization. the contrast between (51) and (52ii) appears to show very little about the issues with which this study is concerned. which I currently believe to be far more plausible. the raising-induced object is associated with a kind of abstract quirky case marking. then. and (c) a relational view of preposition stranding. A natural suggestion would then be that. contrary to the view I took in Postal 1974. But the resulting main-clause constituents would be distinguished because in the want structure. Although the cases do reveal contrasts between RNR and topicalization. This independently justifiable distinction interacts with (a) the relational characterization of the limitation on verbs like capture in (34). it could be due to a contrast in abstract case marking. To make such an analysis work. buy it! . or RNR. CXS. to yield the contrasting facts in fairly general ways. for the post-for NP here is also not subject to passivization. it is then necessary to view passivization. In any event. the first two can ultimately be argued to follow from the fact that the latter is linked to RPs and the former is not. So far. RNR and CXS would be blocked because these are in general impossible for (unraised) final subjects.< previous page page_120 next page > Page 120 R-extractions. one possible approach would link the structure of (50aii) to that of cases like (53). (50aii) does not involve main-clause constituency (raising) for the postverbal NP. Alternatively. Beyond suggesting that these potential arguments are not real arguments for the sort of position McCawley has < previous page page_120 next page > If you like this book. CXS. probably nominative. This is not the place to seriously develop these ideas. (b) a relational view of the basic clausal constraints on that clauses first noticed by Ross (1967) and stated in (31). would recognize raising in both structures of (50a). as in Postal 1974.

shown to hold for L-extractions and that also constrain the formation of RNR constructions. like that of Levine (1985). 11) observes that the formation of RNR constructions is sensitive to Ross's (1967) CSC. 4.1 Comments Support for a position that recognizes the essential similarity of L-extractions and RNR is readily available. n.2 Common Properties of Right Node Raising and L-Extractions 4. buy it! . 302). this discussion underlines the general point that even quite sharp real contrasts between RNR and L- extractions can fail to argue that RNR is not an extraction phenomenon.1. This evidence consists of myriad restrictions that have been. as previously observed in effect by Wexler and Culicover (1980.2. Moreover.< previous page page_121 next page > Page 121 advocated. 11) And he gives an example that illustrates this nicely. 4.2. 101. < previous page page_121 next page > If you like this book. McCawley's accounts of RNR. I take up this issue in the following section. however. For instance. 4. or can be. of course. that RNR and L-extractions are quite similar in various respects. as shown in chapter 3.4 Summary I have shown that the positive evidence that McCawley and others have provided for the position that RNR is fundamentally distinct from extraction phenomena is at best much less than has been assumed and that certain apparent evidence for that assumption is in fact not evidence for it. (55) Tom is writing an article on Aristotle and Freud. and Elaine has just published a monograph on Mesmer and Freud Þ*Tom is writing an article on Aristotle t1 and Elaine has just published a monograph on Mesmer t1 [and Freud]1. McCawley (1982. a fundamental condition on L-extractions.2.2 The Coordinate Structure Constraint Implications that RNR and L-extractions are clearly similar have been neglected even when evidence for such similarity has been given by advocates of a distinct view of RNR. McCawley states: (54) ''The CSC does.2. Considerable evidence favors the view that RNR is an extraction phenomenon.2. rule out applying RNR to material that is in coordinate constituents of the conjuncts of a coordinate structure. But the CSC is. to the contrary. n.2." (McCawley 1982. 101. fail to consider whether there is evidence that shows.

2.2. regardless of whether the associated conjunction occurs on the pivot. Ernest sold Lydia drugs. Here RNR seems to obey the aspect of the CSC that has been called the Conjunct Constraint (see Grosu 1972.1. [Which hostess]1 did Ernest sell drugs to t1? d.< previous page page_122 next page > Page 122 *Tom is writing an article on Aristotle and t1 and Elaine has just published a monograph on Mesmer and t1 [Freud]1.2. The director handed the report to the consultant.3 The Indirect Object Constraint A constraint noted in the 1960s and valid for many types of English involves traditional indirect objects (IOs) 17 (see Fillmore 1965. It is illustrated in (57). b. and chapter 3). Example (56) illustrates that an RNR pivot also cannot be linked to a piece of a conjunct except in the same ATB fashion (relating to one element from each conjunct) that L-extractions can. and Dore 1974. Culicover 1982. 337). Oehrle 1975. for under McCawley's view. c. Ernest sold drugs to Lydia. Pollard and Sag 1994. [Which drugs]1 did Ernest sell Lydia t1? (58) a. RNR cases also obey what has been called the Element Constraint and thus are governed by both aspects of the original CSC. 4. 236-237. (56) Tom may have bought sketches of Gail and photos of Louise and Bob saw Louise Þ RNR *Tom may have bought sketches of Gail and photos of t1. an RNR pivot cannot be linked to a conjunct. c. (57) a. The argument is at best neutralized by the observation that RNR is controlled by the CSC. buy it! .*[Which hostess]1 did Ernest sell t1 drugs? e. Namely. It was that consultant who1 the director handed the report to t1 < previous page page_122 next page > If you like this book. Hence.5. The CSC facts could be taken to yield a kind of standoff with the argument of section 4. which sought to differentiate RNR from L-extractions on the grounds that only the former fails to obey the island condition defined by relative clauses. b. Kuroda 1968. and Bob saw t1 Louise1. Langendoen. Hankamer 1973. Kalish-Landon. both aspects of the CSC must control radically different grammatical phenomenaextractions and the nonextraction phenomenon he takes RNR to be.2. The director handed the consultant the report.

< previous page page_123 next page > If you like this book. e. Under the presumbably uncontroversial view that passivization does not involve extraction. To be viable. b. Moreover. as these also manifest the effect. and P-gap structures must then involve L-extractions. 18 Ungrammaticality also results when the pivot corresponds to an IO in (either) one and a non-IO in others. e. d. I first offered apples t1 and then sold peaches t1 [to the immigrant from Paraguay]1. (59) The Indirect Object Constraint (first version) An 10 cannot be L-extracted. c. (60) a. object-raising. allow passives like (62a). (62) a. Martin1 is hard for us to sell things to t1. (59) does correctly block extraction of the IO from a passive for those who. object deletion.*It was that consultant who1 the director handed t1 the report.g. 1982. buy it! .*It was Martin who1 I hired t1 after selling t1 things. 1981. One might formulate this constraint informally as in (59).*Martin1 is hard for us to sell t1 things. Martin1 is too poor for us to sell things to t1. (59) is correctly not incompatible with the passivization of some IOs.< previous page page_123 next page > Page 123 d. (59) fails to predict that the Indirect Object Constraint governs RNR. It was Martin who1 I hired t1 after selling things to t1. Browning 1987a. such a conclusion is already fairly well established in at least a good part of the literature (see. f. The telegram was handed Joanne by the secretary. 1986a. b. c. In (63c) the RNR pivot corresponds to an IO in each conjunct. (61) Joanne was handed the tragic telegram by the secretary. However. This covers cases like (57) and (58) properly. It was that report which1 the director handed the consultant t1.*[Which employee]1 was the telegram handed t1 by the secretary? However. as I do.. b.b). (63) a. Chomsky 1977b. e.*I first offered t1 apples and then sold t1 peaches [the immigrant from Paraguay]1. I first offered apples to t1 and then sold peaches to t1 [the immigrant from Paraguay]1.*Martin1 is too poor for us to sell t1 things.

e. I restrict the discussion exclusively to post-of genitives. She saw several children of Ted's. f. and P-gap cases. 19 4. She saw several pictures of Ted.4 The Genitive Constraint There is a constraint precluding the L-extraction of genitive-marked NPs or of the PPs that contain them. with the same implication. A unified formulation of the Indirect Object Constraint that predicts its application in the full range of structures where it actually holds then be at least as general as (65). Call the restriction that blocks (66c. To avoid questions of more general limitations on extraction of elements on left branches. Ted1 is hard to find pictures of t1.*It was Ted('s)1 that they arrested t1 after finding children of t1.2. b. Like the Indirect Object Constraint. It was Ted1 that she saw several pictures of t1.< previous page page_124 next page > Page 124 (64) a. RNR must be regarded (at least in part) as an extraction phenomenon. ?It was [of Ted]1 that she saw several pictures t1.e) the Genitive Constraint. For (65) to correctly predict the ungrammaticality of (63). c. b. < previous page page_124 next page > If you like this book.*Ted('s)1 is too remote to find children of t1.*I first offered t1 apples and then sold peaches to t1 [the immigrant from Paraguay]1.*It was [of Ted's]1 that she saw several children t1. b. (67) a. object deletion. d. (64b) and the like. Ted1 is too remote to find pictures of t1.*I first offered apples to t1 and then sold t1 peaches [the immigrant from Paraguay]1. this restriction also manifests itself in object-raising.*It was Ted's1 that she saw several children of t1.2. d. c. e. Consider: (66) a. It was Ted1 that they arrested t1 after finding pictures of t1.*Ted('s)1 is hard to find children of t1. These facts could lead to the following informal formulation: (68) The Genitive Constraint (first version) A constituent of the form [(of) NP's] cannot be L-extracted. (65) The Indirect Object Constraint (second version) An IO cannot be extracted. buy it! . f.

*Glen was looking for nieces t1 but only found cousins t1 [of Ted and Alice's]1. the woman who1 I spoke to t1 about herself e. buy it! . d. such a generalization makes sense only if both L-extractions and RNR instantiate some common linguistic phenomenon called "extraction. [Which woman]1 did you speak to t1 about herself? c. b. (70) The Genitive Constraint (second version) A constituent of the form [(of) NP's] cannot be extracted.2. 485. 203. (73) a." 4. (71) a. The same patterns hold in RNR structures.5 The First Reflexive Constraint Several authors observe a limitation on PP antecedents of reflexives (see Postal 1974. parallel genitive restrictions manifest themselves in RNR structures.*the woman [to whom]1 I spoke t1 about herself One might formulate this limitation as follows: (72) The First Reflexive Constraint If D is a PP whose head NP is the antecedent of a reflexive NP head of a PP.*Glen was looking for nieces of t1 but only found cousins of t1 [Ted and Alice's]1. So (68) must be generalized.< previous page page_125 next page > Page 125 Notably. n. Chomsky and Lasnik 1977. 5. Van Riemsdijk and Williams 1986. (69) a. Glen was looking for photos of t1. b. but only found sketches of t1 [Ted and Alice]1. Glen was looking for photos t1 but only found sketches t1 [of Ted and Alice]1. 106. I spoke to Lydia about herself. c. 275-276. Baltin and Postal 1996). < previous page page_125 next page > If you like this book. then A cannot be extracted (although its subconstituent NP can be).*[To which woman]1 did you speak t1 about herself? d.2. n. As before. He might have spoken to t1 about herself1 and certainly wrote to t1 about herself1 [the angry candidate whose interview went so badly]1.

again. like L-extractions. Lois criticized t1/described t1 to the caller/works t1 very hard. Lois perjured t1/devoted t1 to her sheep/never exerts t1. are distinct from the ordinary reflexives in (75). a notion that must. The same restriction distinguishes inherent from ordinary reflexives as RNR pivots. 141. cover both L- extractions and RNR. c. b. if (72) is to cover all the facts. b.2. RNR constructions must on the basis of this evidence also be regarded as extractions. Lois never exerts herself. then. found in (74). b. b. English RNR can strand prepositions. inherent reflexives cannot be L-extracted. (78) a.6 The Second Reflexive Constraint Certain instances of reflexive pronouns not corresponding to independent logical elements are traditionally referred to as inherent.*Herself1. Amanda criticized herself. (77) a. the constraint in question holds for extraction in general.*It was herself1 that Lois perjured t1/devoted t1 to her sheep/never exerts t1.7 Stranded Prepositions Ross (1967) observes that. (74) a. (75) a. 1972. It was herself1 that Lois criticized t1/described t1 to the caller/works t1 very hard. and (79d) from Rodman. 4.2. 4. c.) < previous page page_126 next page > If you like this book. unlike ordinary reflexives. (76) a. Lois works herself very hard.*He might have spoken t1 about herself1 and certainly wrote t1 about herself1 [to the angry candidate whose interview went so badly]1. Arguably.< previous page page_126 next page > Page 126 b.2. 79. Such reflexives. Therefore. Errol devoted himself to his sheep. buy it! . b.2. ((79a) is from Ross 1967. Lois may have criticized t1 and should have criticized t1 herself1. Errol described himself to the caller. Herself1.*Lois may have perjured/exerted t1 and should have perjured/exerted t1 herself1. Amanda perjured herself. Notably.

an argument against the latter resides in the fact that many of the conditions on preposition stranding under RNR are identical to those on preposition stranding under L-extractions. and keep track of Construction of relevant examples is left to the reader.*the problems [of which]1 she made light t1 Other forms given by Rodman (1972. d. They scoffed at somebody. the problems which1 she made light of t1 c. This situation does not in itself argue for the unity of RNR and L-extraction. Case (80b) is illustrated in (83) and (84). since the facts would follow as well from the sort of structures posited in McCawley's proposal about RNR. < previous page page_127 next page > If you like this book. I skirted around t1 but Guinevere ran into t1 [the bush behind the girls' gym]1. case (80c) is exemplified in (85). I am confident of t1 and my boss depends on t1 [a successful outing .< previous page page_127 next page > Page 127 (79) a. Rodman (1972) notes that different cases have to be distinguished with respect to L-extractions. buy it! .*[What way]1 did Jerome tickle Marsha in t1? c. Ernie did it for someone else's sake. Who(m)1 did they scoff at t1? c.]1. 84) as also requiring stranding include account for. b. 82. However. [In what way]1 did Jerome tickle Marsha t1? (84) a. (b) blocked. b.. [For whose sake]1 did Ernie do that t1? Finally. b. b. (c) optional. (81) a. Ellen argued for t1 and Gwen argued against t1 [the proposal to fire all the workers]1. She made light of the problems facing the PTA.. (80) Typology of preposition stranding under L-extractions Instances in which stranding is (a) required. Frank talked to t1 and Martin talked about t1 [the visitors from Andromeda]1. (83) a. Case (80a) is illustrated in (81) and (82). b.*[At whom]1 did they scoff t1? (82) a. Jerome tickled Marsha in that way.*[Whose sake]1 did Ernie do that for t1? c. c. insist on.

just as the corresponding L-extraction structures are. just as in the corresponding L-extractions. If RNR is an < previous page page_128 next page > If you like this book. focus on (86e. Ernie may have done it t1 and certainly should have done it t1 [for somebody else's sake]1. But in McCawley's terms.< previous page page_128 next page > Page 128 (85) a. where RNR gaps corresponding to heads of PPs are disallowed. b. He discovered the troll under that bridge. buy it! . preclude.*They could have made light t1 and should have made light t1 [of the difficulties in question]1.c) since internal to his proposal. or optionally allow it under RNR. g. They could have made light of t1 and should have made light of t1 [the difficulties in question]1. this could follow from a uniform constraint of the schematic form (87). Jerome may have tickled Marsha t1 and certainly should have tickled her t1 [in the way that I told you]1. They might have discovered the troll under t1 and should have discovered the troll under t1 [the bridge near the falls]1. preclude. b. f. (81c) and (82c). for example. Similarly. c. (86) a. Cases that require. If RNR is an extraction phenomenon. e. (87) PPs of type X cannot be extracted. In (86a. Jane could have scoffed at t1 and should have scoffed at t1 [that idea]1. j. h. [Under what bridge]1 did he discover the troll t1? Notably. (87) would not predict the ungrammaticality of (86a. nothing has been extracted. Certain cases are particularly damaging to McCawley's conception of RNR. They might have discovered the troll t1 and should have discovered the troll t1 [under the bridge near the falls]1.c) RNR gaps corresponding to PPs are ill formed.*Jane could have scoffed t1 and should have scoffed t1 [at that idea]1. d. independently motivated by.*Jerome may have tickled Marsha in t1 and certainly should have tickled her in t1 [the way that I told you]1. the typology in (80) holds for corresponding RNR forms. i.g).*Ernie may have done it for t1 and certainly should have have done it for t1 [somebody else's sake]1. [What bridge]1 did he discover the troll under t1? c. or optionally allow stranding under L-extraction respectively require.

They talked to everyone except to Wanda. buy it! . (88) Heads of PPs of type Y cannot be extracted. as (3) makes explicit. this could follow from a uniform restriction of schematically the form (88).*They may have spoken to everybody other than t1 and should have spoken to everybody other than t1 Franklin1.*It was Bob1 that Terry invited nobody but t1. c. under McCawley's proposal in (3). b. d. (91) a. They spoke to everybody other than Franklin. I refer to phrases like those italicized in (89) as exceptives. which would not involve extraction. But in McCawley's terms. For.*Harry should have talked to everyone except t1 and probably did talk to everyone except t1 [to Wanda]1. Terry invited nobody but Bob. the ungrammaticality of (91) is anomalous and fails to be accounted for by the constraint that blocks the L-extractions in (90).2. The nurse watched everything except that operation. (88) could not cover (86e. (89) a.10.< previous page page_129 next page > Page 129 extraction phenomenon.2.2. for example.8 Exceptives As in section 2. in terms of multiple-mother-node structures like (4). d. d. I am sure that the nurse watched everything except t1. for example. such cases would not actually contain stranded prepositions. Exceptives form islands for L-extractions. (83b) and (84b).g). More precisely.*[That operation]1. c. b.*Terry may have invited nobody but t1 and should have invited nobody but t1 [Bob and his crew]1.*It was [to Wanda]1 that they talked to everyone except t1. Thus. (84b) and (86g) would be accidental. the parallelism between.*The nurse wanted to watch everything except t1 and did watch everything except t1 [the most difficult and lengthy operation of the day]1. And exceptives equally resist the formation of RNR structures. under the nonextraction view. Once more. b. 4. also independently motivated by. RNR does not affect constituency relations. (90) a.*Who1 did they speak to everybody other than t1? c. < previous page page_129 next page > If you like this book.

2. (93) a. More generally. the L-extracted NP in (92d) has in effect been extracted out of dative to phrases like those in (92c). c.*[Which events]1 are you looking forward t2 with great anticipation [to t1]2? e. The overall claim is that sharp contrasts exist between RNR properties and L-extraction properties.2.2. buy it! . If McCawley's view is rejected. Under that view. Under an extraction view of RNR. Who1 did Ted offer apples to t1 yesterday and actually give peaches to t1 today? d.2. (92) a.< previous page page_130 next page > Page 130 4. this contrast illustrates a clear way in which an RNR pivot fails to act as if it were a surface constituent of n preceding conjuncts. Ted offered apples t1 yesterday and actually gave peaches t1 today [to the lovely young secretary]1. and hence independently motivated. see (93e). Consider (92).9 Another Preposition-Stranding Fact McCawley's position is that analyzing RNR as a nonextraction phenomenon manifesting multiple-mother surface structures explains otherwise anomalous proper-ties of RNR cases.6. This yields incorrect predictions relating to another aspect of the interaction of preposition stranding and RNR. b.1.*Who1 did Ted offer apples t2 yesterday and actually give peaches t2 today [to t1]2? Under McCawley's conception of RNR. The multiple- mother-node view then provides no account for the ungrammaticality of (92d) and its contrast with (92c). [Which events]1 are you looking forward to t1 with great anticipation? d. one of the two possible analyses of the RNR/L-extraction interaction discussed in that section would seem to reduce the principle operative in (92d) to the one operative in non-RNR cases like (93d). c.*[What kind of gorillas]1 does Mary sell t1 to tourists [pictures of t1]2? < previous page page_130 next page > If you like this book. Ted offered apples to h and actually gave peaches to t1 [the lovely young secretary]1. the restriction manifest in (92d) can presumably be identified in part with the independently motivated RSIC mentioned in section 4. b. I am looking forward t1 with great anticipation [to both events]1. an RNR pivot is a surface constituent of all the preceding conjuncts. I am looking forward to both events with great anticipation.

4. (95) a. under which RNR targets are L-extraction remnants.2. it provides an additional argument that RNR is a true extraction. in the specific case of PP constructions with stranded Ps. in Postal 1993c I observe.< previous page page_131 next page > Page 131 That is. In Postal 1993c I argue that the restriction in (94b) is a special case of the Derived Object Constraint (Postal 1974). such ''remnant" PPs are not actually directly formed by extraction. It remains to explain why (92b) is also ill formed (in contrast to. buy it! . b. I believe what is involved relates to the nonstandard account of preposition stranding under extraction sketched in section 4..b). were claimed to be (locked) islands. b. to complete the account. . (19)) on the other analysis. b. some principle would have to block RNR from taking that sort of L-extraction remnant as a target.1..10 Defective Paradigms Kayne (1984.g. in this case the complement subject can be L-extracted but cannot appear in the surface object position. John. even though in general. that the extraction required to save (94a) and (95a) from the constraint in (94b) and (95b) can also be that associated with RNR.3. since RNR pivots. That is. They might have alleged t1 to be pimps and probably did allege t1 to be pimps [all of the Parisians who the CIA hired in Nice]1. defined on the basis of cases like (95a.. they alleged t1 to be a pimp. Franks.. Thus...*I assure you John to be the best. as neither I (Postal 1974) nor Kayne (1984) did earlier. < previous page page_131 next page > If you like this book. Since this phenomenon both groups RNR with L-extractions and differentiates RNR pivots from unextracted NP positions. L-extraction remnants were claimed to be allowed as RNR targets.2.. Under that proposal. who1 I assure you t1 to be the best . the relevant principle would Block the analysis in which L-extraction operates on a predefined RNR structure. But a serious development of this idea is not possible here. (96) a. it is not unexpected that the freedom for RNR targets to be L-extraction remnants would not extend to them. like CXS ones. e. I can assure you t1 to be one of the world's ten best cars and hereby do assure you t1 to be one of the world's ten best cars [the 1992 model De Soto that you see standing in front of you]1. Evidently. 5) observes the following contrast: (94) a. Notably.3.2.*They alleged Frank to be a pimp.

d. It was evil/nice of Marilyn to do that.2.*the perpetrators [of whom]1 they interrogated all t1 Parallel constraints hold for RNR. permit neither their complement PPs nor the head NPs of those PPs to be L-extracted (see Stowell 1991). a view that radically distinguishes the nature of RNR from that of L-extractions evidently cannot capture the parallelism between (97c. b. (101) a. and so on. wonderful.*He should have interrogated all h and did interrogate all t1 [(of) the victims of the terrorist attack]1.2. (98) a. They claimed you interrogated all (of) the perpetrators.2. (100) a.*the woman [of whom]1 it was evil/nice t1 to do that c. nice. Again. quantifiers like all and none are islands for L-extractions.12 Adjectival Complements Adjectives of the class evil.*That may have been wonderful of t1 and probably was wonderful of t1 [the person who I had just met in the park]1. parallel restrictions hold for RNR. buy it! . b.*the perpetrators who1 they interrogated all (of) t1 f.*Who1 was that nice/wonderful of t1? Notably. and specifying the class of elements quantified over by.*Marilyn1 it was evil/nice of h to do that.*It might have been nice of h to do that and probably was nice of t1 to do that [the woman who they are thinking of hiring]1. b.< previous page page_132 next page > Page 132 4.e f) and (98a. b. (102) a.*[Of whom]1 was that nice/wonderful t1? c.*[Which victims]1 did they interrogate none of t1? d. That was nice/wonderful of Marilyn. < previous page page_132 next page > If you like this book. They interrogated none of the victims.b).2. (99) a.*[Of which victims]1 did they interrogate none t1? e. c.*I told him not to interrogate any of t1 and he didn't interrogate any of t1 [the perpetrators of the bloody bomb attack]1. b.11 Quantificational Phrases The phrases containing NPs and PPs associated with. (97) a.*It might have been nice t1 to do that and probably was nice t1 to do that [of the woman who they are thinking of hiring]1.*the woman who1 it was evil/nice of t1 to do that d. 4.

1984. 1984. not by passivization. That view denies the < previous page page_133 next page > If you like this book. Browning 1987a.. But for (103) to be considered viable. Jerome fired [that secretary]1 after finding*(her1) drunk. Greg decided to buy t1 after reading about t1 and Gail agreed to lease t1 before test driving t1 [that new model electric car which actually doesn't work]1. That is: (103) The Parasitic Gap Constraint The real gap "licensing" a P-gap is an extraction gap (meeting other conditions). It was Jane who1 the boss warned/informed t1 that he would fire t1. 1986a. b. 1987. raising to object. 1985. That RNR "licenses" P-gaps supports the unity of RNR and L-extractions and yields a sharp objection to the view of RNR endorsed by McCawley (1982.< previous page page_133 next page > Page 133 b. since RNR gaps "license" P-gaps. 4. (105) a. Hukari and Levine 1987. Koster 1987. 20 (104) a. and so on (see. The boss warned t~ that he would fire t1 and the police informed t1 that they would arrest t1 [all those who were involved in the embezzling]1.13 Parasitic Gags A striking argument for the unity of RNR and L-extractions is based on P-gaps. RNR must be analyzed as an extraction phenomenon. [Which secretary]1 did Jerome fire t1 after finding t1 drunk? c. c. Jerome fired t1 after finding t1 drunk and Bill hired t1 after finding t1 sober [the tall young woman standing over there]1. b. The parallel behavior of RNR and L-extractions with respect to these adjectival complements again supports the unity of the two types of phenomena. Pollard and Sag 1994). b. 1985. Engdahl 1983.g.2. Pesetsky 1982. Kayne 1984. Chomsky 1982. Kiss 1985.2. 1988) and Levine (1985). Sag 1983. A view now standardly maintained in different frameworks is that P-gaps are "licensed" only by extractions. The boss warned/informed Jane1 that he would fire*(her1). Gazdar et al.*That may have been wonderful t1 and probably was wonderful t1 [of the person who I had just met in the park]1. buy it! . e.b. Greg decided to buy that model car1 after reading about it1/*t1. (106) a.

