In linguistics, the term right node raising (RNR) denotes a sharing mechanism that sees the material to the immediate right of parallel structures being in some sense "shared" by those parallel structures, e.g. [Sam likes] but [Fred dislikes] the debates. [1] The parallel structures of RNR are typically the conjuncts of a coordinate structure, although the phenomenon is not limited to coordination, since it can also appear with parallel structures that do not involve coordination. The term right node raising itself is due to Postal (1974). Postal assumed that the parallel structures are complete clauses below the surface. The shared constituent was then raised rightward out of each conjunct of the coordinate structure and attached as a single constituent to the structure above the level of the conjuncts, hence "right node raising" was occurring in a literal sense. While the term right node raising survives, the actual analysis that Postal proposed is not (or no longer) widely accepted. RNR occurs in many languages, including English and related languages.
RNR is a phenomenon that challenges theories of syntax in significant ways. The difficulties are due to the status of the parallel structures as well as to the status of the shared material. The parallel structures typically do not qualify as constituents, and the shared material can also fail to qualify as a single constituent.
The following examples are typical instances of RNR in English. The square brackets mark the conjuncts of the coordinate structures involved and the material shared by the conjuncts is bolded:
One easily observable fact about these examples is that they prefer a unique intonation pattern. There tends to be emphasis on the contrasting words within the conjuncts, and pauses immediately after the left-most conjunct and immediately before the shared material. This special intonation contour is sometimes indicated using commas, e.g. Fred prepares, and Susan eats, the food. A key observation about the conjuncts is that they are not constituents. Word combinations such as Fred prepares and Susan eats do not qualify as constituents in most theories of syntax. This fact casts doubt on the usefulness of coordination as a test for identifying the constituent structure of sentences.
The following subsections enumerate some noteworthy traits of RNR: 1) RNR is independent of coordination; 2) it occurs at various levels of structure (not just at the clausal level); 3) it is unlike instances of forward sharing in crucial respects; 4) the shared material can fail to qualify as a constituent; and 5) it at times requires the conjunct-final elements to stand in contrast to each other.
Perhaps the most important trait of RNR is that it can occur in the absence of coordination, e.g. [2]
Since the parallel structures in these cases (marked by brackets) are not adjacent to each other, one really cannot view them as involving coordination. What this means is that the RNR mechanism is independent of coordination. In this regard, exactly what renders two or more structures parallel enough so that RNR can occur is not clear. What is clear, however, is that while coordination does commonly produce the parallel structures that allow RNR to occur, the RNR mechanism is independent of coordination.
Most discussions of RNR produce examples where the RNR mechanism is occurring at the sentence or clause level, meaning the conjuncts contain finite verbs. One should note in this respect, however, that RNR is not limited to occurring within clauses; it can also occur at the level of phrases. The following examples illustrate the backward sharing of RNR at the VP level, the NP level, and the PP level:
Whatever the analysis of RNR, one has to acknowledge that the mechanism is flexible insofar it is not reliant on the presence of one specific type of syntactic category (e.g. finite verb), but rather it can occur at various levels of the syntactic structure.
An examination of coordination quickly reveals that the shared material often precedes the coordinate structures. The shared material preceding the conjuncts is now in bold:
The shared material in these sentences precedes the coordinate structures. There is a limitation on this sort of forward sharing, however. Certain material preceding the conjuncts of coordinate structures cannot be shared, e.g.
While explanations for the block on forward sharing have been provided in the literature on coordination, [8] the importance of these data for RNR is that there is no such similar block on RNR. The backward sharing of RNR is not limited in this way. What this means is that backward sharing cannot be construed as the mirror image of forward sharing. The acknowledgment of RNR as a separate sharing mechanism is therefore warranted.
