This squib is concerned with the validity of an approach to Gapping that exploits low coordination and ATB-movement (
This squib is concerned with the validity of an approach to Gapping that exploits low coordination and ATB movement (
(1)
a.
Some will eat poi for breakfast and others for lunch.
(
b.
Odni
some.
budut
will
est’
eat
poi
poi.
na
for
zavtrak,
breakfast.
a
and
drugie
others.
budut
will
est’
eat
poi
poi.
na
for
obed.
lunch.
‘Some will eat poi for breakfast and others will eat poi for lunch.’
In (1), Gapping elides the second occurrence of the finite verb and the direct object, which are contrasted with the counterparts in the first conjunct. Generally speaking, Gapping deletes finite verbs and other repeated elements that can be restored from the preceding conjunct.
Johnson (
(2)
a.
Some will eat poi for breakfast and others for lunch.
(
b.
(
Example (2b) represents the key traits of Johnson’s analysis of Gapping. The derivational step that generates Gapping involves ATB movement: the VPs
The approach to Gapping outlined in Johnson (
(3) | a. | *Some had eaten mussels and she claims that others |
( |
||
b. | [ |
In (2), the Gapping clause is a CP and the antecedent clause is a TP. Consequently, each clause contains a separate T-head. This is not compatible with the idea that Gapping involves low coordination of VPs.
Johnson (
(4) | a. | *Some had eaten mussels because others |
( |
||
b. | Some had eaten mussels and others |
The other important virtue of Johnson’s analysis is wide scope of the modals that is available under Gapping (see
(5) | a. | Ward can’t eat caviar and Mary eat beans. |
( |
||
b. | It can’t be the case that Ward eats caviar while Mary eats beans. | |
( |
Potentially (5a) can also have the narrow scope reading:
(6) | Ward and Mary have different food allergies. Ward can’t eat caviar and Mary can’t eat beans. |
Low coordination can successfully derive wide modal scope:
(7)
In (6), the modal verb
(8)
a.
Petja
Peter
možet
can
est’
eat
ikru,
caviar
a
and
Vanja
Vanja
est’
eat
boby.
beans
‘Peter can eat caviar and Vanja eat beans.’
b.
It is possible that Petja eats caviar and Vanja eats beans.
(
Despite these advantages, I argue that low coordination cannot be the only source of Gapping. In this squib, I show that Gapping is possible in CP coordination, violating the low coordination requirement. I also argue that this problem can be solved if one assumes that Gapping can be derived either from low coordination of
(9)
a.
*Roses were bought by Peter, and Sam bought violets.
b.
Peter bought roses, and Sam bought violets.
c.
*Rozy
roses.
byli
were
kupleny
bought
Petej,
Peter.
a
and
Vasja
Vasja.
kupil
bought
fialki.
violets.
‘Roses were bought by Peter, and Sam bought violets.’
d.
Petja
Peter.
kupil
bought
rozy,
roses.
a
and
Vasja
Vasja.
kupil
bought
fialki.
violets.
‘Peter bought roses, and Jan bought violets.’
In (9), the ungrammatical sentences have active antecedent verbs and passive gapped verbs, while the acceptable ones have verbs matching in voice features. With Gapping being incompatible with voice mismatches, Barbara Citko proposes Parallel Merge as a straightforward solution to this issue (see
The focus of the present section is the high coordination itself. Johnson’s analysis of Gapping requires
(10)
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
myši
mice.
whether
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
krysy
rats.
or
zašuršat
rustle.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats rustle in the basement.’
The backbone of my argument is syntactic behaviour of the Russian conjunction
(11)
a.
Petja
Peter.
ne
not
znaet,
knows
[
umeet
can
li
whether
Saša
Alex.
umeet
can
igrat’
play
na
on
skripke].
violin.
‘Peter does not know whether Alex can play the violin.’
b.
Petja
Peter.
ne
not
znaet,
knows
[
na
on
skripke]
violin.
[
li]
whether
Saša
Alex.
umeet
can
igrat’
play
na
on
skripke].
violin.
‘Peter does not know whether it is the violin that Alex can play.’
In (11a), the main verb of the embedded clause, which is
(12)
*Petja
Peter.
ne
not
znaet,
knows
[
li
whether
Saša
Alex.
umeet
can
igrat’
play
na
on
skripke].
violin.
‘Peter does not know whether Alex can play the violin.’
The claim that
(13)
Petja
Peter.
prišel
came
domoj,
home
no
but
ja
1
ne
not
znaju
know
[
kogda
when
C+Petja prišel domoj t]]
‘Peter came home but I do not know when.’
