On the Limits of Across-the-Board Movement: Distributed Extraction Coordinations

Abstract

The paper examines distributed extraction coordinations, in which different elements move out of conjuncts of a single coordination, as in Which book and which magazine did Mary buy and Amy read respectively, from a crosslinguistic perspective. A number of properties of such coordinations are discussed, which includes showing that they are also subject to the ATB requirement, which will shed light on the nature of the ATB phenomenon itself. It is also shown that there is a rather strong restriction on distributed extractions which confines such extractions to one context and completely excludes one type of movement, in particular head-movement, from participating in them. The higher coordination is shown to be formed during the derivation and to be semantically expletive. Distributed extraction constructions are also shown to have consequences for the proper analysis of a number of phenomena, including subject-oriented anaphors, right node raising, tough-constructions, agreement, and clausal structure. Regarding subject-oriented anaphors, the paper teases apart different approaches to subject-oriented anaphors based on constructions where different elements fill SpecvP and SpecTP (the latter undergoes agreement with T and the former binds subject-oriented anaphors).

1. Introduction

It is well-known that extraction out of conjuncts is disallowed, unless the moving element moves out of each conjunct. This well-known phenomenon is illustrated by (2) and (3). The ban on extraction out of conjuncts, given in (1), is standardly referred to as the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), and the rescuing effect in (3) as across-the-board-movement (ATB).

(1)

Extraction out of conjuncts is disallowed.

(2)

*Who_i did you see [enemies of t_i] and John?

(3)

Who_i did you see [friends of t_i] and [enemies of t_i]?

Both the CSC and the ATB exception were noted in [1]. (4) and (5) give the original formulations of the CSC and the ATB exception.1

(4)

In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct [1], (pp. 98–99);

(5)

There is an important class of rules to which (4) does not apply. These are rule schemata which move a constituent out of all the conjuncts of a coordinate structure [1], (p. 107).

The upshot of (4), (5) is that extraction of X out of a conjunct is unacceptable unless X is extracted out of each conjunct of the coordination.

There is an interesting exception to this well-known pattern that has not received much attention, the most detailed discussions being smaller parts of larger works, in particular [2,7]. The exception concerns examples such as (6).2

(6)

Which book_i and which magazine_j did [John buy t_i] and [Bill read t_j] respectively?

Postal [2] provides strong evidence that which book and which magazine undergo separate extractions out of the conjuncts in (6), and [7] argues that such cases involve coordination-formation that takes place after (more precisely, through) movement.3 These examples violate the CSC ban in (1). They also do not fit the ATB pattern in (3): it is not the case that the moving element is extracted out of each conjunct in (6). (6) in fact appears to involve two separate extractions, of two different elements, out of the conjuncts. One may then expect (6) to be even worse than (2).

The goal of this paper is to examine this kind of constructions, which for ease of exposition I will refer to as distributed extractions. Additional cases of distributed extractions will be discussed in the effort to examine restrictions on distributed extractions. Evidence will be provided that all these cases involve coordination formation after movement (I will refer to such coordination as late coordination) and the precise timing of (and the operations involved in) this late coordination formation will be discussed. It will also be argued that distributed extractions are actually subject to the ATB requirement, which will shed light on the nature of the ATB phenomenon itself. It will also be shown that there is a rather strong restriction on distributed extractions which confines such extractions to one context and completely excludes one type of movement, in particular head-movement, from participating in such extractions.

It should, however, be noted that one of the main goals of the paper is descriptive, namely to broaden the scope of the phenomenon empirically. There has been very little discussion of the phenomenon in question outside of English (and outside of constructions such as (6)). In this respect, the paper will bring in additional languages, with constructions which are quite different from (6). The restrictions on distributed extraction coordination established below should also be looked at from this perspective: their goal is to empirically broaden the scope of the phenomenon in question—in this respect the restrictions are actually more important than their deductions. At any rate, one of the main goals of this paper is to prompt further crosslinguistic investigation of the phenomenon in question as well as several related properties of coordination which are discussed below.

Going beyond coordination, the coordination data discussed in this paper will be shown to have consequences for a number of coordination independent mechanisms in that they shed light on how the mechanisms in question should be analyzed. To mention just some of them here: subject-oriented anaphors, right node raising, tough-constructions, and agreement. Regarding subject-oriented anaphors, the paper will tease apart different approaches to subject-oriented anaphors based on constructions where different elements fill the SpecvP and the SpecTP position (the latter undergoes agreement with T). The coordination data discussed in the paper will also be shown to have consequences for determining clausal structure more generally.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I present arguments (mostly from [2], but also new arguments) that (6) involves extraction out of each conjunct. The section will also show that the ATB requirement (more precisely, a reformulated ATB requirement) is operative with such constructions. In Section 3 and Section 4, I present additional cases of distributed extractions and show that these additional cases are also subject to the reformulated ATB requirement. The possibility of mixing distributed extraction and traditional ATB in the same sentence is also discussed. Section 5 establishes a new generalization regarding the availability of distributed extractions and Section 6 discusses islandhood of distributed extraction constructions. Section 7 and Section 8 examine the exact timing (and the mechanism) of late-coordination formation and explore consequences of distributed extraction coordinations for other phenomena, such as subject-oriented anaphors, right node raising, tough-constructions, agreement, and clausal structure. Section 9 is the conclusion, and Appendix A discusses a related construction (referred to as wh&wh coordination) that also involves late coordination, outlining the range of possible crosslinguistic variation in the relevant domain. It also discusses the ordering of elements involved in late coordination formation.

2. Distributed Coordinations with Wh-Movement in English

2.1. Distributed Coordinations Involve Separate Extractions

In ref [2], the author gives strong evidence that each wh-phrase is separately extracted from the conjuncts in constructions such as (6). A rather strong argument to this effect is provided by the possibility of binding into the individual conjuncts in (7), where which man binds an anaphor in the first conjunct and which woman binds an anaphor in the second conjunct.

(7)

[Which man]_i and [which woman]_j did respectively the doctor talk to t_i about himself_i, and the lawyer talk to t_j about herself_j [2], (p. 161)

Such licensing is also possible with parasitic gaps, as shown by (8), where the first wh-phrase licenses a parasitic gap in the first conjunct and the second wh-phrase licenses it in the second conjunct.

(8)

[Which secretary]₁ and [which programmer]₂ did Jerome respectively fire t₁ after finding t₁ drunk and hire t₂ after finding t₂ sober? [2], (p. 136)

Another argument comes from cases where the extracted elements contain an anaphor: the anaphor can be bound within the first conjunct or within the second conjunct, as in (9) (for a somewhat different reconstruction effect, see (83)).4 The binding relations can also be combined, as in (10) (for additional binding data, see Section 7.3).

(9)

a. (?)[Which painting] and [which book about herself_i] did John buy and Mary_i sell respectively?

b. (?)[Which book about herself_i] and [which painting] did Mary_i buy and John sell respectively?

(10)

[Which book about himself_j] and [which picture of herself_i] did John_j buy and Mary_i sell respectively?

Also relevant are examples such as (11). It is well-known that the indirect object in double object constructions cannot undergo wh-movement. This constraint is also operative with distributed coordinations, as shown by (11b).

(11)

a. [Which nurse]₁ and [which hostess]₂ did Ernest sell cocaine to t₁, and George sell heroin to t₂, respectively?

b. *[Which nurse]₁ and [which hostess]₂ did Ernest sell t₁ cocaine and George sell t₂ heroin, respectively? [2], (p. 135)

2.2. The ATB Requirement on Distributed Coordinations

The evidence discussed in the previous section shows that distributed coordination constructions such as (6) involve separate wh-movements from each conjunct. As such, they do not fit the traditional ATB-exception-to-the-CSC schema, where the CSC is voided if the moving element moves out of each conjunct. Notice, however, that examples such as (6) do actually involve movement out of each conjunct, the difference between (3) and (6) being that in (3) it is the same element that moves out of each conjunct while in (6) different elements move out of the conjuncts.

Interestingly, it turns out that the ATB requirement holds for constructions such as (6) as well. This is shown by the unacceptability of (12), (13), which contrast with (14).

(12)

*Which book_i and which magazine_j did [John buy t_i], [Bill read t_j] and [Mary write a novel] respectively?

(13)

*Which book_i and which magazine_j did [Mary write a novel], [John buy t₁] and [Bill read t₂] respectively?

(14)

Which book_i, which magazine_j and which novel_k did [John buy t_i], [Bill read t_j] and [Mary borrow t_k] respectively?

These data indicate that the ATB requirement is at work in the construction under consideration: movement still must take place out of each conjunct. This means that the ATB requirement needs to be reformulated: it is not the case that the moving element must move out of each conjunct; rather, movement must take place out of each conjunct. It can be the same element moving out of each conjunct or different elements: as long as there is a gap in each conjunct the ATB requirement is satisfied. I will refer to the cases where different elements move from the conjuncts as non-ATB ATB.5

Not only does the ATB requirement hold for distributed coordination constructions but it in fact holds in the same way as with regular ATB constructions. It is well-known that there is an interpretative parallelism requirement on regular ATB. Thus, both gaps must be either subjects or objects (the requirement is actually more detailed than that, it can also affect two internal arguments and concerns thematic prominence—see [9,10] and references therein).

(15)

*I wonder who_i [t_i left] and [Mary kissed t_i].

(16)

*I wonder who_i [John saw t_i] and [t_i kissed Mary].

Zhang [7], (p. 193) observes the data in (17)–(19), which indicate that the parallelism requirement in question also holds for non-ATB ATB.

(17)

[[Which nurse]_i and [which hostess]_j] t_i dated Fred and t_j married Bob respectively?

(18)

[[Which nurse]_i and [which hostess]_j] did Fred date t_i and Bob marry t_j, respectively?

(19)

*[[Which nurse]_i and [which hostess]_j] did Fred date t_i and t_j marry Bob, respectively?

Zhang does not discuss cases involving cross-clausal extraction. With regular ATB, the parallelism requirement in question is relaxed; i.e., it does not hold with cross-clausal ATB, as (20) shows.

(20)

I wonder who_i [John saw t_i] and [Peter thinks t_i kissed Mary].

The same holds for distributed extraction coordinations.6

(21)

Which writer_i and which actor_j does John adore t_i and Peter claim t_j will succeed in Hollywood respectively?

The ATB requirement thus holds in the same way in distributed coordination constructions as with regular ATB constructions, which further indicates that the former are a type of ATB constructions although they do not involve extraction of the same element (hence the term non-ATB ATB).

In the following sections I will present additional cases of non-ATB ATB which are quite different from English examples like (6). We will see that the ATB requirement holds in these cases as well: although different elements are moving out of the conjuncts there must be movement out of each conjunct. The cases discussed in the following sections will also enable us to establish additional restrictions on non-ATB ATB.