The conjuncts of standard cases of RNR do not qualify as constituents on the surface. This fact is evident in the examples throughout this article, where the bracketed strings are shown as what most theories of syntax take to be non-constituents. In contrast, the shared material of most examples of RNR in English does qualify as a constituent. There are exceptions to this observation, however. The shared material of certain instances of RNR does not qualify as a constituent, e.g. [9]
Given a traditional left-branching analysis of the VPs in these examples, the shared material (in bold) fails to qualify as a constituent. That the shared material need not qualify as a constituent is perhaps more visible in other languages, for instance in German: [10]
| d. | dass | [mich | heute] | und | [dich | gestern] | jemand | gesehen | hat | |
| that | me | today | and | you | yesterday | someone | seen | has | ||
| 'that someone saw me today and you yesterday' | ||||||||||
The shared material in this example, which consists of the subject and the verb chain, can in no way be construed as a constituent. The fact that both the parallel structures and the shared material can qualify as non-constituent strings challenges a constituent-based theory of RNR in significant ways (see below), since it is not evident how one should characterize these strings.
At times there appears to be a contrast requirement on the conjunct-final elements of RNR, e.g. [11]
The a-sentences appear to be bad because the conjunct-final elements are identical, e.g. must and must. The b-sentence, in contrast, are much better because the conjunct-final elements there are NOT identical, e.g. must and should. These data suggest that there is a contrast constraint on the conjunct-final elements of RNR. However, the matter is not as straightforward as the three examples suggest, since other cases allow the conjunct-final elements to be identical, [12] e.g.
Despite the fact that the conjunct-final elements in these examples do not contrast, the sentences can be acceptable given an appropriate intonation contour. Some similar data from German reinforce the point: [13]
| a. | dass | [sie | zu lange | geschlafen] | und | [er | zu lange | geschlafen] | hat |
| that | she | too long | slept | and | he | too long | slept | has | |
| 'that she slept too long and he slept too long' | |||||||||
| b. | dass | [er | helfen] | und | [sie | helfen] | will |
| that | he | help | and | she | help | wants | |
| 'that he wants to help and she wants to help' | |||||||
This aspect of RNR is mysterious. It remains unclear exactly when the conjunct-final elements of RNR can and cannot be identical.
One can discern between three basic theoretic approaches to RNR: 1) the large conjunct approach in terms of movement, 2) the large conjunct approach in terms of ellipsis, and 3) the small conjunct approach.
The large conjunct approach in terms of movement assumes that the parallel structures of RNR are full clauses or phrases below the surface. A movement mechanism is responsible for raising the shared material out of both conjuncts to a position in the hierarchy that is above the level of the parallel structures. Given this movement, the parallel structures actually qualify as constituents before movement. The movement analysis is illustrated here using t (trace) and indices to mark the positions of the shared material before movement occurs.
Below the surface before movement occurs, the conjuncts in these cases are in fact constituents. Thus by assuming movement, the account of RNR can maintain a theory of syntax that is constituent-based, i.e. the constituent is the fundamental unit of syntactic analysis. The main problem with the movement analysis, however, is that the movements of RNR would have to be able to ignore the islands and barriers that are otherwise established as limitations on movement. The movement approach is the account originally pursued by Postal (1974). [14]
The large conjunct approach in terms of ellipsis also assumes that the parallel structures of RNR are full clauses or phrases below the surface. But in contrast to the movement approach, the ellipsis approach assumes that ellipsis alone occurs, without movement. An ellipsis mechanism elides the redundant material from all the conjuncts except the right-most one. [15] A smaller font and subscripts are now used to indicate ellipsis:
By assuming large conjuncts and ellipsis in this manner, this account also succeeds at maintaining a constituent-based theory of syntactic analysis. The parallel structures of RNR are constituents before ellipsis occurs. Like the movement account, the ellipsis account has a significant shortcoming. At times the pre-ellipsis structure would be nonsensical and/or simply ungrammatical, e.g. [16]
If the indicated ellipses were not to occur in these cases, the sentences would be bad. These sentences only make sense on the collective readings, where, for instance, only one tune was hummed and only one tune, the same tune, was sung. Thus there is a semantic and syntactic mismatch across the pre- and post-ellipsis sentences.
