Cover not available

In:Interfaces in Grammar
Edited by Jianhua Hu and Haihua Pan
[Language Faculty and Beyond 15] 2019
► pp. 207–244

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 8
The syntax of either and disjunction

 | City University of Hong Kong
Published online: 15 April 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.15.08law
Abstract
It is argued that the scope indicator either is base-generated in place and its syntactic relation with disjunction is subject to a phase-theoretic locality constraint. Apparently unbalanced disjunction where either does not occur adjacent to disjunction is in fact syntactically balanced coordination, with parts of the second disjunct possibly deleted by independent processes such as gapping or extraposition. Some facts recalling locality constraints on movement are shown to be due to conditions on deletion independently of movement. Processing may explain some but not all facts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Syntactic movement theory
    • 2.1Syntactic movement of the scope indicator either
    • 2.2Disjunction and locality
    • 2.3Some problems with movement theory
  • 3.The reduction theory
    • 3.1Apparently unbalanced disjunction as gapping
    • 3.2Some problems with the reduction theory
      • 3.2.1The finality restriction
      • 3.2.2Impossible disjuncts
      • 3.2.3Correlates of the dangling particles
      • 3.2.4Disjunction with non-finite complements
      • 3.2.5Deletion of subject
      • 3.2.6Silent subject
  • 4.The locality condition for the SI either
    • 4.1Deletion in verb phrase coordination and dangling remnants
    • 4.2Locality of the SI either
    • 4.3Explaining other facts
    • 4.3.1Split coordination
  • 4.3.2Negation
  • 4.3.3Embedded complements
  • 4.3.4Syntactic islands
  • 4.3.5Extraposition
  • 4.4A processing perspective
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, Lutz Martin and Masayuki Otsuka. 2005. Right node raising, coordination and the dynamics of language processing. Lingua 2005, 503–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivations by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (eds.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view of building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Chung Hye and Maribel Romero. 2002. Ellipsis and movement in the syntax of whether/Q … or questions. In Masako Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 32, 197–216. GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976. Conjunction reduction, gapping and right-node-raising. Language 52, 535–562. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1971. Gapping and related rules. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1996. Gapping. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Postal, Paul. 1976. Beginning English grammar. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Stanley Peters. 1969. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In D. A. Reibel and Sanford Shane (eds.), Modern studies in English: readings in transformational grammar, 113–142, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 217–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Ph.D.diss., MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D.diss., University of Maryland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D.diss., MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–425.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats and Barbara Partee. 1982. Conjunction, type ambiguity and wide scope or. In D. Flickenger, M. Macken and N. Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the first West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 353–362. Linguistics department, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D.diss., MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D.diss., MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Gerald Gazdar, Thomas Wasow and Steven Weisler. 1985. Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 117–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, Bernard. 1999. On the syntax of either … or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 339–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siegel, Muffy. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 523–530.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stillings, Justine T. 1975. The formulation of gapping in English as evidence for variable types in syntactic transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1, 247–273.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter and Barbara Partee. 1977. Major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, Christopher. 1997. Phrasal movement in LF: de re readings, VP-ellipsis and binding. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 27, 423–439. GSLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2000. On some scopal asymmetries of coordination. In Hans Bennis, Martin Evaeret, and Eric Reuland (eds.), Interface strategies, 387–405, Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue