UKZN

LING710: SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS

The need for multiple

approaches in the analysis
of right node raising
Ahleshin Moodley (211511207)
amoodley8@gmail.com

I affirm that this research paper is my own work and that all acknowledgements have been
properly made.

Signed: Date:6/3/2016
 Abstract
This paper is an analysis of the theory put forward by Barros and Vincente (2011) with regards
to the analysis of right-node-raising (RNR) constructions. There are 3 analyses used for right-
node-raising: movement analysis, backward ellipsis analysis, and multidomination analysis.
Previous literature implies that right-node-raising can be covered by only one of these three
analyses at any given time. Barros and Vincente (2011) refute this and postulate the use of two
analyses, namely backward ellipsis analysis and multidomination analysis, in unison when
analysing right-node-raising constructions. The first part of this paper will look at constructions
with morphological mismatches and constructions which require vehicle change (Fiengo and
May, 1994), as these require backward ellipses analysis to explain right-node-raising. Also in
this section are constructions with cumulative agreement and constructions which have relational
adjectives and need their internal readings to be available, as these require a multidomination
analysis to show right-node-raising. The second part of the paper focuses on constructions in
which the use of one analysis exclusively is insufficient to show right-node-raising. Hence the
use of two analyses is required for right-node-raising constructions and the appropriate one
should be used for each individual case.

1
 1. What is right node raising and how is it analyzed?
According to the rules of Right Node Raising (RNR) put forward by John Ross in 1967, (1a) can
be used to produce (1b)

(1) a. John ate a cake, and Mary baked a cake. [Base structure]

b. John ate, and Mary baked, a cake. [Right Node Raising]

In order to understand exactly what grammatical mechanism results in so-called RNR, three
analyses have been put forward. The first of the three to be proposed was the movement analysis
which likened RNR to being the rightward counterpart of the more familiar leftward ATB
extraction. With this analysis (1b) would be depicted as:

2
In this case there are two separate DP constituents being extracted. Thus ‘a cake’ can refer to two
separate cakes and it is not necessary that John ate the cake that Mary baked.

The second analysis is the backward ellipsis analysis (BEA), which describes RNR as being
when material that is found in both the first conjunct and the second conjunct, is deleted from the
first conjunct as (1b) is depicted below. The deleted (or elided) material is written in a light grey
font.

In this case as well, there is no obligation for this sentence to mean that John ate the cake that
Mary baked. This analysis shows that there are two separate DP constituents and can refer to
different cakes.

3
The third and most recent analysis is the multidomination analysis (MA) where the RNRed
material is shared between the two conjuncts as seen below using (1b).

This analysis however is different from movement analysis and backward ellipsis analysis in a
sense that here there is only one DP constituent undergoing RNR. This constituent is being
dominated by both ‘John’ and ‘Mary’ simultaneously and is forces one meaning only and that
being John ate the cake which Mary baked. The alternate meaning of John having ate a different
cake is not available.

From previous literature on RNR, there is a general assumption that all cases of RNR can be
covered by a single analysis. Barros and Vicente (2011) call this the exclusivist hypothesis. They
however reject this and propose an eclectic theory of analysing RNR constructions. They do,
however, exclude the movement analysis from this theory based solely on the past research
which showed that essentially, RNR cannot be the result of movement because it violates several
restrictions, such as the locality constraints (an example from Abels (2004) is Ross’s (1967)
Right Roof Constraint). Thus, they propose the dynamic use of both multidomination analysis

4
and backwards ellipsis analysis to analyze RNR constructions. To show this, first there needs to
be cases of RNR where we are obliged to use backward ellipsis analysis or cases where we are
obliged to use multidomination analysis.

5
2. Cases wherein only backward ellipsis or multidomination analysis
can be used
2.1. Ellipsis Effects

Ellipsis has a property which allows it to have the elided material and its antecedent to be
morphosyntactically distinct as well as being semantically parallel. If there are cases of RNR
which ellipsis underlies then we should be able to find these mismatches. The following two
subsections show examples of this mismatch.

2.1.1. Morphological Mismatches

These refer to the person/gender mismatches in pronouns and the tense mismatches on verbs.
(2a) and (2b) show unobjectionable mismatches under forward VP-ellipsis.

(2) a. Mary has slept in her office, but John will not [sleep in his office].
b. Mary has gone to Spain and John is about to [go to Spain].

(3a) and (3b) show that these mismatches are also allowed under RNR.

(3) a. I usually don’t [wake up early everyday], but Alice wakes up early every day.
b. I might [pass my math exam], but Alice will pass her math exam.