3. AP ATB in SC

I now turn to a case of distributed ATB in Serbo-Croatian (SC) which has interesting additional properties. SC productively allows left-branch extraction of adjectives (see [11,12,13,14,15,16] among many others).7

(22)

Crvena_i se je meni [t_i suknja] dopala.

red   self  is me_DAT skirts  pleased

‘The red skirt pleased me.’

It also allows it in distributed coordinations. One difference from English wh-movement involving distributed coordination is that such cases involving adjectival ATB in SC do not require “respectively” (in fact, there is no clear counterpart of respectively in SC; note that in some cases respectively is not needed in English, see (93).8

(23)

Crvene i bijele ona suknje i kapute prodaje.

red  and white she skirts and coats is-selling

‘She is selling red skirts and white coats.’

(24)

Crvena i bijela meni suknja i  haljina smetaju.

red  and white me_DAT skirt and dress bother

‘The red skirt and the white dress bother me.’

It is also possible to have three adjectives in this type of constructions, as in (25), with the relevant traces indicated in (26).

(25)

Crvena, bijeli i šareni meni suknja, kaput i   šešir smetaju.

red   white and colorful me_DAT skirt coat and hat bother

(26)

Crvena_i, bijeli_j i šareni_k meni [t_i suknja], [t_j kaput] i [t_k šešir] smetaju.

red  white and colorful me_DAT  skirt  coat and hat bother

Importantly, as in the case of English non-ATB ATB examples from Section 2, the ATB requirement is operative in the SC construction under consideration. Thus, (27), where ATB does not take place out of the last conjunct, is unacceptable.9

(27)

*Crvena_i i bijeli_j meni [t_i suknja], [t_j kaput] i [šareni šešir] smetaju.

red  and white me_DAT skirt  coat and colorful hat bother

One might try to argue that the ATB requirement in English cases such as (12) and (13) is somehow forced by respectively. This, however, would not extend to SC (26), where respectively is not present.

It should be pointed out that ATB-violating examples such as (27) improve if the first two conjuncts are pronounced as a single prosodic unit (followed by a pause), with another coordinator, as in (28). What is going on here is that suknja i kaput form a coordination, which is then coordinated with šareni šešir. In other words, we are not dealing here with a single coordination with three conjuncts, as in (26), (27), but with two separate coordinations, each of which has two conjuncts: suknja i kaput forms a ConjP that is itself located in the Spec of a ConjP (the head of the second coordination takes šareni šešir as its complement), as shown in (29).

(28)

?Crvena_i i bijeli_j mene (t_i suknja i t_j kaput) i  [šareni šešir] iritiraju.

red  and white me_DAT skirt and coat and colorful hat irritate

‘The red skirt, white coat and colorful hat irritate me.’

(29)

?Crvena_i i bijeli_j mene [_ConjP1 ([_ConjP2 t_i suknja i t_j kaput]) i [šareni šešir]]

red  and white me_DAT       skirt and coat and colorful hat

iritiraju.

irritate

This kind of examples also have consequences for the domain of application of the ATB requirement. While there is extraction out of each conjunct of ConjP2, this is not the case with ConjP1 in (29). What matters here is that the first conjunct of ConjP1, which is the only conjunct from which extraction takes place, is itself a ConjP. The ATB requirement apparently does not hold across ConjPs (in a configuration where a ConjP dominates a ConjP).10

This in fact holds for regular ATB as well, as indicated by (30) (assuming the same prosody as in (29), with the first two conjuncts pronounced as a single prosodic unit (with a pause following them); crvene here undergoes regular ATB extraction from the first ConjP—as result, “red” modifies both “skirts” and “dresses”; there is a potential interfering factor here that is controlled for in Fn. (47).

(30)

?Crvene_i mene [_ConjP1 ([_ConjP2 t_i suknje i t_i haljine]) i [šareni šeširi]]

red   me_DAT       skirts and dresses and colorful hats

iritiraju.

irritate

‘Red skirts, red dresses and colorful hats irritate me.’

It should also be noted that there is evidence that we are dealing with actual extraction in the relevant cases. This is confirmed by their island-sensitivity. Thus, the presence of an adjunct island between the extracted APs and the remnant NPs causes ungrammaticality in (31).11

(31)

*Crvena_i, bijeli_j i šareni_k je otišao zato što mene [t_i suknja], [t_j kaput]

red  white and colorful is left  because me_DAT skirt   coat

i  [t_k šešir] iritiraju.

and  hat  irritate

‘He left because the red skirt, white coat, and colorful hat irritate me.’

There is another rather interesting aspect of the SC construction under consideration. Consider (32). There are only two fronted APs in (32), with three nouns in the lower coordination. Yet, in contrast to (27), (32) is acceptable.

(32)

Crvena i  bijeli meni suknja, kaput i šešir smetaju.

red  and white me_DAT skirt coat and hat bother

What is important here is that (32) is acceptable only on a particular meaning: ‘red skirt, white coat, and white hat’, where a traditional ATB dependency is formed between ‘white coat’ and ‘white hat’ with respect to ‘white’. What makes this possible is that both ‘coat’ and ‘hat’ are masculine: the adjective that modifies them is also masculine (note that crvena and suknja are feminine).

(33)

Crvena_i  i bijeli_j meni [t_i suknja], [t_j kaput] i [t_j šešir] smetaju.

red  and white me_DAT  skirt    coat and  hat bother

The ATB requirement is then still satisfied in (32): (32) is in fact acceptable only on the reading on which there is an AP-gap in the base position of each of the conjuncts in (32). What is particularly interesting about this example is that it involves a mix of non-ATB ATB and regular ATB. Examples such as (32) then provide evidence that non-ATB ATB can be mixed with true ATB.

Another example of this sort is given in (34), which involves regular ATB between ‘red skirt’ and ‘red shirt’ (košulja is feminine).

(34)

Crvena_i i  bijeli_j  meni [t_i suknja], [t_i košulja] i  [t_j kaput] smetaju.

red  and white me_DAT skirt,  shirt  and   coat  bother

A question arises whether this kind of mixing of non-ATB ATB and regular ATB is also possible in English. It turns out that it is although constructions of this type are less acceptable in English than in SC possibly because of an additional processing load. (Gender agreement resolves the relevant filler gap dependencies in SC; this filler gap dependency resolution is not available in English. It is also possible that the presence of respectively interferes here, leading to an expectation that there should be three antecedents for the three gaps.12)

(35)

?How many cakes and how many letters did Mary bake, John write, and Peter mail respectively?

(36)

?How many cakes and how many letters respectively did Mary bake, John write, and Peter mail?

(37)

?Which magazine and which book did Peter buy, John read, and Mary borrow respectively?

(38)

?Which magazine and which book respectively did Peter buy, John read, and Mary borrow?

Returning to SC, interestingly, in contrast to (33), (39) is unacceptable.

(39)

*Bijeli_i i  crvena_j meni [t_i kaput], [t_j suknja] i [t_i šešir] smetaju.

white and red  me_DAT  coat  skirt  and hat bother

Apparently, a traditional ATB dependency can only be formed between contigious NPs here. There can be no ATB between ‘red skirt’ and ‘red hat’ given that the adjective needs to agree with the nouns and these nouns have different gender (suknja is feminine and šešir masculine). Also, there can be no ATB between ‘white coat’ and ‘white skirt’ since these nouns also have different gender (kaput is masculine and suknja feminine). Interestingly, there can apparently be no ATB between ‘white coat’ and ‘white hat’. There is no gender disagreement issue here since the nouns have the same gender.

The same effect is found in English. Thus, (40), where given the pragmatics of the example regular ATB dependency has to hold between the first and the third conjunct, skipping the second conjunct, is worse than (36)–(38), where this is not the case. This contrast also provides evidence that the English and the SC construction in question should be treated in the same way (given that both exhibit the contiguity effect).

(40)

*How many letters_i and how many cakes_j did Peter write t_i, John bake t_j, and Mary address t_i respectively?

We may be dealing here with a locality effect on traditional ATB formation, where it is not possible to skip a potential ATB site.13

Alternatively, this may be related to a general interpretive effect associated with distributed extraction coordinations. Notice first that examples like (6) are not ambiguous: the first trace must correspond to the first wh-phrase and the second trace to the second wh-phrase. In other words, only a crossing wh-trace dependency is possible here; a nesting dependency, which would give an interpretation where the first trace corresponds to the second wh-phrase, is disallowed. This is a general property of distributed extraction coordinations. Thus, (41) gives the only possibility for the distributed interpretation of the extracted adjectives in this SC example (ignoring the irrelevant regular ATB interpretation, on which each conjunct is red, white, and colorful), where all adjectives have the same gender, and (42) illustrates the same effect for English distributed coordination constructions involving three conjuncts, where the indices again indicate the only possibility for the interpretation of the conjuncts (the parallel behavior of the SC and the English construction under consideration in this respect can be taken as another argument for treating the two in a uniform manner).

(41)

Crveni_i, bijeli_j i šareni_k meni [t_i sako], [t_j kaput] i [t_k šešir] smetaju.

red  white and colorful me_DAT jacket  coat and hat bother

‘The red jacket, white coat, and colorful hat bother me.’

(42)

Which book_i, which magazine_j, and which painting_k respectively did [John buy t_i], [Bill read t_j], and [Mary sell t_k]?

Distributed extraction coordinations apparently require crossing dependencies. Returning now to the unacceptable example in (39), which mixes non-ATB ATB and regular ATB, gender specification of the adjectives forces the dependencies shown in (43).

(43)

*Bijeli_i i  crvena_j meni [t_i kaput], [t_j suknja] i  [t_i šešir] smetaju.

white and red  me_DAT  coat  skirt  and  hat  bother

Example (43) involves a mixture of crossing and nesting dependencies (the last trace is involved in a nesting dependency). It then seems plausible that it is ruled out due to the general crossing dependencies requirement on distributed coordinations.

As for the source of the effect of question, notice that what we are dealing with here is essentially a matching effect: the order of the conjuncts within the newly formed ConjP must match the order of the conjuncts from which extraction takes place in the original ConjP. Given that in this kind of cases the co-ordination structure is in a sense “re-created” in a higher position, with another ConjP, it seems natural to assume that there should be some parallelism between the two coordinations where the order of the conjuncts in the higher ConjP should correspond to the order of the conjuncts (which contain the relevant gaps) in the lower ConjP, which means that the first conjunct should correspond to the first gap, the second conjunct to the second gap and so on. The result of this is strictly crossing dependencies. Under this approach the ordering effect is essentially a parallelism effect (see, however, the Appendix A, where the parallelism effect is deduced from independent considerations).

Before concluding this section, one potentially interfering issue should be discussed. Consider (44). Refs [37,38] show that SC examples such as (44) can involve either coordinated wh-phrases or coordinated clauses, with ellipsis taking place in the first conjunct (they implement ellipsis through multidominance structures).

