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

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abbott, B. (1976). Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 639–642.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abeillé, A., & Mouret, F. (2011). Quelques contraintes sur les coordinations elliptiques en Français. Retrieved August 27, 2016 from http://www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Mouret/abeille-mouret-revised-2011.pdf.

  3. Arnold, D. (2007). Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 271–309.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bachrach, A., & Katzir, R. (2007). Spelling out QR. In E. Puig-Waldmüller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11 (pp. 63–75). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. http://parles.upf.edu/llocs/glif/pub/sub11/index.html.

  5. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beavers, J., & Sag, I. A. (2004). Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 48–69). Stanford: CSLI.

  7. Brasoveanu, A. (2011). Sentence-internal different as quantifier-internal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 93–168.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaves, R. P. (2014). On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: Extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion. Language, 90(4), 834–886.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chaves, R. P. (2007). Coordinate structures—constraint-based syntaxsemantics processing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lisbon.

  10. Citko, B. (2018). Complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Glossa, 3(1)(124), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (2005). Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation, 3, 281–332.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Crysmann, B. (2003). An asymmetric theory of peripheral sharing in HPSG: Conjunction reduction and coordination of unlikes. In G.Jäger, P. Monachesi, G. Penn & S. Wintner (Eds.), Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003 (pp. 47–62). http://cs.haifa.ac.il/~shuly/fg03/.

  14. Dowty, D. (1988). Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction. In R. T. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (Eds.), Categorial grammars and natural language structures (pp. 153–197). Dordrecht: Reidel.

  15. Eggert, R. (2000). Grammaticality and context with respect to and.. and or... respectively. In A. Okrent & J. P. Boyle (Eds.), CLS 36: The main session (pp. 93–107). Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fox, D., & Johnson, K. (2016). QR is restrictor sharing. In K.-m. Kim, P. Umbal, T. Block, Q. Chan, T. Cheng, K. Finney, M. Katz, S. Nickel-Thompson & L. Shorten (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 1–16). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

  17. Gawron, J. M., & Kehler, A. (2004). The semantics of respective readings, conjunction, and filler-gap dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 169–207.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gleitman, L. R. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language, 41, 260–293.

  21. Grosz, P. G. (2015). Movement and agreement in right-node-raising constructions. Syntax, 18, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoeksema, J. (1986). An account of relative clauses with split antecedents. In M. Dalrymple, J. Goldberg, K. Hanson, M. Inman, C. Piñon & S. Wechsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 68–86). Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.

  23. Hudson, R. (1976). Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Language, 52, 535–562.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jackendoff, R. S. (1971). Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry, 2(1), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory, part 1 and part 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kathol, A. (1995). Linearization-based German syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus.

  27. Kathol, A. (1999). Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In R. D. Levine & G. M. Green (Eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar (pp. 223–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kathol, A., & Pollard, C. (1995). Extraposition via complex domain formation. 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 174–180). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

  29. Kayne, R. S. (1998). Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax, 1, 128–191.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kazenin, K. I. (2002). Gapping and some agreement puzzles. Ms., University of Tübingen. Retrieved February 7, 2002 from http://www.sfb441.uni-tuebingen.de/b2/b2pubs.html.

  31. Kubota, Y. (2014). Medial right-node raising and multi-modal categorial grammar. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002302.

  32. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2015). Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘noncanonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 521–576.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2016). The syntax-semantics interface of ‘respective’ predication: A unified analysis in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34, 911–973.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kubota, Y., & Levine, R. (2018). On an inadequate defense of an ellipsis-based analysis for right node raising. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003852.

  35. Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Levine, R. D. (2001). The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing? Journal of Linguistics, 37, 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McCawley, J. D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Morgan, J. L. (1984). Some problems of determination in English number agreement. In G. Alvarez, B. Brodie & T. McCoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (pp. 69–78). Columbus: Ohio State University.

  40. Mouret, F. (2006). A phrase structure approach to argument cluster coordination. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 247–267). Stanford: CSLI.

  41. Neijt, A. (1979). Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Perlmutter, D. M., & Ross, J. R. (1970). Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 350.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pollard, C. (2001). Cleaning the HPSG garage: Some problems and some proposals. Ms., Ohio State University, Columbus.

  44. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Postal, P. M. (1994). Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 63–117.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Postal, P. M. (1998). Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Reape, M. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter & C. Pollard (Eds.), German in head-driven phrase structure grammar (pp. 151–197). Stanford: CSLI.

  48. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Romoli, J., & Santorio, P. (2018). Filtering free choice. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003910.

  50. Sag, I. A., Wasow, T., & Bender, E. M. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (2nd ed.). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schwabe, K. (2001). On shared indefinite expressions in coordinative structures. In O. Teuber & N. Fuhrhop (Eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 21, pp. 175–196). Berlin: ZAS.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schwabe, K., & von Heusinger, K. (2001). On shared indefinite NPs in coordinative structures. Journal of Semantics, 18, 243–269.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shen, Z. (2019). The multi-valuation agreement hierarchy. Glossa, 4(1), 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shiraïshi, A., & Abeillé, A. (2016). Peripheral ellipsis and verb mismatch. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 662–680). Stanford: CSLI.

  55. Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Steedman, M. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Steedman, M. (2000). The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Valmala, V. (2013). On right node raising in Catalan and Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 12, 219–251.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Warstadt, A. (2015). Right-node wrapping: A combinatory account. In Y. Kubota & R. Levine (Eds.), Proceedings for ESSLLI 2015 Workshop ‘Empirical Advances in Categorial Grammar’ (CG 2015) (pp. 183–210). http://www.u.tsukuba.ac.jp/~kubota.yusuke.fn/cg2015.html.

  60. Whitman, N. (2009). Right-node wrapping: Multimodal categorial grammar and the ‘friends in low places’ coordination. In E. Hinrichs & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), Theory and evidence in semantics (pp. 235–256). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Williams, E. (1990). The ATB theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review, 6, 265–279.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yatabe, S. (2001). The syntax and semantics of left-node raising in Japanese. In D. Flickinger & A. Kathol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 325–344). Stanford: CSLI.

  63. Yatabe, S. (2003). A linearization-based theory of summative agreement in peripheral-node raising constructions. In J.-B. Kim & S. Wechsler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 391–411). Stanford: CSLI.

  64. Yatabe, S. (2004). A comprehensive theory of coordination of unlikes. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 335–355). Stanford: CSLI.

  65. Yatabe, S. (2007). Evidence for the linearization-based theory of semantic composition. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 323–343). Stanford: CSLI.

  66. Yatabe, S. (2009). Evidence for the linearization-based theory of long-distance scrambling in Japanese. In L. Uyechi & L.-H. Wee (Eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language & life (pp. 271–286). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Yatabe, S. (2012). Comparison of the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination with its alternatives. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 454–474). Stanford: CSLI.

  68. Yatabe, S. (2015). The semantic inertness of medial right-node raising in Japanese. In Nihon Gengogakkai Dai-151-kai Taikai Yokô-shû (Proceedings of the 151st Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan) (pp. 318–323). Kyoto: Linguistic Society of Japan. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002778.

  69. Yatabe, S. (2016). Medial left-node raising in Japanese. In D. Arnold, M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T. H. King & S. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar (pp. 681–701). Stanford: CSLI.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shûichi Yatabe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yatabe, S., Tam, W.L. In defense of an HPSG-based theory of non-constituent coordination: a reply to Kubota and Levine. Linguist and Philos 44, 1–77 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-019-09283-6

Download citation

Keywords

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