In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Embedding the Antecedent in Gapping:Low Coordination and the Role of Parallelism
  • Maziar Toosarvandani

1 Introduction

Gapping removes the finite element (T and its host), possibly along with additional material, in the second and subsequent coordinates of a coordination structure, leaving behind two remnants. (The material that has gone missing—in (1), the finite auxiliary had and the main verb ordered—is represented with Δ.)

  1. (1). Some had ordered mussels, and others Δ swordfish.

Building on a long tradition of earlier work, Johnson (2009:293) identifies three unique properties that distinguish gapping from superficially [End Page 381] similar elliptical constructions, such as pseudogapping (e.g., Some had ordered mussels, and others had Δ swordfish). First, gapping is restricted to coordination structures (2) (Jackendoff 1971:22, Hankamer 1979:18–19). Second, the gap in gapping cannot be embedded (3) (Hankamer 1979:19). Third, the antecedent in gapping cannot be embedded (4) (Hankamer 1979:20).

  1. (2). *Some had eaten mussels, because others Δ shrimp.

  2. (3). *Some had eaten mussels, and she claims that others Δ shrimp.

  3. (4). *She’s said Peter has eaten his peas, and Sally Δ her green beans, so now we can have dessert.

    Intended: ‘She has said that Peter has eaten his peas; Sally has eaten her green beans.’

    (Johnson 2009:293)

Crucially, (4) is ungrammatical under an interpretation in which only the antecedent clause—not the gapped clause—is embedded. (The sentence is grammatical with a different interpretation, one that is not relevant here, where the entire conjunction is embedded.)

There are a number of theories of gapping that successfully account for at least the first two of these properties (Coppock 2001, Lin 2001, Johnson 2004, 2009). These all share one analytical ingredient: they appeal to low coordination of small verbal constituents, such as vPs, under a single T head. (See Kubota and Levine to appear, though, for a different approach within Categorial Grammar.)1 T goes missing in the second and subsequent coordinates because it was never present inside them to begin with. Some other mechanism gets rid of any additional material that goes missing: either some kind of ellipsis (for Coppock and Lin) or across-the-board movement (for Johnson).

As Johnson (2009:296–300) observes, low coordination easily derives the first property of gapping, because two or more vPs can be embedded under a single T head only through coordination. It also derives the second property: a single T head cannot be shared with a vP that is embedded inside a coordinate. But deriving the third property [End Page 382] is less straightforward. Under any theory of gapping that uses low coordination, the notion of an “antecedent” is a complex one. Since T is removed through a different mechanism than any additional material that goes missing, the antecedent of T is analytically distinct from the antecedent of additional missing material.

I will take a closer look here at the third property of gapping in light of low-coordination theories of gapping. In section 2, I show that while the syntax of low coordination can explain why the antecedent of T cannot be embedded inside the first coordinate, it has nothing to say about why the antecedent of any additional missing material also cannot be embedded. Then, in section 3, I propose a new generalization about what can be embedded inside the first coordinate, which I call the No Correlate Embedding Generalization, whose source does not lie in the syntax of low coordination. In section 4, I suggest that this generalization arises from a constraint on the focus structures of the coordination structures in which gapping appears, Low-Coordinate Parallelism. Finally, in section 5, I examine a prediction of this account: Low-Coordinate Parallelism should be satisfied when the embedding material in the first coordinate is itself contained inside a focus.

2 Taking a Closer Look at the Third Property

In its traditional formulation, the third property of gapping is usually stated along the following lines: the antecedent in gapping cannot be embedded inside the first coordinate (see, e.g., Hankamer 1979:20). Theories of gapping that appeal to low coordination remove T and any additional material in different ways. Consequently, the antecedent of T is analytically distinct from the antecedent...

pdf

Share