(44)

Ko i šta kupuje?

who and what is-buying

‘Who is buying what?’

Evidence for the possibility of a clausal structure for (44) is provided by the possibility of examples such as (45), where a clitic (je) follows the first as well as the second wh-phrase: this indicates that the first conjunct is actually a clause, and the same holds for the second conjunct.

(45)

Ko je i  šta je kupio?

who is and what is bought

‘Who bought what?’

A question then arises whether SC examples such as (24) could be analyzed as involving coordinated clauses with ellipsis in the first conjunct instead of involving coordination formation in the moved position. Crucially, (46) differs from (45) regarding clitic placement.

(46)

*Crvene su i bijele su meni suknje i  haljine smetale.

red  are and white  are me_DAT skirts and dresses bothered

‘The red skirts and the white dresses bothered me.’

The contrast between (45) and (46) then provides evidence that in (24)/(46) we are not dealing with a larger coordination: it really is APs that are coordinated here. In other words, we have here evidence that the construction in question does not involve a larger, clausal coordination with ellipsis in the first conjunct.14

Notice also that adjectives involved in the coordination in question must bear the same case, as shown by the unacceptability of (48) (as shown by (47), ‘manage’ assigns instrumental and ‘sell’ assigns accusative to its complement). The restriction would be very difficult to formulate if what we were dealing with here were a larger coordination (cf. (47c)), not coordination of adjectives.

(47)

a. On rukovodi   malom  fabrikom.

 he manages small_INSTR factory_INSTR

b. On prodaje velike kuće.

 he sells  big_ACC houses_ACC

c. On rukovodi malom  fabrikom  i  prodaje velike kuće.

 he manages small_INSTR factory_INSTR and sells  big_ACC houses_ACC

(48)

*Malom_i  i  velike_j on rukovodi t_i fabrikom i prodaje t_j kuće.

 small_INSTR and big_ACC he manages factory_INSTR and sells houses_ACC

It is also worth noting here that SC clitics are second position clitics (see [39] and references therein); as such they are standardly used as a constituent-hood test (since they cannot follow more than one constituent). Clitic placement in (49) then confirms that crvene i bijele is a single constituent, which is indeed the case under the coordination-in-the-moved position analysis.15

(49)

Crvene i  bijele  su meni suknje i  haljine  smetale.

red  and white are me_DAT skirts and dresses bothered

‘The red skirts and the white dresses bothered me.’

Additional evidence that we are dealing here with a regular coordination in the moved position is provided by comparing left-branch extraction non-ATB ATB cases, which involve multiple left-branch extraction with coordination, with multiple left-branch extraction cases that do not involve coordination. [44] discusses multiple left-branch extraction cases such as (50).16

(50)

Onu_i staru_j prodaje t_i t_j kuću.

that old sells   house

‘He is selling that old house.’

(51)

*Prodaje onu i  staru kuću.

sells that and old house

‘He is selling that old house.’

(52)

*[Onu i  staru]_i prodaje [t_i kuću].

 that and old  sells  house

Example (50) shows that multiple left-branch extraction of the demonstrative and the adjective is possible (left-branch extraction of both demonstratives and adjectives is in principle possible in SC). The elements in question cannot be coordinated within a single NP in situ, as shown by (51); not surprisingly, they also cannot undergo left-branch extraction as a coordination, as shown by (52).

Turning now to non-ATB ATB left-branch extraction, such cases also involve multiple LBE. Notice, however, that (24) contrasts with (53).

(53)

*Oni_i  i bijele_j meni [t_i kaputi] i  [t_j haljine] smetaju.

those and white me_DAT  coats  and dresses bother

‘Those coats and white dresses bother me.’

What we see at work in (53) is what is at work in (50), (51). The relevant elements, the demonstrative, and the adjective, can undergo left-branch extraction; in fact, they can be involved in multiple left-branch extraction, as shown by (50). However, these elements cannot be coordinated, as shown by (51), hence they cannot undergo left-branch extraction as a coordination (cf. (52)). The ungrammaticality of (53) is not surprising from this perspective: (53) is ruled out on a par with (51) because one and bijele cannot be coordinated. That the restriction in question is relevant in (53)) is not surprising given that elements that undergo non-ATB ATB are involved in a coordination with each other. However, in contrast to (51), where the demonstrative and the adjective are coordinated in their base position and modify the same noun, the demonstrative and the adjective obviously cannot be involved in a coordination in their base position in (53). This is so because of the interpretation of (53), which is “those coats and white dresses”—the demonstrative and the adjective do not modify the same noun in (53), in contrast to (51). The coordination in (53) can then only take place after movement since the relevant elements are clearly not coordinated in their base-position. The individual movements themselves also must be possible in (53), given that such multiple left-branch extraction is in principle possible, as shown by (50) (see [44]). Thus, (53) is ruled out because it involves illicit coordination, where the coordination takes place after movement. The data in question then also provide evidence that we are indeed dealing here with late coordination formation (i.e., non-base coordination).

Notice that we also have additional evidence here that non-ATB ATB examples involving left-branch extraction do not involve a larger coordination with ellipsis in the first conjunct. Under such an analysis we would not be able to appeal to the impossibility of coordination of a demonstrative and an adjective, i.e., the ungrammaticality of (51), since this is not what would be coordinated in (53) under that analysis.17

Another issue that is relevant here is that a clitic (mu) can intervene between the demonstrative and the AP in (50), as shown by (54). Recall that this is not possible with non-ATB ATB constructions, as shown by (46).

(54)

?Onu_i mu   staru_i prodaje t_i t_j kuću.

that him_DAT old sells   house

‘He is selling that old house to him.’

All this confirms the coordination in the moved position analysis of (24)/(46). Elements undergoing multiple LBE need not move to the same position, hence a clitic can intervene between them, as in (54). Elements involved in non-ATB ATB (as in (46)), on the other hand, are located in the same position, in fact non-ATB ATB involves a coordinated phrase, hence a clitic cannot intervene between the relevant elements, which are coordinated with each other.

The above data, thus, provide additional evidence that coordination formation should not be restricted to base-generation (i.e., lexical insertion/external merge), i.e., it should not be restricted in such a way that it can only occur pre-movement.

In summary, in this section, we have seen another case of non-ATB ATB, which also involves non-base coordination formation and which is also subject to the ATB requirement. We have also seen that the ATB requirement does not apply across ConjPs. Furthermore, we have seen that non-ATB ATB can be combined with traditional ATB and that the crossing dependencies requirement on distributed coordination is maintained regardless of whether such constructions involve only non-ATB ATB or a mixture of non-ATB ATB and traditional ATB.

4. Japanese Numeral Constructions

Japanese floating quantifier constructions provide another case of non-ATB ATB extraction.18 Consider (55).

(55)

John-ga [_VP [_PP yaoya-kara]    [mikan-o 3-ko]-to  [banana-o 5-hon] katta.

John-_NOM   vegetable.store-from orange-_ACC 3-CL and banana-_ACC 5-CL bought

‘John bought [3 oranges and 5 bananas] from a vegetable store.’

Importantly, it is possible to extract the NP from the conjuncts in (55), with a coordination structure recreated in a higher position (for some speakers ‘respectively’ is optional here, others require it; see also Fn. 18).

(56)

John-ga  [mikan-to  banana]-o  yaoya-kara   (sorezore) [3-ko]-to

John-_NOM orange and banana-_ACC vegetable.store-from respectively 3-CL and

[5-hon] katta.

5-CL bought

Furthermore, the ATB requirement is also imposed in such cases, as shown by the contrast between (59), where extraction takes place from each conjunct, and (58), where this is not the case (extraction does not take place from the last conjunct).19

(57)

John-ga  yaoya-kara    [mikan-o 3-ko]-to   [banana-o  5-hon]-to

John-_NOM vegetablestore-from orange-_ACC 3-CL and banana-_ACC 5-CL and

[budou-o  2-fusa] katta.

grape-_ACC  2-CL bought

‘John bought 3 oranges, 5 bananas and 2 bunches of grapes from a vegetable store.’

(58)

?*John-ga [mikan-to  banana]-o  yaoya-kara    (sorezore)  [3-ko] to

John-_NOM orange and banana-_ACC vegetable.store-from respectively 3-CL and

[5-hon] to [budou-o 2-fusa] katta.

5-CL and grape-_ACC 2-CL bought

(59)

John-ga [mikan-to banana-to budou]-o  yaoya-kara     (sorezore)

John-_NOM orange and banana and grape-_ACC vegetable.store-from respectively

[3-ko] to  [5-hon] to [2-fusa] katta.

3-CL and 5-CL and 2-CL bought

It should also be noted that this kind of non-ATB ATB is possible without the coordinator to in the higher position. In such cases another coordinator, sosite, appears in the higher position.20

(60)

John-ga  [mikan-o_i sosite  banana-o_j]  yaoya-kara     (sorezore)

John-_NOM orange-_ACC and  banana-_ACC vegetable.store-from respectively

[t_i 3-ko]-to [t_j 5-hon] katta.

 3-CL and 5-CL bought

The ATB requirement is imposed in this case too. Thus, (62), where extraction takes place from each conjunct, is better than (61), where extraction takes place from the first and the second, but not the third conjunct.

(61)

?*John-ga [mikan-o_i sosite banana-o_j] yaoya-kara      (sorezore)

John-_NOM orange-_ACC and banana-_ACC vegetable.store-from respectively

[t_i 3-ko] to [t_j 5-hon] to [budou-o  2-fusa] katta.

  3-CL and  5-CL and grape-_ACC 2-CL  bought

(62)

John-ga   [mikan-o_i sosite banana-o_j sosite budou-o_k] yaoya-kara

John-_NOM orange-_ACC and  banana-_ACC and  grape-_ACC vegetable.store-from

(sorezore)  [t_i 3-ko] to [t_j 5-hon] to  [t_k 2-fusa] katta.

respectively   3-CL and  5-CL and    2-CL bought

As another parallel to SC, (61) and (58) are actually marginally acceptable if there is a pause following the second conjunct in the lower ConjP (i.e., if the first two conjuncts in the lower ConjP form a separate intonational phase). This is the same prosody as the one discussed above with respect to SC (28). Recall that this prosodic pattern, on which the first two conjuncts in (57) are pronounced as a single prosodic unit, has a different derivation, on which ‘three oranges’ and ‘five bananas’ form a coordination (as reflected in this unit also forming a prosodic unit), which is then coordinated with “two grapes”. In other words, on this prosodic pattern we are dealing here with two separate coordinations, each of which has two conjuncts.