22 4.2. [Which woman]1 did Fred date t1 and Bob marry t1? b. the analog of (108) holds for RNR. not found in its closest nonreduced correspondent (say. if RNR is not an extraction phenomenon. Marsha argued for t1 on Tuesday and Louise argued against t2 on Thursday [[communism]1 and [fascism]2]3. buy it! . respectively.4. That is. multiple-mother-node view of RNR are linked to generalization (108). for example. Interwoven dependency refers to the sort of pattern found in English respectively constructions. (111) John loves oysters and Mary hates clams. Moreover. for example.2. relations to the coordinate < previous page page_134 next page > If you like this book. hardly deny that (110a. oysters and clams. corresponding to (109a) is a well-formed (109b).2. then.< previous page page_134 next page > Page 134 existence of "real" gaps in RNR cases and thus offers no reason why.b) anything like McCawley's (4b). One could.14 Interwoven Dependencies Serious problems for a nonextraction. I think.2. each conjunct of (111) enters into constituency relations not found in an unreduced correspondent. Claim (108) states that.11. that is.2. The structure of. John loves t1 and Mary hates t2 [[oysters]1 and [clams]2]3. See also section 4. respectively? Significantly. I argue against such a view immediately below. the coordinate NP. b. (111))that is. [[Which nurse]1 and [which hostess]2]3 did Fred date t1 and Bob marry t1. Notably. a standard ATB instance of L-extraction has an interwoven dependency correspondent. I touched on these in passing in section 4. (108) In general. (109) a.b) are RNR structures. respectively. (106b) ought to be different from (107).3. 21 (107)*Greg decided to buy [that new model electric car which actually doesn't work]1 after reading about t1. though. its ability to "license" P-gaps is anomalous. one finds (110). for example. it is impossible to provide a representation for (110a. In any event. in which there are overlapping dependencies of unbounded length at unlimited distances. Alongside McCawley's example (4a). (110) a. (110a) contains a whole constituent.

and George sell heroin to t2. For example. undermining the idea that RNR forms have the same constituent structures as their presumed more redundant sources.< previous page page_135 next page > Page 135 phrase oysters and clams.*[[Which nurse]1 and [which hostess]2]3 did Ernest sell t1 cocaine and George sell t2 heroin. the Indirect Object Constraint holds for the interwoven dependency form of RNR. shown earlier to hold for both simple L-extractions and RNR. 536-540) offers various descriptive comments about respectively constructions but does not consider how these relate to his view of RNR. respectively? d. < previous page page_135 next page > If you like this book. [Which nurse]1 did Ernest sell cocaine to t1 and George sell heroin to t1? b. But the tenability of such a doctrine can be attacked without appeal to anything beyond the constraints already cited as grounds for the unity of RNR and L-extractions. 23 I am sympathetic to a reaction that it is unfair to criticize McCawley's viewindeed. (112) a. There is. though. a serious account of grammatical structure cannot be limited to views that are incompatible with interwoven dependencies. for such properties systematically manifest themselves in interwoven dependencies as in ordinary ATB cases. one might argue. the Indirect Object Constraint.3. almost any viewfor a failure to properly account for interwoven dependency structures. For it is true that almost no account of grammatical structure and coordination in particular has had anything much serious to say about them. respectively? Similarly. buy it! . Ultimately. also constrains both ATB L-extractions and the interwoven dependency type. Evidently. something of an implicit conspiracy of silence governing contemporary grammatical discourse about coordination whereby proposals are evaluated essentially in isolation from the implications of interwoven dependencies. McCawley (1988. the multiple-mother-node view of RNR has no application to cases like (110). see section 4. [[Which nurse]1 and [which hostess]2]3 did Ernest sell cocaine to t1. The descriptive problems raised by interwoven dependencies are sufficiently severe for most views of grammar that some linguists might wish to claim that the phenomenon is somehow fundamentally distinct from other coordinate structures.*[Which nurse]1 did Ernest sell t1 cocaine and George sell t1 heroin? c. then.

is illustrated by (117). no current view of grammatical structure has provided a way of representing the commonality of these constructions. Compare (105) with (114). which I refer to as additive coordination. and Bill hired t2 after finding t2 sober [[this tall young woman]1 and [that tall young man]2]3. interwoven dependency L-extractions. (116) [How many frogs]1 and [how many toads]2 did respectively Greg capture t1 and Lucille train t2? In such interwoven coordinations. regular (ATB) instances of RNR. that simple L-extractions. Jerome fired t1 after finding t1 drunk. as I suspect. I believe. One. each conjunct of some phrase distributes at least semantically only to specific conjuncts of others. Ernest sold cocaine t1 and George sold heroin t1 [[to the first nurse]1 and [to the second dental assistant]2]3. respectively. (114) a. respectively. < previous page page_136 next page > If you like this book. this is less a reason for doubting their unity than it is evidence of the inadequacy of the views in question. I leave the construction of relevant examples to the interested reader. There are still other types of coordination. that P-gaps are equally "licensed" by the interwoven dependency forms of both L- extractions and RNR.15 Additive Coordinations Most views of coordination concentrate on what I will call distributive coordination. ATB L-extractions. b. These facts indicate. (115) [How many frogs]1 did Greg capture t1 and Lucille train t1? Here the phrase how many frogs semantically distributes in the same way across each of the conjuncts. however. If. The same points can be made with the Genitive Constraint.< previous page page_136 next page > Page 136 (113) a. illustrated in many earlier examples and in (115).2. [[Which secretary]1 and [which programmer]2]3 did Jerome respectively fire t1 after finding t1 drunk and hire t2 after finding t2 sober? b.2. and interwoven dependency varieties of RNR are all instances of a single overall phenomenon. 4. respectively. A distinct type of coordination illustrated in the previous section is exemplified in (116). buy it! .*Ernest sold t1 cocaine and George sold2 heroin [[the first nurse]1 and [the second hostess]2]3. It should be shown.

On such an analysis. The Red Sox beat t1 and the Giants were beaten by t1 [different teams]1. buy it! . Also. to be sure. and interwoven dependency varieties. noncoordinate instances of RNR are not clearly attested.3 Summary In sections 4.2. this will yield the wrong claim that (117) and (118) are paraphrases. as first observed by Wexler and Culicover (1980. (118) Greg captured 312 frogs and Lucille trained 312 frogs.2. This criticism is really only a variant of the brief antitransformational argument given by Gazdar (1981. The number and diverse nature of the relevant restrictions indicate that a view of RNR that fails to analyze it in terms very similar to those of L-extractions will miss extensive generalizations subsuming the two.2.15 I have documented that numerous characteristics of L-extractions also turn out to be properties of RNR. ATB. a multiple-mother-node analysis of such cases would seem to lead to structures that fail to relate to semantic form in the correct way. for example.2.) There are. 642). certain real contrasts between RNR and L-extractions. additive structures resemble interwoven structures in that (117) is not. John hummed t1 and Mary sang t1 [the same tune]1. whereas in general each L-extraction is attested in noncoordinate. In their superficial syntax. 180) on the basis of earlier observations by Jackendoff (1977. < previous page page_137 next page > If you like this book. (119) a. 192) and Abbott (1976. Under any general conditions linking form and meaning. 4. additive coordinations resemble distributive ones and contrast with interwoven ones. also manifesting "relational" RNR pivots that fail to distribute semantically.1-4. This involved cases like (119). Again. None of McCawley's presentations of his nonextraction view of RNR deal with cases like (119). however. Semantically. A multiple-mother-node conception of RNR has no more application to additive cases than to interwoven ones. at all equivalent to (118). For example.< previous page page_137 next page > Page 137 (117) Greg captured t1 and Lucille trained t1 [312 frogs]1 between them. b. 301).2. (117) would apparently have to have a structure in which both the verbs captured and trained have a direct object of the form 312 frogs. 24 (Further arguments to this effect are found in appendix B.

Levine (1985). Further. If the set of basic category symbols of a phrase structure grammar is VN. it has a much greater freedom of target constituent than any English L-extraction. 303) and with recent claims by McCawley (1982. (121) "[A] node labeled a/b will dominate subtrees identical to those that can be dominated by a. one can define a set of derived categories as in (120). and Williams 1990. then.1 Background More than a decade ago. although unique in certain ways. This conclusion. RNR is an extraction phenomenon. buy it! .3.< previous page page_138 next page > Page 138 RNR is evidently not governed by what has been called Subjacency. The arguments I have given can thus be taken to strengthen what has been a persistent if not unanimous view: namely. both L-extractions and RNR are taken to instantiate the Slash category mechanism. so-called Slash categories. 1987). 4. phrase structure grammars could provide adequate accounts of extractions. both RNR and L-extractions are taken to be (or at least involve) transformational movements. The basic idea underlying Slash categories is rather simple. Despite these differences. see section 4. Ojeda (1987). in works like Ross 1967. except that somewhere in every canonical subtree of the a/b type there will occur a node of the form b/b dominating a resumptive pronoun. One claim was that by appealing to (among other things) Slash categories. and Kayne (1994). a phonologically null dummy < previous page page_138 next page > If you like this book. work in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) introduced a then novel mechanism for describing extractions. as Gazdar (1981. 159) observes. These provide a key element in the GPSG at-tempt to overcome the view. the extensive similarities between RNR and L- extractions would appear to mandate a common analysis for the two. certainly dominant in 1980 and arguably still so today. The intended interpretation of such elements is specified in (121). For example.3. In Gazdar 1981. although at odds with that of Wexler and Culicover (1980. is consistent with most past writing on RNR.3 Right Node Raising and Slash Category Approaches to Extraction 4. that various natural language properties show the inadequacy of phrase structure grammars and motivate transformational grammars. Postal 1974.

Slash category patterns will be represented as in (122). 1985). identification of nodes and indices). 1994). which uniquely pick out the relevant category labels. S/NP is a sentence which has an NP missing somewhere. then. In general. an extraction site on a movement analysis). 25 The distribution of Slash categories has been taken to be controlled by various general principles. < previous page page_139 next page > If you like this book. by recognizing SLASH as a set of features with the key properties of the original Slash. To facilitate discussion. see discussion of Pesetsky's (1982) argument below. But these developments in general supplement and extend the conception in (121). moreover. 159) The diverse developments of GPSG since its earliest variants (see Gazdar et al. chiefly on the basis of properties of RNR. 1985) maintain the basic idea in (121).< previous page page_139 next page > Page 139 element." (Gazdar 1981. Although a mere convenience at this point.e. buy it! . I use a/b to represent indifferently members of SLASH. Slash categories cannot properly describe natural language extractions. I assume an indexing of nodes (equivalently. Intuitively. which utilizes notations like VP/NP. So. and every node linking (a/b and b/b will be of the s/b form. etc. This is equivalent to taking the values of the primitive Slash feature to be node indices. such as Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (see Pollard and Sag 1987. such as the Foot Feature Principle and Head Feature Convention (Gazdar et al. (122) Slash structures with indexed nodes Unlike in standard GPSG. a/b labels a node of type a which dominates material containing a hole of type b (i. here Slash categories are marked with indices. or the empty string. I allow for the possibility (instantiated later) of taking Slash to be one of several related Slash-like features. metarules. it is adopted in related frameworks. for example. not a relation between symbols referencing nodes in GPSG rules. I introduce formally a relation between nodes in (GPSG-style) trees (note.). without deviating greatly from its essential assumptions. as characterized in (121). such an indexing has in effect already been argued to be necessary. or the Nonlocal Feature Principle (Pollard and Sag 1994). Moreover. My goal in this section is to argue. that. then.

(2. buy it! . be nodes in a tree T such that j does not directly dominate a trace. (2. 177-178. Pollard and Sag 1987. though. Ojeda 1987. Gazdar et al. one can define a binary relation over nodes represented by the verb exfiltrate (and its derivatives). I refer to such cases as parallel exfiltrations (P-exfiltrations). (126) Extractions are correctly reconstructed as exfiltrations. then. ((124) is Gazdar's (1982. 274-275. (123) Definition Let i. node i exfiltrates node j if and only if j does not directly dominate a trace and is of the category .6) It seems correct.3). 81-82. 171) example (8.5). 76). then.) (124) (125) (2.2 Parallel Exfiltrations A certain amount of discussion in work assuming Slash categories asks whether there are sentences in which more than one node exfiltrates a given node and considers implications of the answer (see Gazdar 1982. Then: i exfiltrates j if and only if . 1985. For example. 252-256.4). Maling and Zaenen 1982.3. to say that a fundamental claim of work adopting the Slash mechanism is (126).< previous page page_140 next page > Page 140 With this background. j. I will argue. < previous page page_140 next page > If you like this book. Chung and McCloskey 1983. 4. that (126) cannot be maintained. in (124) the exfiltration pairs are all and only those in (125).8b) with certain simplifying label changes. (2. Informally.

81-82) to be part of a reasonable research strategy. leave the impression that the constraint is viable at least for English. Gazdar et al. < previous page page_141 next page > If you like this book. but it also involves L-extraction of the PP. Recognizing that P-exfiltrations exist in English.< previous page page_141 next page > Page 141 Maling and Zaenen (1982) provide (127) as an English instance of this phenomenon. 1985 is formulated so as to disallow them. However. Pollard and Sag (1987. This is evidently an RNR structure. ((127a) is their (60b) with irrelevant simplifications. and 8. the version of GPSG in Gazdar et al. rather than the single category of GPSG work. 4. 6.) (127) a. (127b) is their (61) with my indexing. Here the category corresponding. those indexed 3. 26 Imposition of this constraint is known by its developers to be a flaw but claimed (pp. to into the wastebasket and that corresponding to their autographed copies of Syntactic Structures have both seemingly exfiltrated several different constituents. Despite the arguable existence of P-exfiltrations. for example. 5. This wrongly ignores cases like (127) as well as those like (128) involving extraction from embedded questions. 1994) have designed the HPSG framework to allow them via Maling and Zaenen's (1982) suggestion that the value of Slash be allowed to be a set of category indices. 7. buy it! . [Into the wastebasket]1 Hilary put t2 t1 and Rob dropped t2 t1 [their autographed copies of Syntactic Structures]2.

Next.. a book that1 I know who2 to [VP/NP talk to t2 about t1] and [VP/NP-NP persuade t2 to read t1] Moreover.< previous page page_142 next page > Page 142 A strong anti-Slash category argument was formulated by Pesetsky (1982. if the representation involves only Slash categories of the form "/NP". they must both be represented in the slash notation. (131)*a book that1 I know who2 to [VP/NP talk to the author of t1 about t1] and [VP/NP-NP persuade t2 to buy t1] Finally. 27 First. if a category contains two gaps with different indices. (130) a. Pesetsky argues as follows: (129) ''Worse yet. the ungrammaticality of (132) will not be marked as in effect a violation of the Head Feature Convention.. buy it! . (128) a book which1 I know who2 [VP to talk to t2 about t1] Minimally. Thus. in Slash terms. to block (132). They show that P-exfiltrations are a worse problem for standard Slash category approaches < previous page page_142 next page > If you like this book. Pesetsky observes that P-exfiltration is possible from the VPs of embedded questions. it is worth going over. the VP involves P-exfiltration of two NPs. Pesetsky's arguments are. (132)*a book that1 I know who2 to [VP/NP{2} talk to t2] and [VP/NP{1} buy t1] Here.*a book that1 I know who1 to [VP/NP talk to t2 about Mary] and [VP/NP-NP persuade t2 to buy t1] c.*a book that1 I know who2 to [VP/NP talk to Bill about t1] and [VP/NP-NP persuade t2 to buy t1] b. essentially correct. Since the argument has remained both unpublished and unreferenced in the Slash category literature. I think. he notes that a category containing two gaps with the same index cannot be treated as involving double Slash categories under pain of failing to rule out (131). Pesetsky remarks that the Slash category labels must bear the relevant indices.. 554-556) on the basis of a specific type of P- exfiltration. the distinction between a single slash category and a double slash category must be sensitive to the indices on the gaps." Pesetsky's support for these conclusions is the interesting paradigm in (130). As a critique of the specific formulation of Slash categories in GPSG work.

3. but by a kind of "recursive" exfiltration. instantiations of Q-exfiltrations would look like (133) (note that left/right constituent order is irrelevant).e. that is. But as nothing has shown the modifications just indicated to be untenable. See section 4. 215- 221). Element a Q-exfiltrates b if and only if it is ancestrally related to b under Exfiltrate (i. Such a view is proposed without reference to Pesetsky 1982 by Pollard and Sag (1987. It would seem that a Slash category approach must. 1994) and is implicit in the notation adopted above. 1991). 146-148. To my knowledge.5. To facilitate discussion. as Maling and Zaenen (1982) contemplate. 494-495). see Carnap 1958. allow Slash to take as values a set of categories. when there is a sequence of exfiltration relations linking a and b) but a does not exfiltrate b. I appeal to the logical ancestral of Exfiltrate to define a slightly narrower relation called Quasi Exfiltrate (Q-Exfiltrate. < previous page page_143 next page > If you like this book. such cases have been previously discussed in Slash terms in a brief note by Piera (1985). minimally. in a passing remark by Levine (1985. exfiltration of an element a from a constituent b that itself exfiltrates a constituent c.4. buy it! .< previous page page_143 next page > Page 143 than the published literature indicates. it would clearly be mistaken to view Pesetsky's argument as a definitive refutation of the Slash idea. but further must recognize that the values of Slash must be distinguishable by indices or their equivalent. and by Hukari and Levine (1989. Schematically. Quine 1958.3.. The phenomenon is defined abstractly not by distinct exfiltrations from the same constituent.3 Quasi Exfiltrations A more fundamental objection to Slash categories can be founded on a formal property of this device that manifests itself in certain instances of multiple extractions logically distinct from P-exfiltrations. 4.

buy it! . namely. (136) Napoleon is one hero1 I find [stories about t1]2 just too boring to listen to t2. GPSG work has by and large assumed that Q-exfiltration does not exist. it is a factual question whether there exist natural language sentences whose correct analyses involve instances of Q-exfiltration. the filler category for the t2 < previous page page_144 next page > If you like this book. That is. (1985) adopt the restriction in (134). For these authors. 36) Utilizing the term UDC (unbounded dependency construction). A somewhat different formulation is given by Gazdar et al. and 9 and node 5 exfiltrates nodes 4 and 6. Hence. call it the No Recursion Constraint. Their example is (136). Under a standard Slash analysis of such cases. Hukari and Levine (1991.*Robin is the person who(m) I decided that pictures of I could do without. 1985. I could do without. in what I have called object-raising or object deletion structures. at any level of embedding. (134) "[T]he value set that p associates with given category-value feature can only contain categories in which does not already appear.. node 3 Q-exfiltrates all and only nodes 4 and 6. 134) claim that English does manifest gap-within-filler constructions. Internal to frameworks adopting the Slash mechanism. 1985. 5. I decided that pictures of Terry. b. Gazdar et al. (110) a.. Empirically. Hukari and Levine comment on the No Recursion Constraint as follows: (135) "Formally. which clearly bans it. as in Gazdar et al. C can only be in the value set of if is not in the domain of C. 1991)." (Gazdar et al. the (only) relevant issue internal to such views would be what universal constraints guarantee the nonexistence of Q-exfiltration. 133) Despite their approval of the No Recursion Constraint. it restricts the set of categories to a finite number and so contributes to the context-free equivalence of GPSG. If the answer were negative. or in the domain of any C" contained in C.. (1988) (see also Hukari and Levine 1989.*Who did you decide that pictures of you could do without? c." (Hukari and Levine 1991. 150- 152. such constructions would have otherwise been described with Slash categories. by blocking the arbitrary recursive specification of categories.< previous page page_144 next page > Page 144 Here node 3 exfiltrates nodes 2. it effectively rules out the ill- formed examples in (110).

101.3. Further. Although Hukari and Levine's Gap feature cannot be used to describe the starred cases of their (110). which is [stories about t1]. 4. n. from here it is not a great step to positing a feature distinct from either Slash or Gap that could be soused. 300). and (as in past GPSG work) L- extractions like questioning are described with Slash. obeying the Foot Feature Principlewould maintain the consequences of the No Recursion Constraint for generative capacity.3. Object-raising and object deletion structures are then described with Gap. chap. 11) and Ojeda (1987. Who1 does Mary buy t2 and Bill sell t2 [pictures of t1]2? b. Piera (1985) gives apparently parallel Spanish examples. I examine how Slash approaches to extractions fare with such structures. buy it! . allow analogs of the starred cases of their (110). I wonder who1 Mary buys t2 and Bill sells t2 [pictures of t1]2. but not all. However. it would obscure the question of whether facts like those related to their (110) are derived.2 L-Extraction/Right-Node-Raising Interactions Consider (137) (from Wexler and Culicover 1980. the No Recursion Constraint will have to be abandoned in any event if primitive Slash features are main- rained. In fact. After documenting this in detail. what must be regarded as Q-exfiltrations in Slash category terms can be found in English. namely. for example.4. 262).3. < previous page page_145 next page > If you like this book. among RNR constructions. The former states generalization (138). 4. Examples like these are also accepted and discussed by McCawley (1982. a distinct proposal is found in Pollard and Sag 1994. properties.4 English Quasi Exfiltrations 4. 4.4.< previous page page_145 next page > Page 145 gap in (136). although postulating what is in effect a class of distinct but related Slash-like features all. Hukari and Levine's solution to this state of affairs maintains the No Recursion Constraint and describes (136) by reanalyzing the original GPSG feature Slash into two distinct features. several different kinds of Q-exfiltrations can be attested among English RNR constructions.1 Comments Pretty clearly. which share many. Hukari and Levine themselves hint that other languages. especially Scandinavian languages. itself contains a gap whose filler category is one hero1. (137) a. Gap and Slash. I am not here concerned with the adequacy of Hukari and Levine's suggestion.

semantic aspects irrelevantly represented schematically as X). each L-extracted NP must be taken as extracted from a constituent that is itself an RNR pivot. Given Wexler and Culicover's (137) and McCawley's (1982) and Ojeda's (1987) discussions. the Coordinate Structure Constraint .. proposition (141) must be taken as true of English. (137). [Those cities]1. the drug which1 George wanted t2 and Frank needed t2 [to try t1]2 The examples in (137). (141) A ((sub)constituent of an) RNR pivot can itself be an L-extraction gap. 1985.. 1985 and Gazdar et al. Moreover. Rather. and there seems to be no known alternative to viewing them as true instances of RNR. Frank may t2 and Glen probably will t2 [try to visit t1]2. The specific idea was that RNR constructions are described by the extremely general schema in (142) (from Gazdar 1981. If (142) represents the correct treatment of RNR internal to Slash < previous page page_146 next page > If you like this book. and (140) indicate that. buy it! . in Slash terms." See also (139) and (140). 178.< previous page page_146 next page > Page 146 (138) "While the whole conjoined structure to which RNR applies is an island. 125) that RNR is characterized via the Slash mechanism. L-extractions and RNR constructions. b. one can focus on Gazdar's (1981) proposal (maintained in Sag et al. and (140) manifest typical features of uncontroversial RNR cases. they are not P-exfiltrations. the factual basis of (141) was in effect observed independently more than a decade ago. [Which official]1 did they say Bob suspected t2 and Frank proved t2 [that Sally bribed t1]2? b. It is Nigel who1 Carol learned when t2 and Edith learned where t2 [they could successfully interview t1]2. (139). 28 Hence. (139) a. the dentist who1 Bob expected the police to assert t2 and Frank expected the lawyers to deny t2 [that you had dated t1]2 (140) a..29 To link (141) to explicit Slash category work. in Slash category terms. (139).. since no individual constituent manifests multiple gaps. c. although these examples involve interactions of the same phenomena found in (133).. does not rule out extraction from the constituent that RNR 'raises'.

