The objective of this study is to make a contribution to the analysis of two construction-specific types of deletion processes, COMPARATIVE DELETION (CD) and COMPARATIVE ELLIPSIS (CE), the latter hypothesized to be involved in relating phrasal comparatives to clausal constructions. In five chapters (Introduction, Comparative Deletion, Comparative Ellipsis, Comparative Coordination, and Conclusion), Lechner outlines an analysis of comparatives that does not require such deletion processes. He defends two claims. First, comparatives do not involve construction-specific types of ellipsis, but rather result from overt AP-raising, and second, all ellipsis processes in comparatives are “reflected in syntax” (p. 2), that is, CD is an instance of syntactic ellipsis. The assumption that a CD-site is associated with an antecedent by overt movement, a strictly syntactic operation, entails that CD is not an instance of semantic ellipsis, contra Kennedy 1999, and Lerner and Pinkal 1995. Instead, Lechner proposes that all instances of CD result from the conjunction-reduction operations Gapping, Right Node Raising, and Across-the-Board Movement, which are typically confined to the domain of coordinate structures. In what follows, I present chapter summaries and brief critical comments, followed by an evaluation of the book.

Chapter 1 provides a seven-page overview of the book, focusing especially on the complexity of the topic and the many proposals in the literature, and on the main tenets of the proposal presented in the remaining chapters.

In chapter 2, Lechner first presents arguments for CD as an instance of syntactic ellipsis, and lays the groundwork for his AP-Raising Hypothesis. He argues against the assumption of semantic ellipsis that the CD-site is not restored until the derivation reaches semantic interpretation, and in favor of the assumption that it is restored in syntax. Support for this position is drawn from constructions in which clausal conjunctions of predicative adjectives may be targeted for deletion in one of two ways: either the adjectival head alone is targeted, as in 1a, or the adjective together with its argument, as in 1b (e = omitted element(s)).

Lechner accounts for 1a via VP ellipsis, and for 1b via object-PP movement prior to the application of VP elipsis, which then appears to affect only the adjectival head proud, but actually targets this head and the trace of movement:

Interestingly, the VP elipsis operation proposed for 2 appears to be a required deletion, in contrast to the optionality of conjunction reduction:

The problem with 3b actually lies not in the non-optionality of the deletion, but rather in the fact that the proposed PP-movement has occurred, as indicated by 3c, where in the version without movement the optionality of deletion matches that in 3a. Therefore, it is not the unification of CD with coordinate ellipsis that causes a problem here, but rather the movement approach to CD.

The principle C violation Lechner identifies in 4a is evidence, he claims, that the CD-site d-proud of John (where d equals degree) has been restored already during syntactic computation, that is, prior to semantics. However, he does not consider the alternate version in 4b, which undermines this assumption.

Section 3 of chapter 2 deals with the syntax of NP-comparatives and lays out the arguments for a movement approach to CD-constructions with than-XP, as in 5a, given the structure in 5b.

In the derivation of 5a, Lechner proposes overt raising of the AP from the Spec of DegP of the comparative complement to the Spec of DegP of the matrix clause. Movement is motivated by the need to eliminate a [+comparative] feature on the higher head Deg. Lechner's account maintains that in NP-comparatives, AP and NP form a constituent to the exclusion of the degree head, and that AP-raising targets only the sub-constituent AP

NP, stranding the determiner.

In section 5 of chapter 2, Lechner considers four predictions made by his AP-Raising Hypothesis involving four systematic differences between prenominally and postnominally modified NP-comparatives. In section 6, he argues that the complex distribution of weak and strong crossover effects is consistent with the AP-Raising Hypothesis, and that the availability of de dicto readings for the CD-site in Sally wants to buy many books poses a problem for semantic resolution. He considers two semantic theories, Lerner and Pinkal 1995 and Kennedy 1997, 1999, and shows how the AP-Raising Hypothesis solves certain problems arising under these theories.

In the final section of chapter 2, Lechner addresses the question of why the empty operator in SpecCP of the comparative complement does not block movement of the AP by Relativized Minimality. His answer is that relativized minimality effects, such as wh-island violations, are detectable only in cyclic derivations; because AP-Raising does not involve cyclic derivations, relativized minimality effects do not show up. Lechner provides arguments for the assumption that AP-raising does not form a chain, and is therefore exempt from Relativized Minimality.

