Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T18:42:23.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Disunity of Right-Node Raising Phenomena: Extraposition, Ellipsis, and Deletion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rui P. Chaves
Rui P. Chaves*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
*
609 Baldy Hall Buffalo, NY 14260-1030 [rchaves@buffalo.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The empirical facts about Right-Node Raising (RNR) lead to fundamentally conflicting analytical conclusions. There is strong evidence that RNR does not obey syntactic constraints of any kind, which in turn suggests that RNR is not a syntactic operation, but there is also evidence that strongly favors a syntactic analysis. The idiosyncratic and almost paradoxical nature of the phenomena indicates that no simple unified analysis of RNR can be formulated. In order to resolve this empirical and theoretical impasse, I propose that what is usually called RNR is best seen as the conflation of three completely unrelated kinds of phenomena: VP/N’-Ellipsis, Extraposition, and (Backward) Periphery Deletion. Although they are fundamentally different, these phenomena can yield structures that are superficially similar and, in some cases, apply to the same strings. The latter is one of the major factors that has misled previous accounts. Once this threeway confound between ellipsis, extraposition, and deletion is taken into account, the contradictory idiosyncrasies about RNR vanish, and a wide range of cases are obtained as predictions of independently motivated accounts of VP/N’-ellipsis and ATB extraposition phenomena. This article offers an explicit formalization of the phenomena under discussion in sign-based construction grammar (Sag 2012), a framework that combines insights from head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG; Pollard & Sag 1994) and Berkeley construction grammar (Fillmore & Kay 1996).

Keywords

extrapositionellipsisdeletionscopecumulationconjunction

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 4 , December 2014, pp. 834 - 886
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 639–42.Google Scholar
Abeillé, Anne, and Mouret, François. 2008. Quelques contraintes sur les coordinations elliptiques en français. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 24. 177–206.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2004. Right node raising: Ellipsis or across the board movement? North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 34. 45–60.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1975. More evidence for an NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 115–29.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2005. Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115. 359–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, William. 1977. Clitic inflection in French: An historical perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004653290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, and Klein, Ewan. 2002. Shape conditions and phonological context. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2001), 20–30. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2001/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc. 1989. V-governed pro, case theory, and the projection principle. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 8. 14–28.Google Scholar
Bachrach, Asaf, and Katzir, Roni. 2008. Right-node raising and delayed spell-out. Interphases: Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Grohmann, Kleanthes K., 284–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 1978. PP as a bounding node. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 8. 3340.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 1–38.Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2006. Extraposition. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 2, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 237–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2007. Parasitic scope. Linguistics and Philosophy 30. 407–44.10.1007/s10988-007-9021-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, Matthew, and Vicente, Luis. 2011. Right node raising requires both ellipsis and multidomination. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 1. article 2. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/2/.Google Scholar
Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72. 579–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Ellipsis and apparent non-constituent coordination. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), 48–69. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2004/.10.21248/hpsg.2004.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Emily, and Flickinger, Dan. 1999. Peripheral constructions and core phenomena. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Kathol, Andreas, and Koenig, Jean-Pierre, 199–214. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Cutler, Anne, Eberhard, Kathleen M., Butterfield, Sally, Cutting, J. Cooper; and Humphreys, Karin R.. 2006. Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language 82. 64–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, and Middleton, Erica L.. 2011. Reaching agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 1033–69.10.1007/s11049-011-9148-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. Advances in nonlinear phonology (Linguistic models 7), ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 143–60. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bosković, Zeljko. 2004. Two notes on right node raising. University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 13–24.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1974. On the position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 614–19.Google Scholar
Buitelaar, Paul. 1998. Corelex: Systematic polysemy and underspecification. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University dissertation.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 531–65.10.1007/BF00628069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, Manuel. 1992. Estrategias de análisis sintáctico en el procesamiento de frases: Cierre temprano versus cierre tardío. Cognitiva 4. 3–27.Google Scholar
Chao, Wyn. 1988. On ellipsis. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 261–307.10.1007/s10988-008-9040-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2009. Construction-based cumulation and adjunct extraction. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2009), 47–67. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2009/.10.21248/hpsg.2009.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2012. Conjunction, cumulation and respectively readings. Journal of Linguistics 48. 297–344.10.1017/S0022226712000059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 2. 285–327.10.1017/S0022226712000357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, Rui P., and Dery, Jeruen E.. 2013. Which subject islands will the acceptability of improve with repeated exposure? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31. 96–106. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/31/index.html.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Daniel, Sag, Ivan A.; and Pollard, Carl. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language & Computation 3. 281–332.10.1007/s11168-006-6327-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Rochemont, Michael S.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 23–47.Google Scholar