4. for simplicity. L- Slash and R-Slash (but not Hukari and Levine's (1991) feature Gap) are among its members.4) the feasibility within Slash approaches to extractions of rejecting a Slash description of RNR structures. standard Slash category posits about L-extractions plus an instantiation of Gazdar's proposal (142) would lead to. this problem admits a solution parallel to the one those authors proposed. replace Slash in analogs of (142). First. buy it! . Oversimplifying in irrelevant ways. respectively. 1991). omits structure related to the presence of they say. for example. Recall < previous page page_147 next page > If you like this book. and R-Slash would. I examine (in section 4. Precise meaning is given to this distinction just below. among other things. In (143) I represent L-extractions by the Slash notation "½" and RNR extractions by the Slash notation " ". However. Their new Slash feature (differentiated from their Gap feature) could be further subdivided into features that can be called L(eft)-Slash and R(ight)-Slash. 256. I use the notations a½b and for these categories. n. as partially foreshadowed by Maling and Zaenen (1982. 19). (139). (140). 278. and the like. clearly instantiate Q-exfiltration. hence. they raise the same problem for the No Recursion Constraint as those linked to (136) discussed by Hukari and Levine (1989. After considering the implications of this assumption. Several issues arise from such structures. (139a) being assigned the tree in (143).3. Since SLASH was taken to be a set of features with the properties of the original Slash. (143) can be interpreted as incorporating this new distinction. then (137). which.< previous page page_147 next page > Page 147 approaches. 30 L-Slash would serve to describe L-extractions.

the SLASH category on node 4 is not instantiated and thus need not appear on its mother node 3 to satisfy the Foot Feature Principle. NP2. [Which official]1 did they say Bob suspected that Sally bribed t1? < previous page page_148 next page > If you like this book. (139). and (140). The latter requires that the value of a foot feature F instantiated on a mother node be identical to the unification of the instantiated F features on all its daughter nodes. 8. structures like (143) do not seem to adversely affect basic GPSG assumptions. 9. 10. (144) a. is not related in any established syntactic way to node 4. or 11. the L-extracted constituent. such a structure has a somewhat suspicious property. no grave objections to a refined version of Slash category frameworks distinguishing L-Slash from R- Slash have been derived from structures like (143). Specification "½2" must appear on node 3. costs very little. Nonetheless. If " did appear on node 3. 6. a violation of the Foot Feature Principle would ensue.< previous page page_148 next page > Page 148 that represents indifferently members of SLASH. and minimally saves the No Recursion Constraint (135) from cases like (137). the corresponding but simpler (144). since that feature is instantiated on node 5. So far. This state of affairs is suspicious in that it contrasts with the state of affairs in. hence any of the categories defined by these new features. 7. In particular. for example. In other ways also. R-Slash and L-Slash must of course be categorized as foot features. buy it! . Recognition of R-Slash and L-Slash parallels Hukari and Levine's (1991) Gap proposal. then.

For simplicity (and irrelevantly). like (144b). He suggests that in effect the general form of a non-derivative island constraint in this framework is along the lines of (145). that is. buy it! . 12. nothing forces a correlation between constraints in exfiltrations and those in Q-exfiltrations. (145)*[a/b X] "A constituent meeting the characterization X cannot belong to a category a½b. In my terms. Rather. or 11. < previous page page_149 next page > If you like this book. the L-extracted constituent in (144b) exfiltrates nodes 3. whereas in (143) the analogous specification does not appear on their counterparts. 8. 5. Given the formal contrast between Q-exfiltration in cases like (143) and exfiltration in those like (144b). in effect make a general prediction. 9. this structure gives expansions only for the leftmost relative clause. a lack of correlations in these two classes of cases follows from the fact that for exfiltrated constituents. 12. like (146). the relevant relations do not exist. to the S node 12 daughter of that. frameworks embodying the Slash mechanism as so far understood." Let it be granted for argument that device (145) is adequate to block standard extractions from islands. and to the VP node 13 daughter of that. Because there is no reason why constraints restricting or banning exfiltration from a constituent K1 with property P should in general also hold for those that Q-exfiltrate a K2 with P. 6. The problems that can in principle arise from this state of affairs can be illustrated by focusing on island constraints. More specifically. as characterized in (121). in (144b) the L- Slash specification corresponding to the extracted phrase which official occurs on nodes 5. Gazdar (1982. as the structure in (147b) shows. (146)*[With whom]1 does she know men who want to consult t1? It nonetheless clearly fails for Q-exfiltration structures like (147a). 10. restrictions are imposed in Slash terms by controlling the relations between Slash categories and the nodes intervening between them and their binders. and 13. 174-178) proposes in effect that island constraints not derivable from broader principles can in general be stated as specific restrictions on membership in Slash categories. But in the counterpart Q- exfiltration structures. and 13 but not 4. 5. and 13.< previous page page_149 next page > Page 149 In (144b) the counterpart of NP2 of (143) is syntactically related to the S-bar node 5 (defining the complement of suspected). 7. 8. 12. But in (143) the extracted constituent exfiltrates nodes 3. More precisely. it Q-exfiltrates the latter.

buy it! . the extracted PP only Q- < previous page page_150 next page > If you like this book.< previous page page_150 next page > Page 150 (147) a. That is. or can be. In (147b) one can assume that the island-defining node in the leftmost relative clause is 7 or possibly 8. But neither of these is.*[With whom]1 does she know men who want to t2 and women who need to t2 [consult t1]2? No instance of (145) blocks Q-exfiltrations from islands like that in (147b) because the distribution of Slash categories fails to yield a violation of any restriction schematized by (145). marked with "ê2".

was quoted in (15). like the earlier documentation that RNR pivots (and their subparts) are subject to L- extraction. it does not exfiltrate them. Wexler and Culicover's general conclusion is essentially (148). Wexler and Culicover's argument based on (149) is rehearsed approvingly by McCawley (1982. 492-493) < previous page page_151 next page > If you like this book. (2)*[To whom]1 did John give a briefcase t1 and Harry know someone who had given a set of steak knives t1 [t1]2?" (Levine 1985. Contrary to what extant Slash treatments imply. as in (2).. Despite its scope and power.*Who1 does Mary buy t2 and Bill know a man who sells t2 [pictures of t1]2? They note further that reversing the conjuncts so that the relative clause is in the first makes no difference. 100) Levine makes a parallel point.< previous page page_151 next page > Page 151 exfiltrates those nodes. buy it! .*Who1 does Bill know a man who sells pictures of t1? b. 261-262). 530-532) and Ojeda (1987. (148) holds." (McCawley 1982. "[W]hile RNR can move a constituent 'out of' an island. (149) a. The basic generalization. The evidence they give for it is in effect the pair in (149). (148). (151) "[A]lthough RNRaising elements out of islands produces perfectly good sentences. certain extractions from these Raised elements .. 1988. proposed by Wexler and Culicover (1980). is not a novel claim. Rather. then Q-exfiltration of type c from nodes of type n is in general also subject to K. So cases like (147a) wrongly seem to be allowed in the treatments of extractions in Slash category terms considered so far. are instead forbidden. McCawley aptly sums up the original argument as follows: (150). once one abstracts from their particular (and here irrelevant) transformational views of extraction and RNR. that constituent remains as immune to [left] extraction as if it remained within the island. 100. it has also been in the literature for more than a decade. The failure of the suggested Slash category approach to island restrictions to block a Q-exfiltration case like (147b) exemplifies a general inadequacy. (148) If exfiltration of type c of constituents from nodes of type n is subject to constraint K on n.

in imposing an island violation.. just as it has exfiltrated the parallel phrase in (153). Notably. Gazdar et al. the woman who1 your hugging t1 led t1 to suspect that you loved t1 b. Pollard and Sag 1994). Each (a) example represents a standard P-gap structure not involving RNR. Similarly. the phrase a man who sells will not be marked with the relevant SLASH specification (''a/NP" in standard GPSG terms).g. Claim (148) can also be supported by appealing to the principles governing P-gaps. 1984. Examples (154)-(156) illustrate P-gaps induced in Q-exfiltration cases. e. (153)*[To whom]1 did Harry know someone who had given a set of steak knives t1? So far I have supported (148) by appealing to the fact that island constraints manifest themselves in Q-exfiltrations corresponding to standard island-violating exfiltrations. in imposing an island violation. just as in (149a). extant Slash approaches to P-gaps fail for certain Q-exfiltration structures. the constituent someone who had given a set of steak knives in Levine's example (152) behaves as if the L-extracted phrase to whom had exfiltrated it. then. To paraphrase Gazdar et al.< previous page page_152 next page > Page 152 Levine's initial claim was supported by the grammaticality of (152). the corresponding (b) example contains a related RNR form. the phrase a man who sells in (149b) behaves as if the questioned NP who had exfiltrated from it. the woman who1 your hugging t1 led to suspect t2 and your kissing led t1 to believe firmly t2 [that you loved t1]2 < previous page page_152 next page > If you like this book. That Slash assumptions make proper predictions about these has been an important claim of work in the Slash tradition (see. Sag 1983. (154) a. P-gaps have been "a standard component of the pedagogic commercial for" Slash categories. But in (149b). 150) remarks about respectively structures. though.'s (1985. For example. (152) John gave a briefcase t~ and Harry knows someone who had given a set of steak knives t1 [to Bill]1. but the GPSG structures provide no SLASH features on a to describe this. In numerous cases. unlike (149a). constituents a that a category K has Q-exfiltrated behave as if K exfiltrated them. 1985. buy it! . Hukari and Levine 1987.

this would not be true. the foot feature "½2" on node 5 unifies with that on node 4 as required by the Foot Feature Principle. the P-gap phenomenon exists in Q-exfiltration structures corresponding to exfiltration structures in which it is found. Further. the woman who1 your kissing t1 may t2 and should t2 [amuse t1]2 Such examples illustrate that. b. (156) a. in general.< previous page page_153 next page > Page 153 (155) a. The extra or P-gap after kissing is allowed in (157) basically because of the existence and position of the gap after amuse. the VP node 5. (157) satisfies the relevant GPSG principles. since Slash is also a head feature. Hence. More precisely. buy it! . the woman who1 your kissing t1 may amuse t1 b. If the object of amuse were not a Slash category. It was Lucille1 that I convinced friends of h to try to hire t1. In standard Slash category terms. as required by the Head Feature Convention. "½2" also occurs on the head daughter of node 3. It was Lucille1 that I convinced friends of t1 t2 and Ted convinced relatives of t1 t2 [to try to hire t1]2. the complement in (156a) would have the irrelevantly simplified structure in (157). < previous page page_153 next page > If you like this book.

call the result (¨ 158). 11. Least importantly. node 4 in (¨ 158) then formally instantiates P-exfiltration. yet this suffices to induce the P-gap inside nodes 4 and 6. Suppose (158) is modified just so "½2" occurs on 4. shown in (158). one could modify (¨ 158) to (¨¨ 158). It violates the Foot Feature Principle since "½2" is instantiated on node 6 but not on its mother 4. There are several implications. But that also blocks (¨ 158). and 14.< previous page page_154 next page > Page 154 Now consider the structure of (156b). Here. the principle that blocks the non-P-gap version of (156a) must somehow allow (½ 158) while still. 1985 the principle blocking (159) is the Head Feature Convention. 10. buy it! . More seriously. in which "½2" also occurs on nodes 7. then. node 2 actually exfiltrates only nodes 3 and 5. But the latter nodes do not dominate any trace bound to the extracted NP. This is so because the < previous page page_154 next page > If you like this book. 31 Minimally. Specifically. To preserve the Head Feature Convention. But representation (158) is. of course. blocking (159). not a legal Slash category structure. although it is not a genuine P-exfiltration case. (159)*the woman who1 your kissing h may amuse Gail In Gazdar et al. The basic nature of Slash categories as specified by Gazdar in (121) would therefore have to be revised. the fact that Q-exfiltrations behave like exfiltrations (principle (148)) is not captured by current approaches to the Slash mechanism. 13. the properties of Q-exfiltrations raise serious problems for Slash category views of extractions.

behave as if they belonged to the category "½2".4. without recognizing it. then. 13. there are Q-exfiltration structures whose only extractions represent RNR. graver. it is necessary to represent the fact that nodes 14.< previous page page_155 next page > Page 155 principles controlling the distribution of Slash features have been designed for structures in which there is no need to generalize to the notion Q-exfiltration or its equivalents. discovered grave difficulties for Slash approaches. the evidence given there for the existence of English Q-exfiltrations depended on examples in which RNR interacts with L-extractions. However.3. Hence. that Levine (1985) had. 33 It is a striking historical oddity. But in (158). for instance. 10. (161) Harry looked for t1 and Jerome found t1 [photos of t2]1 and Louise produced sketches of t2 [the controversial candidate]2. (160) John gave silver t1 and Harry gave gold t1 [to the mother t2]1 and I gave platinum [to the father t2]3 [of the famous quintuplets]2. 7. 5. In fact. and abandoning or modifying both the Head Feature Convention and the Foot Feature Principle. and 4 behave like the nodes 7. 1991) treat by < previous page page_155 next page > If you like this book. there is an even stronger English exemplification of Q-exfiltration based on RNR alone. to account for the P-gap located at node 12. A third case not limited to NP extraction is (162). (162) Frank reported to Louise t1 and Mike admitted to Marion t1 [that Tony could t2]1 and I believe that he should t2 [hire more workers]2. and 3 in (157)that is. 4. A different example of the same phenomenon is (161). Levine (1985) in effect already noticed that an RNR pivot can itself be a target for additional RNR. buy it! . These examples seem to leave little doubt of the existence of Q-exfiltrations based exclusively on RNR. 11. than those that Hukari and Levine (1989. An irrelevantly simplified example of the type cited by Levine is (160). Actually allowing this will involve minimally abandoning (121). given the bifurcation into L-Slash and R-Slash.3 Pure Right-Node-Raising Interactions Nothing in the previous section directly challenges the No Recursion Constraint. Here the PP of the famous quintuplets is an RNR pivot linked among other things to an apparent gap inside a distinct RNR pivot to the mother t2.

< previous page page_156 next page > Page 156 postulating the feature Gap.4." a primitive feature Gap cannot save the No Recursion Constraint. internal to the overall approach." (McCloskey 1986. for Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. moreover. this iteration of RNR is apparently bounded only by processing limits" which is to say. 494) rightly stresses. see also the following section. Levine's implicit conclusion that cases like (160)-(162) are irrelevant to the Slash mechanism must have been based on his (1985. To begin with. within Slash approaches to extractions. pure RNR Q-exfiltrations determines that even recognizing Gap.4. of rejecting Slash descriptions of RNR constructions. (160)-(162) are obviously not problematic for the theory of Slash categories. 185) Under that assumption. Further. In particular. This view is contemplated in an explicit GPSG context by McCloskey. and L-Slash will not suffice. an "autorecursive" RNR construction evidently raises all the problems for Slash approaches discussed in section 4. it suggests that perhaps the Slash Category apparatus is not involved in Right Node Raising at all..3. The existence of unbounded.4. for as Levine (1985. R-Slash. ". not bounded at all. Given the 1985 observation that RNR is in effect "autorecursive.4).3. Consider more closely the feasibility.4 Non-Slash Description of Right Node Raising My discussion of the difficulties that English Q-exfiltrations involving RNR constructions raise for Slash approaches has been based on the view that RNR constructions are. A theory with primitive Slash features must apparently recognize infinitely many categories (modulo the possibility dismissed in section 4. it is different in kind from extraction as normally understood. that no finite expansion of categories can. 493) view that RNR is not an extraction phenomenon. hence not to be described via the Slash mechanism.2 on the basis of L-extraction/RNR interactions. But the denial that RNR is an extraction phenomenon was argued to be untenable in section 4. 4. there is no evident way in which the categories of RNR < previous page page_156 next page > If you like this book. without Slash specifications. properly described (as in Gazdar 1981) through some appeal to the Slash mechanism.3. First. (163) "Second.2. focus on framework-internal issues. buy it! . it suggests that whatever type of rule or process is involved in the derivation of Right Node Raising structures.. I have modified this only by recognizing R-Slash and L- Slash. and.

the fact that RNR "licenses" P-gaps is anomalous in Slash terms if RNR is not an instantiation of Slash possibilities. However. If RNR is not treated. Overall. Internal considerations alone. the apparent ATB exceptions to it. internal to Slash accounts. Third. 4. mentioned in note l. in effect. attack this hypothetical approach to RNR. For example. In short. Second. it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to consider in detail how best to approach the above-mentioned issues within that framework. and so onhold of RNR cases just as much as of L-extractions.3. The basic generalization relevant to my discussion of Q-exfiltrations would seem clear at an informal level. the fact that node 4 in (158) behaves as if the NP node 2 exfiltrated it should follow from the fact that node 2 exfiltrates the VP node 5.5 Nonprimitive Slash Properties Since I am neither competent in. buy it! .4. via the Slash mechanism but L-extractions are. within such approaches. for all the relevant propertiessensitivity to the CSC. all the evidence of section 4. nor an enthusiast of. < previous page page_157 next page > If you like this book. I make an observation connected both to the problems that have been uncovered and to a perceptible major redundancy in Slash category representations. which would apparently preclude a Slash account of RNR. Moreover. This creates a conundrum for later versions of GPSG because of the factors noted by McCloskey (1986). then. which in turn exfiltrates node 4. then.< previous page page_157 next page > Page 157 pivots can be properly linked to the categorial possibilities of phrases otherwise occurring in the positions of RNR gaps.2 linking RNR to extractions is relevant. the general conclusion of section 4.2 that RNR is an extraction phenomenonwould appear to be inescapable. regardless of particular Slash category assumptions. then all the arguments aimed at McCawley's account of RNR would. it seems that what principles like the Head Feature Convention and the Foot Feature Principle must be understood as referring to are not Slash features as so far conceptualized but somewhat more abstract properties. the sort of phrase-structural approaches to grammar in which Slash categories play a role. do not seem to leave much possibility with/n Slash frameworks of rejecting a Slash description of RNR constructions. the virtues of the Slash approach to the interaction of extraction and coordination originally spelled out by Gazdar (198l) are lost for RNR cases if RNR is not a Slash phenomenon. A viable theory must minimally be able to mark with the equivalents of Slash features not only those nodes that an extracted element exfiltrates but also those that it Q-exfiltrates.

and c. partly mistaken. for nothing in (164) prevents a single node n from being slashed by more than one other node. One can make this intuition precise along the following lines. o dominates n. One could exclude such nodes by an additional narrower relation "strict slash. where t is some designated terminal symbol and . The overall definitional approach permits elimination of Slash as a primitive syntactic feature with the concomitant possibility of eliminating specification of its values as individual categories (GPSG). j] (written tj). Although the definition is relational. nodes can be taken to have the relevant properties via some equivalent of lambda abstraction. n be nodes in some tree. Note that (164) defines an extensionally slightly broader notion than that captured by "exfiltrate" in that a node that immediately dominates a trace can be slashed. Consider (157). that nonterminal nodes in phrase structure trees are drawn from a class of nodes (indices) . 5. Take traces to be pairs of the form [t. and b. One can then eliminate all members of SLASH as primitive syntactic features and attempt to assign nodes to the equivalents of Slash categories via a relational definition along the lines of (164).< previous page page_158 next page > Page 158 This should raise the question of whether the extant view of such features is not. Then m Slashes n if and only if a. Pesetsky's claim that the Slash mechanism < previous page page_158 next page > If you like this book. and 7 is redundant. great redundancy in such features. Definition (164) takes advantage of the posit of traces and the fixed positional relations of an extraction binder to such traces to predict in effect that certain nodes have the Slash property. as long as conditions (164a-c) hold. Further. and so on. Conceptualizations of the Slash mechanism so far have posited a primitive syntactic feature Slash. Moreover. sets of categories." which excludes that case. But there is. there exists a node o that is a sister of m. the existence of "½2" on nodes 3. buy it! . given the position of the NP node 2 and the trace that it binds. (164) Definition Let m. in order to characterize certain nodes as having certain properties. sets of indices (HPSG). problems like those cited by Pesetsky (1982) and discussed earlier in connection with (128)-(132) are in significant part addressed without special statement. even internal to the phrase-structural assumptions underlying it. there is an evident sense in which. Assume. in line with previous assumptions. Individual trees are enormously simplified. there exists a trace tm which is dominated by n. a priori.

. node 11) but to the feature that it semi-slashes (node 11). for instance.'s approach has the virtue of not requiring a special principle for coordinate structures. for that relation. Thus. can provide a basis for the properties of what were previously called Q-exfiltrations. There may be certain technical issues in subsuming a defined property under such principles although. refers not to the feature that NP node 2 slashes (e. Finally. and 8 are marked "½2" to play a role in "licensing" the P-gap inside node 6. The principles that refer to Slash refer to other features of the syntactically primitive type. Pollard and Sag (1994) argue that the approach to this domain taken in Gazdar et al. both of which Pollard and Sag abandon. I see no reason why the class of foot features (defined by list in Gazdar et al. The virtue of a nonprimitive view of Slash can be seen clearly in an-other area when it is extended. obvious problems stand in the path of developing a definitional. is directly circumvented. 5. 1985 cannot stand. But there is now a basis for that if the relevant principle. for a definitional approach to the property Slash as in (164) requires no extra categories at all. call it Semi-Slash. This it does. A definitional approach also undermines Pesetsky's subcategorization argument against Slash (see note 27). 34 The latter appeals heavily to the Head Feature Convention and the view that coordinate constituents are multiheaded. since 2 slashes 5. via appeal to the ancestral of the relation defined in (164). Pollard and Sag's (1994) proposal appeals to condition (165). the "autorecursive" property of RNR does not lead to any violation of the No Recursion Constraint. 80) could not be revised to be a class of properties.g. whatever it is. a definitional approach to the Slash property may offer hope that principles like the Foot Feature Principle can be reformulated to take account of the defined property Semi-Slash. nonsyntactic feature approach to the intuitive Slash idea. Return to (158).< previous page page_159 next page > Page 159 requires a proliferation of categories. buy it! . 1985. as the parallel slashing facts do in the exfiltration case in (157). where one wants the fact that nodes 3. whatever its original force. ultimately subsuming cases like (158) under the principles relevant for (157). < previous page page_159 next page > If you like this book. A central problem would be to formulate the principles governing coordination properly. Of course. since a defined notion of Slash yields no increase of categories compared with a fixed set of basic categories not including Slash categories. Whereas Gazdar et al. as is evidently mandatory for any adequate account. including Semi-Slash. which in turn slashes 11.

In section 4. I briefly make this point explicit. 203) Making something like (165) compatible with a defined approach to Slash like that of (164) would minimally require subsuming the defined concept under a replacement for Pollard and Sag's notion "nonlocal value. Rather. a familiar ATB form in which the exfiltrated phrase binds Slash categories in each conjunct. (Pollard and Sag 1994. approach would recognize partially different structures for (166a) and (166b). Interwoven dependencies also seem to derail contemporary formulations of Slash category approaches to extractions." There could also be serious issues about how phrase structure rules or their equivalents can be formulated properly if all Slash categories are defined.2. To conclude. the evident virtues of a definitional approach to a notion like Slash suggest that it merits study internal to any framework that adopts the Slash idea. The second. 35 4. buy it! .11 I argued that interwoven dependency structures provide an argument against McCawley's multiple- mother-node view of the surface structures of RNR cases. [[Which pilot]1 and [which sailor]2]3 will (respectively) Joan invite t1 and Greta entertain t2 (respectively)? As far as I can see.3.5 Slash Categories and Interwoven Dependencies Even if the problems that Q-exfiltrations raise for Slash frameworks can be solved by some appeal to defined Slash categories and their ancestrals. some novel devices would have to permit the individual conjuncts to bind these traces < previous page page_160 next page > If you like this book. In this view. or in some other way. the Slash mechanism has other deficiencies in effect uncovered in earlier discussion. or syntactically distributive. I will not pursue these matters.< previous page page_160 next page > Page 160 (165) Coordination Principle (weak version) In a coordinate structure.2. Compare: (166) a. the extracted coordinate phrase in the latter would not bind either trace. there are two different Slash approaches to cases like (166b). or syntactically nondistributive. approach would claim that apart from the word respectively (166b) has essentially the same constituent structure as (166a). the CATEGORY and NONLOCAL value of each conjunct daughter is subsumed by (is an extension of) that of the mother. The first. though. [Which pilot and which sailor]1 will Joan invite t1 and Greta entertain t1? b.

a nondistributive approach to interwoven dependencies requires ad hoc complications of reflexive agreement principles. This line of argument suggests that Slash accounts of extractions cannot adopt the nondistributive approach. and the lawyer talk to t2 about herself2? Under the nondistributive view. He wants you and me to respectively go out of your mind and (go) out of my mind. (169) a. traces t1 and t2 would both be bound by the bracketed extractee. this is unlikely. b. < previous page page_161 next page > If you like this book. if each reflexive in (168) takes the conjunctive NP3 as antecedent. A parallel point holds for the distinct kind of agreement in (169). You and I are going out of our/*my/*your mind(s). NP3. (170) a. I am going out of my/*your/*our mind. This means in effect that each of the reflexives would take that large NP as antecedent. how can one antecedent determine different agreements in the two cases? Thus. Again the nondistributive approach would appear to impose ad hoc agreement complications. (168) [[Which man]1 and [which woman]2]3 did you talk to t3 about themselves3/*himself3/*herself3? Further.< previous page page_161 next page > Page 161 in the appropriate way. This tack might be thought to offer some hope of preserving the standard Slash approach to cases like (166b) or at least something like my definitional reconstruction of it. The agreement patterns in (169) are maintained in interwoven dependencies. You are going out of your/*my/*our mind. the sharp differences between pairs like (166a. He wants you and me to respectively remain sane and go out of my/*our mind(s). Consider: (167) [[Which man]1 and [which woman]2]3 did respectively the doctor talk to t1 about himself1. Under the nondistributive approach. buy it! . b. c. But (168) shows that the independently motivated principles controlling agreement of reflexive NPs with their antecedents normally determine plural agreement with such an antecedent. However. Arguments like those just sketched will presumably be constructible in many languages on the basis of a variety of grammatical agreement phenomena.b) would then be attributed somehow to purely "semantic" principles.

in any grammar that handled passive constructions transformationally" (1985." To the extent that this line of argument against transformational grammar is correct. via a transformation of Conjunction Reduction.'s (1985) argument indicates that transformational approaches fail to capture the generalizations revealed in (172). respectively. Gazdar et al.< previous page page_162 next page > Page 162 The alternative is to develop some way to permit individual conjuncts of coordinate phrases to bind all and only the appropriate traces. for reasons that were endemic to the framework. Kim and Ruth sang and were accompanied by Sandy. The authors observe that (172a) could only have been generated by base rules but that (172b) "had to be derived in a completely different way. (171) ''[T]ransformational grammar has never been able to capture such a unitary notion of coordination. b. Notably. (172). 169). < previous page page_162 next page > If you like this book. 170). an equally correct analog based on interwoven dependencies attacks Slash approaches as so far characterized." (Gazdar et al. (1985) provide no account of such examples and mention interwoven dependencies only as part of a criticism of the transformational literature. Kim and Sandy met. Just as Gazdar et al. b. They then point out that analogous examples can be constructed for "almost every transformation ever proposed" (1985. 1985. Their claim is that generalizations are lost in that Conjunction Reduction "had to be formulated in such a way as to produce structures that were isomorphic to those that would have been produced if everything had been base generated in the first place. How serious is the problem of interwoven dependencies for Slash frameworks? An appropriate answer might be based on the observation that interwoven dependencies pose essentially the same problem for Slash approaches that ordinary coordination is rightly claimed to pose for transformational grammar.b) has an interwoven dependency correspondent. 169) The problem is illustrated by. for example. for in general each pair like (172a. respectively. Kim sang and was accompanied by Sandy. (173) a. so Slash approaches fail to capture those holding across (172) and (173). (172) a. Kim and Sandy sang and danced. buy it! .