The small conjunct approach dispenses with the desire to see the parallel structures as complete constituents at some level of structure below the surface. [17] Instead, it assumes that what you see is what you get; the parallel structures are non-constituent strings that share the material to the immediate right of the final bracket. Neither movement nor ellipsis occurs. This approach has tacitly been taken for granted in this article. It avoids all the problems facing the previous two approaches. However, this success comes at a cost, since the small conjuncts do not qualify as constituents. The challenge facing the small conjunct approach is therefore to provide a principled account of how the RNR mechanism allows the parallel structures to be non-constituents.
In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.
An adjective phrase is a phrase whose head is an adjective. Almost any grammar or syntax textbook or dictionary of linguistics terminology defines the adjective phrase in a similar way, e.g. Kesner Bland (1996:499), Crystal (1996:9), Greenbaum (1996:288ff.), Haegeman and Guéron (1999:70f.), Brinton (2000:172f.), Jurafsky and Martin (2000:362). The adjective can initiate the phrase, conclude the phrase, or appear in a medial position. The dependents of the head adjective—i.e. the other words and phrases inside the adjective phrase—are typically adverb or prepositional phrases, but they can also be clauses. Adjectives and adjective phrases function in two basic ways, attributively or predicatively. An attributive adjective (phrase) precedes the noun of a noun phrase. A predicative adjective (phrase) follows a linking verb and serves to describe the preceding subject, e.g. The man is very happy.
In general linguistics, the comparative is a syntactic construction that serves to express a comparison between two entities or groups of entities in quality or degree - see also comparison (grammar) for an overview of comparison, as well as positive and superlative degrees of comparison.
In generative grammar, a parasitic gap is a construction in which one gap appears to be dependent on another gap. Thus, the one gap can appear only by virtue of the appearance of the other gap, hence the former is said to be "parasitic" on the latter. For example, in the example sentence in (1) the first gap is represented by an underscore, and appears as a result of movement of the constituent which explanation to the beginning of the sentence. The second gap is represented by an underscore with a subscript p ( __p); this is the "parasitic gap".
In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. The constituent structure of sentences is identified using tests for constituents. These tests apply to a portion of a sentence, and the results provide evidence about the constituent structure of the sentence. Many constituents are phrases. A phrase is a sequence of one or more words built around a head lexical item and working as a unit within a sentence. A word sequence is shown to be a phrase/constituent if it exhibits one or more of the behaviors discussed below. The analysis of constituent structure is associated mainly with phrase structure grammars, although dependency grammars also allow sentence structure to be broken down into constituent parts.
In linguistics, wh-movement is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed between what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?". Interrogative forms are sometimes known within English linguistics as wh-words, such as what, when, where, who, and why, but also include other interrogative words, such as how. This dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it can be observed to interact with other grammatical constraints.
In theoretical linguistics, a distinction is made between endocentric and exocentric constructions. A grammatical construction is said to be endocentric if it fulfils the same linguistic function as one of its parts, and exocentric if it does not. The distinction reaches back at least to Bloomfield's work of the 1930s, who based it on terms by Pāṇini and Patañjali in Sanskrit grammar. Such a distinction is possible only in phrase structure grammars, since in dependency grammars all constructions are necessarily endocentric.
Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause. This involves a phrasal movement of determiners, prepositions, and verbs to sentence-initial position. Topicalization often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types, the other three being wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition. Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English. Topicalization in English has also received attention in the pragmatics literature.
In linguistics, ellipsis or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements.
In linguistics, a small clause consists of a subject and its predicate, but lacks an overt expression of tense. Small clauses have the semantic subject-predicate characteristics of a clause, and have some, but not all, properties of a constituent. Structural analyses of small clauses vary according to whether a flat or layered analysis is pursued. The small clause is related to the phenomena of raising-to-object, exceptional case-marking, accusativus cum infinitivo, and object control.
In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator, e.g. and, or, but. The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination. It is also one of the many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.