Notice also that both examples like (61) and examples like (58) show island sensitivity, as shown by (63) and (64) respectively, where an adjunct island intervenes between the final and the original position of the relevant elements.21

(63)

?*Mikan-o sosite banana-o  Mary-wa [John-ga yaoya-kara     (sorezore)

orange-_ACC and banana-_ACC Mary-_TOP John-_NOM vegetable.store-from respectively

3-ko-to  2-hon katta-kara]   okotta.

3-CL and 2-CL bought-because got.angry

‘Mary got angry because John bought 3 oranges and 2 bananas from a vegetable store.’

(64)

?*Mikan-to banana-o   Mary-wa [John-ga yaoya-kara   (sorezore)

orange and banana-_ACC Mary-_TOP John-_NOM vegetable.store-from respectively

3-ko-to  2-hon katta-kara]    okotta

3-CL and 2-CL  bought-because got.angry

‘Mary got angry because John bought 3 oranges and 2 bananas from a vegetable store.’

The Japanese construction under consideration in this section thus represents another case of non-ATB ATB, where movement takes place out of each conjunct, but it is different elements that are moving out of the conjuncts. As in the case of non-ATB ATB examples from English and SC discussed above, the ATB requirement holds in this case too: although different elements are extracted, extraction must take place from each conjunct.

5. When Is Non-ATB ATB Possible?

The above data confirm the existence of non-ATB ATB, where there is movement out of each conjunct but different elements are moving out of the conjuncts. In other words, the ATB requirement should be stated in a such a way that it does not require that the same element moves out of each conjunct but simply that there is movement out of each conjunct.

There is another interesting property of non-ATB ATB. All the cases involving non-ATB ATB discussed above involve coordination formation in the moved position. What happens when non-ATB ATB is attempted without coordination formation in the moved position? Consider in this respect (65):

(65)

*Which president do you wonder which famous writer John reads [articles about t] and [essays by t] respectively?

Example (65) involves extraction of different elements from a single coordination without coordination formation in the higher position. In English, this requires moving wh-phrases to different +whCPs, which in turn brings in a wh-island violation. Still, (65) is clearly much more degraded than typical wh-island violations.22 The fact that the contrast between (65) and (6) is stronger than a typical wh-island violation suggests that coordination formation in the moved position is necessary for non-ATB ATB.

Consider also (66) and (67), which also involve non-ATB ATB without coordination formation in the moved position. Both examples are unacceptable. Furthermore, (67), where movement does not take place out of each conjunct (hence it is not in accordance with the ATB requirement), is even worse than (66), where movement does take place out of each conjunct (in ATB fashion) (in (67)) there are two moved elements and two gaps, while in (66) there are two moved elements and three gaps; the example mixes non-ATB ATB and ATB).

(66)

*Which president do you wonder which famous writer John reads [articles about t], [essays by t], and [tweets from t] respectively?

(67)

**Which president do you wonder which famous artist John reads [articles about t], [essays by t], and [tweets from Brady] respectively?

The contrast between (66) and (67) parallels in the relevant respect the contrast between SC (26) and (27), indicating that the ATB requirement still holds in such cases. Both examples are, however, unacceptable. What seems to be going on here is that performing non-ATB ATB without coordination formation in the moved position leads to a violation, call it a violation of requirement X (to be discussed more below): X is violated in both (65) and (66). The reason why (67) is even worse is that it violates X as well as the ATB requirement that there needs to be movement out of each conjunct of a coordination.

Notice now that in (65), the wh-phrases that are moving out of the coordination are interpreted in different SpecCPs (i.e., different clauses). It is not out of question that this is the source of the ungrammaticality of (65); i.e., it may be that for some reason wh-phrases undergoing this kind of extraction must be interpreted in the same SpecCP, in which case (65) would not necessarily show that non-ATB ATB requires coordination formation in the moved position. This potentially interfering factor cannot be controlled for in English, but it can in SC, SC being a multiple wh-fronting language. Let us then test the possibility of non-coordinated non-ATB ATB with multiple wh-fronting in SC. The relevant examples are given below. (68), involving non-ATB ATB without higher coordination, is unacceptable. (69), its counterpart involving coordination in the higher position, is clearly better than (68).23

(68)

*Prema kome_i za kim_j  su podržali [otpor t_i] i [potragu t_j]?

to   whom for whom are supported resistance and pursuit

(69)

Prema kome_i i za kim_j su podržali [otpor t_i] i [potragu t_j]?

to  whom and for whom are supported resistance and pursuit

‘Resistance to whom and pursuit of who did they support?’

The interfering factor noted above with respect to English (65) also does not arise with respect to SC non-ATB ATB constructions discussed in Section 3. These constructions also require coordination formation in the moved position, as shown by the contrast in (70), where (70a) involves coordination formation in the moved position and (70b) does not, as well as the contrast in (71), involving wh-counterparts of constructions such as (70a), (70b), where the wh-phrases are interpreted in the same SpecCP.24

(70)

a. Crvenu_i i  bijelu_j je kupio [[t_i suknju] i [t_j haljinu]].

 red   and  white is bought skirt  and  dress

 ‘He bought a red skirt and a white dress.’

b. *Crvenu bijelu je kupio suknju i haljinu.

(71)

a. Kakvu_i    i  čiju_j  je ukrao [[t_i suknju] i [t_j haljinu]]?

 what-kind-of and whose is stolen skirt and  dress

 ‘He stole what kind of a dress and whose skirt.’

b. *Kakvu čiju je ukrao suknju i haljinu?

The data discussed in this section thus indicate that non-ATB ATB requires coordination formation in the moved position, i.e., the elements undergoing non-ATB ATB must participate in a coordination in their final position.

Recall now the example noted in Fn. 5, repeated here, which is unacceptable although, just like (14), it involves extraction (of different elements) from each conjunct. The issue here is that, in contrast to (14), which involves wh-movement out of each conjunct, (72) involves wh-movement out of the second and third, and head-movement out of the first conjunct.

(72)

*[Which newspaper_i and which magazine_j] did_k [Mary t_k write a book], [John may buy t_i], and [Bill will read t_j] respectively.

If the ATB requirement simply requires that there is movement out of each conjunct, there is then no violation of the ATB requirement here. The ungrammaticality of (72) can, however, now be accounted for independently of the ATB requirement. We have seen above that when different elements are extracted out of conjuncts of a single ConjP they must participate in a coordination in the higher position. This is not the case with did in (72). The unacceptability of (72) then follows independently of the ATB requirement.

But there is a more general issue here. In English, distributed coordination is also possible with A-movement, as in (73) (respectively is not needed in (73)).

(73)

The dogs and the roosters barked and crowed all night [7], (p. 170).

Japanese, however, does not allow constructions such as (73) on the relevant reading (the distributed interpretation is difficult to obtain in (74), where the pragmatically implausible regular ATB reading where (the) dogs and (the) birds were both barking and flying is strongly preferred), whereas SC patterns with English in allowing them (see (75)), which can be taken to indicate that distributed coordination can be more restricted with A- than with A’-movement, given that such constructions clearly involve the former.25

(74)

Inu-to  tori-ga  hitobanzyuu hoe-te  ton-da.

dog-and bird-Nom all.night   bark-and fly-Past

‘(The) dog(s) and (the) bird(s) barked and flied all night.’ (Japanese)

(75)

Psi i  pjevci  su  cijelu noć lajali i kukurikali.

dogs and roosters are all night barked and crowed (SC)

Importantly, I am unaware of any language that allows it with head-movement, i.e., I am not aware of any language that allows examples like (76).

(76)

*Will_i, can_j, and must_k [John t_i buy a book], [Peter t_j sell a magazine], and [Mary t_k borrow a novel] respectively?

There may then be something more general about head-movement that disallows distributed coordinations involving head-movement. Interestingly, [61] argues that head coordination is quite generally disallowed (see this work for evidence to this effect and discussion how traditional head coordination constructions should be treated26). If distributed extractions require that extracted elements be coordinated, as argued above, and if head coordination is quite generally disallowed, as [61] argues, it then follows that distributed coordinations with head-movement, as in (76), will be disallowed. The impossibility of distributed extraction involving head-movement can in fact be taken as another argument for the proposed coordination-in-the-moved position restriction on non-ATB ATB.

6. Islandhood

In this section I briefly note a locality effect associated with late coordination formation. SC allows extraction of conjuncts, as in (77) (see [3,4,62,63]).

(77)

?Knjige_i je Marko [t_i i  filmove] kupio.

books  is Marko and  movies bought

‘Marko bought books and movies.’

Such extraction is, however, disallowed with constructions under consideration: after formation of non-ATB ATB coordination, conjunct extraction is not possible:

(78)

*Crvene_i tvrdiš  da se [t_i i bijeli_j] meni  dopadaju [t_i suknje] i [t_j kaputi].

red  you-claim that self and white me_DAT please   skirts and  coats

‘You claim that red skirts and white coats please me.’

While it is not trivial to implement this formally, intuitively it seems clear what is going on here: ConjP that is formed after movement, i.e., ConjP not located in the base position, is an island (such ConjP would in fact be a barrier in [64]’s Barriers system).

In fact, not only conjunct extraction, but extraction out of a conjunct is also disallowed from a coordination formed by movement. This is shown by (79), involving ATB wh-movement out of a late-formed ConjP located in SpecCP, which is clearly worse than simple extraction out of interrogative SpecCP, as in (80).

(79)

*Which famous president_i do you wonder [which paintings of t_i]_j and [which books about t_i]_k did he meet [fans of t_j] and [readers of t_k]?

(80)

?Which famous president_i do you wonder [which paintings of t_i]_j John sold t_j?

Late-formed coordinations are apparently islands, disallowing any kind of extraction, even extractions that are in principle possible out of regular (i.e., base-generated) coordinations.

7. When and How Is Late Coordination Formed?

While the primary goal of this paper is not to provide a full analysis of distributed extraction coordinations—it is simply premature to do that before the empirical domain of the phenomenon is properly determined (the main goal of this paper being to make a contribution to that end)—in this section, I will nevertheless address the issue of how late coordination formation is to be implemented, focusing on its timing.

Zhang [7] discusses examples such as (6) and argues that they involve coordination formation through movement. More precisely, she argues that the higher ConjP is formed through sideward movement (see [8]).27 On this analysis, the higher ConjP of (6) (the relevant steps of the derivation of (6) are outlined in (81) is formed not by regular (i.e., upward) movement but by sideward merger of the relevant elements into ConjP (see (81c)), which is introduced into the structure directly in its final position, the interrogative SpecCP (see (81d)).