Although Merchant assumed that only Wh-phrases can move to [Spec, CP] and trigger sluicing (see
(14)
Ivan
Ivan
vstretil
met
kogo-to,
someone.
no
but
ja
I
ne
not
znaju
know
Lena.
li
li
[
Ivan
Ivan
vstretil ].
met
‘Ivan met someone but I don’t know whether he met
(
The interrogative conjunction
(15)
a.
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
myši
mice.
whether
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
krysy
rats.
or
zašuršat
rustle.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats rustle in the basement.’
b.
*Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
whether
myši
mice.
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
or
krysy
rats.
zašuršat
rustle.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats rustle in the basement.’
Note that the double interrogative conjunction
(16)
*Ona
3
zastavila
made
myšej
mice.
whether
begat’,
run
sobak
dogs.
or
lajat’.
bark
‘She made mice whether run, dogs or bark.’
In (16),
(17)
*Petja
Peter.
znaet,
knows
čto
that
Saša
Alex.
li
whether
postroit
builds
dom,
house.
čto
that
Miša
Mike.
li
or
kupit
buys
mašinu.
car.
‘Peter knows whether that Alex builds a house or that Mike buys a car.’
The ungrammaticality of (17) suggests that the lexical items
(18)
a.
Petja
Peter.
sprašivaet,
asks
Saša
Alex.
li
either
postroit
builds
dom,
house.
Miša
Mike.
li
or
kupit
buys
mašinu.
car.
‘Peter asks whether Alex builds a house or Mike buys a car.’
b.
*Petja
Peter.
znaet,
knows
Saša
Alex.
li
either
postroit
builds
dom,
house.
Miša
Mike.
li
or
kupit
buys
mašinu.
car.
‘Peter knows whether Alex builds a house or Mike buys a car.’
In (17),
(19)
*Ona
3
sprosila
asked
pro
about
problem
problem.
li,
whether
rešenie
solution.
li.
or
‘She asked whether about the problem or solution.’
In (19),
Given the evidence discussed above, I conclude that
(20)
a.
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
myši
mice.
whether
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
krysy
rats.
or
zapiščat
squeak.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats squeak in the basement.’
b.
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
krysy
rats.
whether
zapiščat
squeak.
v
in
podvale,
basement.
myši
mice.
or
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake.
attic.
‘I do not know whether rats squeak in the basement or mice rustle in the attic.’
In (21), each of the coordinated CPs contains an independent T. Consequently, the sentences in (21) cannot be re-analysed as
(21)
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
myši
mice.
whether
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
krysy
rats.
or
zašuršat
rustle.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats rustle in the basement.’
Note that other pre-
(22)
a.
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
v
in
Evrope
Europe.
whether
rodilsja
was.born
Vasja,
Vasja.
v
in
Amerike
America.
or
rodilsja
was.born
Petja.
Petja.
‘I do not know whether Vasja was born in Europe or Petja was born in America.’
b.
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
vino
wine.
whether
pil
drink.
Vasja,
Vasja.
pivo
beer.
or
pil
drink.
Petja.
Petja.
‘I do not know whether Vasja drank wine or Petja drank beer.’
Finally, binding properties of structures with
(23) | No actress |
( |
According to Johnson, the DP “no actress” in (23) originates in low coordination of
(24) | [ |
The movement to [Spec, TP] allows the DP “no actress” to c-command the low coordination of
(25)
*Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
[
every
whether
actress.
možet
can
napisat’
write
scenarij],
script.
[
her
or
agent
agent.
možet
can
napisat’
write
p’esu].
play.
‘I do not know whether every actress can write a script or her agent can write a play.’
In (25),
To sum up, Gapping must not be restricted by low coordination. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the compatibility of the double conjunction
In the previous section, I have provided evidence that Gapping cannot be exclusively based on low coordination. Thus, one could conclude that low coordination should not play any role in Gapping derivation. However, there are cases that can be elegantly explained if one adopts low coordination as a component of Gapping. The necessity of low coordination is corroborated by modal scope phenomena.