Chapter 3 pursues two main empirical objectives. First, it presents arguments for an ellipsis analysis of phrasal comparatives (those having a single remnant), such as John is prouder of his dog than [Mary]. Second, it investigates the syntax of partially reduced comparatives, such as John is prouder of his dog than[Mary] [of her cat]. Lechner argues for a unified analysis based on his AP-Raising Hypothesis and conjunction-reduction operations because it does not rely on a construction-specific reduction operation, such as Bresnan's (1975) CE analysis. The analysis “entails significant theoretical consequences” (p. 89): verb-second movement occurs in syntax (not in PF), and the Coordinate Structure Constraint must be computed in syntax (not just in semantics).

In section 2 of chapter 3, Lechner examines the weak version of his hypothesis, termed the Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis with respect to the assumption that CD should be handled by conjunction-reduction operations. According to the weak version of this hypothesis, “conjunction-reduction operations can target comparatives.” Indeed, the derivation of John spoke more vehemently against Mary than Tom

against Jane looks very much like a Gapping construction. To derive the reduced 6a with Right Node Raising, Lechner must assume the non-reduced 6b as a target.

Lechner does not point out, however, that 6b is ungrammatical.

Required for his analysis is the assumption that comparatives can be assigned parses that are sufficiently similar to base-generated coordinate structures, that is, they are cases of “comparative coordination,” and that stripping (see Merchant 2001) is “radical Gapping.” The bulk of section 2 is devoted to outlining the internal and external conditions that must be met by conjunction-reduction operations in both elliptical coordinate structures and CD.

The third section of chapter 3 is devoted to a comparison of the strong version of the Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis with a number of competing theories of CE. The strong version asserts that all deletion in comparatives derives from conjunction reduction. Lechner's main goals are to show that conjunction reduction derives all the surface syntactic effects traditionally attributed to CE, and to demonstrate that the differences between phrasal comparatives and clausal comparatives do not reflect an idiosyncratic property of the former, but can be expressed in terms of more general disparities between non-reduced and reduced comparatives.

The final section of chapter 3 concerns additional restrictions on comparative coordination. Here Lechner, following Lechner 2001, expands on a problem for the Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis in certain types of phrasal comparatives in German. His solution involves a filter called the Comparative Deletion Scope Condition: The comparative has to take scope over (c-command) the CD-site at LF. A second important component of his analysis is the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Lechner follows Johnson 1996 in assuming that Case-driven subject movement out of the first conjunct is exempt from this constraint, and he adopts Williams' (1978) condition on Across-the-Board Movement. Lechner must also assume that asymmetric comparative extraction does not induce the Coordinate Structure Constraint.

In chapter 4, Lechner defends the assumption that at some point in the derivation, comparatives are assigned a parse similar to one commonly associated with coordinate structures. This assumption must be squared with the AP-raising analysis of chapter 2, where the than-XP semantically serves as an internal argument of the comparative degree head in the matrix clause. Lechner comes to the conclusion that comparatives are hybrid constructions with properties of both subordination and coordination.

A particularly important assumption is addressed in the fourth section in which Lechner claims that comparatives can be assigned coordinate-like parses at some point in their derivation. Central to this claim is the assumption that there are syntactic as well as semantic constraints on conjunction. Because the Coordinate Structure Constraint plays an important role in his account, it must be defended as having a syntactic basis. Lechner therefore argues that Munn's (1993) claim that this constraint has no syntactic force is not tenable because Munn's alternative—analyzing coordination as a parasitic gap construction— cannot be maintained.

The final chapter is a five-page conclusion in which Lechner summarizes the main points of his AP-Raising Hypothesis, and how it leads to a principled analysis of a variety of phenomena.

Turning now to the evaluation of the book, the central question to address is whether elliptical comparative constructions are fundamentally the same as, or at least very similar to, elliptical coordinate structures, sufficiently so to warrant the unification that Lechner attempts. It is this unification on which the analysis is based on, and it represents the most significant innovation of Lechner's study.

Lechner uses the constructions in 7 to illustrate how CE can be unified with conjunction-reduction operations.

What this analysis cannot account for is the possibility of V-raising in the second clause of 7a as in 8a, leading to the analysis in 8b.

The comparative in 7b is actually structurally more similar to the construction in 9, where the conjunction of two vPs occurs without any trace of auxiliary raising (it is merged in C in a phase-based approach).

It would be interesting to consider whether CDs provide any independent evidence of the traces that Lechner proposes, or whether a “traceless” approach along the lines of 9 is more suitable.

A more general concern with Lechner's unification of CE with conjunction-reduction operations is the lack of the prosodic requirement in CE that plays a central role in Gapping, shown in 10a, and Right Node Raising, shown in 10b (see Hartmann 2000). Obligatory focus accent is indicated with [nearr ]:

For instance, Lechner's example of CE in 11 (his 26a, and others are similar), requires no focus accent of this sort.

Lechner does not mention the role of focus accent in connection with Gapping until chapter 4, where he states that it is an “interfering factor” (p. 211) that must be left to further research.

Interesting also is the fact that the construction in 11 is much more similar to the non-elliptical construction in 12 than to the Gapping constructions in 10, in terms of both, structure and prosody.

Lechner's construction in 11 differs substantially from a Gapping construction. First, Gapping cannot target a finite verb in the initial position of the matching clause, that is, immediately after the conjunction. Second, Gapping requires focus accent. Evidence for the former is given in 13, where we see that the struck-through verb cannot be assumed to exist underlyingly and be a target of Gapping according to Lechner's approach because the non-reduced version is ill-formed:

Lechner claims that the same constraints applying to conjunction-reduction operations also apply to CE; one of these is that it is impossible for Gapping to elide a string that includes a finite CP-node (see p. 100). However, as shown in 14, this constraint depends on what occupies C. If a verb occupies C, Gapping is allowed, whereas if a complementizer occupies C, Gapping is ruled out.

So while there is some flexibility in Gapping with respect to the constraints that Lechner discusses, the same flexibility does not seem to exist in CE, leading, along with the other concerns raised earlier, to the question of whether Lechner's Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis for CE is entirely on the right track. Certainly, unification is a laudable goal, and it may well be possible on some level. However, the syntactic and semantic principles underlying the operations that license conjunction reduction must themselves be unified with one another and with the grammar of simplex sentences at the proper level of abstraction that accounts for the unique properties of coordinate structures. Lechner's discussion of coordinate ellipsis does not reach this level. Therefore, the unification within the Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis between CD and conjunction reduction is not as sharp as it could be. It sometimes misses the mark, while other times it overreaches.

Lechner uses the term isomorphism as an internal condition on the “depth” at which the gap and its antecedent are embedded. He claims that More people came than expected Mary

is ungrammatical because Gapping has applied to a non-isomorphic context in which the gap is more deeply embedded than its antecedent (p. 126). A more principled account would first of all recognize that the non-elliptical version of this sentence is semantically ill-formed, and secondly, that the gap

to come cannot in this context be targeted by any conjunction-reduction operation in an equivalent coordinate structure for reasons that are not related to embeddedness per se. Similar problems can be found in Lechner's discussion of the distribution of prepositions in CD (pp. 127ff.).

A better statement of the condition on this type of ellipsis would in my estimation be the Parallelism Requirement on conjunction reduction (see Chomsky 1995:203, and Hornstein and Nunes 2002). The fact that this requirement applies to non-elliptical coordinate structures also is overlooked by Lechner, as is evident in note 130, where he argues that a matching effect in 15 “does not require coordination.”

A close equivalent of 15 involving conjoined relative clauses, that is, coordination, shows the same matching effect:

Both relative clauses cannot share the relative pronoun den because of a matching requirement on Case that is the same as Lechner's matching effect in 15, but without any comparative.

As this example indicates, the Parallelism Requirement is only descriptive. The best unified analysis of coordination and CD would seek to explain this requirement in terms of syntactic principles that license the ellipse, and semantic principles that account for the interpretation. For the best unification, these principles should be fundamentally the same as those in simplex constructions. Lechner uses a number of descriptive generalizations to test his Conjunction Reduction Hypothesis, making conditions out of many, where underlying principles of grammar would be more suitable.

Lechner's proposal depends heavily on the syntactic viability of the Coordinate Structure Constraint (a descriptive generalization). It is possible, in my view, that abandoning or modifying the approach under which the Coordinate Structure Constraint is a necessary and properly stated syntactic condition on movement in both coordinate and comparative constructions would allow a stronger, less stipulated account, with fewer unorthodox movements. In fact, a number of problems with this constraint have been cited in the literature, for example, in Fox 2000, and Lechner does not consider solutions to them.

The presentation of this book is very methodical, thorough, well organized and rich in data, though consideration of more languages, in addition to English and German, might be quite illuminating. The complexity of the problems must be underscored. However, my own view is that the problems would be less complex if certain assumptions were abandoned and the differences between coordinate structures and comparatives were to be examined in light of some recent developments in syntactic theory. Questions to which no sufficient answers are provided include the following: What is *embeddedness (see pages 133–137), that is, why should it exist as claimed? What is isomorphism, and why should it block certain types of Gapping? What is extraposition (of which than-XP-raising is a type), and how can this type of movement be made compatible with the other assumptions made about asymmetric phrase structure?

Despite these perceived shortcomings, and although the book would have benefited from careful reading by a native speaker and closer copyediting, I recommend it without serious reservations to all linguists interested in the syntax and semantics of comparative and coordinate structures and related topics. It makes a significant contribution to the literature on comparatives.