Davies, Anthony. 1992. Empty heads and missing subjects: Underspecification in Hausa VPs. Chicago Linguistic Society 28. 94–108.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, Marica, and Job, Remo. 1993. Some observations on the universality of the late closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22. 189–206.10.1007/BF01067830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3. 344–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Paul. 1988. Flexible flexibilities. Flexible flexibilities: Universiteit van Amsterdam, ms.Google Scholar
Desmet, Timothy, De Baecke, Constantijn, Drieghe, Denis, Brysbaert, Mark; and Vonk, Wietske. 2006. Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes 21. 453–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1988. Type-raising, functional composition, and nonconstituent coordination. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Bach, Emmon, Oehrle, Richard, and Wheeler, Dierdre, 153–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex. 2009. The unity of extraposition and the A/A’ distinction. Chicago Linguistic Society 45. 2. 43–56.Google Scholar
Eberhard, Kathleen M., Cutting, J. Cooper; and Bock, Kathryn. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 112. 53159.10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.531CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1983. Parasitic gaps. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 3–34.10.1007/BF00868088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, Eva M. 2003. Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Henderson, John M.. 1991. Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 725–45.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Henderson, John M.. 1993. Basic reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. Canadian Journal of Psychology (Special issue on reading and language processing) 47. 247–75.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline, and Hartmann, Katharina. 2005. Focus and prosodic structures of German gapping and right node raising. The Linguistic Review 22. 67–114.10.1515/tlir.2005.22.1.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Kay, Paul. 1996. Construction grammar coursebook. Construction grammar coursebook: University of California, Berkeley, ms.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002a. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 32. 113–32.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, 83–88.Google Scholar
Frank, Anette, and Reyle, Uwe. 1995. Principle-based semantics for HPSG. Proceedings of the 7th meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, 9–16.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Carlson, Katy; and Clifton, Charles Jr. 2006. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 244–49.10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles Jr. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark, and Kehler, Andrew. 2003. Respective answers to coordinated questions. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13. 91–108. Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/salt/issue/view/296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 155–84.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1972. A program for syntax. Semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, 483–97. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Merchant, Jason. 1998. Reverse sluicing in English and Greek. The Linguistic Review 15. 233–56.10.1515/tlir.1998.15.2-3.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Pearlmutter, Neal, Canseco-Gonzalez, Enriqueta; and Hickok, Gregory. 1996. Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition 59. 23–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogative constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 21. 133–43.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graćanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2013. Linearizing multidominance structures. Challenges to linearization, ed. by Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian, 269–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney, and Nelson, Gerald. 1999. Elliptical clauses in spoken and written English. The clause in English: In honour of Rodney Huddleston, ed. by Collins, Peter and Lee, David, 111–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice. 1986 [1936]. Le bon usage. Revised by André Goosse. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1973. On the status of the so-called right roof constraint. Language 49. 294–311.10.2307/412456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1976. A note on subject raising to object and right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 642–45.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1981. Approaches to island phenomena. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2012. Movement and agreement in right-node raising constructions. Movement and agreement in right-node raising constructions: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Ha, Seungwan. 2006. Multiple dominance can't, but ellipsis can account for right node raising. Chicago Linguistic Society 42. 1. 27–31.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, Fernández, Ángel Jiménez; and Radford, Andrew. 2014. Deconstructing the subject condition in terms of cumulative constraint violation. The Linguistic Review 31. 1. 73–150.10.1515/tlr-2013-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1971. Constraints on deletion in syntax. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 17–28.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 391–428.Google Scholar
Harbusch, Karin, and Kempen, Gerard. 2009. Incremental sentence production inhibits clausal coordinate ellipsis: A comparison of spoken and written language. Proceedings of the Workshop on Incrementality in Verbal Interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, 2009.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right node raising and gapping: Interface conditions on prosodic deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1974. Quantifiers vs. quantification theory. Dialectica 27. 329–58. [Also appeared in Linguistic Inquiry 5.153-77, 1974.].Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Culicover, Peter; and Winkler, Susanne. 2015. Effects of processing on the acceptability of ‘frozen’ extraposed constituents. Syntax, to appear.10.1111/synt.12036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman. 1991. On reconstruction and coordination. Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 22), ed. by Haider, Hubert and Netter, Klaus, 139–97. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman M. 1999. An architecture for phonology. Slavic in head-driven phrase structure grammar, ed. by Borsley, Robert D. and Przepiórkowski, Adam, 61–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney d., Payne, John; and Peterson, Peter. 2002. Coordination and supplementation. The Cambridge grammar of the English language, by Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, ch. 15, 1273–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976. Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Language 52. 535–62.10.2307/412719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ingria, Robert J. P. 1990. The limits of unification. Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 194–204.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Zec, Draga. 1990. The phonology-syntax connection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 117–85.10.1023/A:1005464228727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2008. Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of antecedent contained deletion. Topics in ellipsis, ed. by Johnson, Kyle, 30–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198237341.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2012. Cleaning up the big mess: Discontinuous dependencies and complex determiners. Sign-based construction grammar, ed. by Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan A., 229–56. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2000. Overt vs. covert movement. Parameters and universals, 223–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195102352.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 1994. Extraposition in HPSG. Extraposition in HPSG: IBM Germany, Institute for Logic and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kentner, Gerrit, Féry, Caroline; and Alter, Kai. 2008. Prosody in speech production and perception: The case of right node raising in English. The discourse potential of underspecified structures, ed. by Steube, Anita, 207–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2005), 192–212. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2005/.10.21248/hpsg.2005.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and Fodor, Janet Dean. 2006. Prosodic influence on syntactic judgements. Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, ed. by Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Vogel, Ralf, and Schlesewsky, Matthias, 336–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.10.1515/TLR.2007.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Munich: WilhemFink.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1990. Boolean and non-Boolean ‘and’. Papers from the second Symposium on Logic and Language, ed. by Kálman, Lászlo and Pols, Lászlo, 161–87. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1974. The semantics of scope in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory) 22. 2. 152–67.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1997. A lexical analysis of the English auxiliary verb system. GLOT International 2. 215–54.Google Scholar
Larson, Bradley. 2012. A dilemma with accounts of right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 143–50.10.1162/LING_a_00078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. Double objects revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 589–632.Google Scholar
Levin, Nancy, and Prince, Ellen. 1986. Gapping and clausal implicature. Papers in Linguistics 19. 351–64.10.1080/08351818609389263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 1985. Right node (non-)raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 492–97.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2001. The extraction riddle: Just what are we missing? Journal of Linguistics 37. 145–74.10.1017/S0022226701008787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert d., and Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, Fedorenko, Evelina, Breen, Mara; and Gibson, Ted. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition 12. 12–36.10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 302–23. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1991. Plural. Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 418–40. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 91–106.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1987. Some additional evidence for discontinuity. Syntax and semantics, vol. 20: Discontinuous constituency, ed. by Huck, Geoffrey J. and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 185–200. Orlando: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373204_008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James D. 1986. Right node raising and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 183–86.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurers, Detmar W. 1999. Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 43. 173–226.Google Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 1995. Coordination ellipsis in spoken and written American English. Language Sciences 17. 169–241.10.1016/0388-0001(95)00013-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Philip, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2013. Exophoric VP ellipsis. The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, ed. by Hofmeister, Philip and Norcliffe, Elisabeth, 167–220. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Milward, David. 1994. Non-constituent coordination: Theory and practice. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’94) 15. 935–41.10.3115/991250.991299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang. 1990. Die real existierenden grammatischen Ellipsen und die Norm: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Sprachwissenschaft 15. 241–366.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1998. ATB movement without identity. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 14. 150–60.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1999. On the identity requirement of ATB extraction. Natural Language Semantics 7. 421–25.10.1023/A:1008377429394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 675–94.Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. Gapping. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina. 1985. The phonological word in Italian. Advances in nonlinear phonology, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 193–204. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Parasitic gaps and the across-the-board phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 735–54.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1994. Parasitic and pseudoparasitic gaps. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 63117.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 72. 751–73.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1988. The syntax-phonology interface. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. 1: Linguistic theory: Foundations, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., 255–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyle, Uwe. 1993. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representation and deduction. Journal of Semantics 10. 123–79.10.1093/jos/10.2.123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1992. Bounding rightward A-dependencies. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael S., 373–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published as Infinite syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.].Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert, and Perlmutter, David M.. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 350.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, James. 2007. Ordering and linearizing rightward movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 349–401.10.1007/s11049-006-9011-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1980.].Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. Sign-based construction grammar, ed. by Boas, Hans and Sag, Ivan A., 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 325–45.10.1007/BF00627709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Nykiel, Joann. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2011), 188–208. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2011/.10.21248/hpsg.2011.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67. 63–113.10.2307/415539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scha, Remko. 1981. Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, Theo M. V., and Stokhof, Martin, 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center Tracts.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1972. Apparent counterexamples to the coordinate structure constraint: A canonical constraint. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2. 91–104.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2704-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, 643–46.Google Scholar