(81)

a. [bought which book]

b. [read which magazine]

c. [_ConjP [which book] and [which magazine]]

d. [_CP [_ConjP [which book] and [which magazine]] did John buy [$\sout{\mathrm{which}\mathrm{book}}$] and Peter read [$\sout{\mathrm{which}\mathrm{magazine}}$]]

While the analysis captures the most prominent property of distributive extraction coordination, namely that it involves late-coordination formation, it faces issues with some of the data discussed above. Recall that distributed extraction coordinations exhibit island effects, as illustrated again below with an inner island effect (cf. also SC (31) and Japanese (63), (64)). Under this analysis we cannot capture such islandhood effects, since the wh-phrases do not undergo movement out of the island.

(82)

*[[How loudly] and [how softly]] didn’t you say [[that John had spoken t] and [that Peter had replied t]]? [33]

Another problem for Zhang’s analysis is raised by the possibility of intermediate reconstruction effects, as in (83), where Condition A cannot be satisfied in either the final or the original (i.e., θ) position of which picture of himself. (Under Zhang’s analysis, only at these points are both John and which picture of himself present in the structure.)

(83)

Which book and which picture of himself_i did John_i say that Mary bought and Sue sold respectively?

Parasitic gap constructions such as (8), repeated here, also raise an issue for Zhang’s analysis.

(84)

[_CP [_ConjP [Which secretary]₁ and [which programmer]]₂ did Jerome respectively fire t₁ after finding t₁ drunk and hire t₂ after finding t₂ sober]? [2], (p. 136)

The wh-phrases that participate in late coordination license parasitic gaps within their initial conjuncts here. As is well-known, a wh-phrase in situ cannot license a parasitic gap: a parasitic gap is licensed by a moved wh-phrase that c-commands the parasitic gap. Under Zhang’s analysis, there is never a c-command relationship between the moved wh-phrases and the parasitic gaps which they license in (84).

These facts indicate that some regular (i.e., upward) movement must be involved in the derivation of distributed extraction coordinations. Under Zhang’s analysis there is no regular movement, as a result of which the coordination is formed (i.e., integrated into the structure) in the final position. While this captures the late-coordination formation requirement, it essentially does it too late. However, while the above facts indicate that regular movement must also be involved in the derivation of distributed coordinations (note that sideward movement obviates island effects, see [8] and the discussion below) they do not necessarily mean that Zhang’s sideward-movement analysis is fatally flawed. The late-formed ConjP can still be formed through sideward movement, as long as this ConjP is introduced into the structure earlier, not in the final position (e.g., within the same phase as the original ConjP, but this will be revised below), in which case the late-formed ConjP would be moving out of the island in (82), and the movement would bring the anaphor close enough to John in (83) to satisfy Condition A during the derivation. (This would still leave (84) unaccounted for; I will return to that example below—see the discussion of (119), which resolves the issue in question.) The modification of Zhang’s analysis, on which distributed coordinations involve a combination of sideward movement and regular movement, as a result of which the higher coordination is formed earlier than on Zhang’s analysis (though it is still formed during the derivation) is in the spirit of the well-known fact that in ATB constructions, there cannot be an island boundary between the edge of the second conjunct and the original extraction site within that conjunct, which under Nunes’s sideward-movement analysis means that the relevant element needs to get to the conjunct edge, i.e., ‘close’ to its sideward movement site in the first conjunct. It is then not that surprising that the newly formed ConjP, which is also formed through sideward merger from the original ConjP under Zhang’s analysis, cannot be indefinitely far from the original ConjP, which means that it should be introduced into the structure earlier, not in the final position.

7.1. Deducing the Coordination in the Moved Position Requirement

Involving sideward movement in derivational coordination formation may help us deduce the coordination in the moved position requirement, established in Section 5, according to which extraction of different elements from a coordination is possible only if they are themselves later involved in a coordination. The derivationally-formed coordination is essentially semantically expletive, the elements involved in our derivationally-formed coordination are not interpreted as coordinated. For example, the interpretation of (6) is ‘which book did John buy and which magazine did Bill read’, there is no coordination of which book and which magazine in the interpretation of this example. Similarly, there is no coordination of the dogs and the roosters in the interpretation of (73), whose interpretation is that ‘the dogs barked and the roosters crowed’. The same holds for any of the SC examples discussed above; thus, there is no coordination of ‘to whom’ and ‘for whom’ in the interpretation of (69). In fact, SC examples such as (23) and (24) are ambiguous: on one reading, the adjectives are interpreted as coordinated (on that reading, (23) is interpreted as ‘she is selling red and white skirts, and she is selling red and white coats’). This is not the case on the other reading, which we have been focusing on above, on which (23) is interpreted as ‘she is selling red skirts and white coats’. The ambiguity is easily captured if on the latter reading the higher coordination is indeed expletive since the adjectives are not interpreted as coordinated on that reading.

That the higher coordination is not itself interpreted (see below for additional evidence to this effect) suggests that it is present for a formal reason. Sideward merger in fact provides a straightforward formal reason for that. It seems safe to assume that it is not possible to move different elements out of a single ConjP. Sideward merger is the mechanism that makes it possible to get around that restriction. As noted above, sideward merger was originally employed by [8] to get around islandhood/locality effects: sideward merger out of a context that would induce a locality/islandhood effect voids that effect. Sideward merger is then also what makes it possible to get around the restriction on moving more than one element out of a single coordination. The relevant elements are sideward merged before they move out of the ConjP. The derivationally formed coordination is then introduced into the structure. But crucially, the relevant constructions then never involve regular movement of different elements out of a single coordination (despite appearances). Sideward merger is then needed to get around the restriction in question, and derivational coordination formation is exactly what provides the needed sideward merger mechanism.

Notice that a single element can move out of a ConjP—this is in fact what happens with regular ATB. This is not surprising. ConjP is traditionally considered to be an island, this is in fact what the ban on extraction out of coordinations implies. In the phasal system, it is then natural to assume that ConjP is a phase, given that phases have a potential for inducing locality violations ([5,63] in fact propose that ConjP is a phase).28 There are a number of analyses of regular ATB where movement takes place only out of the first conjunct. This is, e.g., the case with the often assumed null Operator movement analysis (see e.g., [65,66]), on which a null Op moves within non-initial conjuncts but there is no movement out of these conjuncts: movement takes place only out of the initial conjunct. The same holds for [8]’s sideward movement analysis, where XP participating in an ATB construction is merged in its theta-position in the second conjunct, then re-merged in the theta-position in the first conjunct, undergoing movement only from that conjunct.29 Under both of these analysis of regular ATB, upward movement out of ConjP takes place only out of the initial conjunct. In (3), it takes place from SpecDP of the first conjunct, where who is located prior to the extraction out of ConjP. Under [67,68]’s approach to the PIC, who at the edge of the first conjunct is actually located at the edge of ConjP.30 If two different elements were to undergo movement out of the same ConjP, the second one could not get to the edge of ConjP (the element at the edge of the second conjunct is not at the edge of the ConjP). Sideward merger into another ConjP is then what enables this element to get out of the problematic ConjP without undergoing actual movement out of it.31

To summarize, under the suggestion made here the derivational ConjP formation provides a formal mechanism that makes it possible for more than one element to get dislocated from a single ConjP. This also deduces the restriction established above that different elements that move out of a single ConjP must themselves get coordinated. It also captures the semantic explitiveness of late coordination formation, given that it is present for a strictly formal reason.

The semantic explitiveness of late coordination formation enable us to capture another property of late coordination formation constructions. And is not the only coordinator in English. What is interesting is that even when a different coordinator is used in the lower, semantically contentful coordination, and is used in the higher, semantically expletive coordination. Thus, while the literature discusses only cases with the coordinator and, it is possible to use the disjunctive or in the lower position of the constructions under consideration; still, only and is possible in the higher, non-interpreted coordination, or is not possible, as shown by (85) (we are looking at the distributed reading here, e.g., “either John bought Moby Dick or Mary sold Vogue”).

(85)

a. Which book and which magazine did John buy or Mary sell respectively?

b. *Which book or which magazine did John buy or Mary sell respectively?

What is essentially going on here is that the most neutral coordinator is used in the derivationally-formed coordination, even if a different element is used in the lower position (note that this shows that we are not simply dealing here with coordinator copying), which is not surprising if the higher coordination is not interpreted (i.e., if it is indeed semantically expletive).

Also relevant here are the SC examples in (86), (87) (noted by Ksenia Zanon, p.c., for Russian). Repetition of the coordinator i ‘and’ in SC brings in an additional meaning, as indicated by the rough translation of (86). Importantly, this kind of coordination cannot be used in derivationally-formed coordination, as shown by (87).32 Note also that (87) becomes better if the first i ‘and’ is dropped.

(86)

Ona prodaje i  suknje i kapute.

she sells  and skirts and coats

‘She sells both skirts and coats.’

(87)

*I  crvena i bijela meni  i  suknja i  kaput smetaju.

and red and white me_DAT and skirt and dress bother

‘The red skirt and the white coat bother me.’ (SC)

All this makes sense if the derivationally-formed coordination is indeed semantically expletive (see below for additional evidence to this effect)—this is why the neutral coordinator is used to perform that function. This in turn confirms that the late-formed coordination is present for a strictly formal reason; as discussed above, this is what enables extraction of different elements from a single coordination, deducing the generalization from Section 5 that such extraction is possible only in the presence of a higher coordination.

7.2. Where Is Late-Formed ConjP Inserted?

Returning now to the derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions, let us now address more closely the question of how close to the original ConjP, the late-formed (i.e., derivationally-formed) ConjP is introduced. To address the question I will look at distributed coordination under A-movement. First, examples such as (88) indicate that what is present in the θ-position of the relevant conjuncts (given the predicate-internal subject hypothesis) is not the you and me ConjP: only you is present in the θ-position of the first conjunct and only me is present in the θ-position of the second conjunct, given that each conjunct agrees separately in (88), in contrast to (89). These examples thus confirm that elements involved in distributed extraction coordinations start the derivation separately, as expected given the interpretation of such constructions. (For additional arguments to this effect based on binding, see (100), (101), and (103) below; the data in question quite conclusively show that the conjuncts start the derivation separately.)

(88)

He wants you and me to respectively go out of your mind and (go) out of my mind.

(89)

cf. You and I are going out of our/*my/*your mind(s) [2], (p. 161).

In (88) the conjuncts trigger agreement separately. In (90), on the other hand, they trigger it (in fact must trigger it, cf. (91), jointly.

(90)

A dog and a rooster were barking and crowing all night.

(91)

*A dog and a rooster was barking and crowing all night.

This means that late coordination must be formed before subject-verb agreement is determined here. In light of this I will use such constructions as a diagnostic for determining when exactly the derivationally-formed coordination is inserted into the structure. I will consider the constructions discussed in this section under [67,68] approach to agreement, where agreement is established through the Agree relation holding between a probe and a goal, leaving it to the reader to verify that the conclusions reached below can also be maintained under e.g., [71]’s approach, where agreement is established in a Spec-Head relation (though with somewhat different derivations). Under the Agree analysis, when the relevant agreement relation is established ConjP must be located lower than T, so that T can probe it (which means T must c-command it).