Merge is one of the basic operations in the Minimalist Program, a leading approach to generative syntax, when two syntactic objects are combined to form a new syntactic unit. Merge also has the property of recursion in that it may be applied to its own output: the objects combined by Merge are either lexical items or sets that were themselves formed by Merge. This recursive property of Merge has been claimed to be a fundamental characteristic that distinguishes language from other cognitive faculties. As Noam Chomsky (1999) puts it, Merge is "an indispensable operation of a recursive system ... which takes two syntactic objects A and B and forms the new object G={A,B}" (p. 2).
In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.
In linguistics, gapping is a type of ellipsis that occurs in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. Gapping usually elides minimally a finite verb and further any non-finite verbs that are present. This material is "gapped" from the non-initial conjuncts of a coordinate structure. Gapping exists in many languages, but by no means in all of them, and gapping has been studied extensively and is therefore one of the more understood ellipsis mechanisms. Stripping is viewed as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism where just one remnant appears in the gapped/stripped conjunct.
In linguistics, immediate constituent analysis or IC analysis is a method of sentence analysis that was proposed by Wilhelm Wundt and named by Leonard Bloomfield. The process reached a full-blown strategy for analyzing sentence structure in the distributionalist works of Zellig Harris and Charles F. Hockett, and in glossematics by Knud Togeby. The practice is now widespread. Most tree structures employed to represent the syntactic structure of sentences are products of some form of IC-analysis. The process and result of IC-analysis can, however, vary greatly based upon whether one chooses the constituency relation of phrase structure grammars or the dependency relation of dependency grammars as the underlying principle that organizes constituents into hierarchical structures.
In linguistics, a catena is a unit of syntax and morphology, closely associated with dependency grammars. It is a more flexible and inclusive unit than the constituent and its proponents therefore consider it to be better suited than the constituent to serve as the fundamental unit of syntactic and morphosyntactic analysis.
Pseudogapping is an ellipsis mechanism that elides most but not all of a non-finite verb phrase; at least one part of the verb phrase remains, which is called the remnant. Pseudogapping occurs in comparative and contrastive contexts, so it appears often after subordinators and coordinators such as if, although, but, than, etc. It is similar to verb phrase ellipsis (VP-ellipsis) insofar as the ellipsis is introduced by an auxiliary verb, and many grammarians take it to be a particular type of VP-ellipsis. The distribution of pseudogapping is more restricted than that of VP-ellipsis, however, and in this regard, it has some traits in common with gapping. But unlike gapping, pseudogapping occurs in English but not in closely related languages. The analysis of pseudogapping can vary greatly depending in part on whether the analysis is based in a phrase structure grammar or a dependency grammar. Pseudogapping was first identified, named, and explored by Stump (1977) and has since been studied in detail by Levin (1986) among others, and now enjoys a firm position in the canon of acknowledged ellipsis mechanisms of English.
Answer ellipsis is a type of ellipsis that occurs in answers to questions. Answer ellipsis appears very frequently in any dialogue, and it is present in probably all languages. Of the types of ellipsis mechanisms, answer fragments behave most like sluicing, a point that shall be illustrated below.
Stripping or bare argument ellipsis is an ellipsis mechanism that elides everything from a clause except one constituent. It occurs exclusively in the non-initial conjuncts of coordinate structures. One prominent analysis of stripping sees it as a particular manifestation of the gapping mechanism, the difference between stripping and gapping lies merely with the number of remnants left behind by ellipsis: gapping leaves two constituents behind, whereas stripping leaves just one. Stripping occurs in many languages and is a frequent occurrence in colloquial conversation. As with many other ellipsis mechanisms, stripping challenges theories of syntax in part because the elided material often fails to qualify as a constituent in a straightforward manner.
Subject–verb inversion in English is a type of inversion marked by a predicate verb that precedes a corresponding subject, e.g., "Beside the bed stood a lamp". Subject–verb inversion is distinct from subject–auxiliary inversion because the verb involved is not an auxiliary verb.