Smith, George. 2000. Word remnants and coordination. Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, ed. by Thieroff, Rolf, Tamrat, Matthias, Fuhrhop, Nanna, and Teuber, Oliver, 57–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110933932.57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Eric S., and Pearlmutter, Neal J.. 2004. Semantic integration and syntactic planning in language production. Cognitive Psychology 49. 1–46.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.10.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, Adrian, Clifton, Charles Jr.; and Frazier, Lyn. 2006. Heavy NP shift is the parser's last resort: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 389–406.10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coordination in Dutch and English. Language 61. 523–68.10.2307/414385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1990. Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 207–64.10.1007/BF00630734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2001. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1998. Reciprocity and cumulative predication. Natural Language Semantics 6. 303–37.10.1023/A:1008352502939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy Angus. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Strunk, Jan, and Snider, Neal. 2008. Extraposition without subjacency. Paper presented at the Workshop on Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective at DGfS 2008, Bamberg, March 27. Online: http://www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/www-public/strunk/DGfS2008Handout.pdf.Google Scholar
Strunk, Jan, and Snider, Neal. 2013. Subclausal locality constraints on relative clause extraposition. Rightward movement in a comparative perspective, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Sailer, Manfred, and Walker, Heike, 99–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.200.04strCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stucky, Susan U. 1987. Configurational variation in English: A study of extraposition and related matters. Syntax and semantics, vol. 20: Discontinuous constituency, ed. by Huck, Geoffrey J. and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 377–404. Orlando: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373204_015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swingle, Kari. 1995. The role of prosody in right node raising. The role of prosody in right node raising: University of California, Santa Cruz, ms.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney, and Hutchins, Sean. 2004. Evidence for self-organized sentence processing: Digging-in effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30. 431–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Taglicht, Josef. 1998. Constraints on intonational phrasing in English. Journal of Linguistics 34. 181–211.10.1017/S0022226797006877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
te Velde, John R. 2005. Unifying prosody and syntax for right- and left-edge coordinate ellipsis. Lingua 115. 483–502.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toman, Jindrich. 1985. A discussion of coordination and word-syntax. Studies in German grammar, ed. by Jindrich, Toman, 407–32. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1515/9783110882711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Pickering, Martin J.; and Clifton, Charles Jr. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 558–92.10.1006/jmla.1998.2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans, Oepen, Stephan, Skut, Wojciech, Brants, Thorsten, Duchier, Denys, Krenn, Brigitte; and Konieczny, Lars. 1998. Studien zur performzorien-tieren Linguistik: Aspekte der Relativsatzextraposition im Deutschen. Kognitionswissenschaft 7. 129.3 3.10.1007/s001970050065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 1996. A monostratal treatment of it extraposition without lexical rules. Papers from the 6th CLIN meeting, ed. by Durieux, Gert, Daelemans, Walter, and Gillis, Steven, 231–48. Online: http://www.let.rug.nl/vannoord/Qin/Clin6/.Google Scholar
van Noord, Gertjan, and Bouma, Gosse. 1996. Extraposition as a nonlocal dependency. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 96, 1–14.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 183–237.10.1007/s11049-009-9086-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wesche, Birgit. 1995. Symmetric coordination: An alternative theory of phrase structure. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110934687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Culicover, Peter. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitman, Philip Neal. 2005. Category neutrality: A type-logical investigation. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics.) New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitman, Philip Neal. 2009. Right-node wrapping. Theory and evidence in semantics, ed. by Hinrichs, Erhard and Nerbonne, John, 235–56. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1992. Prosodic phonology and its role in the processing of written language. Konvens 92: 1. Konferenz ‘Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache ’, ed. by Görz, Günther, 139–48. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis and Hall, T. Alan, 59–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.13.04wilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Right-node raising and the LCA. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18. 586–98.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101–39.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1990. The ATB-theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 6. 26579.Google Scholar
Witten, Edward. 1972. Centrality. Centrality: Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Yatabe, ShÛichi. 2002. A linearization-based theory of summative agreement in peripheral node-raising constructions. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2002), 391–411. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2002/.10.21248/hpsg.2002.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, ShÛichi. 2007. Evidence for the linearization-based theory of semantic composition. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2007), 323–43. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2007/.10.21248/hpsg.2007.19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yatabe, ShÛichi. 2012. Comparison of the ellipsis-based theory of non-constituent coordination with its alternatives. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2012), 454–74. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2012/.10.21248/hpsg.2012.26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. Morphological non-distinctness and coordination. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 1. 309–20.Google Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. The syntactic derivations of two paired dependency constructions. Lingua 117. 2134–58.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. The unaccented pronoun constraint in English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 100–114.Google Scholar