Consider (90) in light of this. The relevant part of (90) can be derived as in (92) (only the relevant elements are shown in the structures below): we have a vP&vP coordination in the lower position, with the subjects still not being conjoined with each other at this point. Another ConjP (what I have referred to above as late/derivationally-formed ConjP) is then formed through sideward movement (92b). Given that this ConjP must be higher than the θ-positions of the relevant elements, as discussed above (cf. (88)), and that it must be below T so that T can probe it, there must then be a phrase between vP and TP, with the late-formed ConjP (see (92b)) introduced into the Spec of this phrase (see (92c); I leave open the identity of this phrase, referring to it as XP below). T then probes the late-formed ConjP (92d), before the latter moves to SpecTP (92e).33

(92)

a. [_ConjP [_vP a dog…] and [_vP a rooster …]]

b. [_ConjP a dog and a rooster]

c. [_XP [_ConjP a dog and a rooster] X [_ConjP [_vP$\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{dog}}$ …] and [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{rooster}}$ …]]

d. T [_XP [_ConjP a dog and a rooster] X [_ConjP [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{dog}}$ …] and [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{rooster}}$ …]]

|______| Agree

e. [_TP [_ConjP a dog and a rooster]] T [_XP [$\sout{{}_{\mathrm{ConjP}}}\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{dog}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{rooster}}$] X [_ConjP [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{dog}}$ …] and [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{a}\mathrm{rooster}}$ …]]

Additional structure then needs to be present between T and vP so that the higher ConjP can be inserted into the structure outside of the lower ConjP but still below T (92c). This is straightforward in examples such as (90), involving an auxiliary. It also needs to be the case in examples such as (93).34 I take this not to be an issue, given that many authors have anyway argued for additional structure between TP and vP even for examples such as (93) (see [69,72,73,74,75,76,77] among others).

(93)

A dog and a rooster barked and crowed all night.

Consider now a very interesting example in (94).35

(94)

John and Mary were hunting lions and were frightened by snakes respectively [78].

What is particularly interesting about this example is the discrepancy between agreement and interpretation within the conjuncts: what is interpreted in the relevant θ-position of the first conjunct is John, and what is interpreted in the relevant θ-position of the second conjunct is Mary. Yet, the agreement within the conjuncts is with John and Mary.36 Let us see how this mismatch can be captured.

First, the lower coordination here must be on a higher level than in (90)—it cannot be a vP&vP coordination given that the auxiliary is present inside each conjunct. The auxiliary is plural (although what is interpreted as the subject of each conjunct is singular), which means that the auxiliary agrees with the late-formed ConjP. So, what has to happen here is that the auxiliary agrees with the late-formed ConjP, just as in (90), but the auxiliary must be within the lower ConjP, in contrast to (90).

Note first that, quite independently of the issues under consideration here, there are two ways of analyzing such constructions, as noted in [80]. If only phrases can be coordinated, the subject and the auxiliaries cannot be located in the same phrase here, given that the subject is outside of the coordination and the auxiliaries are inside of the coordination—such examples would then provide evidence for a return to split Infl. (94) would then involve TP&TP coordination, with the subject undergoing ATB-movement out of each conjunct to the Spec of a higher projection, which for ease of exposition I refer to is as YP.37 Alternatively, if traditional bar-level coordination is allowed, (94) can involve T’-coordination, with the subject undergoing ATB-movement from each conjunct to SpecTP. The choice between the two analyses is immaterial here, I will adopt the former for ease of exposition (the reader should bear in mind though that both analyses are compatible with the discussion below).

Consider then (94). The derivation will proceed similarly to (90), as shown in (95)–(98): John and Mary are inserted in their θ-positions, i.e., the positions where they are interpreted, separately (95). Late coordination is then formed (96), and inserted into SpecXP of each conjunct (97). Since XP is located lower than the auxiliary, each auxiliary will probe this ConjP, resulting in plural agreement on the auxiliary. The late-formed ConjP then undergoes ATB movement out of the coordination (98); what is coordinated here is TP&TP, hence lower ConjP (i.e., the ConjP that is not late-formed) dominates TP).

(95)

[_vP John hunting lions] b. [_VP frightened Mary by snakes]

(96)

[_ConjP John and Mary]

(97)

[_TP were-T [_XP[_ConjP John and Mary] X[_vP $\sout{\mathrm{John}}$ hunting lions] and [_TP were-T [_XP [_ConjP John

   |________|Agree                       |________|Agree

and Mary] X [_VP frightened $\sout{\mathrm{Mary}}$ by snakes]

(98)

[_YP [_ConjP John and Mary] [_ConjP [_TP [_XP [ $\sout{{}_{\mathrm{ConjP}}}\sout{\mathrm{John}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Mary}}$] [_vP $\sout{\mathrm{John}}$ hunting lions] and [_TP were-T [_XP [$\sout{{}_{\mathrm{ConjP}}}\sout{\mathrm{John}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Mary}}$] [_VP frightened $\sout{\mathrm{Mary}}$ by snakes]

The example, which shows a mismatch between agreement and interpretation in the second conjunct, can then be accounted for.

7.3. Binding and Subject-Oriented Anaphors

In the derivations of non-ATB ATB constructions discussed above the conjuncts start separately, the coordination being formed during the derivation and inserted into the structure above the position where the relevant elements were originally generated. Strong evidence that this is indeed what is going on in the constructions under consideration is provided by the behavior of the relevant elements regarding binding, in particular, by the fact that depending on their position the relevant elements can function as binders either jointly or separately. (99) illustrates the former case: the derivationally-formed coordination, John and Mary, binds the reciprocal.

(99)

[John and Mary]_i seem to each other_i to be the best candidate in the election and the best nominee for the convention respectively.

In (100), on the other hand, the conjuncts function as binders separately: John binds himself and Mary binds herself.

(100)

[John_j and Mary_k]_i hired himself_j and nominated herself_k respectively.

The dual behavior with respect to binding is easily captured under the current analysis: when the anaphor is located low in the structure, namely below the position in which the relevant elements are base-generated (i.e., inserted prior to derivational coordination formation), the relevant elements function as binders separately (this is the case with (100)). On the other hand, when the anaphor is inserted high in the structure, where only the derivationally-formed coordination is higher than the anaphor, the relevant elements function as the binder together (this is the case with (99)).

Furthermore, (101) (due to Steven Franks, p.c.) confirms that the conjuncts must start separately. In (101), they induce a blocking effect for binding separately, as the simplified structure in (102) shows (the closest subjects for the anaphor are t_i in the first conjunct and t_j in the second conjunct).38

(101)

*John and Mary seem to be the best candidate in each other’s campaigns and the best nominee in each other’s parties respectively.

(102)

*[John_i and Mary_j]_k seem to be t_i the best candidate in each other’s_k campaigns and t_j the best nominee in each other’s_k parties respectively.

Furthermore, the individual conjuncts can function as binders of subject-oriented anaphors, as shown by (103) (svom is a subject-oriented anaphor).

(103)

?Pas_i i kokoška_j su  lajali u [svom_i  dvorištu] i  kokodakali u

 dog and chicken  are barked in its.anaphor yard  and crowed  in

 [svom_j   kokošinjcu].

 its.anaphor hen-house

 ‘A dog and a chicken barked in its yard and crowed in its hen house.’(SC)

Such examples have important consequences for the debated and unsettled issue of how subject-oriented anaphors should be analyzed. What is important here is that what is located in SpecvP are the individual conjuncts but what is located in SpecTP and what agrees with T is the whole coordination, as the simplified derivation in (104) shows.

(104)

[_TP [Pas_i i kokoška_j]_k su [_XP t_k [_ConjP [_vP t_i lajali u svom_i dvorištu] i

  dog and chicken are        barked in its  yard  and

  [_vP t_i kokodakali u svom_j kokošinjcu]]].

     crowed  in its  hen-house

This is a rather rare mismatch, which can help tease apart different approaches to subject-oriented anaphors. What functions as the binder of the subject-oriented anaphors in (103)/(104) is the element in SpecvP, not the element in SpecTP or the element that undergoes Agree with T. (103) then provides evidence for approaches where the binder of subject-oriented anaphors is (or can be) the element located in SpecvP and against approaches where the element located in SpecTP and/or the element that undergoes Agree with T functions as the binder. There are many different approaches along the latter lines (see e.g., [85,86,87]), examples such as (103) provide evidence against all of them (I discuss the implications of distributed extraction for subject-oriented anaphors in more detail in work in progress).

7.4. Where Is Agreement?

The agreement/semantics mismatch constructions also have ramifications for an important question, where is agreement (i.e., what is its locus). It is standardly assumed that although agreement surfaces on the verb, it is not actually on the verb, i.e., its source is somewhere else (but see [88] for a proposal that in V-raising languages, the agreement is actually on the verb). It is certainly not a priori clear what the source of agreement is, whether the verb has it to start with (the verb is in fact where the agreement surfaces), or it is somewhere higher up (like on T/I). Semantics/agreement mismatches discussed above provide evidence for the latter (including for V-raising languages). If the source of agreement is the verb itself, not a higher head like T/I, given the standard assumptions regarding the locality of agreement and the VP-internal subject hypothesis, we would expect the verb to show singular agreement in (105) (cf. (105b)). What is going on here is that the subject of the verbal projection and the subject of the clause are different elements—the coordination is the subject of the latter but not the former. That the agreement here is with the coordination can then be taken to provide evidence that the source/locus of agreement is not its host, the verb. The same point can be made with SC, where the verb raises out of vP (see [39,89]); in fact both the auxiliary and the participle show plural agreement in (106a), indicating that even when it comes to the agreement that shows up on the participle, the verb is not the source/locus of the agreement.

(105)

a. In this neighborhood, a dog and a rooster bark and crow all night.

b. [_vP a dog barks]……. [_vP a rooster crows] (expected if the verb agrees)

(106)

a. Pas  i  pjevac su cijelu noć   lajali i kukurikali.

 dog and rooster are all  night barked.pl and crowed.pl

b. Pas i pjevac non-stop  laju   i  kukuriču.

 dog and rooster non-stop bark.pl and crow.pl (SC)

The system developed above may also enable us to account for some rather puzzling constructions noted by [83]. Consider (107) and (108), focusing on the former example (108) is a result of a familiar ordering effect with late coordination constructions discussed briefly above, and in more detail in the Appendix A).

(107)

John and Mary saw himself and herself (respectively).

(108)

*John and Mary saw herself and himself (respectively).

In the current system, (107) can be analyzed as involving late coordination formation for both the subject and the object, as shown below.