6
Under backward ellipsis analysis, (3b) would have the following construction:

If (3b) were analyzed using MA then we would get (4)

7
(4)

If (4) were the correct analysis then we would not get the intended ‘sloppy reading’ of (3b)
because the multidominated v’ will only have one pronoun, ‘her’, distributed to two different
antecedents which would result in the first conjunct being ‘I didn’t pass her math exam’ rather
than the intended ‘I didn’t pass my math exam’.

8
2.1.2. Vehicle Change Effects

Vehicle change (Fiengo and May, 1994) in essence is the use of ellipsis to repair condition C
violations. (5a) is ungrammatical because it violates condition C however under forward VP-
ellipsis, (5b) is grammatical. With vehicle change a name can be replaced by a pronoun which is
subject to condition B and get a perfectly grammatical sentence in (5c) which has the same
meaning as (5a).

(5) a. I hope that the boss won’t fire Alicei, but shei fears that he will fire Alicei. *

b. I hope that the boss won’t fire Alicei, but shei fears that he will [__].

c. I hope that the boss won’t fire Alicei, but shei fears that he will [fire heri].

From (5c) we should expect vehicle change to also be found in RNR as shown in (6):

(6) a. Shei hopes that he won’t [__], but I fear that the boss will fire Alicei.

b. Shei hopes that he won’t [fire heri], but I fear that he will fire Alicei.

Similarly to section 2.1.1., if we use multidomination for (6a) then ‘Alicei’ would be a
multidominated constituent and condition C would be violated within the first conjunct.
However using ellipsis in (6b) allows ‘Alicei’ to be a ‘free’ r-expression adhering to condition C
of binding theory.

2.2. Multidomination Effects

2.2.1. Cumulative Agreement

Cumulative agreement occurs when plural agreement in the auxiliary results from the cumulative
contribution of the subjects of both conjuncts as in (7a). If (7a) were analyzed in terms of
backward ellipsis analysis, we would get the ungrammatical (7b) because the structural

9
requirements incorrectly predict singular agreement on the auxiliary in each conjunct (i.e. ‘have’
would be replaced by ‘has’)

(7) a. Abby is proud that Bob [__], and Chris is happy that Dan, have travelled to Spain.

b. Abby is proud that Bob [have travelled to Spain], and Chris is happy that Dan, have
__travelled to Spain.*

(7a) does not contain any plurality so the only way the auxiliary can exhibit plural agreement is
through multidomination as depicted in (8).

10
(8)

11
2.2.2. Internal Readings of relational adjectives.

Relational adjectives such as different, similar or same have two readings, an internal reading
and an external reading (9). The external reading is always available, but the internal reading is
only available when there is distributive quantifier present in the subject position of a sentence
containing a relational adjective (10b) or; distributively interpreted plurality exists (10c).

9) Alex and Ben read different comics.

a. Internal reading: Alex’s comics are different from Ben’s (i.e. Alex reads Marvel
Comics while Ben reads DC Comics.)
b. External reading: Alex and Ben’s comics are different from some specific set of
comics (i.e. Alex and Ben read comics which are not Deathbulge Comics)

10) a. Alex read different comics. [internal/external]

b. Each boy read different comics. [internal/ external]

c. The boys read different comics. [internal/external]

This is true, but it has been observed that an RNRed constituent with a relational adjective can
exhibit an internal reading in the absence of either a distributive quantifier or plurality in either
conjunct (11).

(11) Pete composed [__], and Patrick performed different songs. [internal]

This can be analyzed using multidomination in order to get the internal reading. If however we
chose to use backward ellipsis analysis for (11) we would get (12) which does not have the
internal reading which we need.

(12) Pete composed [different songs], and Patrick performed different songs. [ internal]

12
The data reviewed in section 2 shows that there are cases of RNR that can only be explained
using backward ellipsis analysis and there are also cases that can be explained only by using the
multidomination analysis. This suggests that the exclusivist hypothesis is incorrect when
analyzing RNR constructions and an eclectic approach should be used to analyze RNR
constructions. But why should we? Why can’t we simply extend the multidomination analysis to
cover ellipsis effects? Or why can’t we extend backward ellipsis analysis to cover
multidomination effects? If this is possible that would mean that we can confirm the exclusivist
hypothesis. In order to show that this isn’t possible, sentences which have both multidomination
effects and ellipsis effects must be ungrammatical because one analysis would impose
incompatible structural requirements on the construction. Or one effect would block the other
effect in the sentence. The following section attempts to show that.

3. Ellipsis vs. Multidomination

3.1. Morphological Mismatches vs. Cumulative Agreement

Firstly we look at the interaction of morphological mismatches and cumulative agreement. (13)
and (14) are a baseline of morphological mismatch and cumulative agreement and are shown to
be grammatical when in the absence of an effect of the opposite type.

(13) No morphological mismatch, cumulative agreement possible

Anna is happy that Brenda [__], and Claire is proud that Dan [__], have negotiated with
the manager.