In (26), the negated modal
(26) | a. | James can’t order caviar and Mary chili. |
b. | Context: James and Mary are having dinner together at a restaurant that serves just caviar and chili. James is an extremely wealthy caviar lover and Mary is an extremely poor chili lover. James’ sensitive conscience won’t permit him to order an expensive dish when Mary orders an inexpensive one. However, James generally has no problem with expensive menu choices and is inclined to prefer them. | |
c. | Wide scope ¬◇(P ∧ Q): True | |
d. | Distributive scope ¬◇P ∧ ¬◇Q: False | |
( |
Low coordination allows us to account for the wide modal scope by placing the modal verb above the coordination of
(27) | a. | James can’t order caviar or Mary chili. |
b. | Context: James and Mary are having dinner together at a restaurant that serves just caviar and chili. James is an extremely wealthy caviar lover and Mary is an extremely poor chili lover. James’ sensitive conscience won’t permit him to order an expensive dish when Mary orders an inexpensive one. However, James generally has no problem with expensive menu choices and is inclined to prefer them. | |
c. | Wide scope ¬◇(P ∨ Q): False | |
d. | Distributive scope ¬◇P ∨ ¬◇Q: True | |
( |
In (26), wide scope is unavailable, since it is possible for Mary to order chili, which render the negation of disjunction false. If one assumes that Gapping is pure low coordination, narrow scope is unexpected.
Furthermore, the following Russian cases demonstrate that both scope readings are available for one Gapping sentence:
(28)
Petja
Petja
ne
not
možet
can
est’
eat
ikru,
caviar
a
and
Saša
Saša
čili.
chilli
‘Petja cannot eat caviar and Saša chilli.’
a. ¬◇(P & V)
Petja and Saša are having dinner together at a restaurant that serves just caviar and chili. Petja is an extremely wealthy caviar lover and Saša is an extremely poor chili lover. Petja’s sensitive conscience won’t permit him to order an expensive dish when Saša orders an inexpensive one. Saša is willing to order chilli. Thus, caviar and chilli cannot be ordered simultaneously and Petja will also order chilli.
It is not possible for Petja to eat caviar and for Saša to eat chilli.
b. (¬◇P & ¬◇V)
Petja and Saša are having dinner together at a restaurant that serves caviar and chilli. However, other dishes are also served at this restaurant. Petja and Saša are wealthy food connoisseurs and can order anything they like. However, Petja does not like caviar and Saša does not like chilli.
Petja and Saša have different food preferences. Petja cannot eat caviar and Saša cannot eat chilli.
In (28), the negated modal
(29)
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
pivo
beer.
whether
ne
not
možet
can
zakazat’
order
Vasja,
Vasja.
vino
wine.
or
ne
not
možet
can
zakazat’
order
Petja.
Petja.
‘I do not know whether Vasja cannot order beer or Petja cannot order wine.’
Petja and Vasja go to a pub. Petja is a wine connoisseur. Thus, Petja is snobbish and strongly disapproves of beer lovers. At a pub, Petja always orders wine. By contrast, Vasja is a tactful person and tries not to annoy Petja. So Vasja will not order beer.
a. | Wide scope ¬◇(P ∨ V): False | |
It cannot be the case Peter orders wine or Vasja orders beer. | ||
b. | Distributive scope ¬◇(P) ∨ ¬◇(V): True | |
Peter cannot order wine or Vasja cannot order beer. |
In (29), the
To account for modal scope interpretations, I propose that Gapping stems from two sources, which are low coordination of
(30)
In (29), MP (the goal phrase of BP) does not dominate KP (the source phrase of BP), which makes Parallel Merge different from Internal Merge. In the present squib, I will not discuss the exact algorithm used to linearize structures like (29). To put it simply, only BP dominated by MP will be pronounced at PF. If we apply this rule to Gapping, nodes shared between clauses are pronounced only in the first clause.
As is mentioned in the introduction, low coordination provides us with a straightforward analysis of wide scope. Low coordination derives wide scope by placing the modal operator above coordination:
(31)
High coordination derives distributive scope, as there are two independent TPs and each of these TPs has a modal verb and a negation head. The fact that the negated modal operator is shared does not affect the distributive interpretation. The negated modal operator is still present in each TP: a T-head is required to project a TP. Thus, the modal verb and the negation head are distributed between TP-conjuncts, which gives rise to distributive interpretation:
(32)
Note that the analysis proposed above can be extended to CP coordination. Recall the Gapping clause with
(33)
Ja
1
ne
not
znaju,
know
myši
mice.
whether
zašuršat
rustle.
na
on
čerdake,
attic.
krysy
rats.
or
zašuršat
rustle.
v
in
podvale.
basement.
‘I do not know whether mice rustle in the attic or rats rustle in the basement.’
If one analyses (33) as high coordination with applications of Parallel Merge, the CP coordination in (33) will derive the following tree structure:
(34)
To conclude this squib, I explain the necessity of low coordination from a minimalist viewpoint. Low coordination is a preferred option as it requires fewer applications of Parallel Merge, as all heads and phrases located above
There are approaches to Gapping that use low coordination and ellipsis (
I wish to thank my supervisor David Adger for his continuous and rigorous support during my research time spent at QMUL.
The author has no competing interests to declare.