- Embedding the Antecedent in Gapping:Low Coordination and the Role of Parallelism
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). 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).
-
(2). *Some had eaten mussels, because others Δ shrimp.
-
(3). *Some had eaten mussels, and she claims that others Δ shrimp.
-
(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...