(109)

a. [_vP John saw himself] b. [_vP Mary saw herself]

(110)

a. [_ConjP1 John and Mary] b. [_ConjP2 himself and herself]

ConjP1 is then inserted into SpecXP from (92) and ConjP2 undergoes right node raising (more on right node raising below). Agreement in this kind of double late coordination constructions works as in the constructions discussed above, as illustrated by (111), and can be accounted for in the same way.

(111)

John and Mary like/*likes himself and herself (respectively).

There is, however, one wrinkle raised by such constructions, which is that only one verb is pronounced. I suggest that there actually is coordination of the vPs here. The derivation discussed above (cf. (109), (110)) would lead to John and Mary saw and saw himself and herself. It is possible that a haplology motivated PF deletion takes place here, deleting and saw. There is a potential alternative. A number of authors have argued that verbs in English undergo short V-movement (see e.g., [90,91,92]; such analyses often assume overt object shift in English, which would not affect anything given the discussion below). Under this analysis, and still assuming that there is vP coordination here, the verb would undergo across-the-board head movement out of the vPs in (109). The only thing that would remain in the coordinated vPs would then be the coordinator itself. I suggest that in such a case, where independent movement operations move everything out of a coordinated phrase but the coordinator, the coordinator itself is deleted.

7.5. Right Node Raising and Tough-Constructions

In the examples discussed above, the late-formed coordination undergoes wh-movement (cf. (6)) or A-movement to SpecIP (cf. (90)), whose derivation is given in (92). There are other movement operations that the late-formed coordination can undergo, like right node raising (112) or tough-movement (113); additionally, SC and Japanese examples discussed above involve scrambling).

(112)

John sold, and Mary bought, gold rings and raw diamonds from South Africa respectively [93].

(113)

George and Martha are respectively easy for me to fool and hard for anyone to take advantage of [79], (p. 294).

While exploring the issue in detail would take us beyond the scope of this paper, I will briefly note here that distributed coordination constructions may have some implications for the proper analyses of right node raising and tough-constructions. Thus, (113) seems to be difficult to handle under the null Op-movement analysis of tough-constructions, where what undergoes movement is a null Op that is licensed by a co-indexed c-commanding element, as in John_i is Op_i tough to please t_i. In (113), it is not clear that there would ever be a c-command relationship between George and Martha and the null operators that each of these DPs would need to license (for discussion and comparison of different analyses of tough-constructions, see [94]).

Regarding right node raising, constructions such as (112) raise a serious problem for most accounts of right node raising (e.g., the ATB rightward movement or the PF deletion one; see [93]), since gold rings and raw diamonds from South Africa would be generated in the object position of each verb, which would give us wrong interpretation (the whole thing should then be interpreted as the object of each verb). The late coordination formation analysis straightforwardly resolves the issue since under this analysis the coordination is not present in the base: what is present in the base (i.e., the relevant theta-positions) is simply gold rings in the first conjunct and raw diamonds from South Africa in the second conjunct. The coordination in question is formed derivationally (the relevant elements are not interpreted as coordinated, as discussed above). Under the rightward movement analysis, the derivationally-formed coordination can then be inserted in the right-node raised position.39

8. Movability

Returning to the derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions, we have seen above that the coordination that participates in agreement is formed during the derivation. Looking at the structures in (92) and (98), we can see that the late-formed ConjP is inserted into the Spec of the first projection (not counting the lower ConjP in determining the first projection) above the position where the relevant elements are interpreted.40 Such examples may then help us determine the timing of derivationally-formed coordination insertion into the structure (assuming that they are illustrations of a broader pattern): based on such examples I then tentatively conclude that the derivationally-formed ConjP is inserted into the first projection above the position where the relevant elements are interpreted—(this can even be within the original ConjP, in which case the derivationally formed ConjP is inserted in both conjuncts, undergoing regular ATB out of the lower ConjP). The precise locality condition—“the first projection”—in the above statement may end up being revised upon future scrutiny of distributed coordinations41—what is important here is that the derivationally-formed ConjP is inserted very close to the positions where the relevant elements (i.e., its conjuncts) are interpreted (for the reason why this is the case, which ties the issue to the ordering of elements participating in late-coordination formation, see Appendix A).

The SC construction discussed in Section 3 can help us become more precise regarding the derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions, the reason for that being that with left-branch extraction (LBE), which is employed in the SC construction in question, it is possible to introduce a locality/islandhood effect very close to the base-generation position of the relevant elements. However, before we discuss that, one point needs to be emphasized.

In any language I am aware of, only mobile elements can participate in ATB non-ATB constructions. The SC construction discussed in Section 3 involves LBE, which is not possible in English, but is possible in SC. While non-ATB ATB involving LBE is possible in SC, as we have seen above, it is not possible in English (114a), a language which disallows LBE (114b).42

(114)

a. *Red, Mary bought dresses

b. *Red and blue, Mary bought houses and dresses.

The effect in question is actually also illustrated with English (11), repeated here.

(115)

a. [Which nurse]₁ and [which hostess]₂ did Ernest sell cocaine to t₁, and George sell heroin to t₂, respectively?

b. *[Which nurse]₁ and [which hostess]₂ did Ernest sell t₁ cocaine and George sell t₂ heroin, respectively? [2], (p. 135)

c. cf. Which nurse₁ did Ernest sell cocaine to t₁

d. *Which nurse₁ did Ernest sell t₁ cocaine?

As noted above, in contrast to the prepositional double object constructions (115c), the indirect object in DP DP double object constructions cannot undergo wh-movement (115d).43 It also cannot participate in distributive extraction coordinations, as shown by (115b), which contrasts with (115a).

As another illustration of this effect, there are prepositions in English which disallow stranding:

(116)

a. Jerome tickled Marsha in that way.

b. *What way did Jerome tickle Marsha in?

c. cf. In what way did Jerome tickle Marsha?

d. Ernie did it for someone else’s sake.

e. *Whose sake did Ernie do that for?

f. For whose sake did Ernie do that? [2], (p. 127)

Informally, we can consider the PPs in (116) to be barriers, which renders the P-complements in (116) immobile (note that the whole PP can move). Importantly, the same effect is found with the distributive extraction coordination in (117), which involve the PPs in question.

(117)

*What way_i and whose sake_j did Jerome tickle Marsha in t_i and Peter hugged Mary for t_j respectively?

(118)

cf. In what way_i and for whose sake_j did Jerome tickle Marsha t_i and Peter hugged Mary t_j respectively?

The mobility requirement (which is essentially a locality-of-movement requirement) is surprising from the point of view of Zhang’s sideward merger analysis. Sideward movement/merger was originally employed by Nunes to get around islandhood/locality effects (provided it takes place while the island is an independent root phrase, which is the derivation we are focusing on): sideward movement/merger out of a context that would induce a locality/islandhood effect voids that effect. Whatever locality/islandhood effect is involved in (114), (115b), and (116) (see, respectively, [11,13], [97,98], and [2,98], among others), sideward merger should be voiding it. What these facts then indicate is that the relevant elements undergo regular movement before sideward merger into another ConjP (i.e., there is a no-directly-from-the-interpreted-position restriction on derivational ConjP formation).

The parasitic gap constructions discussed above also require this movement. Consider again (119).

(119)

[Which secretary]₁ and [which programmer]₂ did Jerome respectively fire t₁ after finding t₁ drunk and hire t₂ after finding t₂ sober? [2], (p. 136)

As noted above, a parasitic gap is licensed by a moved wh-phrase that c-commands the parasitic gap. In accounts like [8,34], it is not necessary for the wh-phrase to move to SpecCP to license a parasitic gap; movement to a lower position can do it. In fact, under Nissenbaum’s account the wh-adjuncts in (119) are adjoined to their vPs, and the wh-phrases crucially need to move to adjoin to these vPs to license the parasitic gaps. This is the crucial step in parasitic gap licensing in this account. What is important for our purposes is that the wh-phrases need to undergo regular movement to license parasitic gaps within their conjuncts before undergoing sideward merger into ConjP in (119)—immediate sideward movement, as in Zhang’s analysis, would not be sufficient for parasitic gap licensing. I then take the above facts to indicate that the relevant elements undergo regular movement before sideward merger into another ConjP.44

The SC construction from Section 3 can help us pinpoint the timing of regular and sideward movement. What is relevant here is that, in contrast to regular LBE as in examples such as (22), what is in the literature referred to as deep LBE, illustrated by (121), is disallowed (see [11,12,13,99] among others). With deep LBE, the nominal from which LBE takes places is a complement of another nominal, which assigns it genitive case.

(120)

Crvene_i sam vidio [t_i kuće].

red   am seen  houses

‘I saw red houses.’

(121)

*Crvenih_i sam vidio [_NP2 vlasnike [_NP1 t_i kuća]].

 red    am seen   owners   houses

‘I saw owners of red houses.’

For an account of the ungrammaticality of (121), the reader is referred to [11,13]. The precise reasons for the grammaticality of (121) need not concern us here. What matters is that, as [11,13] show, the problem here arises with movement from NP1 to NP2 (there is no issue with movement out of NP1 per se (i.e., when the relevant NP is not dominated by another NP), otherwise even (120) would be unacceptable).

Bearing this in mind, the following data shed a crucial light on the timing of regular and sideward movement involved in ATB non-ATB.

(122)

?Crvenih_i i plavih_j sam vidio [_NP1 vlasnike [_ConjP [_NP t_i kuća] i [_NP t_j

red    and blue am seen    owners    houses and

automobila]]]

cars

‘I saw owners of [red houses and blue cars].’

(123)

*Crvenih_i i  plavih_j sam vidio [_ConjP [_NP1 vlasnike [_NP t_i kuća] i [_NP1 ljubitelje

 red   and blue  am seen      owners   houses and  fans

 [_NP t_j automobila]]]

   cars

‘I saw [owners of red houses] and [fans of blue cars].’

There is a contrast between (122) and (123), which is particularly telling in light of the deep LBE effect from (121). The deep LBE effect is apparently still present in (123), but is voided in (122). What this means is that there is regular movement into NP1 in (123) but not in (122) (there are two NP1s, i.e., higher NPs, in (123) due to the level of coordination—cf. the translation of the examples). As discussed in [11,13] and briefly noted above, adjectives are base-generated at the very edge of the nominal domain in SC (this is what makes LBE possible in SC). Any movement from this position will take the APs into NP1 in (123); this movement is precisely what [13] argues causes a problem in (121). Crucially, in (122), there is a phrase, namely ConjP, in between the lower nominal domain and the higher NP (i.e., NP1). The APs can then undergo movement from the base-position without moving into the higher nominal domain in (122), in contrast to (123), namely by moving to the edge of ConjP. [3,4,62,63] provide independent evidence that movement to the edge of ConjP is in fact independently possible in SC. After undergoing this movement from their interpreted positions, the APs can then undergo sideward merger into the late-formed ConjP in (122). This late-formed ConjP should be inserted into the structure higher than the original ConjP (i.e., the indicated ConjP in (122)) given that, as [13] discusses, regular movement from the edge of the complement of N into the NP itself causes a locality violation in SC. Recall that, as discussed above, late-formed ConjP can be inserted into a phrase right above the original ConjP, which in this case is NP1. Since there is no regular movement from one NP domain into another there is then no locality violation.