. 36 < previous page page_163 next page > If you like this book.. Such a challenge can be avoided only under pain of maintaining a theory that denies that interwoven dependency structures occur in natural languages. 1985.. 150) But a theory that can treat the expressions of (172) in the same terms nonetheless fails if it cannot apply those terms to (173). which has similarly been a standard component of the pedagogic commercial for TG [transformational grammar] despite the fact that no remotely adequate transformational analysis of the construction was ever proposed. buy it! . "(Gazdar et al. interwoven dependencies may pose roughly the same sort of challenge for Slash approaches as ordinary coordinations like (172b) do for transformational ones. Thus.< previous page page_163 next page > Page 163 (174) "There is an analogy here with the respectively construction.

< previous page page_i next page > Page i Three Investigations of Extraction < previous page page_i next page > If you like this book. buy it! .

obeying the constraints in (27) of chapter 3. despite the attested extractions from them. (3) a. Motivation for this proposal vanishes when one observes that (1) instantiates selective island extraction. 127) discusses the grammatical extraction in (1). I claimed. buy it! . A.< previous page page_165 next page > Page 165 Appendix A Mistaking Selective Islands for Nonislands A. and the fact that the extraction-facilitating RPs are invisible. < previous page page_165 next page > If you like this book.2 I argued that the fundamental reason why A-Ss are not counter-examples to the CSC is that. [How much thought]1 did she (*make a) claim that Ernest gave t1 to the problem? And grammatical extractions from the contexts Chomsky discusses cannot be A2-extractions (see (58b) of chapter 3). Given the nature of the constraints on selective island extraction. Extraction of a broad range of non-NPs is blocked. But Chomsky suggests in effect that no violations exist because of a supposed "reanalysis. (1) What1 did he [make a claim] that John saw t1? Such examples seemingly violate Ross's Complex NP Constraint (CNPC) or equivalents. (2) a.2." which yields the CNPC-consistent representation in (1). partially discussed in section 3. I suspect that few who have studied English extraction phenomena in any detail have fully avoided this mistake. I showed that those conjuncts permitting extractions are selective islands. all the conjuncts of A-Ss are islands. [How long]1 did she (*make a) claim that Gregor dated Samantha t1? b. some leading to unfounded theoretical conclusions partially comparable to that drawn from A-Ss in Lakoff 1986. What1 did she (*make a) claim that there was t1 in the safe? b.*the way [in which]1 she made a claim that he earned his fortune t1 Extraction sites that are antipronominal contexts (ACs) are barred. I briefly survey other discussions illustrating what is.1 Nonuniqueness of the Key Error In section 3. Therefore. Lakoff's argument from A-Ss involves a conflation of selective islands with nonislands. the same misstep.2 A Putative Case of "Reanalysis" Chomsky (1977b. I suggest. mistaking selective islands for nonislands is extremely easy.

131. Even if spelled out precisely (which it never has been). Like Lakoff's anti-CSC inferences from A-Ss. Culicover 1982. Marylou dated more officers than (what1) (*Ralph made a claim that) Lucille dated t1.b) are object NP extractions. 27-28. b. (5) a. Marylou called [whatever officers]1 (*Ralph made a claim that) she should have called t1. (8) a. buy it! . (6)*[How long]1 did they try to mention t2 to John [the possibility of him remaining there t1]2? Similarly. Chomsky's "reanalysis" proposal would have no way to draw the relevant distinctions. A. Moreover.*The more problems Mary thinks up the more problems (that2) I will have to explain t1 to John [only part of t2]1. Let us call the principle at work the Right Selective Island Constraint (RSIC).< previous page page_166 next page > Page 166 (4) a. citing (5a) and (5b) (from 1985. 74. This restriction is a key piece of evidence in work on the Freezing Principle (see Culicover and Wexler 1977. like other selective extractions. Like Lakoff's cases. b. 335-336. respectively) as well-formed CXS counterexamples to the RSIC. the analog of (5a) in which the preposition with is moved immediately in front of who is sharply ungrammatical. Chomsky's postulation of "reanalysis" to account for (1) appears to reflect a failure to recognize selective islands. Kayne (1985.3 Preserving the Right Selective Island Constraint It has long been widely assumed that the NP or PP extractees in complex NP shift (CXS) structures are islands. extraction from an AC inside a right island is impossible.b) are well formed. See also the non-NP extraction in (6).*What1 they tried to mention t2 to John [the possibility of him being able to tell t1]2 was her IQ. Mary is the only girl who1 I dared mention t2 to John [the possibility of him going out with t1]2. < previous page page_166 next page > If you like this book. and 1994. The reasons for the specification selective appear in the discussion.*[What color]1 did they try to mention t2 to John [the possibility of him painting his yacht t1]2? b. (7) a. As a result. (5a. b. Wexler and Culicover 1980.*The doctor violated more guidelines than (what1) I dared mention t1 to Graham [the possibility of him violating t2]1. such cases no more counter-exemplify the RSIC than Lakoff's A-S cases counterexemplify the CSC. the problem which2 I explained t1 to John [only part of t2]1 Although I agree that (5a. that from right extractee contexts can-not be an A2-extraction. hence are largely limited to NP extraction satisfying (27b-e) of chapter 3. and it is easily verified that such cases represent selective island extraction. 21. 1994) in effect disputes the island character of such constituents. 1 See Baltin and Postal 1996 for criticisms of other "reanalysis" proposals.

Compare (10a.b). But (9a.. [Which Middle East country]1 did you hear rumors that we had infiltrated t1? These authors infer from these object NP extractions that. satisfying (27) of chapter 3. no grammatical principle prevents extraction from such complex NPs. A. c. (11)*They investigated [whatever rebel leaders]1 he favored a proposal that the CIA assassinate t1. These examples are grammatical because they are selective extractions. (10) a. that is. there seem to be no such cases. A. those discussed by Chomsky and by Pollard and Sag cannot be A2-extractions. (9) a. (11) shows that.< previous page page_167 next page > Page 167 So. However. 206) cite (9a.b) represent essentially the same constructions that Chomsky (1977b) focuses on and that I have discussed in section A.. like other selective extractions. there is no analog of the CNPC. [Which rebel leader]1 would you favor a proposal that the CIA assassinate t1? b. 264) concludes that the irrealis if complements he studies are non-islands.*[How long]1 would you favor a proposal that the CIA keep him out of sight t1? b. then. a theoretical conclusion is not sound because it mistakes particular selective islands for nonislands. The latter could be shown only by attesting grammatical extractions from irrealis if complements that violate the conditions on selective island extraction. contrary to Ross 1967 and much subsequent work. This view in turn hinges on an erroneous leap from the grammaticality of object NP extractions from a constituent to a conclusion that such a constituent is a nonisland.*[What color]1 did they hear rumors that he dyed his beard t1? Further.*[What kind of vampire]1 would you prefer it if he turned into t1? < previous page page_167 next page > If you like this book.*[Which commitment]1 will Joe quit if we cannot keep t1? b. Again. (13) a. which do not respect these conditions. buy it! ..b) as grammatical examples. [Which commitment]1 would it be useful if we kept t1? This is misleading in a now familiar way since the contrast does not show that (12a) involves an island and (12b) a nonisland. Examples like (9) cannot justify the view that a grammatical framework can do without some principle that entails the chief con-sequences of the CNPC. Kayne's criticism of the RSlC logically parallels Lakoff's putative refutation of the CSC from A-Ss. Both depend critically on a false assumption that a (selective) island is a nonisland. (12) a. on the basis of contrasts like the one in (12).*Who1 would Frank prefer it if I believed t1 did it? b.*Clever1 though the boss would prefer it if the new manager was t1.5 The Island Status of Irrealis if Complements Pullum (1987. unlike conditional if clauses.2.4 A Denial That Certain Complex NPs Are Islands Pollard and Sag (1994.

there is an acceptable reading where the extractee is not linked to a gap inside the NP headed by articles. When non-NPs are extracted. which is extraction across more than one NP node. (16) is irrelevantly grammatical on a reading where the extracted phrase is not an object of fieldwork. 1991) discusses what he calls deep extraction. [Which tribes]1 have you written articles about your fieldwork with t1? b. that is. [Which machine]1 did you write articles about a proposal to redesign t1 in that way? b. do not permit the kind of control allowing some NP object extraction from islands. (18) a.b) (from Deane 1988. Like Lakoff's (1986) examples.*Who would prefer it if she played how long? A. at most (12) indicates that irrealis complements are selective islands whereas conditional clauses headed by if are absolute islands.) frameworks incorporating some variant of Chomsky's Subjacency Condition that such extraction should not exist. c. fairly well formed examples of the phenomenon can be attested. that relating to "affective" elements and multiple interrogatives.< previous page page_168 next page > Page 168 Thus. all of Deane's (1988. Nobody would prefer it if he fired someone/*anyone. This conclusion is consistent with nonextraction evidence of the type earlier seen to involve island sensitivity for example. and passivizability conditions on selective island extraction. reflexive. 100). (14) a. though. the results contrast. What1 did they (*write an article about a proposal to) have her become t1? < previous page page_168 next page > If you like this book.6 Deep Extraction Deane (1988. The gap-containing NPs in (15) are arguably islands since extractions from them satisfy the conditions on selective island extraction. Compare also: (17) a. Compare.g. But an assumption that (15a.*HOW1/[In what way]1 did you write articles about a proposal to redesign that machine t1? Again. b. There are certain books that1 atheists experience discomfort with the contents of t1. As he observes.b) threaten general conditions on extraction from deeply embedded constituents has the same character as Lakoff's (1986) view that extractions from A-Ss threaten the CSC. (16)*[With which tribes]1 have you written articles about your fieldwork t1? Of course.*It was that color that1 that they wrote an article about a proposal to (have Frank) paint that tower t1. b. (15a) and (16). for example. although it is predicted in (e. It was that tower that1 they wrote an article about a proposal to (have Frank) paint t1 green. 1991) relevant examples instantiate NP object ex-traction. buy it! . Grammatical cases of deep extraction also respect the AC. such as (15a. (15) a.

. e.. we might hire t1.*It was those rocks which1 they wrote an article about a proposal to let Frank feel t1 move. then. (21) a. 709).< previous page page_169 next page > Page 169 d. Overall. This is a paper that1 we really need to find [someone who understands t1].*Slim1 though Ethel discussed the possibility of becoming t1.*[To whom]1 did Ethel discuss the possibility of talking t1? c. even one-level extractions from noun complements betray signs of being selective (see Koster 1987. Finally.*It was herself that1 they wrote an article about a proposal to have Frank describe Jean1 to t1. deep extractions of type A2 are impossible. g. Nobody discussed the possibility of (*ever) lying. despite examples like (15). it may be possible to say simply.b) (from C&M 1983. Who wants to (*write an article about a proposal to) fast how long? Moreover. (23) (from C&M 1983. f.b) avoid the ungrammaticality otherwise typical of multiple extractions (to the left) from a single English constituent.7 Apparent Support for a Novel Treatment of Finite Subjects A significant parallel to Lakoff's conclusion from A-S extractions is provided by Chung and McC1oskey (1983) (hereafter C&M). Who1 did Ethel discuss the possibility of talking to t1? b. (20) a. (22) a. d. Specifically. Nobody discussed the possibility of eating (*a bite). Since the subjects (who in (22)) are described < previous page page_169 next page > If you like this book. At issue are examples such as (22a.. nonextraction evidence confirms that the NP contexts involved in deep extraction are islands. Nobody believed that they wrote an article about a proposal to fire someone/*anyone. at least for English. for example. The explanation is that the GPSG multiple-extraction constraint bans distinct Slash features on a single node. buy it! . Further. They then argue that this unusual treatment is supported by certain asymmetrical extraction data. they claim that an additional extraction from a structure with a "missing" finite subject is grammatical or much better than multiple extractions in general. 708-709). discussed further in chapter 4. b. see. Isn't that the song that1 Paul and Stevie were the only ones [who wanted to record t1]? b. These authors observe that the GPSG treatment of certain finite subjects differs in a fundamental way from the GPSG treatment of extractions in not involving Slash categories. that NP complements are islands. the attested extractions from them falling largely within the domain of selective island extraction.*They never mentioned the possibility that Ethel1. A. 199).*[What color]1 did Ethel discuss the possibility of tinting her hair t1? e. C&M argue that the GPSG treatment of finite-clause subjects explains why (22a. (19)*Armand has painted more towers than (what1) they wrote an article about a proposal to have Frank repair t1.

hence. The reflexive constraint on selective island extraction also holds. Nobody understood that Paul and Stevie were the only ones who (*ever) sang some/*any song/*a note.d)). the difference between (22) and (23) in no way supports the GPSG assumptions at issue. b. (23)*Isn't that the song that1: Paul and Stevie were the only ones that2 George would let t2 record t1? C&M's insightful observations about cases like (22) and (23) are a model of marshaling intricate facts in favor of complex theoretical conclusions.*Isn't that the color which1 Paul and Stevie were the only ones who painted their yacht t1? The constructions treated by C&M thus preclude non-NP extractions (see (24a.*[How long]1 was that the song that Paul and Stevie were the only ones who were willing to sing t1? b.b)) and bar extractions from ACs (see (24c. The constituents in (22) and the other examples cited by C&M that manifest a "missing" subject not treated in GPSG terms as involving a Slash category permit one other extraction only as selective island extraction. (27) Frank pirated more songs than (what1) Paul and Stevie (*were the only ones who) wanted to record t1. the argument turns out to be unsound. As does the passivizability restriction: (26) Isn't that the rock which1 Paul and Stevie (*were the only ones who) felt t1 shake? Finally. (25) It was herself that1 Paul and Stevie (*were the only ones who) agreed to talk to Joan1 about t1. (28) a. the conclusion incorrect for now familiar reasons. Nonetheless. Consider parallels to (22) when the requirements on selective island extraction are not met.*Who reported that Paul and Stevie were the only ones who sang how long? Since (22a. (24) a. Those principles draw no distinction between the (mostly NP) extractions that satisfy the con- < previous page page_170 next page > If you like this book.b) represent selective island extractions. But in (23) neither gap is a finite subject. Nonextraction evidence also indicates that the contexts are islands.*Isn't that the song [with which]1 Paul and Stevie were the only ones who were capable of entertaining the children t1? c. the multiple-extraction constraint is not invoked.*Isn't that the song that1 Paul and Stevie were the only ones who knew there was h on the hit parade? d. the ban on multiple extractions would be violated. buy it! .< previous page page_170 next page > Page 170 in GPSG terms without Slash categories. All the "secondary" extractions are NP object extractions satisfying (27) of chapter 3 and other conditions on selective islands. extractions from contexts like that in (22) cannot be A2-extractions.

"The full range of facts follows from the VMH. it includes the idea that wh phrase movement is not obligatory at surface structure. his Empty Category Principle (ECP)) that differentiate subjects from objects and objects from adjuncts. For AC facts. The difference between ordinary and selective island extraction then undermines the apparent support for the GPSG-theoretical principles C&M try to derive from facts like (22). This assumption is supposed to interact with other ideas of Chomsky's distinguishing subjects from nonsubjects to account for the contrast between.. however. for example. This offers a way of partially capturing the selective nature of the extraction in (22b). 51) Obscurity aside. . yielding only the very weak CNPC effect typical with someone as the head of the NP. They are nevertheless unacceptable because the < previous page page_171 next page > If you like this book. Ultimately. then to its final position.< previous page page_171 next page > Page 171 ditions on selective island extraction and all other extractions and thus would wrongly predict that all of (24)-(27) are as well formed as (22). Although the ECP might be claimed to entail condition (27b) of chapter 3 and possibly.*That is the amount of thought that1 we really need to find someone who gave those proposals t1.8 Apparent Support for a "Vacuous Movement Hypothesis" Chomsky (1986a. and the expression is less acceptable. In [(29)] the corresponding derivation is impossible since the specifier position of CP is occupied by the fronted object of intimidate. also (27a). As far as I can tell. A.g. or if the extracted object is a reflexive or an inherently unpassivizable NP. in combination with other assumptions. it fails to predict in particular that analogs of (22b) are ungrammatical if the object position is an AC. (22b) and (29)." Although it is not easy to determine what the VMH even claims.*That is a paper that1 we really need to find someone who thinks that there is t1 in that issue 2 b. Chomsky sketches the logic of the approach as follows: (30) "In [(22b)] the VMH permits movement of the relative clause operator from t first to the specifier position of CP. (31) a. (31a-c) would satisfy those of Chomsky's conditions that block (29) as much as (22b) does. compare (22b) with (31a-c).. stating. his system has devices (e. (29)*This is a paper that1 we really need to find ásomeone that we can intimidate with t1ñ. c.. because the asymmetries built into the ECP do not nearly reconstruct the constraints on selective island extraction. independently of the VMH. buy it! . Chomsky's approach also fails. 51) treats the phenomena discussed by C&M in terms of what he calls the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis (VMH)." (Chomsky 1986a.*That is a color that1 we really need to find someone who painted their yacht t1. Chomsky's appeal to the VMH may fare somewhat better than C&M's account because.

Finally. Just like Lakoff's anti-CSC argument from A-Ss. Another theoretical point is that. can be regarded as sound without consideration of the differences between nonislands and selective islands. 3. claims of islandhood are much stronger if buttressed by nonextraction evidence such as that involving "affective" elements. both fail in not recognizing that certain NP extractions instantiate extractions from (selective) islands. This requires showing in particular that a full range of non-NPs (not just selected PPs) extract. The latter extraction manifests the passivization constraint seen in (40b) of chapter 3. those partially represented by (27) in chapter 3 and the claim that A2-extractions are impossible. ultimately his account is at best only marginally superior to the one C&M propose. She will read [whatever papers]1 he needs to (*find someone who) read t1. (34) a. b. One theoretical inference is that no conclusion about extractions.< previous page page_172 next page > Page 172 extraction sites represent some of the ACs illustrated in (34) of chapter 3 and thus violate condition (27c) of chapter 3 on selective island extraction. (32)*It is herself that1 we really need to find someone who talks to Jane1 about t1. Further.9 Implications An ultimate methodological moral to be drawn from the cases of misidentified selective island extraction that have been considered is something like the following. to find genuine counterexamples to claims that some constituent is an island. The relevance of the selective island reflexive and passivizability conditions (27d.e) of chapter 3 is seen in (32) and (33). buy it! . one must argue that the extraction fails the conditions on selective island extraction.4 A. and so on. Attempts to support or attack theoretical assumptions on the limited basis of extractions that are not sensitive to this difference run the risk of failing for the same reasons documented in chapter 3. Chomsky's approach fails to determine that extraction from the con-texts at issue cannot be an A2-extraction. islands. Naturally. Since Chomsky's system fails to block any of (31)-(34) or to relate their violations to the more general selective island conditions that determine them. although obviously many problems remain. < previous page page_172 next page > If you like this book. (33)*That is a rock that1 we really need to find someone who felt t1 move. true English exceptions to various classically proposed island conditions are far fewer in number and type than has seemed to be the case. I read more papers than (what1) he needs to (*find someone who) read t1. it must be documented that the NP extractions from the constituent at issue are free of the constraints holding for selective island NP extraction. Given that selective extraction is possible out of many islands.

. (3) The first nurse was a spy/*were spies. Heycock and Kroch 1996) cannot be extracted. there would appear to be no solution other than to require conjuncts of the unattested form in (3). is provided by examples like (1a. which takes an RNR extractee to be in situ in all the conjuncts. e.3 Inverse Copula Constructions There is another way in which RNR constructions involving NP extractees behave like L-extractions of NPs. Compare (1 b) with (2). (2) The pilot claimed that the first nurse was t1 and the sailor proved that the second nurse was t1 [a spy]1/*[spies]1. Under the in-situ view. Although examples like (1b) raise problems for any approach. But under McCawley's and Levine's proposals. buy it! . at least under an extraction view there is the possibility of seeing were spies in (1b) as some sort of realization of an n-ad of ATB extracted singulars.1 Remark In this appendix I briefly disscuss several arguments that were not present in the original version of chapter 4 but that appear to undermine a position like the one McCawley and Levine advocate and/or to support the view that RNR is an extraction. For reasons that need not concern us.< previous page page_173 next page > Page 173 Appendix B Additional Arguments That Right Node Raising Is an Extraction B. B.b). The pilot claimed that the first nurse was a spy and the sailor proved that the second nurse was a spy. < previous page page_173 next page > If you like this book. The pilot claimed that the first nurse t1 and the sailor proved that the second nurse t1*[was a spy]1 /[were spies]1. somehow limited to RNR cases. (1) a. the conjoined clauses in (1b) involve singular subjects and plural predicates of a sort otherwise unattested in English.2 Strange Plural Right-Node-Raising Pivots A further observation contrary to a view like McCawley's. B. the subject NP in a certain class of inverse copula constructions (see. b.g.

arguing that it is an extraction.*It was Bob who1 Sheila hated (1him) very much t1. b. b. which1 Sheila showed (*them) to Ernie t1. It is you who1 I believe t1 to be the person most likely to win. whereas the raised subject of a canonical copula can be an RNR target just as it can be the target of an L-extraction.4 The Unextractability of Right-Dislocated Phrases The right dislocation construction is illustrated in (8b. c. (6) a. a priori. < previous page page_174 next page > If you like this book. buy it! . Ted believed t1 to be the persons most likely to win and Mike proved t1 to be the persons most likely to win [you and two of your eight brothers]1. Sheila hates him very much. I believe you to be the person most likely to win.. c.*Ted believed t1 to be you (and two of your eight brothers) and Mike proved t1 to be you (and two of your eight brothers) [the person(s) most likely to win]1. Sheila hated (*him) very much t1 but Gladys loved (*him) very much t1 [the guy you just saw in the elevator]1.*the diamonds. Sheila gave the diamonds to Ernie. Thus. the raised subject of an inverse copula can be neither. Significantly.*It is the person most likely to win the election who1 t* is you. (10) a.*Who1 t1 is you? The same facts hold when such clauses are embedded as complements to verbs that permit raising to object. then. c. in yet another respect RNR shares constraints with L-extractions. Now.. b.*It is the person most likely to win who1 I believe t1 to be you. The person most likely to win the election is you.. c. (7) a. I believe the person most likely to win to be you. (9) a. b.< previous page page_174 next page > Page 174 (4) Canonical copula cases a You are the person most likely to win the election. But in fact this is impossible. It is you who1 t1 are the person most likely to win the election. But exactly the same is true for their participation in RNR structures. (8) a. it would be possible for right-dislocated phrases to be the targets of L-extractions.d). Sheila may have shown (*them) to Ernie h and she certainly showed (*them) to Carl t1 [the rare sixty-carat diamonds]1. Who1 t1 is the person most likely to win the election? (5) Inverse copula cases a. the diamonds. Bob. Sheila gave them to Ernie. which finite subjects are not. B. d. d. Sheila hates Bob. b. b. this point is relevant since it means that the subjects are potentially targets of RNR. b.*[Which of the diamonds]1 did Sheila show (*them) to Ernie t1? c.