(14) No cumulative agreement, morphological mismatch possible

Anna already has [negotiated her salary with the manager], and Bob is about to negotiate
his salary with the manager.

However when both effects appear in the same sentence, the cumulative agreement in (15)
blocks the potential morphological mismatch effect. Hence only the strict reading of Brenda
negotiating Dan’s salary is available in this construction.

13
(15) Cumulative agreement, potential morphological mismatch blocked

Anna is happy that Brenda [__], and Claire is proud that Dan have negotiated his salary
with the manager.

This supports the use of an eclectic approach because the block can be reduced to the structural
incompatibilities imposed by backward ellipsis analysis and multidomination analysis.

14
3.2. Morphological Mismatches vs. Internal Readings

Following the same argument as 3.1., we find that although (16) and (17) are grammatical on
their own, combining them is impossible as the internal reading of ‘different’ would be blocked
in (18).

(16) No relational adjective, morphological mismatch OK

Anna has [worked on Binding Theory], and Ben wants to work on Binding Theory.

(17) No morphological mismatch, internal reading OK

Anna must [__] and Ben should work on different topics.

(18) Morphological mismatch blocks internal reading

Anna has [worked on different topics] and Ben wants to work on different topics.

If the internal reading of ‘different’ in (18) is forced, then (18) would be ungrammatical because
the internal reading requires a multidomination analysis and multidomination does not allow the
presence of morphological mismatches, which (18) clearly has.

3.3. Vehicle Change vs. Cumulative Agreement

As in the previous subsections, (19) and (20) show that vehicle change and cumulative
agreement are grammatical on their own. However a combination of the two effects in (21)
results in the cumulative agreement blocking the vehicle change. Thus ‘Clairei ‘, which is an r-
expression, in the first conjunct of (21) is bound and hence violates condition C

(19) No cumulative agreement, Vehicle Change OK

Shei fears [that John might beat her], but Bob is not worried that John might beat Alicei.

(20) No Vehicle Change, cumulative agreement OK

Alice fears that Beatrix [__], and Claire worries Diane have decided to nominate Esther.

15
(21) Cumulative agreement, Vehicle Change blocked

Shei fears that Alex [__], and I worry that Bob have decided to nominate Clairei.

Vehicle change blocking in (21) can easily be accounted for with the eclectic approach, but the
exclusivist approach would not be able to explain this blocking.

3.4. Vehicle Change vs. Internal Readings

Again like previously, (22) and (23) show vehicle change and the internal reading of relational
adjectives are grammatical in isolation. However a combination of the two effects in (24) results
in the internal reading of ‘different’ being blocked and inaccessible because forcing the co-
indexed reading of ‘shei’ and ‘Alicei’ causes it to be lost. If the internal reading is forced then
vehicle change would be blocked resulting in a condition C violation.

(22) No internal reading, Vehicle Change OK

Shei thinks that he must [come up with a topic that satisfies heri], but Bob fears that he
won’t come up with a topic that satisfies Alicei.

(23) No Vehicle Change, internal reading OK

Alice absolutely must [__], and Beatrix is obliged to come up with different topics.

(24) Either Vehicle Change or internal reading blocked

Shei absolutely must [__], and Bob is obliged to present different topics to Alice’si
supervisor.

Using the eclectic approach can, again, handle the vehicle change or internal reading being
blocked, because of backward ellipsis and multidomination’s respective structural requirements.
The exclusivist approach would not be able to explain this blocking.

16
 4. Conclusion

From the data that was analysed and the discussion that it invoked, we can clearly see that there
are specific cases of RNR that can only be analysed using multidomination and also cases that
can only be analysed using backward ellipsis analysis. We also found that using just one analysis
is not sufficient because we cannot extend either one to a point where it would cover cases of
RNR that require a different type of analysis. We can, however, look further. The eclectic
approach proposes the dynamic use of both multidomination analysis and backward ellipsis
analysis, but are these two enough? Or are there other cases of RNR that neither multidomination
nor backward ellipsis analysis can account for? If so, is it too hasty for us to overlook the
movement analysis and should we extend the eclectic approach to include it. However, for the
moment, the eclectic approach in its current form is acceptable. So we can conclude that each
case of RNR needs to be looked at individually on a case-by-case basis and an appropriate
method of analysis should be chosen for each specific case.

17
 References

Abels, K. 2004. Right Node Raising: Ellipsis or ATB Movement? In K. Moulton, and M. Wolf
(eds.), Proceedings of 34th North East Linguistics Society, 44-59. GLSA Publications,
Umass, Amherst

Barros, M. and Vincente, L. 2011. Right Node Raising requires both ellipsis and
multidomination. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 17(1):1-9

Fiengo, R. and May, R. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

18