The relevant derivations are mapped out below: simplifying what exactly happens here, I will simply assume that the complement of a noun in this context is a barrier (the exact situation is more complicated (see [11,13] and discussion below), but this suffices for our purposes—the relevant phrase (i.e., the complement of the noun) is given in shadow bold red below). In (125), which corresponds to (123), regular movement (shown as movement of α) crosses a barrier, which induces a locality effect (in fact, the same effect as in (121)). In (124), which corresponds to (122), regular movement does not cross a barrier—only sideward movement crosses a barrier, but sideward movement voids locality effects (crossing here is metaphorical, sideward movement voids islandhood because it actually does not involve crossing of the island boundary: α is merged with β (forming a ConjP) in a separate derivational space, and then inserted into the position shown in (124)).45

(124)

[_NP1 [α+β] N1 [_ConjP α_i [_NP t_i (t_i in base-interpreted position of α)

(125)

*[_NP1 [α+β] [_NP1 α_i N1 [_NP t_i

The contrast between (122) and (123) was important in establishing the derivations outlined in (124), (125). Now, in these examples the nominal complement bears genitive case, which is the counterpart of accusative with verbs—it is the regular structural case that nouns assign to their complements. Just like some verbs assign special inherent cases to their complements, the same holds for some nouns. Importantly, [13] shows that while deep LBE out of genitive complements of nouns is unacceptable, as shown by (121), where the nominal complement is genitive, deep LBE out of complements of inherently case-marked complements of nouns is possible, as shown below.46

(126)

Ekstremnom_i je podržao otpor    [t_i kongresu].

extreme_DAT is supported resistance  congress_DAT

‘He supported resistance to the extreme congress.’

As pointed out by a reviewer, this makes a prediction: the counterpart of (123) with an inherently Case-marked nominal complement should be better than (123). This is indeed the case.

(127)

?Ekstremnom_i i privremenom_j  je podržao otpor   [t_i kongresu] i

extreme_DAT  and temporary_DAT  is supported resistance  congress_DAT and

pomoć [t_j parlamentu]

help    parliament_DAT

The contrast between (123) and (127) quite strongly confirms the conclusions reached above regarding the contrast between (122) and (123).47

Notice also that when a noun is modified with two adjectives, double LBE distributed extraction is disallowed:

(128)

*[_ConjP [Skupe_i   stambene_j]   i  [stare_k željezničke_l]] sam vidio [_ConjP [t_i t_j

    expensive_fem residential_fem and old_masc railway_masc am seen

 zgrade]    i  [t_k t_l mostove]]

 buildings_fem and   bridges_masc

 ‘I saw expensive residential buildings and old railway bridges.’

Importantly, even regular LBE is not possible in this context (see [12]).

(129)

*Skupe_i  stambene_j je vidio [ t_i t_j zgrade].

expensive residential is seen  buildings

‘He saw expensive residential buildings.’

There are, however, cases where double LBE is in principle. One such case, discussed in Section 2.1, is shown in (130). Importantly, distributed extraction coordination is also possible in this context, as (131) shows.

(130)

Onu_i staru_j je prodao [t_i t_j kuću].

that old  is seen   house

‘He saw that old house.’

(131)

[Onu_i staru_j] i  [ovu_k novu_l] je prodao [t_i t_j kuću] i [t_k t_l vikendicu].

 that old  and this new is sold    house and weekend.house

All of this confirms the movability requirement on elements that participate in distributed extraction coordination: the relevant elements must be mobile, which indicates that they undergo regular movement before sideward merger.

Putting everything that we have seen above together, we can map out the derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions more generally. It is apparently not possible for the relevant elements to undergo sideward movement into late formed ConjP directly from the positions where they are interpreted. They have to undergo regular movement from that position, after which they can undergo sideward movement into the newly-formed ConjP. If a locality effect can be created right at the base-generated position, sideward movement will then not be able to obviate it (it would be taking place too late); but if the locality effect is created slightly higher than the base-generated position so that there is room for regular movement to take place before the locality effect kicks in, the locality effect gets obviated through sideward movement. Any locality effect higher up, i.e. higher than the point of insertion of the late-formed ConjP, which we have seen is still inserted close to the positions in which the relevant elements are base-generated, will still be in effect, due to the movement of the late-formed ConjP itself. All of this is mapped out in (132). (The brackets where a locality effect could in principle pop up due to regular, not sideward, movement crossing it are given in shadow bold red. For ease of exposition, I use a trace for the movement that precedes formation of the derivationally-formed ConjP, and a struck-out copy for the movement of the derivationally-formed ConjP itself. Two phrases are given between the final landing site and the original position of the movement of the derivationally-formed ConjP merely to indicate that this movement is generally longer than the movement that α alone undergoes, which is generally very short).

(132)

[α+β]_j [_WP …. [_ZP [ $\sout{\alpha +\beta }$]_j [_YP α_i [_XP t_i

Regarding locality effects seen above, the locality effect in (123) arises due to the crossing of the redded XP between α_i and t_i in (132), which means with movement of the element that will later participate in late coordination (122) crucially differs from (123) in that that step of movement in (122) does not cross a barrier; it essentially takes place below XP in (132) due to the presence of additional structure in (122). The locality effect in (82), on the other hand, arises due to the crossing of a redded phrase between [α+β]_j and [ $\sout{\alpha +\beta }$]_j in (132), which means with movement of the late-formed coordination itself. The reconstruction effect in (83) also occurs on the path between [α+β]_j and [ $\sout{\alpha +\beta }$]_j. Regarding agreement effects, if agreement takes place below ZP in (132), which means below [ $\sout{\alpha +\beta }$]_j (see (132)), it will involve agreement with an individual conjunct, i.e., α. This is the case with (88) (and with SC A-N agreement). On the other hand, if it takes place above ZP, it will involve agreement with the whole ConjP, i.e., [α+β], which is the case with examples such as (90) and (94). The same holds for binding. If it takes place below YP, the individual conjuncts will function as binders. This is the case in (100), (102), (103), and (107). If it takes place above YP, the whole coordination will function as the binder, which is the case in (99).48

Importantly, the facts discussed above indicate that islandhood/locality effects are selectively present with non-ATB ATB constructions. In most cases they are present, but in some cases they are voided. This could not be captured if we were to simply adopt Zhang’s analysis, where the relevant elements undergo sideward merger into the late-formed ConjP straight from their interpreted position, with the late formed ConjP inserted in the final landing site—no locality effects should then be present at all (all the examples in (31), (64), (82), (114b), (117), (123), and (128) are thus problematic for this analysis). We also could not capture the state of affairs depicted above if the relevant elements were to undergo regular movement from their interpreted position all the way to their final landing site, with the late-formed ConjP formed there. For example, having in mind examples such as And then Ann left, where the complement of and is a non-coordinated CP, one could imagine an alternative to the sideward merger analysis on which the Conj head takes the whole CP as its complement. Assuming that the coordinated phrases have to move into ConjP, (6) could then be analyzed in terms of ConjP shells, as in [_ConjP which book and_i [_ConjP which magazine t_i [_CP ..]]].49 On such an analysis locality effects would never be obviated (122) is thus, problematic for this analysis).50 On the other hand, the selective presence of locality effects can be captured on an analysis which essentially combines the two accounts just noted, on which there is both regular movement and sideward movement involved in the derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions. We have seen that such an analysis can also capture agreement and binding effects found with non-ATB ATB constructions as well as the mobility requirement on the elements involved in non-ATB ATB and the ability of these elements to license parasitic gaps on their own.

9. Conclusions

This paper has provided additional evidence that it is possible to move different elements from conjuncts involved in the same coordination and that such constructions involve coordination formation in a non-base generated position, i.e., after movement (cf. [7]). It was shown that such constructions are also subject to the ATB requirement: although different elements are moving out of conjuncts movement still must take place out of each conjunct. This means that the traditional ATB requirement needs to be reformulated: it is not the case that the moving element must move out of each conjunct but simply that movement must take place out of each conjunct. It can be the same element that is moving out of each conjunct or different elements; the ATB requirement is satisfied as long as there is movement out of each conjunct (furthermore, the ATB requirement does not hold across ConjPs). Traditional ATB, where the same element moves out of more than one conjunct, and what I have referred to as non-ATB ATB, where different elements are moving out of the conjuncts, can in fact be mixed under extraction out of the same coordination, as expected if all that is needed is that there is movement out of each conjunct. Furthermore, mixed non-ATB ATB cases have the same ordering restrictions (regarding the order of the conjuncts) as pure non-ATB ATB cases.

We have also seen that there is a restriction on non-ATB ATB, where different elements are moving from different conjuncts, in particular, non-ATB ATB requires coordination formation in the moved position. Additionally, head-movement cannot be involved in non-ATB ATB, which in fact follows from the coordination-in-the-moved-position requirement if head coordination is disallowed, as [61] argued.

I have also discussed the precise timing of derivational coordination formation, concluding that the late-formed coordination is inserted into the structure very close to the phrase where the relevant elements are interpreted (under sideward merger analysis of distributed coordination; see Appendix A for the reason for this), not in the final position of the relevant elements (as in [7]). The relevant elements, however, first need to undergo regular movement from the positions where they are interpreted: they cannot undergo sideward merger into the derivationally-formed ConjP straight from the positions where they are interpreted: The derivation of non-ATB ATB constructions then involves both regular and sideward movement.

The derivationally-formed coordination is semantically expletive in that elements participating in such coordination are not interpreted as coordinated; as a result only the most neutral coordinator is used in such coordination (even when a different element is used in the lower position). The coordination in question has also been shown to cause agreement/semantics mismatches, which arise because a coordination that is not semantically interpreted participates in determining agreement. The presence of the coordinator in question was shown to be motivated by formal reasons (this is in fact what enables extraction of different elements from a single coordination).

Finally, the analyses and the coordination data discussed in this paper have been shown to have consequences for determining the proper analysis of a number of mechanisms and constructions, in particular subject-oriented anaphors, right node raising, tough-constructions, the source of agreement, and the more general issue of clausal structure. Regarding subject-oriented anaphors, non-ATB ATB constructions were shown to provide evidence against approaches where the element located in SpecTP and/or the element that undergoes Agree with T function as the binder for subject-oriented anaphors based on constructions where different elements fill SpecvP and SpecTP (in such cases, the latter undergoes agreement with T but the former binds subject-oriented anaphors).