1.2. is based on the possibility of RNR into islands.1. [The construction in question should violate the Complex NP Constraint. such constructions would be expected to violate locality constraints on movement.2. According to Postal. Postal claims that this argument for the superiority of the base-generation analysis of RNR is very weak and puts it aside simply by exempting the RNR movement from locality conditions on movement. MITR states: (1) ''The argument against the extraction analysis of RNR given in section 4. I return to this below. I address the selected comments in an order that seems to me to maximally connect them to the issues of this book. Subjacency. is extremely powerful. However. and extraposition of prepositional phrases.2. First. the grammaticality of such constructions can be straightforwardly accounted for. the RNR extraction operation is simply not subject to locality constraints on movement. hereafter called MITR. (Postal actually suggests that all rightward extractions are exempted from locality conditions on extraction. in contrast to other extraction operations.2. illustrated by Mary buys and Bill knows a man who sells. < previous page page_175 next page > If you like this book. If RNR were an extraction operation. With respect to the argument in section 4.e. much stronger than ANY of the arguments for the extraction analysis of RNR that Postal gives. i. pictures of Elvis Presley. Second. Elsewhere MITR makes clear that he or she is referring here to phenomena like extraposition of relative clause. extraposition of complements of head nouns.< previous page page_175 next page > Page 175 Appendix C Reaction to Referee Comments In this appendix I comment briefly on certain criticisms from one of two MIT Press referees. The argument.5. buy it! ." My reactions to this criticism are as follows. MITR provides no real support for the subjective claim that the argument against an extraction analysis is "much stronger than ANY of the arguments for the extraction analysis. originally due to Wexler and Culicover (1980). which inherently involve an element taking on constituency within an immediately containing constituent..] On the base-generation analysis. MITR criticizes my suggestion that right extractions do not obey the relevant locality conditions by claiming that "other rightward extractions" do obey them." But he or she does try to give grounds for calculating the "strengths" at issue. other rightward extractions clearly obey these conditions). My response would be that these phenomena are not extractions but fall into an overall class of bounded raisings.5. on the other hand.

What MITR has asserted in effect is that GB consists of (among other things) a set of axioms AX such that the addition to AX of a further axiom B equivalent to my claim that RNR is an extraction not subject to. often interpreted as locality conditions on the "licensing" of empty categories. Subjacency is stated in GB terms as roughly a claim that movements cannot cross more than one barrier. though. because t1 violates the ECP. Most instances of RNR of otherwise immobile elements violate constraints on movement or licensing of traces.2. For example. Without a proof. it is true that I do not realize that it is "simply not possible" in the GB framework to exclude RNR from constraints holding for L-extractions. I find it implausible that an actual proof could be constructed. Surely. the key here is the concept "truly incompatible. It is based on the fact that certain elements that are otherwise completely immobile. the Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. i.2. This." Setting aside the factivity of the verb realize in the last line of MITR's remarks.5).7. much stronger than Postal cares to admit. MITR states: (3) "The argument against the extraction analysis discussed in section 4. it is simply not possible to do this. 447. In any event. not written in the GB framework. All instances of movement in this framework are considered to be applications of the general operation Move a. one interpretation of a supported analysis A truly incompatible with framework F takes A as counterevidence to F. However. for example the GB theory. any claimed theorem needs to be associated with either a displayed proof or a reference to one. on par with [(4b)]. Subjacency permits derivation of a contradiction. What MITR gives no sign of recognizing is that the claim amounts to an assertion of a theorem and that to be serious. Clearly. in the GB framework [(4a)] should be ruled out by the ECP under the extraction analysis of RNR.e. for instance.< previous page page_176 next page > Page 176 MITR continues: (2) "This is a VERY bad move.7. and more generally the fact that otherwise completely immobile < previous page page_176 next page > If you like this book. the burden of proof is always on anyone who claims something is a theorem.2.1. one could distinguish left traces from right traces and limit only the former in the relevant way. it is clear. for example. and the constraints on movement are stated as constraints on Move a.1. can undergo RNR. In a number of frameworks. which the author does not appear to realize. it makes no more sense for MITR to cite as a criticism a sup-posed incompatibility between my suggestion and GB assumptions than it would for a critic of work written in the GB framework to reject some proposed analysis because it was incompatible with an assumption of. MITR's claim amounts to another instantiation of the empty bluff parodied under the name Phantom Theorem Move in Postal 1988. For instance. is also very strong. restricting this claim to a subclass of movements would not be fundamentally incompatible with basic GB ideas. Thus. buy it! . never undergo movement.. In such a framework it is simply not possible to take one particular application of Move a and exempt it from locality constraints on movement. and section 3." The work on which MITR was commenting was. Incidentally.2. neither of which is given (see Pullum 1983. With respect to the argument of section 4.

but John didn't buy any books about linguistics. < previous page page_177 next page > If you like this book. "Look how different RNR and L-extractions are. but John did buy any books about linguistics. Mary bought. Under the particular analysis that MITR apparently advocates. In particular: (6) a. First." But this alone is not determinative. which should be dealt with and not simply dismissed. which Postal does.. an RNR (NP) pivot is taken to be in situ in object position in the last conjunct. Second. restrictive relative and nonrestrictive relative L-extractions show that these fail to fall under a common concept. MITR's claim that RNR's greater target constituent freedom than L-extractions' "raises a very serious problem" for an extraction analysis is empty if it refers to the ECP claim and unsupported if it refers to anything else. MITR's claim amounts to saying. though. the fact that RNR targets include a range of constituents not subject to L-extraction does not in itself lead to a conclusion that RNR and L-extractions fail to fall under a general concept of "extraction" any more than the (much) less sharp differences between. Culicover 1991. it again makes no sense to criticize a work not assuming framework F for including an analysis that violates some principle of F (here the ECP). [(4)] a. John believes [CP that t1] and Peter claims [CP that t1] [IP Mary will get a job] b. MITR claims that works written after chapter 4in particular.b) indicates that the prospects for explicating even facts like (4b) via the ECP are bleak in the face of grammatical examples like (5). Mary may have given t1 to Fred today and she certainly gave t1 to Louise yesterday [a large box of chocolates]1. Although initially perhaps slightly seductive. Support for this base-generation view is supposedly provided by facts about negative polarity item licensing cited by Kayne (1994). (5) [Which woman]1 does John believe [that under those conditions t1 will testify against the sheriff]? That is.*Mary didn't buy.g. this line of argument does not hold up when one considers what range of RNR constructions it could apply to. it is certainly not viable to claim that even an RNR NP pivot is in situ in object position in the last conjunct. Kayne 1994 and Bokovic * 1995contain arguments favoring what is called a base-generation analysis of RNR as opposed to an extraction analysis. b. there is no real reason to think consistency with the ECP is a reasonable condition to impose on an analysis. buy it! . raises a very serious problem for the extraction analysis of RNR. this one lacks a discernible logic. as argued in chapter 4. 1993a.*Who does John believe [CP that t1 will get a job]" Like the earlier criticism. they also are strikingly similar in a variety of ways. (7) a. This is shown by examples no more complex than (7). Third. recent work internal to GB assumptions (e.< previous page page_177 next page > Page 177 elements can undergo RNR. In general. for example. given that. Fourth. and to have determined in some unspecified way the nonappearance of analogs in previous conjuncts.

With respect to cases like (7b). since. This is because in (8c) the shifted NP must be regarded as adjoined at the end of a (conjoined) S constituent that is not the end of the smallest containing VP. though.14. the base-generation/in-situ view is of course entirely impotent for those RNR structures that involve what are called interwoven dependencies in section 4. MITR claims that Boskovic 1995 contains a base-generation analysis consistent with such cases. regardless of the analysis of (7b). impossible in CXS structures. (8) a. they cannot eliminate the grave problems it faces with the English facts cited here.< previous page page_178 next page > Page 178 b. Ernie may believe t1 to be a conservative and certainly believes t1 to be a Republican [the excited critic of the current welfare system]1. [Mary said [(that) she believed t1 to be innocent in a very loud voice] [and Jack said (that) he believed t1 to be guilty in a low whisper] [the guy who was dripping blood in the library]1]. c. that Boskovic claims there that these cases do not involve RNR but rather ATB application of CXS. Uncontroversial cases of CXS do not permit a shifted heavy NP to appear further from the underlying site than the end of the nearest containing VP (see Nakajima 1989. I think (8) and (9) show clearly that the view that RNR NP pivots are in situ in object positions and determine some kind of right-to-left deletion has no real application to English RNR. Moreover. which contrast with genuine CXS structures like (8b). As is well known. Not having seen that unpublished work. I cannot comment. as observed in note 18 of chapter 4. claiming that Boskovic argues that in a case like this. I cannot comment in detail. Second. as (8b) shows. It would hardly be desirable to construct an analysis for such cases in which a diamond and an emerald forms the base object of stole and determines deletion of some (what?) object in the first conjunct. c. With respect to certain cases like (7a). though. the exceptional plural RNR pivot cases in appendix B.*Mary said [(that) she believed t1 to be innocent in a very loud voice] [the guy who was dripping blood in the library]1. could not exist if Kayne's conceptualization of RNR as backward deletion was correct. CXS (unlike RNR) is in general upward-bounded. Ross long ago pointed out that objects of prepositions cannot be CXS targets. (9) Mary bought (from Gwen) and Frank stole (from Mike) a diamond and an emerald. That being so. b. Kayne's interesting observation in (6) remains unexplained. As I know nothing about that language. CXS is involved in the nonobject position of the RNR pivot. Postal 1993c).2. Therefore. Amanda may have talked to t1 about taxes and certainly talked to t1 about fur prices [the elegant banker from Buenos Aires]1. < previous page page_178 next page > If you like this book. Mary said [(that) she believed Jack to be innocent in a very loud voice]. MITR also claims that Kayne's proposal explains certain facts about failures of RNR in Dutch.2. Boskovic's* approach would have no application to cases like (8c). buy it! . consistent with a base-generation analysis. But this fails for (7c). MITR refers to Boskovic * 1995. But no matter what virtues such a proposal might have for Dutch. MITR indicates. respectively.

2.. MITR cites the following paradigm as evidence for the base-generation view: (12) a. is that in most frameworks including those that MITR favors. MITR's suggestion to replace conditions generalizing over both L-extraction and R-extraction with descriptive statements like (10) raises another point." To exemplify this. buy it! .3 that an indirect object (IO) cannot be extracted. because that too would provide for null IOs in relevant RNR cases. Kayne's proposal. (10) is false in any framework that recognizes null objects in passives.c). when they are in fact perfect. since it then says all IO passives like (62a) of chapter 4 and (11) are ill formed. John is. Given (10). In short. (10) An IO (an NP in indirect object position) cannot be phonologically null. all four of which are hopelessly ungrammatical. For us. c.*John is.3 survives cases like (11) under the weak assumption that passives do not involve extraction. Even if this were possible in a descriptively adequate way.2.*The women are.7 and 4. unlike the situation with the IO argument. and John wants to be. as an alternative to my claim in section 4.2. a doctor. One problem with this criticism. the commonality would show up as common treatment of potentially distinguishable null elements. But it is certainly not mine or that of my wife.2. It would still remain true that RNR and L-extractions would share a wide range of behavior. the alternative shown in (10). MITR evidently believes there is no basis in IO facts for choosing an extraction analysis of RNR over. and the women want to he. Otherwise. MITR claims and tries to justify the view that the arguments in sections 4. MITR proposes.2. for example. b. putative nontraces) involved with RNR.d) and (12b." MIRT then claims that "[i]n most cases it is possible to state the relevant descriptive generalizations in such a way that the facts that motivated the generalizations can still he covered and the base- generation analysis of RNR can be maintained.2.< previous page page_179 next page > Page 179 Consider next the question of "strength" of arguments for and against extraction views of RNR.g.12 that RNR is a type of extraction are all weak because they are either "based on a descriptive generalization that has no theoretical explanation" or "based on ill- understood phenomena. a doctor. Kayne's deletion view. (10) is simply wrong.2. doctors. it would he open to those denying their commonality to differentiate the null elements (e. by contrast. my noextraction claim about IOs suffers from no known counterexamples. say. although it may be true that one or more of the generalizations underlying my arguments could be adequately reformulated in a way that would not choose between an extraction view and. and the women want to he.2. Perhaps there is a natural language with facts like these.2. traces) associated with L- extractions from those (e.2. < previous page page_179 next page > If you like this book. On the other hand. there is no difference between the pairs (12a. (11) Marlene1 was sent t1 several invitations by possible suitors.. d. it would take much more than MITR's failed attack on the IO argument to impose that conclusion. and John is. The women are. it would hardly support the denial that RNR and L-extractions fall under the same category of extraction. doctors.g. the extraction condition in section 4.3-4. Hence. though.

2. (14) They said he can bend a crowbar and [bend a crowbar]1 he can t1.< previous page page_180 next page > Page 180 With respect to the argument of section 4.2. which clearly does not involve extraction. MITR raises the question of whether the CSC is a constraint on extraction.1he did let her GAP. they arguably hold for the NP-internal genitive phenomenon. Even though the CSC arguably holds for nonextraction structures. the well-known failure of VP deletion to obey conditions like Subjacency is obviously a serious problem. the interrogation of (that friend of) Jane('s) (and Louise) by the attorney b. Favoring such an approach would be the fact that there are many similarities between VP deletion and the uncontroversial VP extraction in (14). then MITR is partially right to conclude that the argument in section 4. I foresee that this is the case for proposals like that mentioned in passing in Kayne 1994 to the effect that RNR structures involve left-to-right constituent deletion. This condition may well still refute particular attempts to regard RNR as a nonextraction phenomenon because the alternatives do not share any-thing of relevance with extraction constructions or others subject to the CSC. both are impossible unless the ultimately empty VP site follows a restricted set of elements including auxiliaries. buy it! . For instance. it is still necessary to account for the class of structures for which it does hold in such a way that they share enough structure to make this account viable.2. I would conjecture that in the framework of Johnson and Postal 1980 and derivative work." MITR illustrates with the following example from Sag 1976: (13)*I couldn't lift this rock but I know a boy who can GAP and bend a crowbar too. b. in 1997 1 am inclined to think MITR's basic point is correct here.2 fails to support the extraction view of RNR. For instance.2. In any event. < previous page page_180 next page > If you like this book. (16) a. noting that this is in particular denied in Munn 1993. The class of restrictions that Ross sought to codify in the CSC do hold for a larger class of phenomena than are covered by the notion of extraction. the CSC would end up holding of all and only constructions involving successor arcs. (that friend of) Jane's interrogation (*(that friend of) and Louise) by the attorney If this is correct. MITR states that the Conjunct Constraint "is particularly suspect as a constraint on extraction" and notes as evidence that "it is even obeyed by VP ellipsis. However. I am not as certain as MITR that analyzing VP deletion as involving some sort of extraction is out of the question.2. (15) They said he let Mary drink bourbon and a.*[drink bourbon]1 he did let her t1. Taking the VP deletion construction to include some kind of extraction of an empty VP is thus not beyond question. I hedge here with partially for the following reason.

like that of Demirdache (1991. seem to offer no basis for the unacceptability of PRO gate cases with A2-extractions. If I have understood the proposals correctly. Given note 2. The gap/coindexing notation in (1) and throughout this book is a descriptive device representing no commitment to the linguistic reality of either traces or coindexing.c) and (ia. I saw the same guy that you convinced t1 that they would interview pg1. < previous page page_181 next page > If you like this book. A probable exception is exclamatory extraction. for example. (15b. the contrast between. The contrast between A2-extractions and others with respect to the extraction of "backward" controllers of complement subjects raises other theoretical issues. 3. the contrast reveals the inadequacy of accounts of the so-called PRO gate phenomena related to weak crossover facts. This work was supported by NSF grant SBR-9510984 (to Paul M. That P-gaps to the right of their "licensing" gaps are compatible with A2-extraction of the latter is indicated by examples like these: (i) a. Postal and Mark R. 6.b) raises an important issue for any theory of P-gaps. buy it! . (i) [Which grapes]1 did she buy t1 without tasting pg1? (ii) [What awful grapes]1 she bought t1 (?*without tasting pg1)! See Obenauer 1992 for discussion of the failure of French exclamatory extraction to yield P-gaps. 2. 87-89). 4. involves the failure of certain controlled elements in environments E to manifest the same crossover violations as pronouns in situ in E do. whose ability to yield P-gaps is very questionable. The PRO gate effect. Evidently. b. noted by Higginbotham (1980. 5. Jacqueline met more candidates than Arnold interviewed t1 without hiring pg1.< previous page page_181 next page > Page 181 Notes Chapter 1 1. 1983). Baltin). The problem is that accounts of this effect. it is evidently questionable whether (15a) provides independent support for the claim at issue.

I believe. by the terrorists hidden behind That the islands here are locked is shown by the fact that A-extractions (e. As with the issue discussed in note 7. for example. although the notion of controlled RP is left entirely informal here. minimally. In these terms. (ii) A1 is a foreign predecessor of an arc A2 and seconds B. it has a simple formalization in the Metagraph Grammar framework developed in Johnson and Postal 1980. is to say minimally the following: (i) RPx heads an arc B that is a replacer of an arc A1 headed by Ex hence. which is what underlies my claim that they fall under a notion of control. Postal 1985. The relation in question is and must be described here entirely informally. 1989. RPx. 9. The latter. That the invisibility of what are taken here to be English controlled RPs is linked to their extraction rather than. I would assume that it is mandated by linguistic law that each Control-arc is erased. question extraction. Then to specify that an RP is controlled is to specify that it must head a (successor) arc with that R-sign. But this null RP can be separated from the dislocated phrase by locked islands. restrictive relative extraction) from the position of the gap in (i) are systematically ill formed. Another aspect of this relation is that the arcs involved must. Thus. As noted in Postal and Baltin 1994. what needs to be said is that with the exception of the few marginal instances of noncontrolled RPs. merely to the possibility that certain in-situ pronouns are nonphonetic is argued by the existence of invisible RPs that are completely insensitive to all island boundaries. 1996. show signs of being such only in connection with their having been extracted.b) as topicalizations of non-RPs. be related by the anaphoric pairing relation. However. (iii) A2 erases A1 and has a remote successor whose R-sign is in the class of Overlay R-signs. I would assume there is an Overlay R-sign. A1 and B have the same R(elational)- sign and are neighbors (have the same tail node). 1990a. it can. as in (i). buy it! . Of course. Namely. 10. 1992.b. 1986a.g. in certain cases a prepositional object RP is null. Ex. (i) [Ce mur]1. the topic extractees then being subject to either left dislocation or right dislocation. guaranteeing their extraction and their invisibility. to say that a specific RP. links to a particular extractee. certain instances of the RPs associated with French left dislocation.. be precisely reconstructed in the framework mentioned in that note. another logical possibility is to take (32a. 8. and other related works. for example. on veut aider les gens áqui craignent de se faire tirer dessus that wall are want to help the people who are afraid of getting shot at par les terroristes áembusqués derrière t1ññ.< previous page page_182 next page > Page 182 7. it is important that any approach to selective islands not confuse the sort of merely null RPs in (i) with English controlled secondary RPs. such erasure in part defining the control relation. English extraction RPs must all head arcs with the R-sign Control. But this alternative appeals to something I do not know to be inde- < previous page page_182 next page > If you like this book.b. Although in general this construction involves visible surface RPs occurring in situ. Control. this is the case with. beyond being invisible. Roughly.

feature-changing rules.*They favor that color. in any Comp between that and the ultimate extraction locus. [no discussion of which1]2 there was t2. multiple- interrogation. (i) a. buy it! . Chapter 3 1. 6. See Emonds 1979 for a detailed analysis embodying the claim that the wh form in an appositive is a definite pronoun. (ib. and unidirectional rules of deletion cannot cross island boundaries. 2. variables in other rules can. [whose1 favorite color]2 I painted my house t2</sb. 63). which1 I painted my house t1. < previous page page_183 next page > If you like this book." (Ross 1967. Sells 1984. 289) This generalization becomes marginally relevant below. b. Although Ross initially defined the CSC exclusively in terms of movement rules. namely. though. 3. they can then appear in the extraction site.c) argues that there are pronouns in the positions of t2 and t2. or in the latter. and control phenomena obey the CSC. for framework-internal reasons not relevant here. one L-extraction type taking as its extractee the extractee of a different L-extraction type. 94-97. space considerations preclude delving into the domain of P-gaps here. Chapter 2 1. After writing this. Sells documents that Hebrew relative clause RPs optionally L-extract.*He likes Jane. whose presence inside islands not containing the "licensing" gap is. 4. due to extraction from flexible unlocked islands. much independent evidence indicates that (visible) RPs can extract (see McCloskey 1979. With respect to the plausibility of (50c). c. Another domain relevant to supporting the idea that elements can selectively extract from subjects involves P-gaps. Thus. in my view. Koster 1987.< previous page page_183 next page > Page 183 pendently attestable.. 5. where evidence is cited that certain scope. he later generalized the constraints to cover other types of generative rules as well.c) are no better than (ia). The ill-formedness of cases like (ib. (i) "Variables in chopping rules. The kind of extraction at issue is referred to in GB terms as long extraction. RPs clearly distinct from the non-RP pronouns represented by the forms whose and which. even nonrestrictive relative extractions in which the wh form is embedded in a larger extracted phrase (so-called pied- piping cases in the sense of Ross 1967) are excluded from antipronominal contexts. I became aware of strong evidence that nonrestrictive relative extraction involves an RP and that this extraction cannot be reduced to A-extraction of a definite pronoun (represented by the wh form): namely. 91-94.*He likes green1. chap. 11. That the relevant NPs here after as and into are PNs is argued in Emonds 1985. However.

Remarkably. I find no citation or reference to it in. 1994."(1993. 4. all of whose analogs in English preclude ordinary extraction (but not necessarily selective extraction). McCloskey 1988. Manzini 1992. Goodall (1987) attempts to integrate the CSC into post-1973 Chomskyan frameworks.g.b.. and adverbial clauses. For example..2. to true coordinate cases like (4) there systematically correspond cases like (i). Rizzi 1990. ignores what I refer to elsewhere (including chapters 1 and 4) as interwoven dependencies. and Lucille wreck t3? This is in a sense ATB extractionin which. represented by respectively constructions in English. 168) devote one short footnote to it. 1986a. 1977a. Exceptionally in this tradition. See Postal. But we still would like to see a motivated account for the islandhood of coordinate structures and of adverbial clauses.2. 1988. specifying that it is "powerful. 1982. This work (p. however. 401) Most striking is the lack of reference to the CSC in Chomsky 1977b.< previous page page_184 next page > Page 184 2. surely respecting the CSC is at least as characteristic of the phenomena at issue as respecting either of the other constraints. 86) attempted to characterize wh movement" in terms of its observation of principles. Cinque 1990. extraction is possible out of Belauan sentential subjects. including Chomsky's own Wh-Island Constraint and Ross's CNPC. and [which motorcycle]3 did respectively Sally buy t1. 358-359) mentions it only in passing. Space considerations preclude an adequate discussion here. or Brody 1996.b. Haegeman 1991. that apparently coordinate constituents are not even constituents) and sharp departures from standard Chomskyan assumptions. 1975. Chomsky 1972. Van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986) discuss it extensively. 1981. Lasnik and Uriagereka (1988. for example. however. Marilyn borrow t2. this attempt appeals to highly radical notions (e. 3. also referencing Pesetsky 1982. the Subject Condition. (i) [Which car]1. which are clouded by problems. 1980." Koster (1987. [which van]2. 409) breaks with tradition and makes explicit the Chomskyan program's failure to subsume the CSC: (i) "Notice that while Subjacency accounts for the [Complex NP Constraint].. Thus. it cannot account for the ungrammaticality of movement out of coordinate structures and out of adverbial clauses. the gaps in the associated conjuncts correspond in an ordered way to conjuncts of a single apparent extractee. < previous page page_184 next page > If you like this book. relative clauses. 1995. Like most discussions of coordination. in preparation b. embedded interrogative clauses. and the wh-islands. in the generative literature of the past twenty-five years closely linked to Chomsky's work. buy it! . for further discussion. Müller 1995. Thus Subjacency is an improvement over the earlier approach of individual constraints and conditions because it captures a generalization that the earlier approach missed. Napoli (1993. Kayne 1984. Lasnik and Saito 1992. 401. this remark. the CSC tends to go unmentioned. the [Specified Subject Condition]. But Lakoff's (1986) objections aside.. including what I have called selective island extraction in section 3.

whose initial part happens itself to be a linear structure (analyzable as an A-S. Claim (i) might be taken to reconstruct Lakoff's (1986. At issue are cases like (i). Lakoff rejects the claim that (12) reconstructs the logic of his argument against the CSC. there would presumably be no true counterexamples to the CSC. a factual question on which Cognitive Grammar assumptions can have no bearing. This rejection is based on the (correct) observation that (12) fails to make explicit various Cognitive Grammar assumptions. 10. (i) Harry went to the store. Since what is at issue in the present work is the viability of the CSC and not anything about Cognitive Grammar.. As Hudson (1976) observes. then each of G occurs in a distinct coordinate conjunct. the extraction associated with right node raising is not limited to coordinate structures. bought three pizzas.< previous page page_185 next page > Page 185 5. these conjunct(s) partially designate members of a premise set including unexpressed premises. Given the fact. the VP examples represent genuine counterexamples. 7. buy it! . and therefore is not hungry. But this yields a binary VP structure. ate them. But at the end of the article he informally proposes a kind of "reanalysis" of the relevant coordinate structures into noncoordinate ones (see his (20) and (23)). explicit in (10). whose status is somewhat cloudy. Rather. which Lakoff believes are central to the argument. which jointly entail the consequent. < previous page page_185 next page > If you like this book. 134). 157) flat statement: "Only conjunctions permit across-the- board extraction.. contrary to what I argue in what follows. 9. More accurately." (p. (i) If a single extractee E is linked to each of a nonunary set G of gaps. Initially he states that ''[t]he immediate subject of this paper is a set of sentence-types which form an exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint of Ross (1967). One cannot say that the "consequent" conjunct is entailed by the preceding conjunct(s). At issue is simply whether English includes well-formed sentences that are inconsistent with the CSC. The strongest conclusion his data would justify is a restriction of coordinate islands to non-VPs. 6. Goldsmith's discussion involves a certain equivocation. I should indicate that in a series of personal communications in 1993 and 1996. In (6a) one unexpressed premise is that de Gaulle is a Frenchman. Whether mixed cases involving D-Ss are possible as well is unclear. But I do not agree. on one reading). an occurrence of and should precede ate. I suspect that to render (i) fully acceptable. there is no way that aspects of the latter can be relevant to the narrow concern of this chapter. 8. There might seem to be a well-grounded principle justifying Lakoff's inference from partial ATB extraction. Under such an analysis. that all putative counterexamples to the CSC involve extraction from VPs. see Postal 1994 and (ii). Lakoff's general rejection of the CSC is unwarranted even if." But a principle like (i) is dubious. In fairness.

< previous page page_186 next page > Page 186 (ii) Anyone who plans to get engaged to t1 should confer with someone who has dated t1 [that sort of person]1. b. (i) a. buy it! . It can be divided into what one could call straightforward evidence and more indirect evidence.b). One thinks of the so-called null subject phenomenon. with a restricted subset of X permitting invisible pronouns. that certain apparent RP-linked topicalization constructions are subject to island constraints. who contemplates taking such cases to be coordinate. (i) the baby clothes which1 Greg went to the store/airport/brothel/farm and bought t1 13. < previous page page_186 next page > If you like this book. Although the arguments for this analysis have many weaknesses. (ii) a. In Postal 1970 I advanced various arguments for the presence of invisible pronouns in English control structures. 12. Statement (26) subsumes the general principle that all pronouns are surface forms as well as the weaker entailment that all RPs are phonetically realized. 153) states that their conjuncts represent "normal conventionalized expectations. She was born in [that building]1 but I wasn't born in it1. as I see no difference among the versions of (i). A different example is that the pronoun constraint found in (ia. My 1963 doctoral dissertation (see Postal 1979) was largely devoted to justifying the positing of such invisible pronouns as both subjects and objects. for example. which differ with respect to satisfying the condition. manifests itself in the short examples (iia. The former involves patterns in which certain contexts X contain visible pronoun occurrences. Cinque (1975. barring either an extreme view of coordination such as that suggested by Williams (1990). where null subjects are optional. especially in languages like Spanish. However. 14. That the quantifier both differentiates true coordinations from the kinds of structures discussed by Lakoff seems to have first been observed by Schmerling (1975). Parallel phenomena are common in the world's languages.b). The latter issue is the subject of chapter 4. in Postal 1991 I counter that data of the sort these authors consider are consistent with (25) under a nonstandard analysis of the relevant constructions. b. In characterizing the semantics of A-Ss. rejecting (25) on the basis of the Romance facts is at least debatable. Principle (25) has not gone unchallenged. 1975) argue for Italian and French. respectively. 11. as discussed by Na and Huck (1992). which contain visible pronouns. often subtle and idiosyncratic constraints on pronouns manifest themselves in a variety of contexts. 1977) and Hirschbühler (1974. By more indirect evidence I refer to arguments showing that particular. Examples like (ii) refute (i). Lakoff (1986.*She was born in [Albania]1 but I wasn't born in it1.*Albania1 is too horrible for her to be born in (it1). That building1 is too horrible for her to be born in (it1). or a rejection of the claim that right node raising is an extraction." But conventionalized appears incorrect. which do not. as a result of the presence of invisible pronouns in those contexts. The evidence against either variant is massive.

< previous page page_187 next page > If you like this book. Hornstein and Lightfoot (1991. He did(n't) pour beer into the jars for Sally. the rest of this chapter. 15. have the same status. like those formed by negativesso-called inner islands. The issue of PP extraction from selective islands is extremely complicated. one must. Ultimately. This is particularly clear in the case of relatively weak selective islands. (vi) the guy [to whom]1 they asked John whether she talked/*mattered t1 The issues linked to PP extraction from selective islands also involve such superficially prepositionless adverbial forms as when. b. and how. Some selective islands.) (vii)*When1/*Where1/*Why1/*How1 did they arrest everyone [who protested t1]?. (viii) ?When1/Where1/*Why1/*/How1do you regret [you hugged her t1]? Although the principles underlying PP extraction from selective islands are important and mysterious. buy it! . involving extraction from an interrogative selective island. first studied by Ross (1984).b. For example. seem to ban all PP extraction. and impossible to extract any of them from the strongest selective islands (see (viii)). [Into which jars]1 did(n't) he pour beer t1 for Sally? c.< previous page page_187 next page > Page 187 For extensive arguments of this sort. (v) is as impossible as either version of (vi). (iv) Who1 did John wonder whether Bill talked to t1? (v) [To whom]1 did John wonder whether Bill talked t1? But for me. in preparation a. (i) a. some PPs are more extractable from selective islands than others. (All of (vii) are good. (iii) a. but only when the adverbials are construed with arrest. I believe. 389) specify that (iv)(v). some being more resistant to PP extraction than others. why. whereas Lightfoot (personal communication. See note 26. [For whom]1 did(*n't) he pour beer into the jars t1? (ii) It was [with this stiletto]1 that they (*never) stabbed the lasagna t1. They arrested everyone who poured beer into the jars. the issue is fortunately marginal to the defense of the CSC. distinguish both different types of PPs and different types of selective islands. d. 1994. c*It was [into those jars]1 that they arrested everyone [who poured beer t1]. It is impossible to extract the latter two from any selective islands (see (vii)). Selective islands may well form a hierarchy. January 1992) makes the distinction given. It was [those jars]1 that they arrested everyone [who poured beer into t1]. and Postal 1993a. At the same time. where.*It was [with this stiletto]1 that they arrested everyone [who stabbed the lasagna t1]. see chapters 1 and 2. Compare (i) and (ii) (the latter from Ross 1984. In some cases PP extraction from selective islands is both speaker-dependent and dependent on type of preposition and construction. including those involving relative clauses with quantifier heads. 260). b.

Neither Cinque nor Obenauer seems to have explicitly related the postulation of RPs in selective island extractions to Ross's (1967) principle (25). Theoretical reconstruction of (27e) is attempted in Postal 1990b. Relevant to the hedge is the question of whether complement clauses are extractable from selective islands. Kayne 1984. all the evidence in the text involves antecedence by nonsubjects. The earliest proposal associating invisible pronouns with extractions was made by Perlmutter (1972).. A now well-known fact (see. (i) [That (*he was a psychopath)]1. (27e) can be taken as nothing but shorthand for a listing of specific restrictions including those in the text given by ostension. < previous page page_188 next page > If you like this book. 1994. buy it! . Although (27d) is stated in full generality. thus failing to draw the distinction made in (58) below between A-extractions and B-extractions. as in Obenauer 1984. they never asked me whether I believed t1. The view that extraction from selective islands depends on RPs combines with the observation in note 15 that some PP extraction is permitted from (some) selective islands to require postulation of some invisible RPs corresponding to PPs.g.. For present purposes. Cinque 1990). 19. see Koster 1987 and chapters I and 2. 1993a. 4). for example. 22. For example. This is the case for which the facts seem clearest. but not very successfully. the short and long versions of (i). e. The idea that selective island extraction depends on invisible RPs seems to originate in the work of Hans-Georg Obenauer and later Guglielmo Cinque (see Obenauer 1984. compare (ia) and (ib). 17.g. but its obscurity is not directly pertinent to the current argument.< previous page page_188 next page > Page 188 16. In this regard. 1985. This claim was refined in chapter 2. Cinque 1990. Extraction of nonhighest finite subjects is less degraded (see Rizzi 1990. S cannot be the highest finite subject position in the island. 1986. The earliest observations seem to have been made in the late 1970s by Richard Kayne. posited them in all (at least NP) extractions. The discovery that various constituents allowing certain NP extractions bar finite-subject extraction really marks the beginning of the recognition of selective islands. 18. For general discussion. (27e) is rather obscure. among others. I find a difference between. e. that the contexts discussed by Kayne also preclude the extraction of adjuncts. 21. who. to refer to a division of pronouns into two types and the grammatical level(s) at which the constraints defining ACs are stated. and for present purposes it would not matter if one reformulated (27d) to limit it to these. however. 109. who spoke of "subject-object asymmetries" (see. More precisely. 20. The next step seems to have been the recognition by Koster (1978b) and Huang (1982). it is worth investigating whether the fact that when/where are sometimes extractable from selective islands whereas how/why are not is linked to the existence of then/there and the absence of corresponding anaphoric elements for how/why. and chapter 1) is that an extraction site in a selective island y cannot be separated from the boundaries of y by (many) other island boundaries. Lasnik and Saito 1992). As stated. 1985.

In (ia) what was called the primary RP in chapter I must extract to the same constituent as which. (i) a. it can be claimed that in order for RPs to be controlled. it leaves (iia) versus (e. Although it accounts for (e. that such constructions are incompatible with the CSC: "The fact that it is possible to extract out of one conjunct shows that there can he no general constraint against such nonparallel extraction contrary to the prediction of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. though I have changed his "??" prefixes to "*"s. which I have adopted. without citing Lakoff 1986. The ungrammaticality of such cases potentially raises an objection against appealing to RPs for cases like (ia) since it might appear that Ross's view that RPs "save'' structures from island violations. Presumably a principle to the effect that (at least certain classes of) extracted RPs cannot have (distinct) associated RPs in their extraction sites would guarantee this result." That is. failing to fully cover the asymmetries in extraction possibilities from A-S conjuncts. if. Culicover does not recognize that the selective island status of A-Ss justifies rejecting a premise like (12e). a solution to this problem lies in the invisibility of the RPs posited for selective island extraction. it must link to a secondary RP.< previous page page_189 next page > Page 189 (i) a. it wrongly blocks all A-S cases with no extractions at all.) (iia) versus (iib). Culicover (1990. unexplained. taken literally. adverbs.d). 23. Thus.*[What color]1 did Mary come home and paint the fence t1? Despite having noticed the selective island character of A-Ss. because. among other things.) (iii) or (49c. Since in doing so it crosses an island boundary. and color-NP expressions cannot be extracted from A-Ss. Moreover.g. Culicover observes independently that PPs. it does not seem to capture the essential contrasts. But. to guarantee that extractions from A-Ss must involve a gap in the final conjunct. but unlike the extraction of which. would predict no difference between (ia) and (ib). < previous page page_189 next page > If you like this book. 24.*[At which bar]1 did John go to Paris and sing "The Marseillaise" t1? c. ½who bought t1½. Lakoff states a principle designed. buy it! . as discussed in chapter 1.*the stuff which1 I would prefer it á if Jane. 14).*[How fast]1 did Mary go to her friend's house and drive the car t1? b. which satisfy it.g. he provides the examples in (i) (1990. as claimed there. (i) "Only scenarios of Type B permit there to be no extraction from the final conjunct." (Lakoff 1986. The only work I am aware of that recognizes that A-Ss are selective islands is Culicover 1990. they must themselves in general be extracted. 154) This is poorly framed. does not involve its own RP. what is wrong with (ib) is that the extraction of the RP to the corresponding position crosses the inner island boundary. this involves a control relation that determines extraction of the relevant RPs: namely. delivered it to usñ In (ib) the extraction site is separated from the selective island boundary (marked by "áñ") by the distinct island boundary (marked by "½"). 14) concludes. the stuff which1 I would prefer it áif Jane bought t1ñ b.

in their example sets (46) and (47). [Into what jars]1 did Melissa rush downstairs and pour beer t1? b. three of the four starred examples involve non-NP extraction. bought t1. drank them. (i) a. bought t1 and went home (iii)*the car which1 Steve got in t1. 29. as I believe. Which article proves which theorem and defends which theory? As he notes. an instance of NP extraction. she believes that I worship. then a proper theory of extractions and in-situ wh forms must have significantly parallel features. This may be possible in certain approaches. drove to the store. in-situ wh forms behave significantly like extractions. 92-104). As with other selective islands mentioned in note 15. These fail to differentiate the claim that these conjuncts are absolute islands from the claim that they are selective islands. c. A-Ss allow certain types of PP extraction. If. this principle may require an exclusionary ATB limitation partially parallel to Ross's (3) and the principle mentioned in note 32. I like and that I adore Beethoven. partly irrelevant. it might be correct to restrict principle (73) to noncoordinate islands and to develop a distinct approach to (i) and (ii). the wines which1 Steve got in your car. (i) a.*[In what way]1 did Melissa rush in feverishly and pour beer t1? c.*Mark knows that Mozart.*Joan respects Harry and she believes that Zeus. In the face of (i) and (ii). Alternatively.*Harry. Mark knows that Mozart. (ib) is "exactly analogous to the ATB extractions of" the CSC. ultimately. and drove t1 into a river 25. 618-619) makes the important observation that in coordinate structures. Harry. That some speakers find embedded topicalization possible is noted by Lasnik and Saito (1992. 28.*Which article proves your theorem and defends which theory? b. Specifically. c. b. 27. designed to illustrate the impossibility of extraction from the first conjuncts of binary A-Ss. I adore. Their fourth starred example is. and drank t1 b. 260) support the asymmetry of extraction from different conjuncts of A-Ss with data that are. I adore. however. Na and Huck (1992. Joan respects and Zeus. Where1 did Melissa pick up the phone and arrange to meet Greg t1? d. bought wines. (i) a. Pesetsky (1982. b. buy it! . I like and that Beethoven.< previous page page_190 next page > Page 190 (ii) a.*Why1 did Melissa pick up the phone for that reason and arrange to meet Greg t1? My casual impression is that A-Ss fall somewhere toward the weaker end of the selective island hierarchy with respect to permitting PP extraction. drove to the store. I worship.*Mark knows that I like Mozart and that Beethoven. Joan respects and she believes that I worship Zeus. drove to the store. (ii) a. 26. for ex- < previous page page_190 next page > If you like this book.*the wines which1 Steve got in your car. the parallelism between (i) and ATB extraction cases is genuine and systematic.

(i) Nobody said that Sally met a doctor here or charmed a lawyer anywhere. 158. Helen is tall and slim. (i) The Condition on Asymmetric Conjunction "In any asymmetrical conjunction. involving extraction from an AC. 275-277). 33. Compare (107d). Na and Huck (1992. with the parallel but grammatical (i). is mildly equivocal in that it is unclear whether it is intended to block (ic).. "The . for reasons that need not concern us here. it is difficult to see any way to capture the parallelisms. involving extraction from a context permitting pronouns. as informally stated. Pesetsky 1987. 165) says flatly that subordinate clauses like that in (i) do not permit extraction. My suggestion that (108a-c) are probably grammatical conflicts with claims made by Na and Huck (1992). In this regard.*[and slim]1 though Helen is tall. more superficial frameworks.< previous page page_191 next page > Page 191 ample. buy it! . it must be performed across- the-board. Compare (113a) with (i). There seems to be speaker variation here. (id). 2) remark. [tall and slim]1 though Helen is t1 c*slim1 though Helen is tall and t1 d. in GB. 30. Although Lakoff (1986. Actually. 72.b) are ungrammatical. is inviolable.b). 191). which do not. b. although (iia. Pollard and Sag 1994. Hence. (i) Nobody thought he lifted a finger or worried about Bob. where such theories have been sketched on the basis of "movement in Logical Form" (see Huang 1982. n. Koster 1987. or both. (i) a. though. it might be argued that the Conjunct Constraint. the claim in the text is at best only true of the and type of conjunction (see Ross 1967. 34. (99a." How-ever. They propose principle (I) and indicate that it correctly blocks (iia. the claim is not true of disjunctive cases. constraint against the movement of conjuncts. compare (109b) with (i). Disjunctions contrast.b). I find (i) essentially acceptable (see Chomsky 1982.." (Na and Huck 1992. Lasnik and Saito 1992). if extraction is performed on a secondary conjunct.*What1 can we (destroy many lakes and) not arouse t1? b.t1 < previous page page_191 next page > If you like this book. what is wrong with (iia. 270. 159) (ii) a. (i) [Which ear]1 did Mike go color-blind and still paint t1 green? 32. this remains true even when the parenthesized material is not present. 31. (i) Who1 did he sit there while referring to t1? Note that (i) satisfies the conditions for selective island extraction and is evidently vastly superior to.*[What kind of hangover]1 can you (drink a lot and) not get t1 the next morning? However. thus all of the exceptions to the CSC that Ross (and others) observed are exceptions to the second part of the CSC. 35.b) may well involve factors independent of extraction from B-conjuncts. for example. As in note 33. In other.

Chapter 4 1. The framework developed in Johnson and Postal 1980 and Postal 1982. because his father once did áVPñ1 and still got hired.. it shows that RNR pivots do not always match their correspondents in non-RNR cases in what Wexler and Culicover call "analyzability. schematically: (iii) Let P be a non-RNR pivot position and R an RNR pivot position corresponding to P.. 183-184). the following data are correct: (i) the person who1 Clara talked about certain carvings of t1 to Lucille (ii)*the person who1 Clara talked about t2 to Lucille and Mike talked about t2 to Jack [certain carvings of t1]2 Although I do not understand this difference. there are B-S examples parallel to (154). that the domain of metarule application should be restricted to the set of rules that introduce lexical categories. 1996. make that analysis unavailable . In question here is how this idea relates to RNR and ATB phenomena in general and whether. (i) Sam agreed to áVP fire a gunñ1. 1985. buy it! . Ojeda (1987) seems to advance a view in which L-extractions are conceptualized in roughly the way McCawley conceives of RNR. precisely the position I will argue against in section 4. Then < previous page page_192 next page > If you like this book.3.< previous page page_192 next page > Page 192 36. space considerations preclude discussing this. (i) "Given the framework developed by Gazdar.2. 1990a.. Right Node Raising was simply the expected result of the interaction between Rightward Displacement and the general schema for coordination.. This is because many of the classic instances of Right Node Raising .b. surface representations manifest multiple mothers.. The general validity of structures involving multiple mothers is not at issue. 1992. 4. as McCawley claims.. 1989." But the degree of failure so far is limited. as I believe. 3. As would be expected under the adjunct view of B-conjuncts defended in section 3. A quite different type of incompatibility between later Slash assumptions and RNR is noted by McCloskey (1986. 37. exploits multiple mothers far more extensively than McCawley contemplates. Note though that in Gazdar's (1981) terms. Here and below I represent the position of VP anaphora with angled brackets cosubscripted with an antecedent constituent placed in the same brackets. if real. 1986a. would involve a violation of the condition . see (142) below.." McCloskey suggests overcoming this problem by rejecting the view that RNR is an extraction phenomenon. a view denied in the framework just cited. That is. RNR and extraposed relatives are described by the same schema. 2. More recent developments in the theory . There is reason to doubt the truth of (15) if... No theoretical claims attach to this notation.b. 5. (15) should properly be regarded as a biconditional that says.

The RNR transformation could operate on the output of the L-extraction transformation. I find a difference between (iiia) and (iiib). 7. That1. and b. then constituent C in P can L-extract. For a very different approach to interactions between RNR and L-extraction. Such contrasts are indeed troubling. b. In early work like Postal 1974. then constituent C in R can L-extract. (i) a. RNR is taken to be some kind of transformational operation on distinct pieces of conjuncts that meet some identity condition. in a specific range of cases. see Oehrle 1990. Clearly. 6. 412) from the fact that "RNR may involve sequences of constituents . (iii) a. Manifestly. This is. if constituent C in P can L-extract. Oversimplifying somewhat. buy it! . 8. I note that the phenomenon in (i) may also contrast with standard RNR cases. b. Such a conclusion is drawn by Oehrle (1990. some extractions are more general than others. as the grammaticality of (i) for those who accept it has no straightforward description in an extraction approach to RNR. this is because topicalization is a B-extraction and thus incompatible with ACs like those in (i) and (ii). Oehrle cites contrasts like this: (i) Algernon didn't hand t1 he threw t1 [the cucumber sandwiches at Cecily]1. if constituent C in R can L-extract." an observation he notes is due to Abbott (1976). (ii) a. or conversely. [Nothing of the sort]1 did they discuss t1/name him t1. (ii)*[The cucumber sandwiches at Cecily]1.. they certainly discussed t1/*named him t1. Bob didn't mail t1 (*yesterday) but he did fax t1 (*today) [threats against the president to Jane]1.. of a sort never found in leftward ex-traction.*[Some other color]1. 9. b.< previous page page_193 next page > Page 193 a. For instance. a final arc is one not erased by an arc with the same tail node. then. [No other colors]1 did he think they had ever painted their car t1. however. The operation somehow reduces these conjuncts to a single RNR pivot. he thought they had painted their car t1. Algernon didn't hand t1 he threw t1. an argument against McCawley's multiple-mother-node approach to RNR pivots. an analog of the possibilities in (17) arises in such a framework. In the terms introduced in chapter 2. Final here is of course a technical term. < previous page page_193 next page > If you like this book. Bob didn't mail t1 to Jane (yesterday) but he did fax t1 to Clara (today) [threats against the president]1. whereas negative fronting is an A-extraction and thus insensitive to ACs. 10. The pair (i)-(ii) only falsities (iiia). Any attempt to appeal to reiterated RNR on single constituents runs into the question of what guarantees a word order in the pivot position parallel to that allowed in non-RNR cases. Although I have no serious analysis. the negative fronting construction is found in many environments where topicalization is impossible. For instance.

15. 13. it could be suggested that PP head extraction is universally banned. These appear not to include the idiolect of Steedman (1985). 126. d. One of these would have who as head. 1988. It might be assumed that the ungrammaticality of (63c) is a function of the recurrent claim (e. Beyond the parochial claim that what appear in English to be extractions of PP heads are in fact not. such verbs preclude that clauses from being passive subjects. Postal 1974. With these verbs. 2. the extraposition structure is obligatory. or topics. only in my view is the pronominal an RP and the that clause a subject in more abstract representations. 12. 99. and so on. which is. this can be argued to follow because the RP is also extracted.g.*[That foreigners are spies]1 is easy to feel t1. McCawley 1982. 1987.. no one still feels t1. e. of course. including the claims that the that clause is not a surface subject and that there is an invisible pronominal subject. 10-arcs must apparently not be subject to any relational uniqueness condition of the sort assumed in Relational Grammar to govern relations like 1.< previous page page_194 next page > Page 194 11. chap. (i) It was Marvin who1 that2 was hard to talk about t2 to t1. f. his (19b)). 186. have two final 10-arcs. I motivate a constraint on a distinct class of complement-taking verbs. 14. 6. It was felt that foreigners are spies.1[That foreigners are spies]1.*That foreigners are spies was felt by Sidney. 16. My proposal regarding that clauses in apparent subject position obviously shares many features with the earlier transformational proposal of Koster (1978b). including feel and hold. sec. Frank may feel t1 and probably does feel t1 [that foreigners are spies]1. but allow them to be extraposed in passives and to be RNR pivots. object-raising subjects. In Postal 1986a. He feels that foreigners are spies. There are also sharp differences. 1996). Such an RP would be expected to free NP topicalization from island constraints. 3. that is somewhat the opposite of (32). As expected given the assumptions in the text. Given the assumptions made here. 18. As discussed in chapters 1 and 2. Negatively.2. Grosu 1976. < previous page page_194 next page > If you like this book. b. 17. 3. But this formulation of various restrictions on RNR may be question-able given such cases as (i) and (ii). buy it! . for instance. 528) that RNR gaps must correspond to final constituents on right branches. (i) Melvin offered t1 to the Belgians and Jerome offered t1 to the Dutch [several tons of rotted frankfurters]1.. though. I argue that the stranded prepositions of English pseudopassives are a function of advancement and invisible RPs (see also Postal 1991. not the case.g. (i) a. the clause whose predicate is talk would. In Postal 1986a. who cites as grammatical sentences that violate the constraint in question and that I find impossible (e. c. the other that.

b.4. of course. To subsume this restriction as well as those noted in the text under (65) would appear to require taking CXS to be an extraction phenomenon. But such facts are not decisive. (iv) a.3).*They might have written t1 and should have written t1 [the author of the article]1. the rightmost condition is met in such cases because of preceding CXS (see. whereas RNR. Under Levine's (1985) view. 21. 139) observation that PP objects cannot be CXS targets would then block the perfectly grammatical RNR structure (iiib). (i)*I loaned t1 my binoculars [a man who was watching the race]1. in particular.g. But that claim seems to fail for cases like (iii).3).*I talked to t1 about love [the tall woman in the black dress]1. in which P- gaps are described in a particular way involving the distribution of so-called Slash categories (see section 4. b.7. where Ross's (1967. b. his remarks are linked exclusively to sentences whose analysis as RNR constructions is highly controversial. for example. This conclusion faces an apparent problem in Ross's (1967. Trees surrounded the barn. RNR constructions could contain no Slash categories. Oehrle 1990. buy it! . 19..*[Which barn]1 did trees surround t1? c. 40) observation that IOs are incompatible with CXS. however. 20.*Who1 did they write t1? c. RNR basically only in the way any simple instance of an L-extraction L differs from an ATB instance of L. 139) that CXS cannot strand prepositions. This objection has particular force in Levine's case. cases without any standard coordination. (v) a. as discussed in section 4. It might be noted that several one-object verbs subject to the Indirect Object Constraint would meet the rightmost condition but are still incompatible with RNR. < previous page page_195 next page > If you like this book." I agree essentially with Gazdar that CXS differs from. some cited by Williams (1990)for example. for he has adopted the overall GPSG framework. certain other problems with this view. who states that CXS is not really "bounded.2. despite appearances. This position is in effect accepted by Gazdar (1981. e.< previous page page_195 next page > Page 195 (ii) He wanted to drive t1 mad and did drive t1 mad [the recipient of his earlier vows of undying love]1. They wrote Kenneth. There are. the fact (Ross 1967.2. (iii) a. can. wrongly entailing that P-gaps are not "licensed" in RNR cases (see section 4. Mike may have talked to t1 about love and certainly talked to t1 about marriage [the tall woman in the black dress]1. It is sometimes suggested that. 412). 176).3.*Trees might have surrounded t1 and probably did surround t1 [all of those barns]1. A similar-sounding claim is made by Williams (1990). despite its generally assumed "bounded" character.

2. since it is not possible to consider the motivations for such a view here. 555) also offers more general criticisms of Slash approaches that have. 1994. I find that a similar pattern emerges in RNR expressions. b. See note 32. and probably will vote for t1 himself1. once these are noticed. The complexity and subtlety of the situation precludes a detailed discussion. It was a picture of himself1 which2 [my brother]1 thinks that Gail stole t2. 24. I have concluded in Postal 1994 that the view taken in section 4. [my brother]1 thinks Gail will vote for t1. for certain speakers (including myself) for simple reflexives as well (see Lasnik and Saito 1992. (i) a. recognition of Slash categories based on an underlying vocabulary M yields many more categories than are present in M alone. 23. without explaining the basic properties of Move a. (ii) a.*[My brother]1 thinks that Gail stole a picture of himself1. As in note 4. even if that controversial conclusion is correct. on the grounds that such examples do not in fact contain P-gaps. I have left the present study as is and refer the interested reader to my previously published but subsequently written paper. In defense of this decision. the issue is only the way this idea is exploited in McCawley's view of RNR. but I should mention the following facts. I am not claiming that interwoven dependencies undermine the viability of the idea of multiple mother nodes. I think. b. b. 26." Pesetsky adds that Slash categories fail to behave like other categories in that. [My brother]1 thinks that Gail might vote for t1. However.< previous page page_196 next page > Page 196 22. 110-111). To be sure. In any event. buy it! .2. Himself1.*[My brother]1 thinks that Gail will vote for himself1. The relevance of the claim about category proliferation is at best obscure. no verb subcategorizes for NP/NP or any other Slash category. 25.13 that cases like (106b) involve P-gaps "licensed" by RNR is incorrect. He cites a claim by Noam Chomsky that the Slash notation "allows a rather wild proliferation of categorial labels. (iii) a. [My brother]1 thinks that Gail might have stolen t2 and probably did steal t2 [a picture of himself1 ]2. Recognition of X-bar catego- < previous page page_196 next page > If you like this book. An important revision with relevance to later discussion is proposed by Sells (1986) on the basis of facts about RPs. a view rejected in Pollard and Sag 1987. for example. This is generally true in "picture noun" structures and. Another argument linking RNR to L-extractions could be based on reflexivization facts. minimal force. for the P-gap evidence for this conclusion is only one type among many. It is well known that in certain cases L-extractions "expand" the class of possible reflexive form antecedents. Pesetsky (1982. This is chiefly due to the authors' assumption that the Slash feature has as its value a single category. I believe that it is a highly controversial and nonstandard view to reject a P-gap analysis of cases like (106b). 27. Since writing the original version of this chapter. I do not think it substantively alters the present conclusion that RNR is a true extraction.

(1985) where. it is possible to view the RNR phenomenon as taking as arguments structures already incorporating L-extractions. I infer. Claim (141) is. ultimately not true.. sup-porting this claim by citing (iv)..< previous page page_197 next page > Page 197 ries over a basic vocabulary N also yields many more categories than are present in N alone.*Louise pleases lots of stuff/that/everything I please. but I believe that its premise is false. Louise can do anything1 she pleases t1. 29. and difficult would then subcategorize only for Gap categories.6. Hukari and Levine (1991) divide the older Slash into two features. he also claims that RNR out of the same contexts is fine. Oehrle states (pp. then. any subconstituent of it . consider the body of Slash results on Ross's (1967) CSC. However. Pesetsky could not have meant to beg the question of whether transformations play a role in natural language grammars. That assertion is at best only partially true. (i) a. (ii)*the painter who1 Sal knows a man who hates t1 and áBill knowsñ a woman who admires tl (iii)*[Whose work]1 do you know a man who likes t1 and áplan to meetñ a clone who hates t1 ? These are taken to be relevant to the more general claim via.2. c. Pesetsky's subcategorization point has more substance. Louise can do whatever1 she pleases t1. However. (i) "Nevertheless we cannot leftward-extract the target of RNR (or." (Oehrle 1990. As examples (ic. It is obviously so in the framework of Gazdar et al. however. A more telling argument involves the usage of the verb please found in (ia). supporting this statement by citing (iii). added here for clarity. but Chomsky and Pesetsky have had no qualms about that expansion. In more abstract frameworks. receives no explicit account in standard "Move a" works (see note 3 of chapter 3). b.1. in Slash terms the illustrated usage of please requires just the sort of subcategorization for a Slash category that Pesetsky claims is unattested. Arguably.. this usage is not possible in structures that do not involve L-extraction of the verb's object.2. for that matter.d) illustrate. the following implicit logic. I believe. 424) The evidence given for (i) seems to consist only of (ii) and (iii) without the bracketed material. This conclusion is not a logically necessary entailment of the examples cited and is. < previous page page_197 next page > If you like this book. See the brief discussion of RNR targets as L-extraction remnants in section 4.*Louise doesn't please anything. a restriction that. as discussed below. which he stars. notably. 411-412) that L-extractions cannot extract pieces of conjoined relative clauses. buy it! . this is not definitive since. Is this more than a double standard? The remark about "basic properties of Move a" is unclear. d. for example. contradicted by the remark in (i). object-raising predicates like difficult subcategorize for a Slash category. So he must mean that Slash category work has not specified what would show up as constraints on transformations in transformational work. 28. Slash and Gap.

and (140). extraction from subjects is blocked by this principle. buy it! . This seems true. chap. with Slash taken to be both a head and a foot feature. Ultimately. see also section 4. (vi) a. In my terms. the facts discussed in regard to Oehrle's claim do not seem critical for the larger questions at issue. b. hardly different in quality from (iv). as I find (via. Edward1. Crucially for present purposes. Oehrle's implicit argument is problematic at best. Possibly. which plays a key role in the description of P-gaps. 220). hence. (v) ?[Which kind of semantics]1 will there always be some people who like t1 and some people who dislike t1? Moreover. (ii) and (iii) could be formed indirectly without direct L- extraction into relative clauses. Although (ii) is fairly bad. Noting that other languages allow extractions from subjects. 30.b) passably well formed. 18). 4) abandon the Head Feature Convention and make additional changes in previous GPSG approaches to coordination. in the face of the clear well-formedness of. If that were the source of the ill-formedness of (ii). However. Pollard and Sag (1994. The revised theory can be presumed to contain statements requiring that the filler of the former type of category appear to its left and the filler of the latter type to its right. an independent degradation resulting from intermingling repeated instances of the same construction type.4. analogs where the conditions on selective island extraction fail are not good. (139). 31. that is. Calvin dated a girl who tried to befriend t1 and áplans to dateñ a woman who failed to seduce t1. [No theory]1 did Ernie interview any natives who accepted t1 or ácontactñ any foreigners who rejected t1. studies of extraction from indirect questions have pointed out that relativization out of such questions is considerably better than questioning from them (see Cinque 1990. This might explain why (for me) (iii) is better than (ii). for example. (137). they propose (i) to block extraction from English subjects. for me (iii) seems grammatical. < previous page page_198 next page > If you like this book. who cites (v) with only a question mark. then. In Gazdar et al. (i) The Subject Condition A lexical head's SUBCAT list may contain a slashed subject only if it also contains another slashed element. one would predict that other nonrelative extractions from RNR pivots linked to gaps in relative clauses would yield greatly superior results. (ii) involves relativization from something extracted via RNR out of relatives. Given (iv).< previous page page_198 next page > Page 198 (iv) I know a man who likes t1 and (hope to meet) a clone who hates t1 [the work of Reynard]1. In particular. Notably. if an RNR pivot could be L-extracted. the unacceptability effect in (ii) is at least partly the effect noted with extraction from indirect questions. the reason these L-extractions from restrictive relative clauses are well formed is that such constituents form selective islands. This is consistent with judgments offered by Steedman (1989.'s (1985) framework vast work is done by the Head Feature Convention.

or deal with t1 as an equal]2. one in which apparent monolithic extractions are decomposed into advancements or demotions that leave RPs plus extractions. train t1. buy it! . and so on.1. he would allow. Swedish and in fact English (see (44a) of chapter 1). a category NP/NP to dominate a non-trace that is an RP. It is unclear whether such ideas could have any application to the problems raised by Q-exfiltrations. for example.2. < previous page page_199 next page > If you like this book. 35. Sells (1986) proposes allowing Slash categories that fail to dominate gaps. 36. the challenge also holds for other frameworks. So (i) will wrongly block all these well-formed examples. An additional piece of evidence for the extraction character of RNR and an indication of the severity of the problems raised by Q-exfiltration cases for Slash approaches would appear if the rightmost extractee in multiple RNR cases like (160) and (161) could "license" P-gaps.2. (ii) That was the rebel leader who1 rivals of t1 shot a. where the P-gaps are licensed by L-extractions from RNR pivots.3. (i) Frank didn't admit to t1 that he could t2 nor deny to t1 that he should t2 [hire. and deal with t1 as an equal]2 nor did Glen reach any agreement with t1 [that angry middle-aged person]1. Because it predicts that extraction from subjects is universally banned. 34. even better than (ii). as I argue in Postal 1994. Space considerations preclude real discussion. but I would suggest that the problems that motivate Sells's suggestion might profitably be approached via a proposal similar to that made in section 4. A definitional account of Gazdar et al.*the British consul/b. Irish.'s (1985) foot feature WH might also be feasible.< previous page page_199 next page > Page 199 (i) is supposed to account for well-known contrasts between P-gap structures like (iib) and simple subject extractions like (iia). However. (i) will fail for Q-exfiltration structures like the (b) cases of (154)-(156) for roughly the same reasons that the Head Feature Convention does.g. (i) seems grammaticalin fact. 32. Chomsky (1977b. to handle certain serious problems involving RPs in Hebrew. (ii) [Which angry person]1 did Frank admit to t1 that he could t2 but deny to t1 that he should t2 [hire t1. no evidence supports the claim that cases like (i) contain P-gaps. Appendix A 1. and Glen fail to reach any agreement with t1 ? The problem with this argument is the fact cited in note 22 that. t1. 127) also proposes "reanalysis" to account for extractions like that in (i). train. which (as previously noted) in general have nothing to say about the issue. thus seemingly precluding the existence of (e. In this approach. Thus. The reason is that ''another slashed element" will not occur in the right place in such Q-exfiltrations. the linkage between extracted form and RP is not part of the syntax. Of course. Despite its complexity and the perceptual difficulties inherent in repeated RNR. 33. that is.

Nobody had an opportunity to eat anything/a bite.g. In particular. (31 a) may be irrelevant.. A very large GB literature now exists (see. the relevance of selective islands suggests that such differences relate to the conditions that "license" the kind of control characterizing selective island extraction. The critique of Chomsky's (1986a) approach to facts like (22b) and (29) has more general significance. for example. Rizzi 1990.*the color which1 she had an opportunity to tint her hair t1 (iii) a. Marylou dated [whatever officers]1 she had an opportunity to date t1. (22b) and (29). Actually.. [How long]1 did they have an opportunity to work there t1? b..g. Frampton 1991. Manzini 1992) that adopts essential features of this approach. which leaves open the question of what the right analysis is. This seems to satisfy the conditions on selective island extraction as well as those proposed by Chomsky. However.. it could well be blocked by the same constraint that blocks (i). (i)*That is a paper that1 we really need to find someone who believes (that) he understands t1. Thus. It would be a useful exercise to consider whether these variant GB systems fail for reasons parallel to those undermining Chomsky's (1986a) account. additions. buy it! .< previous page page_200 next page > Page 200 (i) What1 did he [have an opportunity] to do t1? Although (i) of course satisfies the conditions on selective island extraction. b. (iia. Moreover. Recognition that the cases discussed by C&M (1983) and Chomsky (1986a) involve selective island extraction does not as such offer a solution to the problems they raise. 3. appeal to selective islands appears wrong for (i). (ii) a.. < previous page page_200 next page > If you like this book. Lucille met more senators than (what1) I ever had an opportunity to meet t1. I need to know who had an opportunity to work how long. b. 2. others (e. (iv) a. c. e. Cinque 1990. or deletions. Although some extractions that violate conditions on selective extraction (e.*Slim1 though he had an opportunity to become t1. Lasnik and Saito 1992. (iiia-c)) seem acceptable.. 4. a claim that the infinitival complement in such examples forms a selective island seems untenable.g. nothing I have said accounts for the difference between.b)) are indeed ungrammatical. though often with significant modifications. nonextraction facts point to the existence of a structure in which the complement is not part of an island.

C. M. Variables in the theory of transformations. The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure. L. Brody. On right-node base generation. Amherst. Null operators and their antecedents. M. Baker.. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Linguistic Inquiry 1.-Marc. Michael K. Joan W. 1975. 1996. Mass. Formal syntax. Mass.. Michael.< previous page page_201 next page > Page 201 References Abbott. Joan W. 1987b. University of Connecticut. Aoun. 1984. 1976. buy it! .. Brame. 1978. In Peter Culicover. Bresnan. New York: Academic Press. 1970. 1982. Proceedings of NELS 17. Zeljko*. 169-186. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. Thomas Wasow. Null operator constructions. 639-642. Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. A. Joan W. In Joyce McDonough and Bernadette Plunkett. 614-619. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 1996. Some aspects of wide scope quantification. 1974.: Noit Amrofer. 1977. eds. 127-145. eds. Lexico-Logical Form. Bresnan. Wash. MIT. Norbert Hornstein. University of Massachusetts. Browning. 25-74. 1995. Boskovic *. 1980. Bresnan. Storrs.: MIT Press. and Paul M. Hagit. 1992. Cambridge. 219-260. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2. Joan W. Cambridge. GLSA. More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Analysis 1. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 329-336. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Seattle. A. Cambridge. Ms. Barbara. and Adrian Akmajian. Joseph. Browning. and Dominique Sportiche. Linguistic Inquiry 7.: MIT Press. Baitin. 1987a. Borer.. < previous page page_201 next page > If you like this book. Postal. Mark. ed. Doctoral dissertation. J. Linguistic Inquiry 5. Double negatives. Base generated syntax. Mass. 69-95. Bresnan. Iterated CPs and embedded topicalization. Authier.

Linguistic Inquiry 8. Chomsky. Department of Linguistics. Center for Cognitive Science. Peter W.: MIT Press. Cinque. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Guglielmo. 1986a. and James McCloskey. 1977a. Chomsky. Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Mass. In Germán F. Syntax. Chomsky. Linguistic Inquiry 24. Noam. Language and mind. In Amy J. New York: Praeger. NELS 23. Cambridge. Rules and representations. Reflections on language. Noam. Noam. New York: Dover. Noam. Linguistic Inquiry 8. MS. Cambridge. and Howard Lasnik. 397-411. 1958. 1982. 1982. New York: Pantheon. University of Massachusetts. 1990. 1993b. Mass. Benjamin Ao. Polarity. Culicover. Cinque. Peter W. 1977b. Strange extractions. Cinque. The Ohio State University. The Shadow Pronoun Hypothesis and "chopping" rules in Romance. Sandra. 704-713. Peter W.. Schafer. Guglielmo. Chomsky. Formal syntax. Noam. 1986b. 425-504. 1983. 1977. Knowledge of language.. Noam.: MIT Press.: MIT Press. Peter W. Linguistic Inquiry 14. Noam. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: Academic Press. 1980. 1975. Mass. Chomsky. The Minimalist Program. 1995. Cambridge. Mass. Guglielmo. and Hee- Rahk Chae. The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Introduction to symbolic logic and applications. eds. Lectures on government and binding. Chung. Peter W.: MIT Press. Noam. Culicover. Noam. Types of Ã-dependencies. Noam.< previous page page_202 next page > Page 202 Carnap. In Peter Culicover. Chomsky. 140-145. Culicover..: MIT Press. 1975. Columbus. 1993a. 1990. New York: Columbia University Press. 1981. Cambridge. ed. Westphal. The movement nature of left dislocation. and focus in English. Chomsky. Filters and control. < previous page page_202 next page > If you like this book. 1988. Barriers. Language and problems of knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry 6. Cambridge. Noam. 557-561. 1977. Chomsky. On wh-movement. Noam. Rudolph. inversion. Columbus. New York: Academic Press. ESCOL '91. Culicover. 1991. Culicover. Mass. New York: Harcourt. Chomsky. eds. Chomsky. GLSA. 1972. New York: North-Holland. Dordrecht: Foris. and Adrian Akmajian.. The Ohio State University. Brace & World. Amherst. Chomsky. Thomas Wasow. buy it! . Chomsky.

Gazdar. ESCOL '88. Gazdar. eds. Fillmore. 1991. Stanford. < previous page page_203 next page > If you like this book. and Tanya Reinhart. 1985. and Diane Brentari. Appositive relatives have no properties. Susannah MacKaye. Gerald. ed. Ill. Stanford University. Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations The Hague: Mouton. Formal syntax.. 211-243. and subject extractions. 5-34. and Michael T. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Foot features and parasitic gaps. Cognitive Linguistics 2. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. Pullum. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives. eds. 3-44. 1991. 1981. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. Dordrecht: Foris. Robert. Indices and identity. 1984. Emonds. Elisabet.. Charles. Thomas Wasow. 1985. Sentential complementation.. Engdahl. The nature of syntactic representation. buy it! .. 155-184.< previous page page_203 next page > Page 203 Culicover. 1991. 1-63. eds. Relativized Minimality: A review. Dowty. Reidel. Stanford. 1994. 1988. Demirdache. Which NPs are there unusual possibilities for extraction from? In Lynn MacLoed. Parasitic gaps.. Gazdar. Fiengo. Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Mass. Gary Larson. and Pauline Jacobson. Engdahl.: CSLI Publications. The syntax of Wh-in-situ. and Ken Wexler. Geoffrey K. eds. Why some empty subjects don't license parasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 12. Howard Lasnik. Calif. resumptive pronouns. 8 1-46. Pullum. CLS 24. Ewan Klein. and Adrian Akmajian. Cambridge. The Linguistic Review. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. 1979. Department of Linguistics. eds. The Stanford Linguistics Association. MIT. Elisabet. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Parasitic gaps. Peter W.. Joseph. Culicover. David. Mass. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Linguistic Inquiry 10. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press. 1988. Engdahl.: MIT Press. eds. 1984. New York: Academic Press. C. Hamida Khadiga. and Robert May. 1982. vol. Robert. 1965. Deane. Linguistics 23. Columbus. In Mark Cobler. and Ivan Sag. Frampton. Emonds. Paul D. In Hagit Borer. Doctoral dissertation. Elisabet. Cambridge. Dordrecht: Foris. Westcoat. Some syntactic implications of a theory of language learnability. The Ohio State University. In Wim de Geest and Yvan Putseys. Deane. Phrase structure grammar.] Fiengo. Chicago Linguistic Society. appositives and dislocation structures. 1977. Dordrecht: D. Chicago. 1983. Gerald.. Paul D. Joseph.-T. University of Chicago. Calif. In Joyce Powers and Kenneth de Jong. Gerald. In Peter W. John. 1988. 3. James Huang..

University of Chicago. 1982. Linguistic Inquiry 4. Variables in Palauan syntax. and John F. A note on subject raising to object and right node raising. 3. eds. Ewan Klein. Columbus. Chicago. Gerald. Computational Linguistics 14. Mitchell Marks. Ill. Grosu. Carol. Haegeman. University of California.. Georgopoulos. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. 1972. 1984b. Grosu. Doctoral dissertation. buy it! . Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Subcategorization and grammatical relations. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Georgopoulos. Carol. Grimshaw. Liliane. 1977. Stanford. Parallel structures in syntax. 642-645. Grosu. Georgopoulos. Trace and resumptive pronouns in Palauan. Ewan Klein. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 1976. Oxford: Blackwell. A case for Subjacency without movement. Linguistic Inquiry 4. In Claudia Brugman and Monica Macaulay. Chicago Linguistic Society. Category structures. University of Chicago. Unacceptable ambiguity. On the nonunitary nature of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Jorge. Susannah MacKaye. Ill. Gazdar. 1985a. Carol. 17-68.. eds. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 59-94. Bloomington. Stanford Linguistics Association. 1985. 1973. John. Papers from the General Session. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 104- 151. Stanford University. Thompson. and Michael T. Eilfort. < previous page page_204 next page > If you like this book. vol. Carol. Hankamer. Goodall. Pullum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. A principled exception to the Coordinate Structure Constraint. The Ohio State University. The strategic content of island constraints. eds. CLS 19. Geoffrey K. Alexander. Doctoral dissertation. Pullum. Subjects and other subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations. University of California. 1988. Robert Carpenter. Language 53. The syntax of variable binding in Palauan. 1985b. Richardson. Calif. eds. 1987. Hukari. On Belauan islands: A study in agreement morphology.< previous page page_204 next page > Page 204 Gazdar. Levine. Westcoat. Paul D. 1-19. Alexander.. Georgopoulos. Chicago. Geoffrey K. and Ivan Sag. Oxford: Blackwell. Thomas E. 1985. In Mark Cobler. Gerald. Grosu. 1991.. In Annie Zaenen. Chicago Linguistic Society. 1983. CLS 21. Alexander. Jane. 88-92. and Sandra A. 1973. and Karen L. Part 1. San Diego. Constraints on the distribution of NP clauses. In William H. Kroeber. Alexander. Grant. Peterson. Goldsmith. Carol. In Amy Chukerman. Georgopoulos. and Robert D. Berkeley. 1984a. ed.

Thomas E.X *syntax A study of phrase structure. and Robert D. Linguistic Inquiry 6. Emonds' analysis of extraposition. In John Kimball. 2. Jane Fee and Katherine Hunt. Conjunction reduction. < previous page page_205 next page > If you like this book. Cambridge. Mass. On the disunity of unbounded dependency constructions. The representation of (in)definiteness. 1988. Logical Form.: MIT Press. Mass. On the nature of lexical government. 465-497. Norbert. The lexical entailment theory of control and the tough-construction. Higgins.. Hirschbühler. Actes du colloque franco- allemand de grammaire transformationelle 1. eds. In Eric J. Pronouns and bound variables. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press. MIT. Calif.: CSLI Publications. buy it! . C. eds. Mass. Lexical matters. Hudson. and David Lightfoot. Irene. Reuland and Alice G. On the applicability of root transformations. 1974.. Syntax and semantics. vol. Where does the Definiteness Restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. 1991. Calif.] Hukari. Pauline.. 9-17. eds.< previous page page_205 next page > Page 205 Heim. ed. 679-708. Levine.. 1973. 1987. Department of Linguistics. F. Language 52. New York: Academic Press.. 97-144.: CSLI Publications. 1977. James. ter Meulen. Stanford. Hornstein. binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11. Cambridge. Cambridge. 1989. Huang. Thomas E. 535-562 Hukari. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi. E. Linguistic Inquiry 14. Jackendoff. Thomas E.. R. gapping. Higginbotham. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of gram-mar. On J. and Robert D. 1983. and nominals. Jacobson. Paul. Pseudocleft connectivity: Implications for the LF interface level. Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Hukari. Hirschbühler. 1973. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9. Paul. James. Edinburgh Occasional Papers in Linguistics 96-1. and Robert D. Cambridge. 1975.: MIT Press. In Robert Freidin. 395-420. 1991. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. University of Edinburgh. 1992. ed.: MIT Press. Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. and Sandra Thompson.-T.. and right-node raising. Caroline. Heycock. Levine. Mass. La dislocation à gauche comme construction basique en français. Ray. R. In E. Higginbotham.. James. slash termination and the C-Command Condition. 155-165. 1996. 1982. Stanford. 197-222. Parasitic gaps. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5. Linguistic Inquiry 4. B. Doctoral dissertation. 1976. Joan. Levine. Hooper. Category antirecursion: Paradoxical consequences of gap-within-filler constructions. and Anthony Kroch. A. 1980.

Principles of particle constructions. Review of Charles Fillmore. Kuno. 1984.: MIT Press. and Ken-Ichi Takami. In Mark R. 1989. Terence. Dordrecht: Foils. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Kuroda. Kayne. 1968. 1987. In Jacqueline Guéron. Kuno. Baltin and Anthony S. Ill. and Paul M. Kaplan. Mass. 1978a. Susumu. Frame semantic control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Nancy Kalish-Landon. Susumu. and functional uncertainty. eds. Kroch. Chicago. and Joan Bresnan. Lakoff. Parasitic chains. In Samuel E. Mass. 1978b. Pullum. Chicago Linguistic Society. 1994. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Koster. Chicago Linguistic Society. Cambridge. Cambridge. 451-478. Richard S. 1993. 1986. eds. Dordrecht: Foils. Dordrecht: Foils. Postal.: MIT Press. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Chicago. In Anne M. The antisymmetry of syntax. D. Koster. N. constituent structure. Jan. 1977. Postal. S.< previous page page_206 next page > Page 206 Johnson. eds. Koster. Fox. and Shulamith Philosoph.J. ed. 1989. Kayne. Long-distance dependencies. Linguistic Inquiry 4. Kayne. 41-74. Langendoen.. Connectedness and binary branching. Domains and dynasties. Cambridge. University of Chicago.-Y.. eds. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory.. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. The vastness of natural language.. Grammatical representation. Preposition stranding in English: A problem and a mystery. Ronald M. Mass. Richard S. In Joan Bresnan. University of Chicago. Langendoen. Language 44. In Mark R. Terence.: MIT Press. 374-378. Oxford: Blackwell. Kroch. Locality principles in syntax. 1973. Kroch. Jay Keyser. 1980.. Beach. Langendoen. eds. Arc Pair Grammar. Baltin and Anthony S. Grammar and discourse principles. Katalin É. Anthony S. Kaplan. 1985. Recent transformational studies in European languages. 1985. David E. Kiss. and Annie Zaenen. Princeton. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ed. buy it! . 1982. and Karl-Erik McCullough. Woodford A. Richard S. Dative questions: A study of the relation of acceptability to grammaticality of an English sentence type. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. and Jean- Yves Pollock. and Paul M. < previous page page_206 next page > If you like this book. 1974. Jan. D. Peter T. Ill. Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations. Why subject sentences don't exist. and Geoffrey K.. Jan.: Princeton University Press... Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Cognition 2. CLS book of squibs. In S. Ronald M.. George. Farley. Farley. D. The Linguistic Review 5. 1984. and John Dore. Hans-Georg Obenauer. Terence. Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a tree-adjoining grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 363-385.

1979. eds. Orlando. A-bar syntax. eds. eds. Manzini. Cambridge. Linguistic Analysis 14. Mass.. Dordrecht: D. College Park. 3-29. vol. Hans-Georg. buy it! . Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency. On extracting from asymmetrical structures. In Frederick J. La Galy. 328-334. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Ojeda. Locality A theory and some of its empirical consequences. and Anthony Bruck. MIT Press. Bounding of rightward movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989. Fla. 1987. On the identification of empty categories. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. 1995. Levine. Chicago Linguistic Society. Pullum. A course in GB syntax. Gereon. Reidel. and Geoffrey J.: MIT Press. Linguistic Inquiry 16. McCloskey. Mass. James. University of Maryland. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. In Michael W. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ill. Howard. Newmeyer. Cambridge. University of Chicago. McCawley.. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics. Fox. The joy of grammar. 1992. A constraint on remnant movement. Donna Jo. Heizo. In Diane Brentari. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14. Obenauer. Alan. Joan. Robert A. In Geoffrey J.. Move a. 1984. ed.: MIT Press. 153-202. Syntax. McCawley. < previous page page_207 next page > If you like this book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gereon. Some additional evidence for discontinuity.: Academic Press. 1993. 1974. 1988. 1988. 355-407. 1984.. Reidel. James D. 1982. 492-497. volumes I and 2. and Juan Uriagereka. Larson. 1986. Lasnik. 1982. MacLeod. Doctoral dissertation. Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting. Younghee. John. eds. Howard. Robert D. Right node raising and preposition stranding. James D. 1985. Maria Rita. Huck. Robert D. 91-106. 183-186. Levine. Müller. Ample negatives. 1992. and Annie Zaenen. Chicago Linguistic Society. McCloskey. James.< previous page page_207 next page > Page 207 Lasnik. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure.. Huck and Almerindo E. McCloskey. and Mamoru Saito. Mass. Syntactic theory. I. Munn. Linguistic Inquiry 17. Nakajima. Cambridge. Linguistic Inquiry 13. Gary N. and Lynn A. Against reanalysis rules. Müller. Maling. James. The Linguistic Review 4. McCawley. Chicago. Right node (non-) raising. Na. The syntactic phenomena of English. James D. 1988. 1993. 1992. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Napoli. 1996. Lawler. Dordrecht: D. Linguistic Inquiry 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. The nature of syntactic representation.

: MIT Press. Postal. coordination. Stanford. Halpern. Carl. Information-based syntax and semantics.. Cambridge. Hans-Georg. Almerindo E. The Chicago which hunt. B. MIT. eds. Postal. Ill. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Calif.: MIT Press. In Geoffrey J. Cambridge. variables. Perimutter. Chicago.] Postal. Reidel. Judith N. Carl. Richard T. Richard T. Some Arc Pair Grammar descriptions.: CSLI Publications. < previous page page_208 next page > If you like this book. Mass. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press. eds. In Jacqueline Guéron. Paul M. multidominance. Discontinuity.. Linguistic Inquiry 16. New York: Garland. Oehrle. and Jean-Yves Pollock. Connectedness.. Obenauer. The representation of (in)definiteness. Wh-in-situ. 1. Cambridge. Sag. Linguistic Inquiry 1. Huck and Almerindo E. Reuland and Alice G. Déplacer a et Ã-liage local: Dérivations vs. représentations. In Mitsou Ronat and Daniel Couquaux.. Doctoral dissertation. In Paul M.. Structure de la phrase et théorie du liage. 1982. Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.] Ojeda. Levi. 1987. 1987. 1985. University of Chicago. Fla. MIT. Crossover phenomena. In Eric J. 1982. 1972. 1975. In Aaron L.. L'interprétation des structures wh et l'accord du participe passé. Postal. 1974. Pollard. Stanford. The nature of syntactic representation. Ojeda. Stanford.: CSLI Publications. eds. 1992. ter Meulen. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes. buy it! . Hans- Georg Obenauer. and extraction. Some syntactic rules in Mohawk. Pesetsky. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Calif. Piera. Dordrecht: D. Cambridge. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. 681-683. Sag. Dordrecht: Foils. Doctoral dissertation. On coreferential complement subject deletion. and stylistic inversion in French. Vol. David M. Hans-Georg. Paths and categories. and Ivan A. Pesetsky. and unbounded dependency in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Some preliminaries. 1979. Paul M. Mass. eds. On raising. 1986. eds. Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization.< previous page page_208 next page > Page 208 Obenauer. Orlando. Mass. 1985. Grammatical representation. eds. Postal. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. [Distributed by University of Chicago Press. 1987. Fundamentals. Pullum. Gaps in gaps in GPSG. Mass. David M. 1994. Carlos. Oehrle. Paul M.. New York: Holt. La grammaire modulaire. and Ivan A. 1970. Hans-Georg. Paul M. In Hans-Georg Obenauer and Anne Zribi-Hertz. Chicago Linguistic Society. Phares. Categorial frameworks. Pollard.439-500.. movement. Obenauer. and unselective binding. Peranteau.: CSLI Publications. Paul M. Calif. eds. 1971. Rinehart and Winston. David M. Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency. ed. 1990.: Academic Press. and Gloria C.

Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon. Postal. Paul M. Paul M. 347-364. In Preparation a. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press. Paul M. and Donna B. Postal.Y. 333-356. 1992. Paul M.Y. Linguistic Inquiry 24.. Albany. 1990c. Postal. eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. MacLeod.< previous page page_209 next page > Page 209 Postal. In Katarzyna Dziwirek. Paul M. Gary N. In Clifford S..: State University of New York Press. Extraction from selective islands. eds. 1991. Postal and Brian D. Postal. Paul M. Advances in linguistic rhetoric. 1990a. NSF proposal. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins. 1996. La dégradation de prédicat et un genre négligé de montée... 1989.. Studies of passive clauses. < previous page page_209 next page > If you like this book. Weird extractions and parasitic gaps. Why Irish raising is not anomalous.Y. Calif. Masked inversion in French. 1993a. Thomas J. and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi. Watson Research Center. [Distributed by Cambridge University Press. eds. Paul M. and Mark Baltin. Islands. Remarks on weak crossover effects. N. 735-754. IBM. Ms. Paul M. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective. Paul M. 1994. and Lynn A. Linguistic Inquiry 24. buy it! . Larson. Some defective paradigms. Paul M. Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Grammatical relations: Theoretical approaches to empirical questions.. In Paul M. Joseph. Paul M. Burgess. Grammatical extraction from selective islands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. An apparent French extraction anomaly. Gerdts. In Diane Brentari. Postal.: CSLI Publications. Paul M. N. Katarzyna Dziwirek. Postal. In preparation b. 129-137. Paul M.. Stanford. Yorktown Heights. Postal. A glance at French pseudopassives. Postal. 1988. The handbook of syntactic theory. Postal. Postal. Paul M. Postal. 1986b. Watson Research Center. 1994. 63-117. French indirect object demotion.: CSLI Publications. 1986a. 1993b. Linguistic Inquiry 25. Some unexpected English restrictions. Paul M. 1990b.. eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yorktown Heights. Thomas J.] Postal. Postal. Postal. Phantom successors and the French faire par construction. Calif. Ms. Paul M.] Postal. Paul M. Postal. Stanford. Oxford: Blackwell. Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4. 1993c. eds. 539-556. Patrick Farrell. 33-68. IBM. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 1985. The joy of grammar. Postal. Recherches Linguistiques 13. Paul M. N.

1985. Luigi. Relativization in extraposed clauses (A problem which evidence is presented that help is needed to solve). < previous page page_210 next page > If you like this book. Harvard University Computation Laboratory. Developments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. 1970. Urbana-Champaign. Berkeley. Columbus. and Geoffrey K. On parasitic gaps. Natural languages and context-free languages. 1988. Schmerling. Quine.. and Gerald Gazdar. eds. Ivan. MIT. Mass... Los Angeles. In Michael Barlow. Henk van. Highest island phenomena. Flickinger. Rizzi. On the stranding of prepositions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. In Claudia Brugman and Monica Macaulay. Pullum. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Mass. Deletion and Logical Form. Sag. Norwood N. Pullum. Ms. All page references are to this version. How many possible human languages are there? Linguistic Inquiry 14. Mass.. 1971. 1990. Linguistic Inquiry 19. Mass. ed. 1966. 1958. 1976. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge. ESCOL '87. Ross. Expletive noun phrases and movement to subcategorized positions. John Robert. 1982. Ivan. Cambridge. Bloomington. 1984. Mass. In Ann Miller and Joyce Powers. Daniel P.J. Pullum. Susan F..< previous page page_210 next page > Page 210 Postal. John Robert. Rodman. 1987. A note on negative polarity. Sag. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. University of Illinois. Department of Linguistics. [Published as Infinite syntax. Geoffrey K. Sag. 471-504. Berkeley Linguistics Society. Thomas Wasow. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Introduction to the theory of grammar. 1967. 447-467. 35-45. Explorations in syntactic theory. eds.. The Ohio State University. Department of Linguistics.: Ablex (1986). 117-17l. Ross. 1972. John Robert.: Harvard University Press. Ivan. buy it! . 1983. Implications of English extraposed irrealis clauses. Mathematical logic. Cambridge. In Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. and Edwin Williams. In George Bedell. Relativized Minimality.: MIT Press. Geoffrey K. Cambridge. Sag. Pullum. Sag.. Paul M. Geoffrey K. Gerald Gazdar. University of California. March 1971. Report Number NSF-17 to The National Science Foundation.: MIT Press. Willard van Orman. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. and Ewan Klein. Ross. 1982. eds. 1983. The syntax and semantics of English expletive pronoun constructions. Riemsdijk. Ivan. 635-670. Mass.] Ross. University of California. Robert. John Robert. and Steven Weisler. Cam-bridge. Inner islands. MIT. Cambridge. Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory 2. and Ivan A. Doctoral dissertation. Talk handout. UCLA Papers in Syntax 2. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. 1986. Constraints on variables in syntax.

Emmon Bach. University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 10. Cambridge. In Mark R.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The alignment of arguments in adjective phrases. Calif. 1991. Cambridge. Morgan. Amherst. Steedman. University of Massachusetts. Mark. Susan F. Resumptive pronouns in Generalized Phrase Structure Gram-mar. Language 61. Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation.. 1985. Combinators and grammars. Wexler. Mass. Stowell. Baltin and Anthony S. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. 1988.: MIT Press. eds. Mark. Syntax and semantics 25: Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing. and Peter W.. Doctoral dissertation. 1984. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure.. The ATB theory of parasitic caps. 1996. 265-279. In Susan D. and Deirdre Wheeler.< previous page page_211 next page > Page 211 Schmerling. Kroch. 1980. MIT. Edwin. Steedman.523-568. Steedman. Kenneth. Mark. Amherst. Constituency and coordination in a combinatory gram-mar. eds. University of Massachusetts. eds. Surface structure and interpretation. Jean-Roger. Peter. 1986. < previous page page_211 next page > If you like this book. Oehrle. Categorial grammars and natural language structures.: Academic Press. In David Lebeaux and Armin Mester. Formal principles of language acquisition. Syntax and semantics 3. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. 1990. Reidel. Sells. Mark. eds. buy it! .: MIT Press. Rothstein. San Diego. 1975. The Linguistic Review 6. Dordrecht: D. New York: Academic Press. French relative clauses. 1974. Cambridge. Tim. Mass. Vergnaud. Peter. Sells. ed. In Richard T. Doctoral dissertation. Culicover. Williams. Mass. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. GLSA. Steedman. 1989..

< previous page page_i next page > Page i Three Investigations of Extraction < previous page page_i next page > If you like this book. buy it! .

23. S.. 60. 119. N. 160 Copy rule. 136. 65. 1-3. 180. 13 Brame. 10. H.-M. 166. 166. 106.. 68. 19. M. 22. M. 123.. 181n. 183n. 82. 83. 93. 177. 61-63. 73. 192n D . W. 14-16. 178. 184n. 12. 80. 178 Borer. 122. 6. 72 Authier. 172. 165. 47-49. 175. 55-60. 180. 51-53. 165. 38-44. 73. 170-172. 68 A2-extraction. 191n. 59 Crossing dependency. 170-172. 83. 2 Chomsky. 184n Browning. 184n B-extractions. 168. 45. 122. 80. 138. 11. 77. 68.. 165. 178. 140. 47-49. 45. 188n. 157. 143 Categorial Grammar.. 79. 45. 76. 104. 166. 137 A-extractions. 193n Aoun...< previous page page_213 next page > Page 213 Index A Al-extraction. 32-36. 36. 4. 200n Cognitive Grammar. J. 114 Brody. 90-95. M. 175. 45-49. 74. 182n Belauan. 36. 133 C Carnap.. 151. 195n Additive coordination. 191n Control/Controlled. 168. 37. G. 193n Across-the-board (ATB) extraction. 65. 77. 60. 105. 38. 122. 21. 146. 3 Culicover. 70. 52. 188n. 169. 131. 167. 14. 134-137. 200n Cinque. P. 25-40... L. 84. 196n. 68. 173. 170. 188n. J. 183n Chung. 87. 36. 97. 23. 13. 188n Antipronominal context (AC). 160. A. 17. 183n. 37. 185n Complex NP Constraint (CNPC).. 9. 198n. 110. 177. 182n. 165-168. 133. 5-9. 184n. 77. 157. 115. 42. 189n. Z*. 3. 102. 180. M. 125. 51. 121. 166.. 66. 181n Abbot. 11. 200n Chopping rule. 171. 72 Baltin. 185n. 195n Condition on Asymmetric Conjunction. 137. 186n. 120. 189-191n Coordination Principle. 67. 145. 38. 3. 171. 59. R. 199n. 184n Complex NP Shift (CXS). 25-37. 137. 166. 46.. 10. 65. 19. 182-185n. 6-8. 197n. 76. 193n Boskovic *. W. 106. 187n. 121.. 189n Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC). 125.. 146.. 15-17. 38. 5. J. 2 Bresnan. 75. 23. 47. 191n Conjunct Condition. 112. 83-86. 190n. C. 45. 169. B. 9. 4-8. 11. 71 B Baker. 11. 23. 115. 14. 122.

Deane, P. D., 23, 54, 55, 57, 59, 66, 168
Demirdache, H. K., 181
Dore, J., 122
Dowty, D., 109
Dutch, 178
E
Emonds, J., 31, 112, 183
Empty Category Principle (ECP), 16, 171, 176, 177
Engdahl, E., 133
Exfiltrate, 140, 143, 151, 154, 157, 158
Extraction Control A (EXCA), 15
Extraction Control B (EXCB), 15, 65
F
Farley, P., 33
Fiengo, R., 73
Fillmore, C., 122
Flexible unlocked island, 18-22
Foot Feature Principle, 139, 148, 153-155, 157, 159
Frampton, J., 43

< previous page page_213 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_214 next page >
Page 214
Freezing Principle, 166
French, 39, 75-77, 87, 88, 93, 181n, 182n, 186n
G
Gazdar, G., 2, 24, 52, 94, 98, 101, 137, 138-141, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 156, 157, 159, 162, 163, 192n, 197-199n
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG), 2, 24, 94, 95, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 152, 153, 157, 158, 169-
171, 198n
Georgopoulos, C., 52
German, 13
Goldsmith, J., 53, 54, 77, 78, 80, 84, 86, 88, 185n
Goodall, G., 184n
Government-Binding Framework (GB), 1, 176, 177, 183n
Grimshaw, J., 108, 111, 115
Grosu, A., 51, 107, 122, 194n
H
Haegeman, L., 184n
Hankamer, J., 122
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), 2, 24, 139, 141, 158, 176
Head Feature Convention, 139, 142, 153-155, 157, 198n, 199n
Hebrew, 11, 13, 17, 183n, 199n
Helm, I., 47
Heycock, C., 173
Higginbotham, J., 181n
Higgins, F. R., 110-112
Hirschbühler, P., 186n
Hooper, J., 70
Horn, L., 108
Hornstein, N., 72, 187n
Huang, C.-T. J., 43, 188n, 191n
Huck, G. J., 56, 59, 66, 186n, 190n, 191n
Hudson, R., 185n
Hukari, T. E., 109, 133, 143-145, 147, 148, 152, 155, 197n
I
Interwoven dependency construction, 79, 91, 108, 134-137, 161-163, 178
Irish, 11, 13, 17, 199n
Island, 3-6, 8-23, 37-39, 55, 56, 59, 60, 65, 69-75, 77, 80, 81, 88, 93, 95, 101, 104, 129, 146, 149-151, 165, 167-169,
172, 182n, 183n, 186n, 190n
Island constraint. See Island
Island Law, 38, 45
Italian, 186n
J
Jackendoff, R., 137
Jacobson, P., 56, 108, 109
Johnson, D. E., 107, 109, 180, 182n, 192n

K
Kalish-Landon, N., 122
Kaplan, R. M., 2
Kayne, R., 23, 42, 43, 98, 131, 133, 138, 166, 167, 177, 178, 179, 188n
Kiss, K.É., 133
Klein, E., 112
Koster, J., 13, 37, 43, 61, 73, 74, 133, 169, 183n, 184n, 188n, 191n, 194n
Kroch, A., 2, 173
Kuno, S., 19, 107, 110
Kuroda, S.-Y., 122
L
Ladusaw, W., 102
Lakoff, G., 22, 23, 52-60, 65, 66, 70, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 165-169, 172, 185n, 186n, 189n, 191n
Langendoen, D. T., 3, 52, 122
Lasnik, H., 43, 61, 73, 105, 119, 125, 184n, 188n, 190n, 191n, 196n, 200n
Lawler, J., 83, 84, 86
Left-extraction (L-extraction), 1-4, 7, 11, 24, 25, 97, 99, 103-106, 108, 109, 111, 115, 120, 121, 124, 126-138, 141,145,
146, 151,152, 155, 156, 174, 176, 177, 179, 183n, 196n-198n
Levine, R. D., 2, 24, 98-100, 103, 104, 109, 121, 133, 138, 143, 146-148, 151, 152, 155, 156, 173, 197n
Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), 2
Lightfoot, D., 187n
Linear structure, 53, 79, 89
Locked island, 12, 16, 17, 21, 182n
M
Maling, J., 140, 141, 143, 147
Manzini, R., 43, 61, 200n
May, R., 102
McCawley, J. D., 24, 92, 98-104, 106-108, 111, 114, 115, 199n-122, 127-130, 134, 135, 137, 138, 145, 146, 151, 157,
160, 173, 192n-194n, 196n
McCloskey, J., 11, 13, 23, 98, 140, 156, 157, 169-172, 184n, 192n, 200n
Metagraph Grammar, 182n
Müller, G., 104, 184n
Munn, A., 180
N
Na, Y., 54-56, 59, 66, 186n, 190n, 191n
Nakajima, H., 178
Napoli, D. J., 184n
No Recursion Constraint, 144, 145, 147, 148, 155, 156, 159
Nonlocal Feature Principle, 139
O
Obenauer, H.-G., 37, 43, 44, 181n, 188n
Object deletion, 69, 70, 123, 124
Object raising, 2, 69, 70, 108, 123, 124

< previous page page_214 next page >
If you like this book, buy it!

< previous page page_215
Page 215
Oehrle, R., 104, 122, 193n, 195n, 197n-199n
Ojeda, A. E., 98, 100, 138, 140, 145, 146, 151, 192n
P
Parallel-exfiltrations (P-exfiltrations), 140-142, 146, 154
Parasitic gaps (P-gaps), 2, 3, 7, 14, 19, 37, 65, 69, 70, 83, 123, 124, 133, 134, 136, 152-155, 157, 159, 181n, 183n, 195n,
196n, 199n
Perlmutter, D. M., 26, 36, 37, 188n
Pesetsky, D., 73, 133, 139, 142, 143, 158, 159, 184n, 190n, 191n, 196n, 197n
Piera, C., 24, 143, 145
Pollard, C., 2, 23, 122, 133, 139-141, 143, 145, 152, 159, 160, 167, 191n, 196n, 198n
Postal, P.M., 1, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 52, 60, 83, 107, 109-112, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 125, 131, 138, 166, 175-178, 180,
181n, 182n, 185-188n, 192-194n, 196n, 199n
Primary resumptive pronoun (RP), 12, 13, 15-18, 21, 189n
PRO gate phenomenon, 181n
Pullurn, G. K., 3, 23, 43, 61, 94, 107, 167, 176
Q
Quasi-exfiltrations (Q-exfiltrations), 143-145, 149-157, 159, 160, 199n
Quine, w. v. O., 143
R
Relational Grammar, 194n
Remnant, 104, 131
Resumptive pronoun (RP), 4, 5, 7-23, 26, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 47-49, 59, 60, 65, 68, 76, 95, 111-119, 138, 165, 182n,
183n, 186n, 188n, 189n, 194n, 199n
Riemsdijk, H. v., 125, 184n
Right node raising (RNR), 24, 97-101, 103-105, 107-109, 111, 113-117, 119-138, 145-147, 151, 152, 155-157, 160,
173-180, 186n, 192n, 193n, 195n-197n, 199n
Right node raising (RNR) pivot, 97, 100, 101, 103, 106, 114, 123, 126, 130, 131, 137, 146, 151, 155, 177, 178, 192-
194n, 197n
Right Selective Island Constraint (RSIC), 105, 106, 166, 167
Rigid unlocked island, 18-22
Rizzi, L., 43, 44, 61, 188n, 200n
Rodman, R., 126, 127
Romance, 186n
Ross, J. R., 1, 5, 8-11, 13, 16, 18, 22, 36-39, 42, 46, 51-53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 65, 70, 76, 93-95, 100, 107, 120, 121, 126,
138, 165, 167, 178, 180, 183n, 188-191n, 195n, 197n
S
Sag, I. A., 2, 23, 112, 122, 133, 139-141, 143, 145, 146, 152, 159, 160, 167, 180, 191n, 196n, 198n
Saito, M., 43, 61, 73, 105, 188n, 190n, 191n, 196n, 200n
Scandinavian, 145
Schmerling, S. F., 59, 70
Secondary resumptive pronoun (RP), 12, 13, 18-21, 189n
Selective island, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 16, 19, 23, 42-46, 49, 60, 61, 63-71, 73-77, 79-81, 89-91, 93, 94, 165-172, 187-190n,
200n
Sells, P., 13, 183n, 196n, 199n
Shadow pronoun, 36. See also Resumptive pronoun
Slash category, 24, 98, 138, 140, 141-163, 169, 170, 195n, 197n, 199n

-R. K. 184n Williams. 31 W Weak crossover effect. 175.. 2 U Unlocked island. 2. 168. 176.. 3 Subjacency. 184n Sportiche. 151. 180.. 138. 162.. 192n Wh-Island Constraint. 19 Tertiary resumptive pronoun (RP). See Belauan Wexler. 37. 163 Tree-Adjoining Grammar. A. K. T. 70. 146. 140. Spanish. 198n Stowell. S. 107 ransformational Grammar. 2. J. 2. 184n. 186n Specified Subject Condition. E. 184n V Vergnaud.. 138. 199n T Takami. 121. 143. 166. J... 103. 138. 72 Steedman. 17-22 Uriagereka. 138. 13. 102. 18-20 Thompson.. 1. M. 12. 147 < previous page page_215 If you like this book. D. 141. 145. 184n Subject Condition.. buy it! . 184n Swedish. 125. 104. 132 Strong crossover effect. 7 Western Austronesian.. 12-15. 186n Z Zaenen. 137.